DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The new grounds of rejection set forth below are necessitated by applicant’s amendment filed on 4/20/2026. In particular, claim 1 has been amended to include a particle size. Additionally, new claims 19 and 20 have been added. This presents the claims in a manner with a scope not previously examined. Thus, the following action is properly made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leiva-Vega, Food and Bioproducts Processing 121 (2020) 65–75.
Leiva-Vega teaches a tertiary emulsion containing gum arabic, gelatin, curcumin, and tannic acid (pg. 66-67) where the mean diameter of the suspended particles in the emulsion is 470 nm (Table 1, pg. 72). Gelatin is a biopolymer (abstract) and gum Arabic is a polysaccharide (pg. 66) both of which meet the claimed ‘polymeric stabilizer’. As each layer of the particles are formed with a polymer (pg. 66) the components are ‘captured’ in the polymers and meets the limitations of claim 1.
Curcumin is an active ingredient and a polyphenol and meets the limitations of claims 2-3, 5-6.
Tannic acid is a polyphenol and a phenolic acid and meets the limitations of claims 7-9.
Gum arabic and gelatin are both biodegradable and hydrophilic polymers and thus meet claim 10.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-10, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shen, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 1030−1036.
Shen teaches polyacrylate articles in controlled release fertilizers (abstract) where iron, tannic acid and polyacrylate were blended (pg. 1031) which would result in the iron and tannic acid being in the polymer matrix. Shen teaches examples where the particle size formed includes 306 nm and 433 nm (Table 1) which meet the claimed range. Iron is an inorganic micronutrient ion and meets the active ingredient and fertilizer limitations. Tannic acid is a polyphenol and meets the limitations of claims 7-9. Polyacrylate is a polymeric stabilizer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbas, Lat. Am. J. Pharm. 39 (12): 2536-44 (2020) in view of Leiva-Vega, Food and Bioproducts Processing 121 (2020) 65–75.
Abbas teaches nanoparticles derived from gelatin and polyacrylic acid having oxytetracycline present (abstract) where the nanoparticles had a diameter of around 190-730 nm (abstract).
Abbas does not expressly recite using a polyphenol such as tannic acid.
However, Leiva-Vega teaches a tertiary emulsion containing gum arabic, gelatin, curcumin, and tannic acid (pg. 66-67) where the mean diameter of the suspended particles in the emulsion is 470 nm (Table 1, pg. 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tannic acid because it interacts with macromolecules through H-bond interactions and can act as a crosslinking agent and thereby increase physical stability and antioxidant activity (pg. 66).
Oxytetracycline is an active ingredient which is a polyphenol and pesticide and meets claims 2-4.
Tannic acid is a polyphenol and a phenolic acid and meets the limitations of claims 7-9.
PAA is a hydrophilic polymer and meets claim 10.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SadguruPrasad, IET Nanobiotechnology, 2017, Vol. 11 Iss. 1, pp. 119-126 in view of Leiva-Vega, Food and Bioproducts Processing 121 (2020) 65–75.
SadguruPrasad teaches oxytetracycline loaded PMMA nanoparticles (abstract) where the nanoparticles have a diameter of 190-240 nm (abstract). SadguruPrasad teaches the oxytetracycline is present in the polymer matrix (pg. 122) and meets the limitation ‘captured’.
SadguruPrasad does not expressly recite a polyphenol such as tannic acid is present.
SadguruPrasad does not expressly recite using a polyphenol such as tannic acid.
However, Leiva-Vega teaches a tertiary emulsion containing gum arabic, gelatin, curcumin, and tannic acid (pg. 66-67) where the mean diameter of the suspended particles in the emulsion is 470 nm (Table 1, pg. 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use tannic acid because it interacts with macromolecules through H-bond interactions and can act as a crosslinking agent and thereby increase physical stability and antioxidant activity (pg. 66).
Oxytetracycline is an active ingredient which is a polyphenol and pesticide and meets claims 2-4.
Tannic acid is a polyphenol and a phenolic acid and meets the limitations of claims 7-9.
PMMA is a hydrophobic polymer and meets claim 10.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO 2019/137005).
Liu teaches a tannic acid/polyvinyl pyrrolidone nanoparticles loaded with curcumin (¶74-76). Tannic acid is a polyphenol component and meets the limitations of claims 7-9. Curcumin is a polyphenol compound and meets the limitations of claims 3 and 5. Polyvinyl pyrrolidone is a hydrophilic polymer and meets the limitations of claim 10. As the nanoparticles are loaded with curcumin (¶ 74-76), the active ingredient (curcumin) is ‘captured’ in the chemical matrix of the tannic acid/polyvinyl pyrrolidone nanoparticles. As the compounds are molecules, the composition is an intermolecularly fabricated composition.
Curcumin is an agrochemical and meets the limitations of claim 2. Curcumin is a food flavoring compound and meets the limitations of claims 2 and 6.
Liu teaches the nanoparticles have a diameter of 30-150 nm (¶ 30) which overlaps the claimed range. It is well settled that where prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See MPEP 2144.05; In re Harris, 409, F3.d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). In light of the cited patent case law, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a range within the claimed range because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art and Liu suggests the particle diameter. A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use the claimed amount, based on the teachings of Liu. See MPEP 2123.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Ersan have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s argument with regards to Liu are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liu fails to disclose the claimed particle size. However, Liu teaches the nanoparticles have a diameter of 30-150 nm (¶ 30) which overlaps the claimed range.
Applicant argues that particle size is not a routine operation. This is not persuasive because Liu explicitly teaches a range which overlaps the claimed range. It appears that Applicant is arguing that the range taught by Liu is not enabled which is not persuasive. See MPEP 2121.01. Additionally, forming different particle sizes is within the skill of those in the art as evidenced by the references discussed above. The examples in the reference are preferred embodiments and a preferred embodiment is not controlling, rather, all disclosures “including unpreferred embodiments” must be considered. See MPEP 2123 and In re Lamberti 192 USPQ 278, 280 (CCPA 1976) citing In re Mills 176 USPQ 196 (CCPA 1972).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ROBERT C BOYLE whose telephone number is (571)270-7347. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 10am-4pm.
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, Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/ROBERT C BOYLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights