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 .
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 Status
Applicant’s amendment of 01/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 10 are amended, and claim 6 is cancelled. Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
An election of invention/species was required in the instant application as detailed in the Office action dated 07/25/2025. The election is maintained and claim 10 remains withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-5 and 7-9 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/CN2021/073092 filed on 01/21/2021 as
reflected in the filing receipt dated on 09/14/2023.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has overcome the previous objection to the claim. Thus, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancellation of claim 6 has rendered moot the previous 112(b) rejection. Thus, the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites the limitation "Gel Permeation Chromatography", which is
inappropriately capitalized and should read "gel permeation chromatography".
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered. While Applicant corrected the capitalization of “Gel Permeation Chromatography” in claims 1 and 10, the capitalization error remains uncorrected in claim 4. Accordingly, the objection regarding claim 4 is maintained.
The following grounds of rejection have been revised to reflect Applicant’s amendment to the claims and cancellation of previous claim 6. The rationale supporting the rejections has not been modified.
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 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Israels et al. (WO2012168210A1; published: 12/13/2012; PTO-892 of instant action) in view of Wang et al. (CN103210906A; published: 07/24/2013; PTO-892 of instant action) and of Ryan et al. (Material Solutions, p. 1-16; published: 1999; PTO-892 of 07/25/2025) and as evidenced by Agilent Technologies (An Introduction to Gel Permeation Chromatography and Size Exclusion Chromatography, p. 1-32; published 04/30/2015; PTO-892 of instant action) and ASTM International (Designation: D7028 – 07, p. 1-3; published: 08/2015; PTO-892 of instant action).
Regarding claim 1, Israels teaches a seed dressing formulation aid, which reads on the instantly claimed seed coating composition, comprising a sticker and a silicon oil (Israels, claim 1), wherein the sticker is preferably an acrylate copolymer (Israels, page 4, lines 3-5), which reads on the instantly claimed acrylate-based polymer, and the silicon oil is preferably a polydimethylsiloxane oil (Israels, page 2, line 29), which reads on the instantly claimed polydimethylsiloxane.
Israels does not teach wherein the acrylate-based polymer is silane-functionalized and is silent as to the molecular weight of the polydimethylsiloxane.
The teachings of Wang and Ryan cure these deficiencies.
Wang teaches an organosilicon-modified high-molecular compound as a seed coating film-forming agent having the general formula (I) shown below (Wang, claim 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
148
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein X is selected from one or more of the following groups, of which several are acrylate-based monomers (Wang, claim 1):
PNG
media_image2.png
449
705
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
In multiple preferred embodiments, the organosilicon monomer is vinyltrimethoxysilane (Wang, paragraphs 0069, 0077, 0109, 0117, and 0125).
Ryan teaches that the properties of polydimethylsiloxanes can be manipulated by varying the number of repeating units, which at ultra-high molecular weights (UHMWs) approach one million (Ryan, page 3, paragraph 2). For example, at sufficiently high molecular weight, the siloxane polymer will form a stable dispersion even when incompatible with an organic polymer (Ryan, page 5, paragraph 2) by entangling with the polymer at the interface between the polymer molecules and a surface (Ryan, page 13, paragraph 2).
Regarding the silane-functionalized polymer recited in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acrylate copolymer of Israels by further including an organosilicon monomer, such as the vinyltrimethoxysilane of Wang, in order to impart desirable properties to the seed dressing formulation aid, including: enhanced water resistance, permeability, coating uniformity, gloss, and color brightness, which are enabled by the organosilicon structure (Wang, paragraph 0050).
Regarding the molecular weight of the polydimethylsiloxane recited in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manipulate the weight average molecular weight of the polydimethylsiloxane in the seed dressing formulation aid taught by the combination of Israels and Wang, using 1 million g/mol, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range as measured, as a starting point for routine optimization as taught by Ryan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the molecular weight of the polydimethylsiloxane in order to achieve improved dispersion properties of the coating agent, particularly between the polymer molecules and the surface of the seed, as taught above by Ryan.
Regarding the limitation “as measured according to Gel Permeation Chromatography” recited in claim 1, the technique of gel permeation chromatography is routinely used in the art to measure the weight average molecular weight of polymers, as evidenced by Agilent Technologies (pages 9-10, “Calculations in GPC/SEC”). It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal molecular weight of the polydimethylsiloxane using conventional methods in the field.
Regarding the weight ratio recited in claims 1 and 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a weight ratio of 20:1 silane-functionalized polymer “sticker” to polydimethylsiloxane “silicon oil” (Israels, claim 6 and page 2, line 26), which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed ranges, as a starting point for routine optimization of the seed dressing formulation aid taught by the combination of Israels, Wang, and Ryan because Israels teaches this ratio results in suitable flowability of seeds and/or reduction of dust and/or production of a uniform distribution of seed dressing formulations (Israels, page 2, lines 4-11).
Regarding claim 2, the vinyltrimethoxysilane taught by the combination of Israels, Wang, and Ryan reads on the instantly claimed silane monomer.
Regarding claim 3, Israels teaches that preferred acrylate copolymers comprise: at least one comonomer a) chosen from the group of acrylic acid, methacrylic acid or acrylamide; at least one comonomer b) chosen from methyl methacrylate, methyl acrylate or styrene; and at least one comonomer c) chosen from n-butyl acrylate or 2-ethylhexyl acrylate, in polymerized form (Israels, page 6, lines 19-27, embodiment C-I). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could at once envisage a combination wherein comonomer a) comprises methacrylic acid; comonomer b) comprises methyl methacrylate and styrene; and comonomer c) comprises styrene, which when modified with the teachings of Wang as proposed above results in a silane-functionalized polymer. Note: MPEP 2131.02. A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Regarding the limitation “glacial methacrylic acid” recited in claim 3, because Israels does not indicate that the referenced methacrylic acid is diluted or impure, a person of skill in the art would conclude that glacial grade methacrylic acid was implemented in the methods of Israels.
Regarding claim 4, the weight average molecular weight of 1 million g/mol of the polydimethylsiloxane taught by the combination of Israels, Wang, and Ryan above lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range as measured.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a glass transition temperature between -45°C and +30°C (Israels, page 7, lines 23-24), which overlaps and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range as measured, as a starting point for routine optimization of the of the silane-functionalized polymer taught by the combination of Israels, Wang, and Ryan because Israels teaches this range is suitable for producing a sticker that ensures adequate adhesion of the agrochemical formulation to the seed (Israels, page 1, lines 18-24).
Regarding the limitation “as measured according to ASTM D7028”, the technique of ASTM D7028 is routinely used in the art to measure the glass transition temperature of polymer matrix composites, as evidenced by ASTM International (page 1, “Scope”). It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal glass transition temperature of the silane-functionalized polymer using conventional methods in the field.
Regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the seed dressing formulation aid taught by the combination of Israels, Wang, and Ryan, which comprises silicon oil, by further including water to form an emulsion because Israels teaches water is a preferred liquid carrier for the formulation (Israels, claim 3 and page 14, line 16) and emulsion formulation types are especially useful for seed treatment (Israels, page 15, lines 38-40).
Regarding claim 9, Israels teaches a method for treating seeds comprising contacting seeds with the seed dressing formulation aid (Israels, claim 9) to produce a coated seed (Israels, claim 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the seed dressing formulation aid taught by the combination of Israels, Wang, and Ryan to an exterior surface of a seed, thereby producing a coated seed, using the method taught by Israels in order to increase the flowability of seed and/or reduction of dust (Israels, claim 12).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the seed dressing formulation aid of Israels as proposed because Wang teaches compatibility of organosilicon monomers embedded in copolymers comprising methyl methacrylate, styrene, methacrylic acid, and butyl acrylate units (see general formula (I) of Wang, claim 1 above) for the purpose of producing a seed coating with good product flowability, and Ryan teaches that properties of polydimethylsiloxanes are routinely manipulated by varying the number of repeating units in the polymer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 01/16/2026 with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but were not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Israels does not teach that its acrylate polymers are silane-functionalized and does not teach or suggest using ultra-high-molecular-weight PDMS. This argument was not found to be persuasive. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Wang teaches that organosilicon monomers such as vinyltrimethoxysilane are known to impart desirable properties (e.g., enhanced water resistance, permeability, uniform coating, etc.) and are routinely combined with acrylate-based monomers to form seed coatings. Ryan teaches that PDMS having a high molecular weight of 1 million g/mol is known to improve dispersion properties of coating agents. Together, the prior art provides sufficient motivation to modify the composition of Israels, as well as a reasonable expectation that such modifications will enhance the properties of the seed coating composition.
Applicant further argues that the organosilicone-modified polymers of Wang are structurally distinct from Applicant’s silane-functionalized polymer. This argument was not found to be persuasive. Applicant’s instant specification clearly defines “silane-functionalized polymer” as a polymer that contains a silane (Page 4, lines 1-3). Because the cited references teach an acrylate copolymer containing vinyltrimethoxysilane, the prior art combination meets the claim limitation. It is further noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., location of silicon, function of silicon, backbone chemistry, film-forming mechanism) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, the Examiner respectfully points out that Applicant’s argument that Wang’s incorporation of organosilicone units within the polymer backbone or co-backbone is structurally distinct from Applicant’s silane-functionalized polymer is actually in direct contradiction with Applicant’s own disclosure. Applicant’s instant specification explicitly states, “Copolymer examples of the silane-functionalized polymer are formed from the copolymerization of the acrylate monomers and a silane monomer (such as a vinyl silane monomer) such that the silane monomer is incorporated into the backbone of the polymer” (emphasis added).
Applicant further argues that Wang contains no disclosure or suggestion of combining its organosilicone polymers with PDMS or adjusting their relative contents. This argument was not found to be persuasive. Again, the combined teachings of the prior art provide sufficient motivation to modify the composition of Israels as well as a reasonable expectation that such modifications will enhance the properties of the seed coating composition.
Applicant further argues that Ryan does not provide any teaching about seed coatings, germination thresholds, or the narrow compositional window in which high molecular weight PDMS can be used with a silane-functionalized acrylate polymer without destroying germination. This argument was not found to be persuasive. Israels clearly teaches the use of PDMS in seed coatings with acrylate polymers, which are known in the art to be successfully modified with organosilanes to enhance the coating’s properties. Applicant acknowledges that PDMS molecular weight is an art-recognized parameter than can affect dispersion and interfacial behavior, such as that of a seed coating interacting with a seed surface. In looking to improve the dispersion and interfacial behavior of a seed coating comprising PDMS, one skilled in the art would reasonably look to the available teachings regarding the properties of the compound to determine the optimum parameters for achieving said behavior. Applicant’s specific arguments regarding unexpected results will be discussed in further detail below.
Applicant further argues that in regard to the instantly claimed weight ratio of silane-functionalized acrylate polymer to PDMS, routine optimization cannot be used to support obviousness when the variable was not known in the art to influence the claimed result. This argument was not found to be persuasive. As discussed in the prior art rejections of record, Israels already teaches a weight ratio of acrylate-based polymer to PDMS of 20:1 (can also be written as 80:4), which lies within the claimed range. Because this ratio of components is known to increase the flowability of seeds, reduction of dust, and production of a uniform distribution of the seed coating formulation, one of ordinary skill in the art could obviously adjust the ratio to other points within the claimed range to obtain a seed coating with optimum properties. Applicant’s specific arguments regarding unexpected results will be discussed in further detail below.
Applicant further argues that the claimed combination of features yields allegedly unexpected results, noting that inventive compositions with SSA:PDMS ratios in the range corresponding to 94:6, 92:8, 90:10, and 85:15, with PDMS having a weight average molecular weight of about 569,000 g/mol, provide very low attrition, good water resistance, good flowability, and germination rates. Applicant argues these compositions are in contrast to a composition (CE5 of Table 2) with a SSA:PDMS ratio of 80:20, which has a similarly low attrition rate but germination drops to about 70%, which Applicant characterizes as failing.
Applicant’s argument of unexpected results is insufficient to overcome the obviousness rejections of record for the following reasons:
First, the Examiner notes that even compositions without PDMS (e.g., CE2 of Table 2) achieve good water resistance, good flowability, and an attrition rate of less than 8%. As such, these properties cannot be attributed to the claimed SSA:PDMS ratio or the claimed molecular weight of PDMS.
Regarding the allegedly unexpected high germination rate, the Examiner notes that Applicant’s “failed” composition CE5 has an SSA:PDMS ratio of 80:20, which falls within Applicant’s claimed range of 99:1 to 75:25. Clearly, not all ratios within the claimed range yield acceptable germination rates as argued by Applicant. As such, the evidence used to support Applicant’s argument of the unexpectedly improved property is not commensurate in scope with the claimed range.
Additionally, Applicant’s data, which use only one species of PDMS having a molecular weight of 569,000 g/mol, are not sufficient to demonstrate the criticality of the entire claimed PDMS molecular weight range of 500,000 g/mol or greater.
Regarding both the claimed SSA:PDMS weight ratio range and claimed PDMS molecular weight range: To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Without such evidence, and particularly in view of the data presented for Applicant’s composition CE5, the evidence provided is insufficient to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness. There is no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same unexpected manner as alleged by Applicant.
Finally, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been reluctant to introduce silane-functionalized polymers into seed coatings in view of unknown safety and efficacy of such polymers. This argument was not found to be persuasive. Organosilicon-modified polymers were known in the art at the time of the invention to be successfully used as film-forming agents in seed coatings, as evidenced by Wang. Germination rate is not a claimed feature of the instant composition.
In view of the foregoing, the prior art rejections of record are maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 SARAH CLINKSCALES WISTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Sue 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.
/SARAH C WISTNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights