DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 6, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-16 are pending in the application. Claims 1-10 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected inventions. Claim 13 has been amended. Claim 12 has been cancelled. Claim 16 is newly added. Claims 11, 13-14, and 16 will presently be examined to the extent they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Status of the Claims
The rejection of claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: semicolon (;) after “dodecyl succinate” is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to cancel the semicolon.
The rejection of claim 13 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
The rejection of claims 11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0220454) in view of Berghmans et al. (US 6,127,437) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s convincing argument.
Rejections and objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. he following rejections are newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that claim 11 is being interpreted as a plurality of seeds comprising a flow-aid composition comprising a modified starch or a non-modified starch or a mixture thereof. This interpretation includes a plurality of seeds comprising a flow-aid composition comprising a non-modified starch, only, further comprising a mineral earth lubricant, selected from the group consisting of graphite…kaolin clay, and mixtures thereof.
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.
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 11, 13, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2012/0220454) in view of Takimoto (JP 2004339496A) and Knight et al. (US 5,741,521). English translation of Takimoto from FIT Database used for English translation purposes.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a plurality of seeds comprising a flow-aid composition comprising a modified starch, a non-modified starch, or a mixture there of, wherein the modified starch is a hydrophobically modified starch derivatized with one or more anionic moieties, etherified with an alkyl or alkenyl succinate and complexed with a polyvalent cation, wherein the one or more anionic moiety is carboxylate and the polyvalent cation is aluminum; wherein the flow-aid composition further comprises a mineral earth lubricant selected from the group consisting of graphite, tricalcium phosphate, magnesium silicate, aluminum silicate, mica, talc, titanium oxide, kaolin clay, and mixtures thereof; and optionally, a seed coating composition comprising an active ingredient and a binder; optionally, wherein said seeds are selected from corn seed, cotton seed, rice seed, sorghum seed, oat seed, rye seed…spinach seed, or mixtures thereof.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al. teach a seed coating composition comprising: an agglomeration of from between 2 seeds to 100 seeds (plurality of seeds); and at least one layer selected from the group consisting of a film-forming layer, a layer of a filler, a layer of a binding agent, a layer of a wetting agent, a layer of an anti-bacteria agent, a layer of an active ingredient and any combination thereof (page 7, claim 12).
Chen et al. teach the at least one layer of the seed coating composition can comprise (in whole or partially) synthetic polymers, natural polymers or derivatives thereof (page 3, paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al. teach the polymerizable monomers are typically water-soluble chargeable monomers having carboxylic groups, sulfonate groups, phosphonate groups and the like. In one embodiment, the polymerizable monomers having one or more carboxylic groups include but are not limited to acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, crotonic acid, sorbic acid, maleic acid, itaconic acid, cinnamic acid, its salt or the like, or an anhydride thereof (maleic anhydride or the like). The counterion of such polymerizable monomer salts include any suitable counterion including but not limited to alkyl ammonium, halides, sodium, calcium, potassium, barium, lithium, magnesium, ammonium cation, and the like (page 3, paragraph 27).
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al. teach the polymers can also include component polymers from other polymerization techniques such as anionic polymerization (page 3, paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 11, Chen et al. teach the seed coating composition include kaolin, china clay, talc, perlite, mica (claim 5, paragraph 44).
Regarding claim 14, Chen et al. teach suitable starch sources include but are not limited to corn starch, wheat starch, rice starch, potato starch, tapioca, waxy maize, sorghum, waxy sorghum, and sago (page 3, paragraph 32).
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Chen et al. teach the seed coating composition of claim 12 wherein the at least one layer is selected from the group consisting of …starch, derivatized starch (claims 11, 13), cationic starch, corn starch, wheat starch, rice starch, potato starch, tapioca, waxy maize, sorghum, waxy sorghum, sago (claim 14), dextrin, chitin, chitosan, alginate compositions, xanthan gum, carrageenan gum, gum karaya, gum arabic, pectin, cellulose, hydroxycellulose, hydroxyalkyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethylhydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, a derivative of any of the foregoing and a combination of any of the foregoing (page 7, claim 13).
