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 .
Status of Claims
Amendment filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-17 remain withdrawn without traverse for being drawn to nonelected group.
Claims 1-13 and 18 are amended.
Claims 1-15 and 18 are pending and being examined on the merits herein.
Priority
This instant application 18268211, filed on 06/16/2023, is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/087264, filed on 12/22/2021, which claims foreign priority of Belgium BE2020/5966, filed on 12/22/2020.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
All previous claim Objection(s) / Rejection(s) as set forth in the previous Office action (mailed 01/27/2026) that are not repeated and/or maintained in the instant Office action are withdrawn, in light of applicant’s amendment and remark filed on 06/29/2026.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/29/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of application 18267983 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 9, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7 recites “following a ratio a : b : c, wherein“, it is recommended to rephrase as “wherein a, b, c, and d is defined as following:” because the equations are not presented as “a ratio”.
Claims 9 and 10 recite “based on a total weight of”, which should be revised as “based on the total weight of” since a composition can only have one total weight.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the fruit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1, which claim 2 depends on, does not mention fruit of the targeted plant.
Claim Interpretation
Claims are interpreted as following:
Claim 1 phrase “for stimulation of plant growth” does not provide structural method steps in the limitation, and it is interpreted as property of the composition and the method.
Claims 2-5 are interpreted as drawn to property or results of the method in claim 1, because they do not provide structural contribution to the method steps.
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 1-6, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Cabrera Pino et al. (Hereafter “Pino”, WO2017046237, 03/23/2017; PCT/EP2016071810, filed on 09/15/2016, with US in designated states; IDS of 06/16/2023).
Pino throughout the reference teaches a composition comprising at least one hydroxycinnamic derivative for improving stress tolerance of plants and directs to a method comprising applying such composition on the plant for improving plant tolerance to abiotic and biotic stress, increasing survival in adverse environmental conditions, obtaining better growth and providing a substantial yield advantage (e.g., Abstract; Field of invention).
Regarding instant claims 1-5, Pino specifies that plant biostimulants are bioactive substances and/or micro-organisms whose function when applied to plants or the rhizosphere is to stimulate natural processes to enhance/benefit nutrient uptake, nutrient efficiency, tolerance to abiotic stress, and crop quality; Biostimulants are capable of improving the qualities and the yield of harvests at a lower cost, by playing on the metabolism of the plant while reducing the detrimental impacts on the environment of the use of chemical compounds (e.g., Pg. 2, Lines 13-18). Pino states that ferulic acid, as a cinnamic acid 4-hydroxysubstituted derivative (hydroxycinnamic derivative), is considered as the predominant phenolic cross-linker in grass cell wall playing a significant role in cell-wall extensibility (Pg. 3, Lines 5-11); furthermore, ferulic acid is known as an antioxidant for improving the yield of a plant (Pg. 15, Lines 15-18).
Pino teaches the composition comprises diferulic acid (diferulate) and a polysaccharide, preferably comprising difeulic acid and chitosan (Pg. 18, Lines 23-26). Pino exemplifies in Example 7 using oligomers of ferulic acid to be grafted on chitosan (Pg., 34, Materials and Methods, Lines 14-21) (corresponding to instantly claimed ferulated chitosan in instant claim 1, as evidenced by instant specification, Pg. 4, Lines 11-18) inducing tolerance in wheat plants to drought stress (Pg. 34, Lines 11-12), and results show that plants with treatment of ferulated chitosan significantly increase the fresh weight of plant under conditions that simulate drought (Pg. 35, Results, Table 2, Lines 7-10) (corresponding to stimulation of plant growth in instant claim 1). Pino indicates the method for improving stress tolerance of a plant comprising applying the composition to said seed (e.g., Claim 13) or said plant (e.g., Claims 14-15) in the form of foliar sprays, turf sprays, in furrow sprays, seedling dips, root dips, soil drenches, soil drips, and others (e.g., Pg. 22, Lines 27-30), corresponding to applying the composition to targeted plant and/or soil in contact with said targeted plant as recited in instant claim 1.
Further regarding instant claims 2-5, in light of the claim interpretation, as discussed above, the method by applying the composition comprising ferulated chitosan to plant and/or soil in contact with the plant as instantly claimed has been taught by prior art, therefore, the properties or outcome would necessarily present in prior art, such as, increasing a mass of the fruit of the target plant compared to non-treated ones (corresponding to instant claim 2), larger amount of flower or a higher ratio of flowers to other plants parts of the target plant as compared to non-treated ones (corresponding to instant claim 3), shortening the time to harvest(corresponding to instant claim 4), or increasing the amount of fruit produced by the target plant as compared to non-treated plants (corresponding to instant claim 5). Especially, prior art also specifies that ferulic acid is a plant biostimulant and antioxidant that would stimulate cell wall extensibility and plant growth, and improve quality and yield of a plant. MPEP 2144.01 points out "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Regarding instant claim 6, Pino indicates the composition comprises from 100 to 100,000 ppm of the at least one solubilizing agent, preferably from 500 to 50,000 ppm, more preferably from 1,000 to 20,000 ppm. Or it can be at about 4,000 ppm or 5,000 ppm in particular embodiments (Pg. 19, Lines 7-12). The chitosan and ferulated chitosan correspond to the at least one solubilizing agent in the composition as discussed above (e.g., Pg. 6, Lines 1-5; Pg. 18, Lines 18-20; Pg., 34, Lines 14-21), therefore, Pino teaches ferulated chitosan concentration range falling within the instantly claimed range. MPEP 2131.03.I states that "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
Regarding instant claims 13 and 18, Pino teaches that the composition has an acidic pH, meaning a pH value inferior or equal to 7. In one embodiment, the composition has a pH inferior or equal to 6; in one particular embodiment, the composition has a pH of about 5.5 (Pg. 17, lines 25-28), the specific pH values falling within the pH between 4.0 to 7.0 in instant claim 13, or pH between 5.0 and 6.5 in instant claim 18.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15, as discussed above, Pino teaches that the method for regulating plant growth comprising applying the composition to said plant (e.g., Claims 14-15) in the form of foliar sprays, turf sprays, in furrow sprays, seedling dips, root dips, soil drenches, soil drips, and others (e.g., Pg. 22, Lines 27-30).
MPEP 2131.03.I states that "If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Thus, both ferulated chitosan concentration and pH instantly claimed values are anticipated.
MPEP 2144.01 points out "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
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 1-7, 13-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino (WO2017046237, 03/23/2017, IDS of 06/16/2023), as applied to claims 1-6, 13-15 and 18 above, in view of Aljawish et al. (Food Chemistry 161, 2014, Pg. 279-287, IDS of 06/16/2023; Scheme 1 supplementary, in record of 01/27/2026).
Pino throughout the reference teaches a method for regulating plant growth, e.g., enhancing tolerance to stress, stimulation of plant growth, comprising applying a composition to target plant and/or soil in contact with target plant, wherein the composition comprises ferulated chitosan as discussed above and applied to claims 1-6, 13-15 and 18 in greater detail and incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 7, Pino further teaches that oligomers of ferulic acid is prepared using chitosan as polymerization template using laccase as catalyst, and the reaction is carried out in pH 7.0 phosphate buffer with ferulic acid (in methanol), enzyme laccase, and chitosan, reaction mix at 30 C for 4 h in a magnetic stirring reactor, recovering the oligomers grafted on chitosan by filtration and washing with abundant phosphate buffer (Pg. 34, Lines 14-21), the same general method as seen in instant specification (Pg. 16, Lines 13-21), with slight differences in ferulic acid and laccase concentrations. Therefore, Pino’s teaching would have resulted in the same ferulated chitosan product as instantly claimed with varied grafting efficiency due to the template concentration difference.
Pino does not explicitly teach the ferulated chitosan constitutes a linear polysaccharide composed of randomly distributed beta-(1-4) linked D-glucosamine and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine moieties as chitosan backbone, and ferulic acid is randomly grafted onto the backbone with moiety numbers as specified in the formula (I) of instant claim 7.
Aljawish throughout the reference teaches characterization for physico-chemical, antioxidant, and antibacterial properties of chitosan functionalized by laccase-catalyzed oxidation of ferulic acid (e.g., Abstract).
Aljawish describes the same method of enzymatic grafting of ferulic acid onto chitosan by using laccase as catalyst (Pg. 280, Chapter 2.2). Aljawish shows in supplementary material Scheme 1, chitosan and chitosan derivatives as linear polysaccharide composed of beta-(1-4) linked D-glucosamine moiety (a), ferulated D-glusamine moiety (b), and N-acetyl-D-glucosamine moieties (c), and ferulic acid molecules (d) being grafted onto chitosan backbone. Aljawish evaluates grafting efficiency, indicating 1 mg ferulated chitosan contains almost 25 ug of ferulic acid oxidation products (Pg. 282, Chapter 3.2). To one person with ordinary skills in the art, it is obvious that ferulic acid molecules are randomly grafted on the chitosan backbone as monomer, dimer and trimers during the reaction with no targeting control, as a result, the ferulic acid-grafted moiety and other original chitosan backbone moieties would be randomly distributed, even though Scheme 1 presents a trimer of ferulic acid being grafted on the chitosan backbone. "Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments." In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). With the same catalyst laccase and same templates of chitosan and ferulic acid (instant specification, Pg. 16, Lines 13-21), prior art would necessarily achieve the same product, e.g., satisfying a, b, c relevant numbers of the randomly distributed moieties or capable of achieving specific moiety combinations. MPEP 2112.01.II states "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, as indicated in MPEP 2112.01.II.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to incorporate Aljawish’s teaching of the compound structure of chitosan and ferulic acid grafting forms into the method of Pino to arrive at current invention. Because both Pino and Aljawish teach the same method using laccase as catalyst for grafting ferulic acid onto chitosan backbone, while Aljawish teaches the chitosan and ferulic acid with details of the structures, it would motivate scientists to conveniently select these specific templates to carry out the method. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Moreover, Aljawish demonstrates that chitosan and ferulated chitosan both exhibit favorable antibacterial properties (Pg. 286, Chapter 4), especially, Aljawish teaches that chitosan derivatives presented improved antioxidant properties for ferulic acid-chitosan derivative when compared with chitosan with good antioxidant stability towards thermal treatment (100 C/1 h) (e.g., Abstract), which are desirable properties of plant biostimulants for plant growth in general as taught by Pino. It would have motivated scientists in the field to combine teachings of Aljawish and Pino, taking advantage of antibacterial property along with enhancement in stress tolerance of the composition comprising ferulated chitosan. By implementing the method of Pino to apply the composition with additional desirable property to targeted plants and/or soil in contact with the targeted plant, one would have reasonable expectation of success. This renders obviousness as “use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way” or as “applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. See MPEP §2143. (I)(C) and (I)(D).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino (WO2017-046237, 03/23/2017, IDS of 06/16/2023), as applied to claims 1-6, 13-15 and 18 above, in view of Flores et al. (WO2018009549, 11/01/2018, in record of 01/27/2026).
Pino throughout the reference teaches a method for regulating plant growth, e.g., enhancing tolerance to stress, stimulation of plant growth, comprising applying a composition to target plant and/or soil in contact with target plant, wherein the composition comprises ferulated chitosan as discussed above and applied to claims 1-6, 13-15 and 18 in greater detail and incorporated herein.
Pino further teaches that the composition can further comprise diluting agents, surfactants, and can be prepared in the form of emulsion (Pg. 22, Lines 20-22) including diluent of water-insoluble solvent oil (Pg. 17, Lines 15-18).
Pino does not teach the composition can be an oil-in-water emulsion having an oil to water ratio between 1:20 to 20:20 as recited in instant claim 8, having the water-insoluble solvent at a concentration of between 5.00 and 50.00 wt.% of the total composition as recited in instant claim 9, having a rheological modifier at a concentration of between 0.10 and 30.00 wt.% in the composition as recited in instant claim 10, having a hydrophilic and/or a lipophilic surfactant at a concentration of between 0.01 and 10.00 wt.% of the composition as recited in instant claim 11, and also does not teach that the water-insoluble solvent is a vegetable oil or vegetable oil ester, chosen from linseed oil, rapeseed oil, soybean oil, palm oil, coconut oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, or combinations thereof as recited in instant claim 12.
Flores throughout the reference teaches nontoxic concentrates for agricultural uses (e.g., Abstract; [0031]) comprising a concentrated liquid suspension which can be in an aqueous formulation with an agricultural treatment agent, and methods of treating an agricultural target by applying the agricultural formulation onto the agricultural target (e.g., Abstract), as nontoxic alternatives to protect agricultural materials from insects, fungi, animals, drought conditions, etc. (e.g., [0004]; [0055]) by applying the composition to any targets including plant leaves, fruits, soils of many listed crops (e.g., [0050]) via spraying, brushing, irrigating or broadcasting, etc. (e.g., [0011]; [0028]; [0054]).
Flores states that the concentrated liquid suspension comprising an oil-based continuous phase (oil phase, wherein oil is the water-insoluble solvent) and suspended particles (e.g., [0018]) such as chitosan (e.g., Claim 26; [0008]; [0015]). Flores teaches that the concentrated oil suspension can be diluted with water to form a diluted liquid suspension in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion (e.g., [0028]). Flores specifies that for application to agricultural targets, e.g., for spraying onto plant surfaces, the diluted liquid suspension can contain from about 60% to about 99% water (e.g., [0054]), indicating oil phase can be about 1% to about 40%, resulting in the oil to water ratio of between 1 : 99 to 30 : 60, corresponding to oil-in-water emulsion with overlapping oil to water range in instant claim 8.
Flores teaches that the concentrated liquid suspension containing suspended particles and the continuous oil phase, wherein the oil phase can be about 40% to about 99% weight (e.g., [0008], line 16) comprising plant oil such as linseed oil, castor oil, poppy seed oil, grapeseed oil, sunflower oil, etc. (e.g., [0008]; [0012]), fatty acid or fatty esters (e.g., [0012]), corresponding to water-insoluble solvent oil species in instant claim 12). As discussed above, the concentrated suspension can be diluted into water to form a diluted suspension containing from about 60% to about 99% water (e.g., [0054]), thus, oil phase results in minimum amount at about 40%*(1- 99%) to maximum at about 99% * (1-60%), resulting in the range about 0.40% to about 39.60% oil in the diluted oil-in-water emulsion form, corresponding to water-insoluble solvent with overlapping range between 5.00 and 50.00 wt.% based on total weight of the composition as recited in instant claim 9.
Flores teaches that stabilizing additives can be employed to increase the viscosity of the continuous phase, or to decrease viscosity with increasing shear rate for desirable viscosity (e.g., [0022]), with stabilizing additive added in amounts ranging from 0.1 wt% to 30 wt% of the agricultural formulation (e.g., [0021]). Suitable additives for manifesting these properties include castor oil derivatives such as related rheology modifiers (THIXCIN® and THIXATROL® (Elementis Specialties)), or RHEOCIN® or RHEOCIN T® (BYK Additives and Instruments) which can be added from 0.01 to 1 wt% (e.g., [0024]), and modified urea, glycol ethers, and others, at a concentration amount from 0.1 to 4 wt%, or from 3 to 5 wt% [0025]. These viscosity adjusting additives and rheology modifiers correspond to rheological modifier with overlapping range of between 0.10 and 30.00 wt.% as recited in instant claim 10.
Flores teaches the agricultural formulation comprises surfactants to improve dispersibility of the particulate minerals in the oil phase and to improve the wetting of the diluted formulation on an agricultural target (e.g., [0019]). Flores also teaches that surfactants derivatized from fatty acids (lipophilic type) such as fatty acid polydiethanolamide species, are suitable to be added as stabilizing additives at a dose ranging from 1 to 5 wt% in the composition (e.g., [0025]), corresponding to the surfactant, e.g., lipophilic surfactant, with overlapping range at a concentration between 0.01 and 10.00 wt.% of the composition as recited in instant claim 11.
It would have been obvious for one person with ordinary skills in the art to incorporate the teaching of Flores and select the agents into the composition of ferulated chitosan comprised in the method of treating plant taught by Pino to arrive at current invention. Because Pino and Flores both use agricultural compositions to treat targeted plants or oil in contact with plant to achieve plant growth enhancements, while Flores teaches the essentially nontoxic ingredients in the agricultural composition, it would have motivated scientists in the field to select such ingredients for the advantage of general safety over vegetables and fruits, or crops. Moreover, Flores also uses chitosan in the composition (e.g., Claim 26), plant growth regulator, or biopesticide (e.g., Claim 27) in the agricultural composition, which suggests incorporating these nontoxic agents taught by Flores into the ferulated chitosan composition and method taught by Pino are naturally compatible. Therefore, selecting and incorporating these nontoxic agents into Pino’s composition and method would have provided reasonable expectation of success for the beneficial effects and compatibility. This renders obviousness as “use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way” or as “applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. See MPEP §2143. (I)(C) and (I)(D). Moreover, It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP §2144.05(I) states that “A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For this instance, all the concentration ranges of ingredients overlap with those taught by prior art. Furthermore, “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize additive amount through nothing more than “routine experimentation,” because of a reasonable expectation of success resulting from the optimization for desirable features of intended use of the composition (MPEP §2144.05 (II)). See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 06/29/2026 have been fully considered.
35 USC 112 Rejections
In light of claim amendment and applicant’s remarks, the rejections have been overcome and withdrawn.
35 USC 102 Rejections
Applicant asserts that Pino compositions are used to improve a plant’s tolerance as not to suffer a substantial alternation in metabolism or growth; office action does not provide a reason that improved tolerance for external stresses stimulation of plant growth. As such, Pino does not teach the use of composition to stimulate plant growth.
Pino explicitly teaches to use the compositions comprising plant biostimulants for improving plant quality, growth, and yield as presented above in detail in this office action (most relevant paragraph is copied below for reference), in addition to its teaching of the compositions for improving plant’s tolerance. All elements in claim 1 are anticipated as presented in this office action, which is updated accordingly in light of claim amendments and applicant’s remarks.
Pino throughout the reference teaches a composition comprising at least one hydroxycinnamic derivative for improving stress tolerance of plants and directs to a method comprising applying such composition on the plant for improving plant tolerance to abiotic and biotic stress, increasing survival in adverse environmental conditions, obtaining better growth and providing a substantial yield advantage (e.g., Abstract; Field of invention).
Regarding instant claims 1-5, Pino specifies that plant biostimulants are bioactive substances and/or micro-organisms whose function when applied to plants or the rhizosphere is to stimulate natural processes to enhance/benefit nutrient uptake, nutrient efficiency, tolerance to abiotic stress, and crop quality; Biostimulants are capable of improving the qualities and the yield of harvests at a lower cost, by playing on the metabolism of the plant while reducing the detrimental impacts on the environment of the use of chemical compounds (e.g., Pg. 2, Lines 13-18). Pino states that ferulic acid, as a cinnamic acid 4-hydroxysubstituted derivative (hydroxycinnamic derivative), is considered as the predominant phenolic cross-linker in grass cell wall playing a significant role in cell-wall extensibility (Pg. 3, Lines 5-11); furthermore, ferulic acid is known as an antioxidant for improving the yield of a plant (Pg. 15, Lines 15-18).
Pino teaches the composition comprises diferulic acid (diferulate) and a polysaccharide, preferably comprising difeulic acid and chitosan (Pg. 18, Lines 23-26). Pino exemplifies in Example 7 using oligomers of ferulic acid to be grafted on chitosan (Pg., 34, Materials and Methods, Lines 14-21) (corresponding to instantly claimed ferulated chitosan in instant claim 1, as evidenced by instant specification, Pg. 4, Lines 11-18) inducing tolerance in wheat plants to drought stress (Pg. 34, Lines 11-12), and results show that plants with treatment of ferulated chitosan significantly increase the fresh weight of plant under conditions that simulate drought (Pg. 35, Results, Table 2, Lines 7-10) (corresponding to stimulation of plant growth in instant claim 1). Pino indicates the method for improving stress tolerance of a plant comprising applying the composition to said seed (e.g., Claim 13) or said plant (e.g., Claims 14-15) in the form of foliar sprays, turf sprays, in furrow sprays, seedling dips, root dips, soil drenches, soil drips, and others (e.g., Pg. 22, Lines 27-30), corresponding to applying the composition to targeted plant and/or soil in contact with said targeted plant as recited in instant claim 1.
35 USC 103 Rejections
Applicant asserts that Pino does not discuss using ferulated chitosan to stimulate plant growth, and Aljawish and Flores do not cure the deficiencies, therefore, the claims are not obvious.
Pino explicitly teaches plant biostimulants, including ferulic acid, for plant growth stimulation, and demonstrates using grafted ferulic acid on chitosan resulting in significant plant mass increase compared to untreated ones in Example 7 as discussed and copied the most relevant paragraphs from this office action as presented above. Moreover, Aljawish demonstrates that chitosan and ferulated chitosan both exhibit favorable antibacterial properties, especially, Aljawish teaches that chitosan derivatives presented improved antioxidant properties for ferulic acid-chitosan derivative when compared with chitosan with good antioxidant stability towards thermal treatment, which are desirable properties of plant biostimulants for plant growth in general as taught by Pino. Flores uses chitosan (e.g., Claim 26), plant growth regulator, or biopesticide (e.g., Claim 27) in the agricultural composition.
Combination of Pino, Aljawish and Flores demonstrates the obviousness of current invention.
Double Patenting Rejections
Terminal Disclaimer filed on 06/29/2026 has overcome the rejections and Double patenting rejections have been withdrawn.
Please refer to the entire office action as presented above as a complete response to remarks/arguments.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DONGXIU ZHANG SPIERING whose telephone number is (703)756-4796. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm (Except for Fridays).
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.
/DX.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/MONICA A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights