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 .
Priority
The instant application was filed 23 September 2022 and is the national stage entry of PCT/EP2021/057470 filed 23 March 2021. The Applicant claims priority to foreign application EP20165089.2 filed 24 March 2020. An English copy of the foreign document has been provided. Therefore, the effective filing date of the instant application is 24 March 2020.
Claim Status
Claims 12, 15, 17, and 19-21 were previously withdrawn.
Claim 2 is canceled and claims 3, 5, 7, and 8 were previously canceled.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11, 13-14, 16, and 22 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Examiner’s Note
The Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 27 April 2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Rejections
not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. In the Applicant’s response, filed 27 April 2026, it is noted that claim 1 has been amended, claim 2 has been canceled, and no new claims have been added. Support for the amendment can be found from the canceled claim. No new matter has been added.
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 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, 4, 6, 9-11, 13, 16, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veelaert (US 2010/0330369 A1) and Albrecht et al. (US 2001/0009132 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Veelaert teaches 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 (abs). 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]). 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]). 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 starch content typically ranges from 20 to 45% by weight ([0024]). A slurry may be formed with water ([0024]).
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).
Regarding claim 9, the composition may further comprise insecticides or agrochemicals ([0032], [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, the prepared aqueous starch slurry or cake is 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]).
Regarding claim 13, the composition used as a coating material is interpreted as intended use and is given minimal patentable weight (see MPEP 2111.02(II)).
Regarding claim 16, the composition may comprise a coating ([0041]) and used in animal feed products, such as a growth medium (abs).
Regarding claim 22, the composition may comprise a coating ([0041]), dried as a film ([0025]), and used in animal feed products (abs).
Veelaert does not explicitly disclose the molar mass range in claim 1, the degree of molar substitution in claim 4, or the degree of substitution in claim 10.
Albrecht discloses a coating made from an aqueous solution of a hydroxypropyl high amylose pea starch (abs). 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.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veelaert (US 2010/0330369 A1) in view of Albrecht et al. (US 2001/0009132 A1) and further in view of Thompson et al. (US 2017/0356002 A1).
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 in claim 14.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Veelaert discloses powdered liquid-loaded starch and not a liquid composition (Remarks, pgs. 5-6).
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Veelaert’s composition incorporated with liquid components (para. 33), such as forming solutions or suspensions, is interpreted as a liquid composition.
The Applicant argues that Veelaert is silent on a salt, wherein the content is 2-10 wt% (Remarks, pg. 6).
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. 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]). 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 starch content typically ranges from 20 to 45% by weight ([0024]).
The Applicant argues that Veelaert does not recite the limitations in claim 13 (Remarks, pgs. 6-7).
Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. The composition used as a coating material is interpreted as intended use and is given minimal patentable weight (see MPEP 2111.02(II)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Danielle Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5 p.m. 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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/D.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/ANDREW S ROSENTHAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights