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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 22-25, 27, and 28 in the reply filed on 10/6/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 18 and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected methods, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/6/2025.
Status of the Claims
Claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 14-17, and 19-21 have been canceled by preliminary amendment. Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 18, and 22-28 as presented in the four-page document of claims filed 1/17/2023 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/21/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 and 28 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 “comprising from water and one or more alcohols”. It is unclear what components are required. Is water required in combination with one or more alcohols? Would water alone as a solvent meet the claim? Would an alcohol or more than one alcohol with no water present meet the claim?
Claim 28 recites “comprising a silicone species”. What is a silicone species? Is any chemical compound comprising silicon sufficient? What meaning does “species” add to the claim? Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Singh” (“Sing, Aditya Kumar et al.; “Efficacy of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) and Bael (Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa) Leaf Extracts as Biofertilizers in Cultivation of Mung Plant (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek), Neptjournal, 6 January 2018, pages 1-6; XP055850802).
Claim 1 is drawn to a biostimulant plant treatment composition comprising Aegie marmelos leaf particulate and/or an extract thereof. Claim 1 further recites product-by-process language regarding an extract component named in the alternative, however the product-by-process language is not determined to further limit the requisite structural components. “And/or” as recited throughout the claims is interpreted to allow for the combination referenced or a single entity referenced, in the alternative.
Singh teaches aqueous extracts of aegle marmelos (bael) leaves as biofertilizers/biostimulants.
Accordingly, Singh anticipates each and every limitation of claim 1.
As to claim 5, since the product is taught as outlined above, Singh teaches the product claimed since product-by-process claims are not limited to manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Singh teaches leaf extracts in water (see page 644, column 1, “preparation of leaf extracts”)(limitation of claims 7 and 27) in combination with ground leaves (“leaf particulate”)(limitation of claim 8).
As to claim 12, Singh teaches neem may be included to not only restrict pest infestation but also improve crop yield and enhance various nutritional status of soil thereby functioning as a biostimulant in accordance with the definition provided in [0013] of the specification as filed (see page 643, column 2; see also page 644 column 2, first full paragraph which teaches neem and bael in combination).
As to claim 13, Singh teaches amino acids may also be included (page 644, column 2, third paragraph) and generally discloses water carrier which is a liquid carrier.
All required features of claims 22 and 23 have been addressed above, and optional components are interpreted as not required to meet the claim.
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 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 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Singh” (“Sing, Aditya Kumar et al.; “Efficacy of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) and Bael (Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa) Leaf Extracts as Biofertilizers in Cultivation of Mung Plant (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek), Neptjournal, 6 January 2018, pages 1-6; XP055850802).
Claim 1 is drawn to a biostimulant plant treatment composition comprising Aegie marmelos leaf particulate and/or an extract thereof. Claim 1 further recites product-by-process language regarding an extract component named in the alternative, however the product-by-process language is not determined to further limit the requisite structural components. “And/or” as recited throughout the claims is interpreted to allow for the combination referenced or a single entity referenced, in the alternative.
Singh teaches aqueous extracts of aegle marmelos (bael) leaves as biofertilizers/biostimulants. As to claim 5, since the product is taught as outlined above, Singh teaches the product claimed since product-by-process claims are not limited to manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Singh teaches leaf extracts in water (see page 644, column 1, “preparation of leaf extracts”)(limitation of claims 7 and 27) in combination with ground leaves (“leaf particulate”)(limitation of claim 8). As to claim 12, Singh teaches neem may be included to not only restrict pest infestation but also improve crop yield and enhance various nutritional status of soil thereby functioning as a biostimulant in accordance with the definition provided in [0013] of the specification as filed (see page 643, column 2; see also page 644 column 2, first full paragraph which teaches neem and bael in combination). As to claim 13, Singh teaches amino acids may also be included (page 644, column 2, third paragraph) and generally discloses water carrier which is a liquid carrier. All required features of claims 22 and 23 have been addressed above, and optional components are interpreted as not required to meet the claim.
Regarding claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 22, 23, and 27, it is established that when a reference anticipates an invention, it necessarily renders such invention obvious as well. Anticipation is the “epitome of Obviousness”, In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
Further regarding claim 10, Singh teaches preparation of a leaf extract wherein 100 g of the leaves were taken and soaked in distilled water then ground with 400 mL of distilled water (see page 644, column 1, “Preparation of leaf extracts”). While Singh does not teach a weight percent of extract the same as the range instantly claimed, Singh’s leaf extract appears to teach a range overlapping the instantly claimed range by its teaching of 100 g leaves per 400 g water to produce an extract product for subsequent filtration.
Further regarding claim 29, Singh teaches a process in which the leaves are ground with water then filtered. Singh does not specify the size of particles resulting from the leaves being ground, however it is the examiner’s position that grinding a particulate to a small size overlapping the instantly claimed range of having a greatest dimension of no more than 100 nm is a result-effective variable, which one would have been motivated to optimize as is customary in the art. Specifically, it would have been obvious to grind in accordance with Singh’s teaching to a small, nanometer scale size as claimed the leaves for extraction into solution. One would have been motivated to do so because such a relatively fine grind would have been reasonably expected to produce a higher yield of leaf content into solution than a relatively larger grind size.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh” (“Sing, Aditya Kumar et al.; “Efficacy of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) and Bael (Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa) Leaf Extracts as Biofertilizers in Cultivation of Mung Plant (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek), Neptjournal, 6 January 2018, pages 1-6; XP055850802) as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 27, and 29 above, and further in view of Mohan et al. (“Evaluation of the Anti-Inflammatory Activity of Hydroalcoholic Extract of Aegle Marmelos Leaves”, Asian Journal of Phytomedicine and Clinical Research 1(2), 2013, 109-115, provided in IDS dated 7/21/2023).
