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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response filed on 09/17/2025 is duly acknowledged.
Claim 40 was previously canceled by applicants.
Claims 1-39 as currently amended/presented are pending in this application.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/BR2021/050145 filed on 04/09/2021.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 7-35 drawn to “A process for producing an IAA agricultural composition…”) in the reply filed on 09/17/2025 (see REM, p. 1) is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 1-6, 36 and 39 (non-elected group I) and amended claims 37 and 38 (interpreted as process of use; non-elected group III) have been withdrawn from further considerations.
Claims 7-35 (elected invention of group II, without traverse; directed to “A process for producing an IAA agricultural composition…”), as currently amended/presented have been examined on their merits in this action hereinafter.
Objection to Drawings
It appears that the disclosure of record is missing Drawings. The specification of record on page 2 states the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
240
617
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants are advised to correct the specification disclosure by filing drawings as per the disclosure of record for Figures 1-2 appropriately in response to this office action, without introducing new matter situation(s).
Claim Objections
Claims 7-35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites abbreviated term “IAA”, which should be recited in its full form at least the first time it appears in a claim set (for instance as “indole acetic acid (IAA)”). Appropriate correction is required.
claims 7-35 each recite the phrase “characterized in that…”, which should be replaced to recite “wherein…” in order to conform to normal claim presentation in US national stage examination practice. Appropriate correction is required.
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 7, 9, 10 and 16 (as presented) 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.
Claim 7 recites the following:
7. (Previously presented) A process for producing an IAA agricultural composition having increased photostability, characterized in that it comprises formulating a combination of IAA with melanoidin-type pigments in said composition, wherein the composition exhibits increased photostability relative to an IAA composition with no melanoidins.
It is noted that the term “formulating” or to “formulate” has not been specifically defined by the applicants (see Specification, p.3, 3rd paragraph, for instance). As the term “formulate” may encompass various interpretations including mental planning, devising a plan, or to put into a systematized expression, or to develop a formula for the preparation of something, for instance (see Merriam-Webster Dictionary, p. 1; cited as ref. [U] on PTO 892 form), it is not clear as to what exactly is being performed as an active step (such as mixing the two recited components ?) for the process “producing an IAA agricultural composition”, as claimed, other than “formulating a combination of IAA with melanoidin-type pigments”. As presented, the metes an bounds of the claimed process does not appear to be properly defined.
Since instant claims 9, 10 and 16 directly depend from claim 7, and do not clarify this point, they are also rejected as being indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitations "the A. brasilense Ab-V5 and Ab-V6 strains" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 20 directly depends from claim 19 (which in turn depends from claim 11) that does not provide a reasonable basis for “A. brasilense Ab-V5 and Ab-V6 strains” per se. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 (as presented) recites the limitation "the product stabilization process" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 directly depends from claim 7, which does not provide a reasonable basis for limitation of “a product stabilization process” per se. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 (as presented) recites the limitation "the product stabilization process" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 directly depends from claim 8 (that in turn depends from independent claim 7), which does not provide a reasonable basis for limitation of “a product stabilization process” per se. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 (as presented) recites the limitation "the product stabilization process" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 18 directly depends from claim 8 (that in turn depends from independent claim 7), which does not provide a reasonable basis for limitation of “a product stabilization process” per se. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 (as presented) recites the limitation "the incubation temperature" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 30 directly depends from claim 8 (that in turn depends from independent claim 7), which does not provide a reasonable basis for the limitation of “an incubation temperature” per se. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 (as presented) recites the limitation "the fermentation step" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 30 directly depends from claim 8 (that in turn depends from independent claim 7), which does not provide a reasonable basis for the limitation of “a fermentation step” per se. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the fermenter environment" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 directly depends from claim 11 (that in turn depends from claim 10, and finally from claim 7), which does not provide a reasonable basis for the limitation “a fermenter environment” per se. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the sequential expansion…" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 directly depends from claim 11 (that depends from claim 10, and finally from claim 7), which does not provide a reasonable basis for the limitation “a sequential expansion…” per se.
Since claims 20-29 directly or indirectly depend from claim 19, and do not clarify this point, they are also rejected as being indefinite for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
NOTE: 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.
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.
Claims 7 and 8 (as presented) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikeley et al (GB 2520147 A; FOR cited in IDS dated 01/04/2023) in view of Graber et al. (WO 2014/111932 A1; FOR cited in IDS dated 01/04/2023), Leasure et al (2013; NPL cited as ref. [V] on PTO 892 form) and Kim et al (2020; NPL cited as ref. [W] on PTO 892 form).