The examiner notes that the optional components, active ingredient, a binder, and the specifically named seeds in claim 11 and the optional components in claim 13 are optional and are therefore not necessary in the plurality of seeds comprising a flow-aid composition.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Chen et al. do not specifically disclose the anionic moieties, etherified with an alkyl or alkenyl succinate and the polyvalent if aluminum. It is for this reason Takimoto and Knight et al. are added as secondary references.
Takimoto teaches a biodegradable composition suitable for agricultural use. Takimoto teaches the biodegradable compositions contain starch including unprocessed starch, acetylated starch, acid-treated starch, and hydroxypropylated starch (page 1, Abstract, Translation). Takimoto teaches the agricultural base material contain seeds (page 2, Tech Problem, paragraph 2, Translation).
Takimoto teaches examples of starch used include potato corn, tapioca (page 3, Best Mode, paragraph 2, Translation).
Regarding claim 16, Takimoto teaches a compatibilizer comprise starch octenyl succinate aluminum (page 10, paragraph 1, Translation). Takimoto teaches that starch octenyl succinate aluminum must be compatible with the basic substrate (page 10, paragraph 2, Translation). Takimoto teaches the since the basic substrate has high biodegradability, the agricultural substrate added with the functional component is used in a natural environment such as a field (page 11, paragraph 3, Translation). Takimoto teaches seeds can be added to the agricultural substrate. It is possible to get at room temperature by mixing starches with a small amount of water. Takimoto teaches that even fine seeds can be uniformly dispersed, so that seeds can be easily sowed uniformly and operations after thinning (page 12, paragraph 2, Translation).
Knight et al. teach a biodegradable or digestible matrix is provided for use as a controlled release of an agriculturally active agent. The matrix comprises an amylaceous material (Abstract). Knight et al. teach grafted polymers are used in agriculture as a coating for seeds (col. 1, lines 26-31). Knight et al. teach derivatives with confer various degrees of hydrophobicity to the finished composition are desirable. Such derivatives include amylaceous alkylsuccinates and in particular, starch octenyl succinate (col. 4, lines 60-63).
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Chen et al., Takimoto and Knight et al. and use anionic moieties that are etherified with an alkyl or alkenyl succinate complexed with a polyvalent cation, wherein the polyvalent cation is aluminum. Chen et al. teach a seed coating composition comprising: an agglomeration of from between 2 seeds to 100 seeds (plurality of seeds); and at least one layer selected from the group consisting of a film-forming layer, a layer of a filler, a layer of a binding agent, a layer of a wetting agent, a layer of an anti-bacteria agent, a layer of an active ingredient and any combination thereof. Chen et al. teach the at least one layer of the seed coating composition can comprise (in whole or partially) synthetic polymers, natural polymers or derivatives thereof. Chen et al. further teach the polymers can also include component polymers from other polymerization techniques such as anionic polymerization. Chen et al. teach the polymerizable monomers having one or more carboxylic groups include but are not limited to acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, crotonic acid, sorbic acid, maleic acid, itaconic acid, cinnamic acid, its salt or the like, or an anhydride thereof (maleic anhydride or the like). The counterion of such polymerizable monomer salts include any suitable counterion including but not limited to alkyl ammonium, halides, sodium, calcium, potassium, barium, lithium, magnesium, ammonium cation, and the like. Chen et al. teach suitable starch sources include but are not limited to corn starch, wheat starch, rice starch, potato starch, tapioca, waxy maize, sorghum, waxy sorghum, and sago. Chen et al. teach the seed coating composition include kaolin, china clay, talc, perlite, and mica. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use anionic moieties, etherified with an alkyl or alkenyl succinate complexed with an aluminum polyvalent as the modified starch polymers taught by Chen et al. based on the teachings of Takimoto and Knight et al. Takimoto and Knight et al. each teach the use of starch octenyl succinate aluminum and octenyl succinate to coat seeds in agricultural compositions. Takimoto teaches that starch octenyl succinate aluminum is compatible with the basic substrate. Knight et al. teach derivatives with confer various degrees of hydrophobicity to the finished composition are desirable. Such derivatives include amylaceous alkylsuccinates and in particular, starch octenyl succinate. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the teachings of Takimoto and Knight et al. to coat seeds taught by Chen et al. with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp, to provide hydrophobicity to the seeds. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights