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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claim 13, in the reply filed on 10/14/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-12 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/14/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
An information disclosure statement was filed on 03/23/2023.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 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.
Claim 13 is 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.
In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988) determined that factors which enable an invention. These are:
(A) The breadth of the claims;
The instant claims set out e method of inhibiting , preventing and treating bacterial, viral, and fungal infections of plants.
(B) The nature of the invention;
The composition is used for its antimicrobial activity in plant diseases.
(C) The state of the prior art;
The art of treating plants for antimicrobial infections has been done since the early days of agriculture,
(D) The level of one of ordinary skill;
The ordinary practitioner is either a PhD in agricultural scence.
(E) The level of predictability in the art;
As with any infection, plant response to medication is not always predictable. This is especially the case for fungal and viral infections.
(F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor;
No direction is given as to treatment protocols, dosage or frequency.
(G) The existence of working examples;
There are no working examples on the treatment of plants beyond .
(H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
Because each response is unique to the specific infections, each one must be evaluated by carefully step by step as to dosage, frequency, plant reaction, and efficacy. This involves painstaking, undue experimentation to determine what is efficacious, what if any side effects such as skin irritation, and frequency of administration.
The claim for inhibition, prevention, and treatment is not enabled by the original specification.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for cinnamaldehyde, citronella, and oxytetracycline, does not reasonably provide enablement for all bioactives. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
Review of the specification finds that the application only supports cinnamaldehyde, citronella, and oxytetracycline as shown in Example 10 as the antimicrobial agents for use in the treatment of plants. Clarification is requested.
Claim 13 is 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.
The term “conditioned water” is not defined in the original specification and does not have support. Clarification I requested.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 13 depends on Claim 1 , which sets out “conditioned water”. This term has no standard definition in the art except that it has been treated, but applicant does not set out how water is treated to obtained the conditioned product. Clarification is requested .
Claim 13 is also indefinite in the use of the phrase “including fruit and seed thereof”, which makes the metes and bounds of the claim indefinite. Correction is requested.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
US PG-PUB 20110318406 (Eley) is cited for the use of interest in using liposomes similar to those claimed in various applications as listed from [0089] – [0094], such as a nutritional supplement.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS A AZPURU whose telephone number is (571)272-0588. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am- 3 pm, 4 pm-8pm.
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 X 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.
/CARLOS A AZPURU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617 caz