Claim 7 recites the following:
“7. (Previously presented) A process for producing an IAA agricultural composition having increased photostability, characterized in that it comprises formulating a combination of IAA with melanoidin-type pigments in said composition, wherein the composition exhibits increased photostability relative to an IAA composition with no melanoidins.”
NOTE: It is to be noted that the terms “agricultural composition”, “photostability” or “formulating” per se have not been specifically defined by the applicants in the disclosure of record (see instant specification, p. 3-5, and Example 4). Therefore, for prior art purposes, the plain meanings of the terms have been used in light of the disclosure of record for interpreting claims in this office action hereinafter.
Wikeley et al. (2015) disclose method of producing water soluble plant growth regulating compositions (such as in granular form; see Title, Abstract) that comprise auxins, more specifically auxins including 3-indole-acetic acid (IAA), 3-indole butyric acid (IBA), 1-naphthyl acetic acid, (NAA), and salts or esters thereof, wherein the compositions can further comprise suitable carrier medium, and/or surfactants that are useful for applications to plants, seeds, etc. (i.e. as agricultural compositions; see Wikeley et al, p.20, section “Method of Making Granules”, [0085]-[0087], for instance).
However, a method wherein the agricultural composition comprises a combination of IAA with melanoidin-type pigments having increased photostability, has not been disclosed by Wikeley et al, as discussed above.
Graber et al (2014) disclose methods and compositions comprising melanoidins and their use in improving properties of plants, in particular for control of fungal plant diseases and/or promotion of plant growth (see Title, Abstract, p.15-16, claims 1-2, for instance); wherein they disclose the fact that “Melanoidins are formed by cyclizations, dehydrations, retroaldolisations, rearrangements, isomerisations, and condensations that occur over the course of the Maillard reaction” (p. 1 section “Background of the Invention”) that occurs during heating of reducing sugars or carbohydrates together with amines, amino acids or proteins resulting in nonenzymatic browning reaction producing variety of compounds responsible for the brown color of a variety of roasted/baked food and beverages, and have been shown to possess a host of in vivo and in vitro functional properties (see p. 2, 2nd paragraph, for instance), including antioxidant activity, metal chelating ability, anti-biofilm forming action, inhibition of lipid peroxidation and modulating activities of various enzymes; and are also believed to be part of humic substances that affect plant growth (see p. 2, 3rd paragraph). Graber et al disclose various methods of making melanoidins, including the method which comprises the steps of: “(a) providing a mixture of amino acids in solid form; (b) providing a reducing sugar in solid form; (c) combining said mixture and sugar at a 1:1 molar ratio; d) grinding said mixture and sugar, to form a homogeneous powder; and e) heating the powder obtained in step (d) at temperature ranging from 50 to 3000 C for time varying from weeks to seconds, depending on the reaction temperature, when lower temperatures require longer time periods, and vice versa”, or by the method that include “dissolving the raw materials of steps (a) and (b) above in a suitable solvent, for example water, alcohols, acetone, or other polar solvents, followed by heating” (see disclosure on p. 13-14, and p.19-20). Graber et al also disclose several advantages of melanoidins that may also be combined with fertilizers and formed in liquid or solid preparations (see p. 19-20).
Thus, Graber et al disclose the preparation of agricultural compositions comprising melanoidins, albeit for improved plant growth and pathogen protection, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the two components that are known for the same purposes (i.e. for use in agriculture) including composition with IAA (as taught by Wikeley et al) and melanoidins (as taught by Graber et al) for the purpose of improving plant growth conditions and plant protection. Since, the general reaction conditions (regarding instant claim 8) for production of melanoidins by Maillard reaction using raw materials (both in solid or liquid forms) including carbohydrates and amino acids or sources thereof (such as reducing sugars and sources of nitrogen) have already been disclosed by Graber et al (see teachings above), an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to successfully prepare and use the melanoidins in the agricultural composition comprising IAA in order to improve the functional properties for improving plant growth, etc.
However, the advantage of an increased photostability of the composition comprising a combination of IAA with melanoidins was not explicitly disclosed by Wikeley et al, when taken with Graber et al, as discussed above.
