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 .
Applicants’ arguments, filed 03/03/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – New by Amendment
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 1-7 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.
The term “concentrated” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “concentrated” 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 not clear what is meant by this term such that the artisan would reasonably appreciate the metes and bound of what is encompassed by it. It is not clear what concentrations of pesticide would meet the limitations of this claim. For the purposes of examination “concentrated liquid pesticide” will be interpreted as “liquid pesticide”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – New by Amendment
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross et al. (US 4,805,088, date of patent 02/14/1989) in view of Okuyama et al. (WO 2019/230779 A1, publication date 12/05/2019; citing machine English translation provided by examiner 09/03/2025) and Tsuchiya (WO 2019230775 A1, publication date 12/05/2019; citing English machine translation).
Cross discloses a “spray apparatus, attachable to a mobile unit, for application of agrochemicals” [col. 1, lines 57-58], the objective of which “is to provide a spray system which mixes chemicals in the main spray pump at the time of application thereby eliminating bulk tank mixing” [col. 2, lines 12-16]. To that end, the apparatus comprises a water tank (10) for supplying solvent water and chemical storage tanks (11) and (12) (see col. 3, lines 26-31 and Figure 2 on page 2). Once the chemicals and water are mixed, Cross teaches, the “spray outflow line (60) could feed the spray mixture to the sprayer boom” [col. 1, lines 62-63]. The spray outflow line (60) is directly after pump (50) (see [col. 3, line 34] and Fig. 2). According to Cross, “[s]prayer booms having a spray bar with a plurality of nozzles are well known in the art” [col. 7, lines 59-61] and agrochemicals include pesticides [col. 1, lines 36-37]. Furthermore, Cross discloses the ground speed is taken into account during application (i.e., moving the vehicle) [col. 1, line 63]. Finally, Cross discloses the apparatus “is mounted on trucks or other land vehicles, water vehicles, and air vehicles” [col. 2, lines 1-2].
Cross does not disclose nano-bubbles.
Okuyama discloses a method for controlling weevil (i.e., crop pest) by applying nano-bubble water to a plant body or leaf surface (i.e., limitation instant claim 7) [p. 14, claim 1 and p. 15, claim 4]. Okuyama further disclosed that a pesticide may be diluted with the nanobubble water (i.e., applying the liquid pesticide having the nano-bubbles disperse therein to crops) [p. 14-15, claims 2 and 4]. According to Okuyama the mode diameter of the nanobubbles ranges from 10 nm to 500 nm [p. 15, claim 5]. Okuyama discloses the nano-bubble water is produced with a nano-bubble generator [p. 12, para. 2].
Okuyama does not disclose transferring nano-bubbles into the liquid pesticide using a nano-bubble generator.
Tsuchiya relates to an apparatus for supplying micro-bubbles to a liquid [abstract]. The apparatus is capable of producing bubbles having a diameter smaller than 1 micron (i.e., nano-bubble) [p. 11, para. 4]. Such liquids containing nano-bubbles are known to be used in the agricultural field [p. 4, para. 1]. Tsuchiya discloses that “the object of the present invention [bubble generating device] is to directly take in liquid from the flow path when generating fine bubbles in the liquid using the fine bubble generating device, and An object of the present invention is to provide a liquid supply facility capable of appropriately mixing a gas into a liquid” (emphasis added) [p. 5, para. 5]. Tsuchiya discloses the apparatus is able “to efficiently generate nanobubbles while reliably mixing gas into the water” [p. 37, penultimate para.]. Tsuchiya also discloses that with the device it is “possible to send the liquid containing the microbubble produced | generated by the microbubble production | generation apparatus into a flow path, and to the use destination of a liquid through a flow path” (emphasis added) [p. 6, para. 5]. According to Tsuchiya “[t]he liquid supply facility of the present invention can also be used when supplying a liquid other than water, for example, a dispersion solution such as a chemical solution, liquid fertilizer, oil, alcohol, organic solvent, and emulsion”(emphasis added) [p. 10, para 4]. In other words, Tsuchiya teaches an efficient and reliable method of adding nano-bubbles directly into a liquid, such as a chemical solution or liquid fertilizer, which may then be transferred directly to a use destination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have combined the method of generating nano-bubbles in an agricultural liquid of Tsuchiya with the method of mixing and applying agrochemicals disclosed by Cross. Specifically, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have combined the method of generating nano-bubbles in an agricultural liquid of Tsuchiya with Cross at the outflow line (60). One would have been motivated to combine a nano-bubble generating method with the method of Cross because Okuyama desires pesticides comprising nano-bubbles. One would have been motivated to combine the methods taught by Tsuchiya with Cross because Tsuchiya discloses chemical solutions may be the liquid supplied to the nano-bubble generator, e.g., agrochemicals (pesticides) mixed with water from the outflow line (60) of Cross. One would have also had an expectation of success because outflow line (60) is directly after a pump, as desired by the methods of Tsuchiya. Additionally, in combining these elements one would have expected nothing more than predictable results because, when combined, each prior art element would have performed the same function as it had separately. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
In regard to the nano-bubble diameter, "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 2144.05 IIA quoting In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (105 USPQ 233)).
In the present case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have optimized the nano-bubbles to have an average diameter within the claimed 10-500 nm range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the 10-500 nm mode (most frequent) diameter of Okuyama represents the preferred diameter range of the nano-bubbles disclosed by Okuyama. Therefore, one would have been motivated to optimize the nano-bubbles such that the diameters completely fell within that range (i.e., mean, median and mode all within the 10-500 nm range). One would have had an expectation of success because both Okuyama and Tsuchiya teach nano-bubbles with diameters less than 500 nm.
Furthermore, the mean diameter of instant claim 3 (less than 200 nm) falls within the range rendered obvious above (mean diameter less than 500nm) and so a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have developed a method comprising providing a liquid pesticide supply tank, a water supply tank and a nano-bubble generator. Connecting a spray unit to the nano-bubble generator. Installing the whole apparatus on a vehicle. Flowing the liquid pesticide and water from the supply tanks to mix them and produce a liquid pesticide solution then flowing the liquid pesticide solution through the nano-bubble generator to transfer nano-bubbles into the solution. Flowing the liquid pesticide solution comprising nano-bubbles to the spray unit, moving the vehicle and applying the liquid pesticide solution comprising nano-bubbles to leaf tissue of the crops. Wherein the spray unit comprises a plurality of spray nozzles (spray boom) and the mean diameter of the nano-bubbles is within the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding instant claim 2, 4 and 5, Okuyama discloses the gas that is mixed with water to form nano-bubbles is in a compressed state [p. 8, para. 1]. And according to Okuyama, suitable gasses include air, oxygen nitrogen and ozone [p. 6, para. 3].
Tsuchiya discloses that “[t]he pressurized gas generation source 41 is composed of a pressure vessel filled with a pressurized gas or a compressor that compresses the gas, and generates a gas pressurized to a specified pressure. In addition, as a kind of gas which the pressurized gas generation source 41 emits, air, oxygen, nitrogen, a fluorine, a carbon dioxide, ozone, etc.” (emphasis added) [p. 17, para. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have transferred oxygen and nitrogen nano-bubbles from a compressed air source into the liquid pesticide solution because both Okuyama and Tsuchiya teach it is a suitable method of providing the gas for the nano-bubbles. Similarly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have provided nano-bubbles comprising oxygen, nitrogen and/or ozone because both Okuyama and Tsuchiya teach they are suitable gasses for nano-bubbles. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding instant claim 6, Okuyama discloses “[t]he nanobubble water preferably has 1 × 108 to 1 × 1010 cells / mL of bubbles for the reason that the control effect of weevil is further improved” [p. 6, para. 5]. 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). In the present case the claimed range of greater than a billion nano-bubbles per milliliter (greater than 1X109 bubbles/mL) overlaps with the range of the prior art and a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Response to Arguments
1) On pages 1 and 2 of their Remarks, Applicant argues that neither Okuyama nor Tsuchiya teach every limitation of the instantly claimed methods.
This argument is moot in view of the new rejections necessitated by amendment.
2) On page 2 of their remarks, Applicant argues that in-situ nano-bubble generation, as presently claimed, may maximize the effectiveness of the method by ensuring maximum concertation of nano-bubbles.
This argument is not persuasive. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c).
Additionally, Tsuchiya appears to address delivering solutions comprising nano-bubbles directly to the application site at page 6, paragraph 5: “possible to send the liquid containing the microbubble produced | generated by the microbubble production | generation apparatus into a flow path, and to the use destination of a liquid through a flow path” (emphasis added).
3) On page 2 of their Remarks, Applicant argues that the present invention solves the problem of known nano-bubble systems and methods in which nano-bubbles are introduced into liquid carriers for a period of time prior to use, which may cause the concentration of dissolved nano-bubbles in solution to decrease over time.
This argument is not persuasive. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c).
Additionally, Tsuchiya appears to address generating nano-bubbles directly in a chemical solution, e.g., pesticide solution, at page10, paragraph 4 “[t]he liquid supply facility of the present invention can also be used when supplying a liquid other than water, for example, a dispersion solution such as a chemical solution, liquid fertilizer, oil, alcohol, organic solvent, and emulsion”(emphasis added).
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 COLMAN WELLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571)272-6897. 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.T.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/WALTER E WEBB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612