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 .
Acknowledgement of Receipt
Applicant's response filed on 01/16/2026 to the Office Action mailed on 09/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-17, and 19-22 are pending.
Claims 12, 15, 17, and 19-21 are previously withdrawn.
Claim 3 is canceled and claims 5, 7, and 8 are previously canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 22 have been examined.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 22 are rejected.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
This is a new rejection in view of an updated search of the prior art.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 9-11, 13, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veelaert (US20100330369A1, Dec. 30, 2010) (hereinafter Veelaert) in view of Albrecht et al. (US20010009132A1, July 26, 2001) (hereinafter Albrecht).
Veelaert discloses a liquid-loaded starch material comprising a solid carrier material consisting of pregelatinized, non-granular starch material which consists of flake-shaped starch particles, for use in animal feed products (i.e., growth medium) and agrochemicals (Abstract). The term “pregelatinized starch”, when used herein, means a starch that has been chemically and/or mechanically and/or thermally treated in the presence of water to decrease the number and size of crystalline regions and increase the randomness in the general structure such that the pregelatinized starch is completely or predominantly pregelatinized, i.e. with less than 2% or 1% by weight, of crystalline regions (i.e., amorphous) ([0015]). Chemical modification includes hydroxypropylated starches ([0016]). Suitable pregelatinized starches for use are pea starch with high amylose (containing at least about 40% by weight amylose) varieties thereof ([0017]). A preferred process for preparing the pregelatinized, non-granular starch material starts with mixing starch (generally in the form of a starch powder) and water to prepare an aqueous starch slurry or paste having a certain solids content. The starch content typically ranges from 20 to 45% by weight ([0024]). The prepared aqueous starch slurry or cake is then applied onto heated, rotating rolls or drums of a roll-dryer or drum-dryer, to simultaneously gelatinize and dry the aqueous starch slurry and obtain a dried starch film ([0025]). One or more additional constituents (additives) may be admixed to the aqueous starch slurry or paste including, but not limited to, processing aids, and other substances to improve certain properties ([0029]). The additional constituents, if present, are added in small amounts, normally in amounts such that the additional constituents make up no more than 10% by weight ([0030]). The powdered liquid-loaded starch material comprises beyond the solid carrier material as defined hereinabove one or more liquid components. The one or more liquid components are buried within, supported on, captured by, bound to, and/or absorbed into and/or onto the carrier material, which provides a matrix for the liquid components ([0032]) and includes insecticides (i.e., an agrochemical) and solutions of specific substances or ingredients are suitable for use herein, wherein the solvent, if desired, can be removed after loading by a drying step ([0033]). Flowing or anti-caking agents may be added to the liquid-loaded starch material, such as tricalcium phosphate (i.e., alkaline earth metal salt, wherein the salt has a chalcogen or pnictogen comprising anion, which is phosphate) to increase flowability and it may also be provided with a coat and/or further encapsulated by any suitable coating materials ([0041]).
Veelaert differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the hydroxypropyl starch has a weight average molar mass in the range of about 105 g/mol to about 108 g/mol.
However, Albrecht discloses a coating made from an aqueous solution of a hydroxypropyl high amylose pea starch (Abstract). The starch or amylose derivatives may be deposited on a surface by spraying, spreading or pouring to form a film thereon ([0017]) and is suitable for use in food materials ([0020]). The starch has a predominantly amorphous structure with a low crystalline proportion ([0024]). The powder-like starch derived from peas ([0051]) has an amylose content of about 77.4% ([0053]) a degree of substitution DS of the derivative is DS=0.2, a degree of molar substitution MS=0.39 and a median molecular weight of 109,000 g/mol (i.e., 1.09 x 105 g/mol) ([0058]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Veelaert discloses a film composition comprising hydroxypropyl starch esters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated a hydroxypropyl starch ester (i.e. hydroxyalkyl starch) with a degree of substitution DS of the derivative is DS=0.2, a degree of molar substitution MS=0.39 and a median molecular weight of 109,000 g/mol (i.e., 1.09 x 105 g/mol) of Veelaert since this is a known and effective hydroxypropyl starch ester for films as taught by Albrecht.
Regarding claim 6, Veelaert teaches that the pregelatinized, non-granular hydroxypropyl starch material is used as a solid carrier material and that the process for preparing the pregelatinized, non-granular starch material starts with mixing starch (generally in the form of a starch powder) and water to prepare an aqueous starch slurry or paste having a certain solids content. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at more than 50% of the hydroxypropyl starch dissolved in the water through routine experimentation depending on the amount of solid hydroxypropyl starch content necessary for use as an effective carrier material. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veelaert (US20100330369A1, Dec. 30, 2010) (hereinafter Veelaert) in view of Albrecht et al. (US20010009132A1, July 26, 2001) (hereinafter Albrecht) and further in view of Thompson et al., (US20170356002A1, Dec. 14, 217) (hereinafter Thompson).
As discussed above, Veelaert and Albrecht make obvious the limitations of claim 1 but do not teach a seed, soil, plant, or part of a plant comprising the coating.
However, Thompson teaches a method for stimulating plant growth and/or promoting plant health comprising applying a free enzyme to a plant seed (Claim 21). The plant seed is coated with a seed coating formulation comprising the enzyme and an agriculturally acceptable carrier (Claim 68). The agriculturally acceptable carrier can comprise an anti-caking agent ([0565]). The agriculturally acceptable carrier can comprise a starch ([0571]). The formulation or composition can further comprise an agrochemical ([0576]) such as an insecticide ([0579]).
As discussed above, Veelaert discloses a liquid-loaded starch material comprising a solid carrier material consisting of starch, an insecticide, and an anticaking material in a coating. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have used the composition of Veelaert to coat a plant seed since formulations comprising an agriculturally acceptable carrier such as a starch, an anti-caking agent, and an insecticide are effectively used to coat seeds as taught by Thompson.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
With regard to the rejection of Claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 13-14, 16 and 22 are rejected as allegedly being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,741,521 ("Knight"), evidenced by Park et al. (Physicochemical Properties of Hydroxypropylated Apios Starches, "Park"):
Applicant argues that the non-granular amorphous structure of the instant invention is not due to disruption by hydroxypropylation but, instead, the hydroxypropylated starch were granules were completely disrupted and dispersed by the previously performed alkaline treatment of the starch as disclosed in Example 1 of the instant specification and thus is not obvious over Knight as evidenced by Park since the prior art does not teach an alkaline treatment of starch.
Applicant's argument has been found persuasive since as noted from the Example 1 on page 36, High amylose starch containing 68% amylose was gelatinised under alkaline conditions (pH - 12-14) without any swelling inhibitor and permanent stirring in the temperature range between 20-60°C for 2-8 hours until the starch granules were completely disrupted and dispersed (transparent dispersion). The prior art of record does not disclose wherein the hydroxypropylated starch were granules were completely disrupted and dispersed under alkaline conditions (pH - 12-14) resulting in a predominantly non-granular, amorphous structure.
Applicant argues that Knight discloses that its composition comprises less than 50 wt% water, which is less than the minimum amount to dissolve all of the starch. When more than 50% of the hydroxyalkyl starch is dissolved, as claimed in claim 6, this means that a uniform hot melt cannot be formed and no powder is obtained, as required by Knight.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but found not to be persuasive. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c). Applicant has not provided any objective evidence supporting Applicant’s assertion. Therefore, since Applicant’s argument is merely speculative, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
With regard to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 5,741,521 A, April 21, 1998) (cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/23/2022) (hereinafter Knight) in view of Peltonin (US 6,369,215 B1, April 9, 2002) (hereinafter Peltonin), and with regard to the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (US 5,741,521 A, April 21, 1998) (cited by applicant on IDS dated 09/23/2022) (hereinafter Knight) in view of Toshio (US 3,378,546 A, April 16, 1968) (cited by applicant on IDS dated 9/23/2022) (hereinafter Toshio):
Applicant argues that Peltonin and Toshio do not remedy the deficiencies of Knight and Park. Applicant's argument has been found persuasive for reasons discussed above.
For the foregoing reasons the rejections have been withdrawn and new rejections are made in view of an updated search of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Samantha J Knight whose telephone number is (571)270-3760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am to 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/S.J.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614