DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 7-9, 13, 15, and 17-21 were amended. Claim 6 was canceled. No new material was added.
The previous rejections of claim 6 are moot, because the claim was canceled.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous objections to the claims and specification, and the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 9, 13, 19, and 21.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to the amendment.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 16-22), filed 02/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 3-7, and 10 over Connick; claims 1-8 and 13 over Sieverding; and claims 9, 11-12, and 14-21 over Sieverding and Tanaka have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendment. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Connick, Sieverding, and Tanaka.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 with regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (Remarks, pages 14-15). Applicant argues that “a lipid derivative”, “a hydrocarbon derivative”, “an alcohol derivative”, “a sterol derivative”, “a soap derivative”, “a saponin derivative”, and “a flavone derivative are not unclear, because the examples do not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how far one can deviate from the parent compounds without the “derivative” being so far removed therefrom as to be considered a different compound.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. PRO 63/394,353, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claim 9, there is no support for water being present in approximately 45.2%.
Regarding claim 17, there is no support for polydimethylsiloxane.
Regarding claim 21, there is no support for polydimethylsiloxane.
Claims 9, 17, and 21 are considered to have an effective filing date of 07/19/2023.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are considered to have an effective filing date of 08/02/2022.
New 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 1-5 and 7-21 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “derivative” is a relative term which render the claim indefinite. The term “derivative” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how far one can deviate from the parent compounds without the “derivative” being so far removed therefrom as to be considered a different compound.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 8, 10, 12-13, 15 and 17, each claim is dependent on the rejected claim 1 and does not cure its deficiencies and therefore are deficient for the same reasons above.
New 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connick (US 4401456 A), further in view of Sieverding (US 20070213226 A1). The references were cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Connick teaches alginate beads for the controlled release of bioactive materials (i.e., active ingredients; Connick, abstract), which can be pesticides in the form of liquids (Connick, column 4, lines 12-19). Connick teaches the controlled release material can act as a carrier (Connick, column 6, line 29), and teaches the bead containing the bioactive material (i.e., the non-aqueous carrier and active ingredient together) has a bead (i.e., particle) size of 0.1-6 mm (i.e., 100-6000 micrometers; Connick, column 3, lines 35-37), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Connick teaches the beads are made to sink and provide a controlled release of the bioactive material in aqueous environments (Connick, abstract), in order to kill submerged aquatic weeds (Connick, column 6, lines 33-35) suggesting the formulation is for use in a body of water and that the active ingredient would sink in the body of water as claimed.
Connick does not specifically teach a non-aqueous carrier from the claimed list, but teaches it may be desirable to add additives to the beads such as surfactants to alter the rate of release of the bioactive material (Connick, columns 5-6). Sieverding teaches agrochemical compositions comprising one or more active ingredients and polysiloxanes (Sieverding, abstract), which can be formulated as a liquid pesticide (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0136), and teaches the active ingredient can be mixed with inorganic solid carriers (i.e., a non-aqueous carrier; Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0112). Sieverding teaches its common practice to use surfactants in pesticide formulations (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104), and teaches surfactants to include alkyl glucosides (i.e., glycerol-modified hydrocarbons which are suitable non-aqueous carriers as defined by the instant claim 7; Sieverding, claim 6).
Connick and Sieverding are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Connick, Sieverding, and the instant invention are in the same field of pesticide formulations. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Connick to include the specific surfactant of Sieverding in the carrier, because Connick teaches it may be desirable to add additives to the beads such as surfactants to alter the rate of release of the bioactive material (Connick, columns 5-6), while Sieverding teaches its common practice to use surfactants in pesticide formulations (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104) and teaches a hydrocarbon derivative as claimed to be a known surfactant used.
Regarding claim 2, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Sieverding further teaches the formulation can be a wettable powder wherein the carrier can be suspended in a liquid (Sieverding, page 7, paragraph 0114), and further teaches solid carriers can include siloxanes (i.e., a polymer; Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0113). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Connick to include a polymer as taught by Sieverding, because Connick teaches it may be desirable to add additives to the beads such as surfactants to alter the rate of release of the bioactive material (Connick, columns 5-6), while Sieverding teaches its common practice to use surfactants in pesticide formulations (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104) and teaches polysiloxanes as known surfactants (Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0105).
Regarding claim 3, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Connick teaches the bioactive material can be pesticides (Connick, column 4, lines 12-13). Sieverding further teaches the active ingredient can be a pesticide (Sieverding, page 4, paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 4, Connick teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Connick teaches the bioactive material can be algicides (Connick, column 4, lines 12-14). Sieverding further teaches the active ingredient can be a pesticide which is an algicide (Sieverding, page 4, paragraph 0082).
Regarding claim 5, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Connick teaches the bioactive material can be endothall (Connick, column 4, line 45). Sieverding further teaches the active ingredient can be endothall (Sieverding, page 4, paragraph 0084).
Regarding claim 7, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 6. As above, Connick does not specifically teach a non-aqueous carrier from the claimed list, but teaches it may be desirable to add additives to the beads such as surfactants to alter the rate of release of the bioactive material (Connick, columns 5-6). Sieverding teaches surfactants to include alkyl glucosides (i.e., glycerol-modified hydrocarbons; Sieverding, claim 6). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Connick to include the specific surfactant of Sieverding in the carrier, because Connick teaches it may be desirable to add additives to the beads such as surfactants to alter the rate of release of the bioactive material (Connick, columns 5-6), while Sieverding teaches its common practice to use surfactants in pesticide formulations (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104) and teaches a hydrocarbon derivative as claimed to be a known surfactant used.
Regarding claim 8, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Connick does not specify the beads are suspended in water, but does teach the beads are added to water (Connick, column 9, lines 11-12). Sieverding teaches a formulation which is a water-dispersible granule (i.e., the granule can be suspended in water; Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0110) and teaches granules are admixtures of the active ingredients and solid carrier particles (i.e., the active ingredients and the plurality of particles of the non-aqueous carrier are suspended in water; Sieverding, page 7, paragraph 0115). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Connick to be a water-dispersible granule taught by Sieverding, because Connick teaches a granular formulation as a controlled release formulation (Connick, column 6, lines 7-21), and Sieverding teaches water-dispersible granules to be a known formulation used for pesticides (Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0110).
Regarding claim 10, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Connick teaches the beads are made to sink and provide a controlled release of the bioactive material in aqueous environments (Connick, abstract), in order to kill submerged aquatic weeds (Connick, column 6, lines 33-35) suggesting the active ingredient would accumulate in a bottom of water as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Connick teaches controlled release as the dispensing of active ingredients into the environment over a period of time (Connick, column 6, lines 7-9), but does not specify the purpose as claimed. Sieverding teaches formulations for controlled release (Sieverding, page 7, paragraph 0117) and teaches the use of drift control agents as common practice in the art (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the composition such that the controlled release formulation reduces off-site drift. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the formulation of Connick as taught by Sieverding, because both are formulated for a similar purpose.
Claims 9, 11-12, and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Connick (US 4401456 A) and Sieverding (US 20070213226 A1) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-8 10, and 13, further in view of Tanaka (JP 2019099569 A).
Regarding claim 9, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Sieverding does not specify a carrier which is tall oil, but does teach an active ingredient which can be fluridone (Sieverding, page 4, paragraph 0084), additives which include calcium carbonate (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0130, and the use of additional antifoams (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104). Sieverding further teaches a typical formulation can comprise 1-50% by weight of the active ingredient (Sieverding, page 7, paragraph 0116), which includes the claimed weight of an active ingredient; and teaches additives and carriers in amounts of from 0.5-99.5% (Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0111), which includes the claimed amounts of each additional component. Sieverding teaches typical formulations within these ranges to be used for biological testing which serves to guide the formulator in preparing the most effective formulations (Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0111), suggesting routine experimentation is necessary. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § (II)(A).
Tanaka teaches an agrochemical composition comprising an active ingredient which can be fluridone (Tanaka, page 5, 5th paragraph), an antifoaming agent which can be tall oil (Tanaka, page 10, 5th paragraph), a polymer which can be xanthan gum (Tanaka, page 9, 10th paragraph), and 1-90% of calcium carbonate (Tanaka, claim 6), which includes the claimed amount.
Connick, Sieverding, and Tanaka are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Connick, Sieverding, Tanaka, and the instant invention are in the same field of pesticide formulations. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Connick and Sieverding to utilize the antifoam agent of Tanaka, because Sieverding teaches the use of an antifoam which would be known to one in the art to help reduce foam (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104), and Tanaka teaches tall oil as a specific antifoaming agent (Tanaka, page 10, 5th paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Connick and Sieverding do not specify an active ingredient which is ethylenediamine chelated copper or a carrier which is potassium polyacrylate, but Connick teaches a bactericide (Connick, column 4, line 14) and the addition of surfactants (Connick, column 5, line 48), and Sieverding teaches an active ingredient which is a bactericide (Sieverding, claim 2) and the use of a surfactant such as ammonium polyacrylate (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0134). Tanaka teaches a bactericidal ingredient which is a bisethylenediamine copper salt complex (i.e., ethylenediamine chelated copper; Tanaka, page 7, 1st paragraph) and teaches a polymer which is an alkali metal or ammonium salt of polyacrylate (Tanaka, page 7, 4th paragraph). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Connick and Sieverding to include the copper complex as a bactericide, because Sieverding does not specify a bactericide, while Tanaka teaches the claimed compound to be a preferable bactericidal agent (Tanaka, page 7, 1st paragraph). It would have been obvious to substitute an alkali metal salt such as potassium in place of the ammonium salt taught by Sieverding, because Tanaka teaches these compounds to be reasonable alternatives.
Regarding claim 12, Connick, Sieverding, and Tanaka together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. Sieverding teaches it is common practice to add antifoams (i.e., antifoaming agents) to the pesticide formulation (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 14, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Sieverding does not specify a carrier which is tall oil, but does teach an active ingredient which can be fluridone (Sieverding, page 4, paragraph 0084), and additives which include calcium carbonate (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0130), and the use of additional antifoams (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104). Tanaka teaches an agrochemical composition comprising an active ingredient which can be fluridone (Tanaka, page 5, 5th paragraph), an antifoaming agent which can be tall oil (Tanaka, page 10, 5th paragraph), and calcium carbonate (Tanaka, claim 6). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Connick and Sieverding to utilize the antifoam agent of Tanaka, because Sieverding teaches the use of an antifoam which would be known to one in the art to help reduce foam (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104), and Tanaka teaches tall oil as a specific antifoaming agent (Tanaka, page 10, 5th paragraph).
Regarding claim 15, Connick, Sieverding, and Tanaka together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 14. As above, Sieverding teaches the addition antifoams (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104).
Regarding claim 16, Connick and Sieverding together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Sieverding does not specify a carrier which is potassium polyacrylate, but does teach an active ingredient which is endothall (Sieverding, page 4, paragraph 0084) and the use of a surfactant such as ammonium polyacrylate (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0134). Tanaka teaches a polymer which is an alkali metal or ammonium salt of polyacrylate (Tanaka, page 7, 4th paragraph). It would have been obvious to substitute an alkali metal salt such as potassium in place of the ammonium salt taught by Sieverding, because Tanaka teaches these compounds to be reasonable alternatives.
Regarding claim 17, Connick, Sieverding, and Tanaka together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 16. Sieverding teaches a formulation comprising xanthan gum (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0128).
Regarding claim 18, Connick teaches alginate beads for the controlled release of bioactive materials (i.e., active ingredients; Connick, abstract), which can be pesticides in the form of liquids (Connick, column 4, lines 12-19). Connick teaches the controlled release material can act as a carrier (Connick, column 6, line 29), and teaches the bead containing the bioactive material (i.e., the non-aqueous carrier and active ingredient together) has a bead (i.e., particle) size of 0.1-6 mm (i.e., 100-6000 micrometers; Connick, column 3, lines 35-37), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Connick teaches the beads are made to sink and provide a controlled release of the bioactive material in aqueous environments (Connick, abstract), in order to kill submerged aquatic weeds (i.e., aquatic macrophytes; Connick, column 6, lines 33-35) suggesting the formulation is for use in a body of water and should sink and accumulate at the sediment-water interface as claimed.
Sieverding teaches agrochemical compositions comprising one or more active ingredients (Sieverding, abstract). Sieverding further teaches the composition can be formulated as a liquid pesticide (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0136), and teaches the active ingredient can be mixed with inorganic solid carriers (i.e., a non-aqueous carrier) with an average particle size of less than 45 micrometers (Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0112), which overlaps the claimed size range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Sieverding teaches the formulation can be in granules (i.e., pellets; Sieverding, page 7, paragraph 0115) and that the solid composition can be used in a spray tank mix (i.e., the mix is sprayable; Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0136).
Connick and Sieverding do not specify an active ingredient which is ethylenediamine chelated copper or a carrier which is potassium polyacrylate, but do teach an active ingredient which is a bactericide (Connick, column 4, line 14; Sieverding, claim 2) and Sieverding further teaches the use of a surfactant such as ammonium polyacrylate (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0134).
Tanaka teaches a bactericidal ingredient which is a bisethylenediamine copper salt complex (i.e., ethylenediamine chelated copper; Tanaka, page 7, 1st paragraph) and teaches a polymer which is an alkali metal or ammonium salt of polyacrylate (Tanaka, page 7, 4th paragraph). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Connick and Sieverding to include the copper complex as a bactericide, because Connick and Sieverding do not specify a bactericide, while Tanaka teaches the claimed compound to be a preferable bactericidal agent (Tanaka, page 7, 1st paragraph). It would have been obvious to substitute an alkali metal salt such as potassium in place of the ammonium salt taught by Sieverding, because Tanaka teaches these compounds to be reasonable alternatives.
Regarding claim 19, Connick, Sieverding, and Tanaka together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 18. Sieverding teaches a formulation comprising water in 1-90% by weight (Sieverding, page 9, paragraph 0140), which encompasses the claimed range. Sieverding teaches the use of additional antifoams (Sieverding, page 5, paragraph 0104). Sieverding further teaches a typical formulation can comprise 1-50% by weight of the active ingredient (Sieverding, page 7, paragraph 0116), which includes the claimed weight of an active ingredient; and teaches additives and carriers in amounts of from 0.5-99.5% (Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0111), which includes the claimed amounts of each additional component. Sieverding teaches typical formulations within these ranges to be used for biological testing with serves to guide the formulator in preparing the most effective formulations (Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0111), suggesting routine experimentation is necessary. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § (II)(A).
As above, Sieverding does not teach ethylenediamine chelated copper or potassium polyacrylate, but Sieverding but does teach an active ingredient which is a bactericide (Sieverding, claim 2) and the use of a surfactant such as ammonium polyacrylate (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0134). Tanaka teaches a bactericidal ingredient which is a bisethylenediamine copper salt complex (i.e., ethylenediamine chelated copper; Tanaka, page 7, 1st paragraph) and teaches a polymer which is an alkali metal or ammonium salt of polyacrylate (Tanaka, page 7, 4th paragraph). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Connick and Sieverding to include the copper complex as a bactericide, because Connick and Sieverding do not specify a bactericide, while Tanaka teaches the claimed compound to be a preferable bactericidal agent (Tanaka, page 7, 1st paragraph). It would have been obvious to substitute an alkali metal salt such as potassium in place of the ammonium salt taught by Sieverding, because Tanaka teaches these compounds to be reasonable alternatives.
Regarding claim 20, Connick teaches alginate beads for the controlled release of bioactive materials (i.e., active ingredients; Connick, abstract), which can be pesticides in the form of liquids (Connick, column 4, lines 12-19). Connick teaches the controlled release material can act as a carrier (Connick, column 6, line 29), and teaches the bead containing the bioactive material (i.e., the non-aqueous carrier and active ingredient together) has a bead (i.e., particle) size of 0.1-6 mm (i.e., 100-6000 micrometers; Connick, column 3, lines 35-37), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Connick teaches the bioactive material can be endothall (Connick, column 4, line 45). Connick teaches the beads are made to sink and provide a controlled release of the bioactive material in aqueous environments (Connick, abstract), in order to kill submerged aquatic weeds (i.e., aquatic macrophytes; Connick, column 6, lines 33-35) suggesting the formulation is for use in a body of water and should sink and accumulate at the sediment-water interface as claimed.
Sieverding teaches agrochemical compositions comprising one or more active ingredients (Sieverding, abstract). Sieverding further teaches the composition can be formulated as a liquid pesticide (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0136), and teaches the active ingredient can be mixed with inorganic solid carriers (i.e., a non-aqueous carrier) with an average particle size of less than 45 micrometers (Sieverding, page 6, paragraph 0112), which overlaps the claimed size range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Sieverding teaches the active ingredient can be endothall (Sieverding, page 4, paragraph 0084).
Connick and Sieverding do not specify a carrier which is potassium polyacrylate, but Sieverding does teach the use of a surfactant such as ammonium polyacrylate (Sieverding, page 8, paragraph 0134). Tanaka teaches a polymer which is an alkali metal or ammonium salt of polyacrylate (Tanaka, page 7, 4th paragraph). It would have been obvious to substitute an alkali metal salt such as potassium in place of the ammonium salt taught by Sieverding, because Tanaka teaches these compounds to be reasonable alternatives.
Regarding claim 21, Connick, Sieverding, and Tanaka together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 20. Connick exemplifies a formulation comprising 40.3% endothall dipotassium salt (i.e., an endothall; Connick, column 9, example 12) and teaches the bioactive material by weight % (Connick, column 4, lines 58-60). Connick teaches the addition of gums, such as xanthan gum, to an alginate/bioactive material/water mixture (Connick, column 5, lines 45-50), suggesting both water and xanthan gum as ingredients in the formulation.
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 CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 ET.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights