DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-3 and 5-10) in the reply filed on 11/7/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/16/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 3 include the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of.” The transitional phrase "consisting essentially of" limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps "and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)" of the claimed invention. In re Herz, 537 F.2d 549, 551-52, 190 USPQ 461, 463 (CCPA 1976). For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355. See MPEP 2111.03. Here, because, the specification does not clearly define “consisting essentially of,” or the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention, this term is being construed as equivalent to “comprising.”
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation “further consisting essentially of one more additives” (lines 1-2 of the claim) [emphasis added] includes a typographical error. It appears that the claim should read “further consisting essentially of one or more additives,” and the claim is being interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 8 is/are 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.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “wherein the supramolecular host chemical or supramolecular guest chemical is present in an amount of about 1 percent to about 90 percent by weight of the composition, about 50 percent to about 85 percent by weight of the composition” renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, the claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. For purposes of examination, prior art which reads on the broader recited range is regarded as reading on these limitations (i.e., the narrower language is merely exemplary).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thompson (U.S. Patent No. 11124460 B2, hereinafter “Thompson”).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson teaches an agricultural composition (e.g., a composition for stimulating plant growth and promoting plant health) [Thompson Abstract] consisting essentially of:
A biological compound, wherein the biological compound is selected from a yeast extract or other plant-derived protein hydrolysate (e.g., an additive such as yeast extract) [Col. 52 lines 59-67];
A surfactant (e.g., an agriculturally acceptable carrier such as a surfactant) [Col. 52 lines 51-58];
A supramolecular host or guest chemical configured to engage in host-guest chemistry with the biological compound, the surfactant, or both (e.g., matrices such as nanoparticles or nanocarbon) [Col. 58 lines 52-61 & Col. 42 lines 47-52 & Claim 8]) (the language “configured to” appears to recite the intended use of the host or guest chemical; as such, the host or guest chemical must only be capable of performing the intended use; nanostructures are described as an appropriate host chemical in the specification at Paragraph 00029 and as such are regarded as being capable of performing the intended use of the host or guest chemistry); and
A solvent (e.g., an agriculturally acceptable carrier such as water) [Col. 52 lines 51-58].
Regarding claim 2, Thompson teaches the composition wherein the surfactant comprises a non-ionic or ionic surfactant (e.g., a nonionic surfactant) [Col. 53 lines 4-10] and the solvent comprises water (e.g., an agriculturally acceptable carrier such as water) [Col. 52 lines 51-58].
Regarding claim 3, Thompson teaches the composition further consisting essentially of one or more additives selected from the provided group (e.g., the agrochemical can comprise a fertilizer, a micronutrient, an insecticide, a bacterial inoculant, a fungicide, a plant hormone, etc.) [Col. 53 lines 45-21].
Regarding claim 5, Thompson teaches the composition having an enhanced shelf life via enzyme immobilization on the matrices and the inclusion of stabilizers [Col. 58 lines 40-61], wherein the composition has optimized heat stability and long-term storage ability [Col. 44 lines 1-10] but does not explicitly state that it is stable under temperatures of 40 °F to 140 °F for 6 weeks. However, Thompson is regarded as inherently reading on this limitation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, Thompson discloses a substantially identical composition that is described as being stable. The claimed properties related to stability (e.g., at the claimed temperatures and time) are presumed to be inherent and thus necessarily present in the composition disclosed by Thompson.
Regarding claim 9, Thompson teaches the composition wherein the supramolecular host chemical is present and comprises a nanostructure (e.g., matrices such as nanoparticles or nanocarbon) [Col. 58 lines 52-61 & Col. 42 lines 47-52 & Claim 8]).
Regarding claim 10, Thompson teaches the composition wherein the supramolecular host chemical is present and comprises a nanostructure having a charge, magnetic properties, or both (e.g., matrices such as nanoparticles or nanocarbon) [Col. 58 lines 52-61 & Col. 42 lines 47-52 & Claim 8]; nanocarbons have magnetic properties).
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0056259 A1, hereinafter “Sharma”) in view of Rogers (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2005/0204791 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”), with evidence from “Critical Micelle Concentration Lookup Table,” Alfa Chemistry, retrieved 1/13/2026 (hereinafter “Critical Micelle Concentration Lookup Table” as to claim 7 only.
Regarding claim 1, Sharma teaches an agricultural composition (e.g., a particulate system for controlled release of pesticides, repellents, fertilizers) [Sharma Abstract & Para. 0034] consisting essentially of:
A biological compound (e.g., a compound that can be released as a volatile in the presence of air, or leached into a liquid, such as an insect repellant or fertilizer) [Sharma Para. 0034],
A surfactant [Sharma Abstract] and
A supramolecular host or guest chemical configured to engage in host-guest chemistry with the biological compound, the surfactant, or both (e.g., the hosts can be clay particles infused with a nanophase comprising a surfactant and at least one guest) [Sharma Abstract] and
A solvent (e.g., the composition can be an emulsion in water and/or a non-soluble organic) [Sharma Para. 0040].
