DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Receipt and consideration of Applicant’s amended claim set and Applicant’s arguments/remarks submitted on January 2, 2026 and Request for Continued Examination submitted February 6, 2026 are acknowledged.
All rejections/objections not explicitly maintained in the instant office action have been withdrawn per Applicant’s claim amendments and/or persuasive arguments. Applicant’s claim amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejections set forth below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, and 11-18 are pending and under consideration in this action. Claims 3, 8, and 10 are cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the possible sources of the starch, dextrin, or maltodextrin. Because the list ends with “and”, as currently written, it is unclear if the elements in the list are to be in the alternative or all required elements. It appears that the list is intended to recite the elements in the alternative. Examiner kindly suggests amending to recite the group as a Markush Group or amending the end of the list to be “or waxy” rather than “and waxy”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arthur et al. (Arthur) (US 2009/0143447 A1; published Jun. 4, 2009).
With regards to Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18, Arthur discloses aqueous seed treatment formulations comprising a pesticidal agent (e.g., insecticides, fungicides) (reading on biologically active ingredient), a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), a graft copolymer, and a plasticizer (abstract; Arthur claims 1 and 25; para.0036-0039).
The plasticizer may be present in an amount ranging from about 7-12 wt.% (Arthur claim 25). Among the suitable plasticizers include maltodextrin (para.0076).
The formulation further comprises about 0-5% by weight of a wax slip agent or dispersion. In an embodiment, the wax slip agent emulsion or dispersion is present in an amount of about 3% by weight (Arthur claim 26; para.0020, 0103). Arthur exemplifies the use of a carnauba wax emulsion (para.0186).
Thus, in the case that the wax dispersion is present in an amount of about 3% by weight of the formulation, and the plasticizer (maltodextrin) is present in an amount ranging from 7-12 wt.%, the sum of the amount of maltodextrin and wax dispersion is in the range of about 10-15 wt.%.
The invention relates to uses of the composition for protecting seeds from pests (abstract). The seed treatment formulation is applied to the seeds in an effective amount. The blend of PVA and graft copolymer provides a protective layer between the pesticidal agent and the seeds, thereby prolonging shelf life. The protective layer reduces any phytotoxicity that the pesticidal agent may have (Arthur claims 30 and 31; para.0064, 0109, 0110). In a preferred embodiment, the protective layer forms a membrane (para.0111). The seed treatment may be applied as a film coating (para.0109).
With regards to preparing the aqueous seed treatment formulation, Arthur generally discloses combining all of the aforementioned required components together (para.0119-0127).
With regards to the limitation in Claims 1, 11, and 17 regarding the amount of microplastics and/or microplastic particles, Arthur appears to be silent to the inclusion of microplastics or microplastic particles. Thus, absent evidence to the contrary, Arthur’s formulation does not contain any microplastics and/or microplastic particles (i.e., 0 wt.%).
With regards to Claim 2, the claim depends from claim 1, which recites rosin resin as an optional component. Claim 2 as currently written does not positively recite that the rosin resin is included. Thus, the claim as currently written reads as the rosin resin being an optional component, but if present, then it is required to have the properties recited in claim 2. In the present case, Arthur’s seed treatment formulation does not include rosin resin, and thus reads on the claim.
With regards to Claim 4, the claim depends from claim 1, which recites rosin resin as an optional component. Claim 4 as currently written does not positively recite that the rosin resin is included. Thus, the claim as currently written reads as the rosin resin being an optional component, but if present, then it is required to be a rosin recited in claim 4. In the present case, Arthur’s seed treatment formulation does not include rosin resin, and thus reads on the claim.
With regards to Claim 13, as discussed above, Arthur discloses that seed treatment formulation is applied to the seeds in an effective amount, and that the blend of PVA and graft copolymer provides a protective layer between the pesticidal agent and the seeds (para. 0110; Arthur claims 30-31). In a preferred embodiment, the protective layer forms a membrane (para.0111). The seed treatment may be applied as a film coating (para.0109). Because Arthur’s aforementioned method involves applying the formulation to the seed, and discloses that the seed treatment may be applied as a film coating, the resulting product will be a seed having said formulation coated thereon.
With regards to Claim 14, among the suitable seeds that may be treated include corn, soybean, sunflower, cotton, and rice (para.0115-0116; Table A; Table 7).
With regards to Claim 16, Arthur discloses the balance of the formulation being water to total 100% by weight (para.0107; Arthur claim 27). In a preferred embodiment, the pesticidal agent is present in the formulation in an amount from about 35-50 wt.% (para.0108). In such embodiments, water will always be present in an amount less than 85 wt.%.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur et al. (Arthur) (US 2009/0143447 A1; published Jun. 4, 2009) and Remon et al. (Remon) (US 2011/0294864 A1; published Dec. 1, 2011).
The teachings of Arthur as they related to Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 11-18 are set forth above and incorporated herein.
Arthur does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the maltodextrin is from the group recited in Claim 5. Remon is relied upon for this disclosure. The teachings of Remon are set forth herein below.
Remon discloses a coacervate composition comprising a bio-active agent (abstract). The bio-active agent may be a pesticide, fertilizer, or herbicide, in which case the composition may be applied onto plants such as crops, e.g., using techniques well known in agriculture and horticulture (para.0089).
Remon’s composition comprises maltodextrin. The maltodextrin can be derived from any starch, such as from rice, corn, potato, or wheat (para.0064).
With regards to Claim 5, as discussed above, Arthur discloses that maltodextrin may be used as the plasticizer in the aqueous seed treatment formulation. In light of Remon’s disclosure that maltodextrin derived from rice, corn, potato, or wheat is known to be suitable for use in agricultural formulations for application to plants, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the teachings of Arthur with the teachings of Remon and use a maltodextrin derived from rice, corn, potato, or wheat as the maltodextrin in Arthur’s aqueous seed treatment formulation as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with a reasonable expectation of success in doing so as both Arthur and Remon are directed to formulations for agricultural use, and Remon discloses that maltodextrin derived from rice, corn, potato, and wheat sources are known to be suitable for agricultural use.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art references is fairly suggestive of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered. In light of Applicant’s claim amendments, new rejections citing new references not addressed in Applicant’s arguments are set forth above.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, and 11-18 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM EST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MONICA A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616