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 .
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRISTOW ‘995 (US 2017/0341995) or WO 2009/082351 A1 in view of Davison (US 2014/0274719). BRISTOW ‘995 and WO 2009/082351 A1 both disclose fertilizers containing L-arginine or L-aspartic acid. (See Paragraph [0034] of BRISTOW ‘995, and page 5, lines 21-29 of WO 2009/082351 A1.) The difference between the compositions disclosed by BRISTOW ‘995 and WO 2009/082351 A1, and that recited in applicant’s claims, is that BRISTOW ‘995 and WO 2009/082351 A1 do not disclose that the combination of L-arginine and L-aspartic acid should be used. Davison discloses a fertilizer composition comprising amino acids (see Paragraph [0033], and teaches in Paragraph [0035] that mixtures of the amino acids, which include arginine and aspartic acid, may be used. It would be obvious from Davison to employ mixtures of L-arginine or L-aspartic acid as the amino acids in the composition of either BRISTOW ‘995 or WO 2009/082351 A1. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since one would appreciate from Davison that mixtures of L-arginine and L-aspartic acid would be suitable in the composition of either BRISTOW ‘995 or WO 2009/082351 A1, to no less extent than the mixtures of arginine and aspartic acid disclosed by Davison.
Regarding claim 4, Davison discloses in Paragraph [0038] that the composition may be applied as an aqueous solution.
Regarding claim 5, BRISTOW discloses in the Abstract that the composition includes an insecticide, and WO 2009/082351 A1 discloses in the Abstract that the composition is directed to a fertilizer.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, it is clear that the compositions of BRISTOW ‘995 includes fertilizers, and fertilizers are conventionally applied to plants by fertilization of the plants during the growing season.
Regarding claim 8, BRISTOW ‘995 discloses in Paragraph [0123] that the composition can be applied from 2 to 5 times, and one would expect that additional treatments of the composition of WO 2009/082351 A1 would result in more improved root growth and growth of Mycorrhiza..
Regarding claims 9-11, it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable application rate of the amino acids in the process of either BRISTOW ‘995 or WO 2009/082351 A1.
Regarding claim 12, the compositions of BRISTOW ‘995 and WO 2009/082351 A1 would inherently result in an increase in yield of the plants, since the compositions include fertilizer nutrients
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)(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.
Claims 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over BRISTOW ‘634 (US 2017/0332634). No distinction is seen between the method and composition disclosed by BRISTOW ‘634, and that recited in claims 1-7. BRISTOW ‘634 discloses a fertilizer composition comprising a mixture of amino acids, which may include L-arginine and L-aspartic acid. (See the Abstract and Paragraphs [0020] and [0021].) Accordingly BRISTOW ‘634 anticipates claims 1-7. In any event, it would be obvious to employ a mixture of L-arginine and L-aspartic acid as the amino acid in the composition of BRISTOW ‘634, since BRISTOW ‘634 would suggest such combination in Paragraphs [0020] and [0021].
Regarding claims 4, 6 and 7, BRISTOW ‘634 discloses in Paragraph [0054] that the formulation may be diluted with water and applied to plants.
Regarding claim 12, the compositions of BRISTOW ‘634 would inherently result in an increase in yield of the plants, since compositions include fertilizer nutrients.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRISTOW ‘634. BRISTOW ‘634 is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore. Claims 9-11 would be further obvious, since it would be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable application rate of the amino acids in the process.
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRISTOW ‘634 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of BRISTOW ‘995. It would be further obvious from BRISTOW ‘995 to apply he composition of BRISTOW ‘634 an additional one to five times. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since BRISTOW ‘995 discloses in Paragraph [0123] that the composition can be applied from 2 to 5 times, and the processes of BRISTOW ‘634 and BRISTOW ‘995 are analogous in that both entail the use of amino acids in fertilizer compositions to enhance plant growth.
Selkirk, Jr. et al (US 11,358,906) is made of record for disclosing a fertilizer composition which includes L-amino acids. (See the Paragraph bridging columns 10 and 11.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736