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 .
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 14, 15, 19-21, 25, 27 and 29-32 are presented for examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/11/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3 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.
Claims 1-3 are indefinite as to the phrase “a plurality of droplets in air”. The phrase fails to set forth the intended meaning. Does the phrase mean the droplets are in air after being sprayed and before reaching the agricultural target? Clarification is requested.
Claims depending on claims 1-3 are also rejected, since they have all the limitations of such claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 14, 15, 19-21, 25, 27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims are drawn to a composition consisting essentially of:
plurality of droplets in air, the droplets comprising a carrier
fluid[[;]], a cloaking fluid[[;]], and one or more compounds for delivery to an agricultural surface,
wherein the cloaking fluid is configured to at least partially surround the carrier fluid while
the droplet is droplets are sprayed onto the agricultural surface, and wherein the composition
comprises no surfactant. The instant specification fails to provide support for “plurality of droplets in air”. There is no disclosure to a composition, wherein the plurality of droplets are in air.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-12, 14, 15, 19-21, 25, 27 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The instant specification fails to enable a person skilled in the art how to make the “plurality of droplets in air”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-12, 14, 15, 19-21 and 25, 27 and 29-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Pipko et al. (US 2005/0175714) in view of Yan et al. (submitted by the applicant) and
further in view of Taranta (WO 0208973), Spanoghe et al. (Influence of agricultural adjuvants on droplet
spectra) and Hou et al. (Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science).
Pipko et al. teach a fungicidal emulsion comprising tea tree oil (fungicide) and a water emulsion,
wherein the emulsifier is a water solution of a reaction product of a high molecular weight organic fatty
acid and an alkali or ammonium compound. Preferably, the emulsion additionally comprising etheric oil.
This etheric acid may be selected among lavender oil, pine oil, manuka oil, kanuka oil, eucalyptus oil,
bergamot oil, clove oil, lemon oil, lemon grass oil, rosemary oil, geranium oil. See Paras [0006], [0018]
and claim 13. The oils are the cloaking fluid as claimed in claim 10 of the instant application. The
concentration of oil is taught to be 0.01%-5%. See Para [0008] and claim 18. Pipko et al. teach that the
term 'emulsion' is referring hereinafter to any water in oil (W/O); oil in water (O/W); W/O/W and/or
O/W/O phases comprising the TTO (tea tree oil) inside, outside or at the surface of aggregates, vesicles,
micelles, reversed micelles, nano-emulsions, micro-emulsion, liposomes or in any combination thereof.
See Para [0014].
It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art to use the claimed components in a
composition, motivated by the teachings of Pipko et al., which teach an active fungicide, such as tea tree
oil, which reads on the claimed species, lavender oil, pine oil, manuka oil, kanuka oil, eucalyptus oil,
bergamot oil, clove oil, lemon oil, lemon grass oil, rosemary oil, geranium oil, which read on cloaking
fluids, a surface, which reads on a plant. The concentration of cloaking agents is also taught by Pipko et
al. The oil in water or water in oil emulsion taught by Pipko et al. is expected for oil to cover oil or oil to
cover water. Pipko does not specifically teach a droplet, wherein a cloaking fluid surrounding a carrier
fluid and the lack of a surfactant. Yan et al. teach a water in-oil in-water soluble emulsion wherein the
continuous water phase comprises droplets which are dispersed therein, wherein the droplets comprise
an outer oil phase (cloaking fluid) and an inner aqueous phase (Figure 2). Yan et al. teach that in
contrast to simple water-in-oil (w/o) emulsions, w/o/w double emulsions do not only provide aqueous
compartments but also an aqueous carrier fluid, rendering the emulsion non-viscous and compatible
with most flow cytometry set-ups. Encapsulation in w/o/w droplet has further advantages: (i) shielding of sensitive biological structures from forces exerted by the sheath fluid; (ii) preservation of the linkage
between an individual microorganism and the substances it secretes allowing fora screening of
metabolites; and (iii) the opportunity to perform in vitro analyses of biomolecules detached from the