As evidenced by the prior art disclosure from Leasure et al (2013; see left column on p. 1992), the plant hormone indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) has long been used in plant culture media for practical applications and scientific inquiries….however, it has been known that “the use of IAA is complicated by the fact that IAA is a photo-labile compound”, and that certain salts and mineral nutrients are known to hasten the photodegradation of IAA under white light. In addition, they found that vitamin B6 (pyridoxin, PN) was able to significantly enhance the rate of IAA photodegradation under white light, and that this photodegradation “can be virtually eliminated by the use of a yellow-colored light filter that removes UV, violet, and some of the blue wavelengths from the incident light” (see Leasure et al, p. 1992, left column, 1st paragraph). Thus, they demonstrated the fact that removing exposure to UV, violet and blue incident light was able to reduce or eliminate such photodegradation of IAA in a composition used for plant growth, such as in Murashige and Skoog (MS) plant growth media.
Also, as evidenced by the disclosure from Kim et al (2020; see Abstract, and Introduction on p. 186), it has been known in the prior art that “The melanoidins can provide photoprotection in the UVA region” (i.e. light wavelength range of 320-400nm; see Kim et al, Introduction, right column, 2nd paragraph in particular, and cited references therein); wherein using a preparation of TiO2 in combination with melanoidins prepared through Maillard reaction (albeit, used for cosmetic purposes to shield from UV broad range exposure to skin), they demonstrated the fact that the composites comprising melanoidins (i.e. melanoidin/TiO2) were able to improve the UV screening ability and significantly suppress photocatalytic activity.
Therefore, to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been to modify the agricultural compositions comprising light-sensitive phytohormones such as IAA (that was already known for its rapid light-based photodegradation, and the fact that such photodegradation could be effectively reduced by blocking UV incident light wavelengths with a yellow filter or by melanoidins that block UVA light rays; as taught by Leasure et al taken with Kim et al, as discussed above) by combining suitable amounts of melanoidins prepared by using Maillard reaction (that were also known for their plant disease protection and plant growth enhancing properties by Graber et al, as discussed above) in the compositions taught by Wikeley et al such that the resulting agricultural product is able to help reduce the photodegradation of the useful auxin, such as IAA in order to enhance the effectiveness of the phytohormones required for robust plant growth. Since, the cited prior art references have already practically demonstrated such UVA protection by the combination and use of melanoidins produced by Maillard reaction (see teachings from Leasure et al when taken with the disclosure form Kim et al, above), an artisan in the art of agricultural applications of phytohormones for plant growth would have been motivated and successful in modifying the compositions by combining melanoidins in suitable amounts such that the combined product (i.e. composition with IAA with melanoidins) provided significant reduction in photodegradation of IAA, and thus effectively increase photostability of the agricultural product. It is to be noted that instant claim 7 as recited does not require photostability from any specific light wavelength per se, and therefore, the combined teachings from the cited prior art references that demonstrate UV-based protection of IAA by the use of melanoidins would have been obvious and/or fully contemplated by an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, unless evidence/data provided by applicants on record to the contrary (which is currently lacking on record; see instant specification, Example 4, for instance).
Claim 9 (as presented) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikeley et al (GB 2520147 A; FOR cited in IDS dated 01/04/2023) taken with Graber et al (WO 2014/111932 A1; FOR cited in IDS dated 01/04/2023), Leasure et al (2013; NPL cited as ref. [V] on PTO 892 form) and Kim et al (2020; NPL cited as ref. [W] on PTO 892 form), as applied to claims 7-8 above, and further in view of Flasinski et al (2014; NPL cited as ref. [X] on PTO 892 form).
Claim 9 is directed to “The process for the production of an agricultural composition, according to claim 7, characterized in that the IAA is synthetic.”
The detailed teachings and suggestions from the cited prior art of Wikeley et al taken with Graber et al, Leasure et al, and Kim et al as they pertain to the rejection of claims 7-8 have been discussed above and are further relied upon in the same manner hereinafter.
However, the process wherein the IAA used is a synthetic IAA, has not been explicitly disclosed by the cited prior art references, as discussed above.
Flasinski et al (2014) discloses the use of functionally equivalent auxins, including natural plant hormone indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and its synthetic analog 1-naphthalene-acetic acid (NAA) that are known to interact with biological membrane phospholipids in cells from both plants and animals (see Abstract, and Introduction on pages 123-124) in a similar manner with only subtle differences in their interactions with cellular phospholipid monolayers. Although, the purpose of Flasinski et al was to emphasize the functional differences between natural IAA compared with synthetic NAA, the differences found were only in the magnitude of interactions with lipids, and were nonetheless found to have similar physiological effects of both auxins as they are pertinent to plant cell physiology (see p. 124, left column, 2nd paragraph).
