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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRISTOW ‘995 (US 2017/0341995) or WO 2009/082531 A1 in view of Davison (US 2014/0274719, for the reasons given in the last Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that Davison provides no examples of the amino acids in question, is not convincing, since the teachings of a prior art reference are not limited to its examples. Applicant’s argument, that Davison is completely lacking the teaching of using any specific amino acids in combination, is not convincing, since one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage a combination of L-arginine and L-aspartic acid from Paragraph [0035] of Davison. In any event, there is no evidence on record of unexpected results which would emanate from the use of a combination of L-arginine and L-aspartic acid as an additional component in the fertilizer of Davison, as opposed to L-aspartic acid or L-arginine alone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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), for the reasons given in the last Office Action.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRISTOW ‘634, for the reasons given in the last Office Action.
Claim 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, for the reasons given in the last Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that there is no evidence that the composition of BRISTOW ‘634 would augment urea cycling due to its composition containing multiple ingredients, is not convincing, since there is no evidence on record showing that the additional ingredients would prevent the composition from augmenting a urea cycle. Applicant’s argument, that a laundry list disclosure of every possible moiety does not necessarily constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not reasonably lead those skilled in the art to any particular species, is not convincing, since one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage a combination of L-arginine and L-aspartic acid from Paragraphs [0020] and [0021] of BRISTOW ‘634. In any event, there is no evidence on record of unexpected results which would emanate from a combination of L-aspartic acid and L-arginine in the composition of BRISTOW ‘634, as opposed to L-arginine or L-aspartic acid alone.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is 571-272-1353The 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
Prosecution Insights