respective microorganisms. See the entire article. Taranta teaches an oil-in-water-in- oil multiple
emulsion with a multiple droplet size of less than 25 microns, comprising an inner oily phase, an
aqueous intermediate layer and an outer oily phase, which comprises one or more pesticides. Taranta
makes clear that droplets having an intermediate aqueous layer covered by an oil layer for delivering
agricultural ingredients as old and well known. See Claims. Spanoghe et al. teach droplet size data for
various tank mixes atomized through a hollow cone nozzle. The invert suspension and surfactant
adjuvants did not have a large effect on the VMD values. They observed similar results with other nozzle
types. Spanoghe et al teach that surfactants or surfactant concentrations possessing poor general
dynamic properties (dynamic surface tensions) may increase the VMD to the contrary of what is
expected. Spanoghe et al. teach that for ethanol and surfactant solutions at low pressure the surface
tension of the liquid film breaking into droplets might be lowered more. This causes a strong decrease in the VMD as compared with the VMD obtained by spraying water. Spanoghe et al. teach that
sometimes, surfactants added in concentrations above the critical micelle concentration (CMC) are not
able to reduce droplet size. This phenomenon indicates a slowdown of the diffusion rate to the liquid
surface and also an interruption of the orientation of the surface -active molecules at the liquid surface.
A depletion in surfactant molecules from the bulk to the surface of the huge stretching liquid film causes
less effect on the spray. Hou et al. teach surfactants (or amphiphiles) are generally believed to be a
necessary component of microemulsions. However, research has found that in the absence of
traditional surfactants, microemulsions canals to form in a ternary system of two immiscible fluids and
an "amphi-solvent". Such microemulsions are called "surfactant-free microemulsions" (SFMEs). The so-
called amphi-solvent is a solvent that is completely or at least partially miscible with each of the two immiscible fluids. The structures and properties of SFMEs are similar to those of traditional surfactant -based microemulsions (SBMEs)to some extent. See the abstract.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to create a droplet having an outer oil phase
and an inner aqueous Phase motivated by the teachings of Yan et al., and Taranta et al. which teach a
droplet having an inner aqueous Phase and an outer oil phase as old and well known. The spreading
coefficient of greater or equal to 0 is the inherent property of any emulsion. The use of the phrase “plurality of droplets in air” reads on spraying a composition of a cloaking fluid and a carrier fluid, which is taught by the prior art. The addition of the phrase "consisting essentially" does not create a patentably distinct composition in the absence of any evidence that the addition of other material would materially affect the nature of the claimed invention.
Since Pipko et al. teach the use of a plant in general, such teaching encompasses any plant, such as,
hydrophobic plant in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The disadvantages of using a surfactant at
a certain concentrations is taught by Spanoghe et al. Hou et al. teaches that the microemulsions have
been previously used without a surfactant.
Response to arguments
Applicant’s arguments are drawn to the plurality of droplets in the air. Applicant in his remarks argues that “Pipko, Yan, Taranta, Spanoghe, and Hou, considered alone or in combination, fail to teach or render obvious a composition consisting essentially of a plurality of droplets in air, the droplets comprising a carrier fluid, a cloaking fluid, and one or more compounds for delivery to an agricultural surface. Instead, Pipko, Yan, Taranta, and Hou each describe emulsions that include multiple liquid phases in which any droplets are surrounded by one or more continuous liquid phases, and Spanoghe describes the effects of adjuvants on water sprays”. It is the examiner’s position that it is not clear how we can have a composition that the droplets are floating in the air. It is not clear that whether the droplets are in air after spraying or the droplets are floating in the air for no purpose. If the droplets are in the air after spraying, the prior art’s droplets of a cloaking fluid and a carrier fluid are also going to be in air after being sprayed and before landing on the target
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHREH A FAY whose telephone number is (703)756-1800. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6:00.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/ZOHREH A FAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617