Thus, it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a synthetic analog of IAA such as NAA disclosed by Flasinski et al as an art-known functional equivalent for the compositions that comprise IAA in combination with melanoidins in order to stabilize the agricultural compositions with phytohormone such as photosensitive auxins (natural IAA, or synthetic NAA) as taught by the combined teachings and suggestions from Wikeley et al taken with Graber et al, Leasure et al, and Kim et al, as already discussed above, unless evidence/data provided on record to the contrary. Moreover, it is to be noted that instant disclosure of record does not provide guidance as to which synthetic IAA, or an analog of IAA was used in the process as currently claimed (see instant specification, Example 4, in particular). Thus, the invention as claimed would have been obvious and/or fully contemplated by an artisan of ordinary skill in the agriculture art.
Claims 10-35 (as presented) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wikeley et al (GB 2520147 A; FOR cited in IDS dated 01/04/2023) taken with Graber et al (WO 2014/111932 A1; FOR cited in IDS dated 01/04/2023), Leasure et al (2013; NPL cited as ref. [V] on PTO 892 form) and Kim et al (2020; NPL cited as ref. [W] on PTO 892 form), as applied to claims 7-8 above, and further in view of CN 104975052 A (2015; English machine translation attached as ref. [U-2] on PTO 892 form) and Santos et al (2020; NPL cited as ref. [V-2] on PTO 892 form).
The detailed teachings and suggestions from the cited prior art of Wikeley et al taken with Graber et al, Leasure et al, and Kim et al as they pertain to the rejection of claims 7-8 have been discussed above and are further relied upon in the same manner hereinafter.
However, the process for the production of the agricultural composition- wherein the IAA is obtained by fermentation of an IAA-producing bacteria such as Azospirillum brasilense strains Ab-V5 or Ab-V6 (see instant claims 10-13, 20, in particular) in a fermenter, under conditions of fermentation for production IAA, and subsequent Maillard reaction to produce melanoidins with conditions of temperature, pressure, air flow rates, and stirring as recited in instant claims 16-18, 21-35), have not been specifically disclosed by the cited prior art references as discussed above.
Although as already noted above, Graber et al disclose various methods of making melanoidins, including the method which comprises the steps of: “(a) providing a mixture of amino acids in solid form; (b) providing a reducing sugar in solid form; (c) combining said mixture and sugar at a 1:1 molar ratio; d) grinding said mixture and sugar, to form a homogeneous powder; and e) heating the powder obtained in step (d) at temperature ranging from 50 to 3000 C for time varying from weeks to seconds, depending on the reaction temperature, when lower temperatures require longer time periods, and vice versa”, or by the method that include “dissolving the raw materials of steps (a) and (b) above in a suitable solvent, for example water, alcohols, acetone, or other polar solvents, followed by heating” (see disclosure on p. 13-14, and p.19-20). Thus, the general reaction conditions for production of melanoidins using Maillard reaction with raw materials (both in solid or liquid forms) including carbohydrates and amino acids or sources thereof (such as reducing sugars and sources of nitrogen) have already been disclosed by Graber et al, and were known in the prior art.
CN104975052A (2015; citations as per English machine translation attached) discloses production of relatively high amounts of auxin phytohormone, IAA using A cost effective method that uses fermentation of a bacterial strain Azospirillum brasilense R supplemented with tryptophan amino acid in LB culture medium (see Abstract, Summary of the invention, and Claims, for instance); wherein the fermentation is performed to prepare IAA using a batch fermenter (regarding instant claim 15; see Example 5, for instance), starting with a seed culture at 300 C with 180 r/min shaking, and expanding to a fermenter (regarding instant claims 19 and 21, “sequential expansion” of fermentation culture) with fermentation temperature between 30 to 40 C for 2 to 6 days with 160-200 r/min shaking tables (regarding instant claims 23-25, 30, 33, 35), wherein the resulting concentrations of IAA after said fermentation process reached up to 200-300 mg/L of the fermentation broth.