The teachings of Singh have been delineated above. Singh does not teach at least 100 mg of Aegle marmelos leaf particulate per liter composition.
Mohan cures this deficiency. Mohan teaches a composition which is an extract of Aegle marmelos leaves in alcohol and water such as 50 g of extract in 250 mL hydroalcohol. Accordingly, Mohan teaches a range included by and overlapping the instantly claimed range.
Both Singh and Mohan are directed to Aegle marmelos leaves in solution and/or as an extract. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the concentration of mass per unit volume exemplified by Mohan in the generically disclosed products of Singh, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to provide activity in a stable and solution as taught by Mohan.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh” (“Sing, Aditya Kumar et al.; “Efficacy of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) and Bael (Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa) Leaf Extracts as Biofertilizers in Cultivation of Mung Plant (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek), Neptjournal, 6 January 2018, pages 1-6; XP055850802) as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 27, and 29 above, and further in view of CN104887723 (hereafter, “Zhu”).
The teachings of Singh have been delineated above. Singh does not teach extraction using a deep eutectic solvent or a composition comprising a deep eutectic solvent as in claim 9.
Zhu cures this deficiency. Zhu teaches a method for extracting flavonoids compounds from a ginko leaf using a low eutectic solvent as an extracting agent, water as a diluent, etc. Zhu teaches that the advantage of this method of extracting from plant leaves a desired extract include using an extracting agent which is not an explosive, no volatilization, small loss, low energy consumption, simple and convenient operation, efficiency, and similar desirable process benefits (see abstract, in particular).
Both Singh and Zhu are directed to methods of extracting from plant leaves a plant extract. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the deep eutectic solvent itself in an deep eutectic solvent extraction method as taught by Zhu for the extraction of neem and bael extracts as in Singh, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so since Zhu teaches many process benefits including ability to use water as a diluent alongside safe and low- or no-volatility processes having efficient steps with regard to energy use as well as yields.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh” (“Sing, Aditya Kumar et al.; “Efficacy of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) and Bael (Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa) Leaf Extracts as Biofertilizers in Cultivation of Mung Plant (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek), Neptjournal, 6 January 2018, pages 1-6; XP055850802) as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10 12, 13, 22, 23, 27, and 29 above, and further in view of US 2016/0183532A1 (hereafter “Taghavi”).
The teachings of Singh have been delineated above. Singh does not teach packaging as in claim 24.
Taghavi cures this deficiency. Taghavi teaches compositions for benefiting plant growth for administration to plants, seeds, soil, or growth medium surrounding plants or seeds. Taghavi teaches that a product may be provided wherein functional, active-agent-containing formulations are packaged in suitable amounts to benefit plant growth, along with instructions for delivery to a plant such as to a growth medium (see [0010]). Accordingly, Taghavi teaches the state of the art with regard to plant growth formulations and methods of storing and delivering benefit formulations.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize Taghavi’s package for supplying the formulations of Singh for plant benefits. One would have been motivated to do so for storage and delivery convenience based on Taghavi’s suggestion.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh” (“Sing, Aditya Kumar et al.; “Efficacy of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) and Bael (Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa) Leaf Extracts as Biofertilizers in Cultivation of Mung Plant (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek), Neptjournal, 6 January 2018, pages 1-6; XP055850802) as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 22, 23, 27, and 29 above, and further in view of WO2016185379A1 (Manfredini et al.; hereafter “Manfredini”).
The teachings of Singh have been delineated above. Singh does not teach a substrate component as instantly claimed. Manfredini cures this deficiency.
Manfredini teaches hydroxyapatite as a carrier of nutritional elements and vegetal extracts for treating plants (see title, in particular). Manfredini teaches hydroxyapatite as a carrier (i.e., loaded with) bioactive substances chosen from those including extracts of vegetal origin (see last paragraph on page 3). The vegetal extracts loaded onto said carrier are intended for treating plants preferably for the phytosanitary and/or nutritional treatment of plants (see page 4, lines 17-19 in particular). Manfredini teaches that the vegetal extract may be used in the form of a powder or a hydroalcoholic solution (see Manfredini claim 4)
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use Manfredini’s carrier substrate onto which to load Singh’s vegetal extract product, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to treat plants as generally taught by Manfredini and using the particular plant treatment/biostimulant specified for the benefits of Singh.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh” (“Sing, Aditya Kumar et al.; “Efficacy of Neem (Azadirachta indica A. Juss) and Bael (Aegle marmelos (L.) Correa) Leaf Extracts as Biofertilizers in Cultivation of Mung Plant (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek), Neptjournal, 6 January 2018, pages 1-6; XP055850802) as applied to claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10 12, 13, 22, 23, 27, and 29 above, and further in view of HU66789T (hereafter, “Bihatsi” et al.; translation of abstract enclosed).
The teachings of Singh have been delineated above. Singh does not teach the inclusion of a silicon species as claimed. Bihatsi cures this deficiency.
Bihatsi teaches a biostimulating aqueous solution for increasing crop yields. The biostimulant includes a silicone-organic component in particular and is applied to increase crop yields.
Both Singh and Bihatsi are directed to aqueous compositions for increasing plant yields. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add a silicone component as taught by Bihatsi to the formulations of Singh, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so for expected increased efficacy and also because Bihatsi teaches that the silicone-organic biostimulant in particular biodegrades and desirably leaves no deposits and no undesirable accumulation in the soil after 2-3 weeks post application to crops (see abstract, translation).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617