Sharma does not explicitly teach that the biological compound is selected from a yeast extract or other plant-derived protein hydrolysate. However, Rogers teaches that it is advantageous to include in soil conditioner, fertilizer, and fungicide compositions certain byproducts from brewing processes [Rogers Abstract] such as, most preferably, yeast extract [Rogers Para. 0037]. Yeast extract provides vitamins, sugar, cations, proteins, polypeptides, and carbohydrates [Rogers Para. 0045] and promotes bacterial growth in soils [Rogers Para. 0109]. As such, in looking for a suitable biological compound to include in the composition of Sharma, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Rogers and readily appreciate the advantages of including yeast extract. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the agricultural composition of Sharma to include yeast extract as taught by Rogers.
Regarding claim 2, Sharma as modified by Rogers teaches the composition wherein the surfactant comprises a non-ionic or ionic surfactant (e.g., a cationic surfactant) [Sharma Abstract] and the solvent comprises water (e.g., the composition can be an emulsion in water and/or a non-soluble organic) [Sharma Para. 0040].
Regarding claim 3, Sharma as modified by Rogers teaches the composition further consisting essentially of one or more additives selected from the provided group (e.g., the composition can include a guest compound, wherein the guest is an insect repellant or fertilizer) [Sharma Para. 0034 & Claim 1].
Regarding claim 5, Sharma as modified by Rogers teaches the composition, but does not explicitly state that it is stable under temperatures of 40 °F to 140 °F for 6 weeks. However, However, Sharma as modified by Rogers is regarded as inherently reading on this limitation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Here, Sharma as modified by Rogers discloses a substantially identical composition. The claimed properties related to stability (e.g., at the claimed temperatures and time) are presumed to be inherent and thus necessarily present in the composition disclosed by Sharma and Rogers.
Regarding claim 6, Sharma as modified by Rogers teaches the composition having the biological compound (here, yeast extract) but does not explicitly state that it is present in an amount from about 10 percent to about 50 percent by weight of the composition. However, Sharma provides an example wherein the biological compound is garlic oil, and successfully manufactures a composition wherein the biological compound encapsulated by the host is present in an amount of up to 40 % by weight [Sharma Para. 0037]. As such, in implementing yeast extract as the biological compound, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Sharma’s examples and start by substituting an equivalent amount of the biological compound to be encapsulated by the included host compound. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would start by including up to 40% by weight of the yeast extract encapsulated by the host. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the composition of Sharma as modified by Rogers to include the biological compound in an amount within the claimed range. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Sharma as modified by Rogers teaches the composition having the surfactant but does not explicitly state that it is present in an amount from about 0.1 percent to 50 percent by weight of the composition. However, Sharma provides an example wherein the biological compound is garlic oil, and includes the surfactant hexadecyl trimethyl ammonium bromide (also known as cetyltrimethylammonium bromide or CTAB) in an amount of 20 times its critical micellar concentration (CMC) [Sharma Para. 0045]. The CMC of CTAB is 0.8-1.0 mM, as evidenced by Critical Micelle Concentration Lookup Table at Page 1. Therefore, Sharma teaches that CTAB is included at a concentration of approximately 20 mM, which converts to (based on a molar mass of 364 g/mol) approximately 0.7 percent by weight. As such, in implementing a surfactant, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Sharma’s specific examples and readily identify that 0.7 by weight is a standard starting point at which to include the surfactant. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would start by including 0.7 percent by weight of the surfactant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the composition of Sharma as modified by Rogers to include the surfactant in an amount within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Sharma as modified by Rogers teaches the composition having the host or guest (here, the hosts can be clay particles infused with a nanophase comprising a surfactant and at least one guest) [Sharma Abstract] but does not explicitly state that it is present in an amount from about 1 percent to about 90 percent by weight of the composition. However, Sharma provides an example wherein the biological compound is garlic oil and the host is montmorillonite clay, and successfully manufactures a composition wherein the biological compound encapsulated by the host is present in an amount of up to 40 % by weight [Sharma Para. 0037]. As such, in implementing a host in the modified composition of Sharma, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Sharma’s examples and start by including an equivalent amount of the encapsulating host compound. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would start by including up to 40% by weight of the combined structure of the biological compound encapsulated by the host. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the composition of Sharma as modified by Rogers to include the host in an amount within the claimed range. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Sharma as modified by Rogers teaches the composition wherein the supramolecular host chemical is present and comprises a nanostructure (e.g., montmorillonite clay infused with a nanophase) [Sharma Abstract & Para. 0029], or both a supramolecular host and guest chemical are present (e.g., the hosts can be clay particles infused with a nanophase comprising a surfactant and at least one guest) [Sharma Abstract].
Regarding claim 10, Sharma as modified by Rogers teaches the composition wherein the supramolecular host chemical is present and comprises a nanostructure having a charge, magnetic properties, or both (e.g., montmorillonite clay [Sharma Abstract] which has a negative charge).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER E RAINBOW whose telephone number is (571)272-0185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM PST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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.
/H.E.R./ /JENNIFER A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1731 Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731