Although, CN104975052A does not specifically disclose the use of specific strains of Azospirillum brasilense Ab-V5 or Ab-V6, such IAA-producing strains were already known in the art as commercial strains that do produce phytohormones, including auxins (see Santos et al, p. 1, right column, 1st paragraph; and p. 6, left column, 2nd paragraph, for instance and cited references therein), wherein it was known in the prior art that the main mechanism by which “strains Ab-V5 and Ab-V6 of A. brasilense promote plant growth is by the production of auxins that stimulate root development” (see Santos et al, p. 6, left column, 2nd paragraph).
Thus, before the effective filing date of this invention, to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to employ the step of producing IAA using cost-effective method of bacterial fermentation (as taught using Azospirillum brasilense R bacterial strain by CN104975052A, discussed above), and in particular employing the commercially available strains of Azospirillum brasilense Ab-V5 and/or Ab-V6 (alone or in combination), that were already known to produce auxins (Santos et al, discussed above), in combination with the step of preparing melanoidins as already taught by Graber et al using the known reaction conditions (of treatment time, temperature, etc.) that produce brown melanoidin-type pigments that can be produced using the culture components of the fermentation broth in order to cost-effectively make the combined IAA-melanoidins agricultural composition as currently claimed. Since, the general reaction conditions for making IAA (using bacterial fermentation in a suitable fermenter conditions as taught by CN104975052A, above) and melanoidins (as taught by Graber et al, discussed above) were already known in the prior art, an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would have successfully modified the process disclosed by the cited prior art references (i.e. Wikeley et al taken with Graber et al, Leasure et al, and Kim et al) such that the two steps are combined in order to produce IAA-melanoidins combination that would have been expected to improve photostability of the IAA-containing product (when compared to composition without melanoidins added therewith) for agricultural applications, as already taught and/or suggested by the cited prior art references as discussed above.
The specific limitations of separately culturing seed cultures of individual strains Ab-V5 and Ab-V6 of A. brasilense and expanding them into batch fermenter for large-scale IAA producing fermentation process (see instant claims 19-21) would have been also obvious given the specific disclosure from CN104975052A as discussed above for first making seed culture of strain in order to provide for large-scale fermentation and production of IAA, unless evidence and/or data are provided on record to the contrary commensurate with the scope of the claims. Since, the limitations of shaking/stirring cultures, temperature of fermentation, and duration or time of fermentation process (regarding instant claims 22-35) to induce production of IAA was already disclosed and/or suggested by CN104975052A, when taken in combination of disclosure from Graber et al for preparing melanoidins in the fermentation broth using the Maillard reaction conditions, would have been obvious and/or fully contemplated by an artisan in the art of fermentation and agricultural product preparation, wherein specific conditions could be easily altered in order to effectively produce IAA followed with optimized reaction conditions for generating melanoidins in the fermentation broth (containing IAA produced) such that an agricultural composition comprising IAA and melanoidins that has increased photostability, is obtained. Likewise, given the combined disclosure in the cited prior art references as discussed above, the specific limitations of bacterial fermentation process including shaking, and/or certain amount of air flow rate (see instant claims 26, 29, for instance), or melanoidin production (or stabilization) step including conditions of temperature/pressure, etc. (instant claims 16-18, for instance), would have been deemed optimizable variables because such general reaction conditions were already known to effect the production of IAA and melanoidins (see teachings from CN104975052A, when taken in combination of disclosure from Graber et al) with the similar raw materials as currently disclosed by the applicants (see instant disclosure, Example 4, for instance). It is to be noted that instant claim 7, as presented, does not require any specific fermentation step and/or reaction conditions for the step of producing melanoidin-type pigments via the Maillard reaction using specific nitrogen sources and reducing sugars per se. Also, as evidenced by instant claim 9, the claimed process invention is open to the use of any source of IAA, including even synthetic IAA for producing claimed agricultural composition. Moreover, such would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art given the combined disclosure provided by the cited prior art references as discussed above. No criticality could be attached to the recited conditions and/or parameters in the absence of evidence/data to the contrary. Therefore, the process invention as generically claimed fails to distinguish itself over the combined teachings and/or suggestions from the cited prior art of record.
Thus, the claim as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention as currently claimed.
As per MPEP 2111.01, during examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, F.3d, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004)(The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation.). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless applicant has provided a clear definition in the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-8790. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00- 5:00.
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, LOUISE W HUMPHREY can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
SATYENDRA K. SINGH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1657
/SATYENDRA K SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657