DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after January 22, 2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ claimed invention filed on 03/03/2026 in the matter of Application N° 18/290,879. Said documents are entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Thus, claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-12, and 14-15, represent all claims currently under consideration.
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, 11-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milne et al. (WO1998021945A1), in view of Olson et al. (US5900048A), and Ghyczy et al. (US4681617A), and Sengupta et al. (US20210059248A1).
Regarding claim 1, Milne et al. disclose the composition of a liquid proliposome (See abstract, and page 26, lines 28-33). An active ingredient (20.29% bw), one phospholipid (20.34% bw lecithin), 6.6 wt% of a surfactant, and ethylene glycol (52.71 % bw) make up the liquid proliposome composition shown in example 4. Starting with Milne et al. the choice of solvent is where the differences lie. The technical challenge is to find substitute compositions that, when diluted in water, form liposomes. The solution is not considered creative because different solvents can be employed and are disclosed in Milne et al. it includes non-flammable ones (like N-methyl pyrrolidone) as long as they dissolve the lecithin and the active component (See pages 13 to 14). Milne et al. also disclose wherein fungicides or herbicides are used as at least one plant protection agent (as required by instant claim 2 (See page 4, lines 8-9). 20.29% of disodium octaborate tetrahydrate, which is mainly a fungicide, is disclosed by Milne et al. (as required by instant claim 3. According to Milne et al. there is a minimum of one phospholipid (20.34% liquid lecithin) and a minimum of one plant protection agent (20.29%). The relative ratio of the elements is seen as an adjustment that is part of a skilled person’s usual practice (as required by instant claim 4 (See page 28, example IV). Milne et al. disclose wherein a minimum of one phospholipid (20.34% liquid lecithin), wherein lecithin is not a single phospholipid, but a mixture that contains phospholipids, most commonly phosphatidylcholine (as required by instant claims 5 and 7) (See page 28, example IV). Lecithin containing 50% phosphatidylcholine (See page 4, line 28).
Milne et al. disclose a liquid proliposome composition comprising a plant protection agent and a solvent system. Milne et al. teach that the plant protection agent may be a fungicide or herbicide. Specifically, Example IV discloses a composition comprising 20.29 wt% disodium octaborate tetrahydrate, a known fungicide, and 52.71 wt.% ethylene glycol as the solvent. Thus, Milne et al. teach a liquid proliposome composition comprising a plant protection agent and an organic solvent present in an amount falling within the claimed range of 20-75 wt.%.
However, Milne et al. do not explicitly disclose that the organic solvent is selected from the group consisting of ethers, glycol ethers, N-butylpyrrolidone ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, propylene carbonate, N, N-dimethylacetamide, and 5-dimethylamino-2methyl-5-oxovaleric acid methyl ester, wherein the solvent is present in an amount of 20-75 wt.%.
Sengupta et al. teach emulsifier systems useful in agrichemical formulations comprising anionic surfactants selected from alkyl ether sulfonates, aryl ether sulfonates, alkylaryl ether sulfonates, alkyl ether sulfates, aryl ether sulfates, and alky ether phosphates (See claim 12). The disclosure of ether-containing surfactants demonstrates the recognized suitability of ether-containing materials in agrichemical compositions requiring emulsification, dispersion, and formulation stability.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute or select a known agriculturally acceptable ether or glycol ether solvent, such as ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, for the ethylene glycol solvent taught by Milne et al., in view of Sengupta et al.’s teaching that ether-containing compounds are suitable components in agrichemical formulations. Such substitution would have represented the use of a known solvent alternative to obtain predictable results, including solubilization, formulation stability, and compatibility with agrichemical active ingredients.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the composition of Milne et al. to employ an organic solvent selected from the claimed group while maintaining the solvent concentration taught by Milne et al., thereby arriving at the claimed composition.
However, Milne et al. do not teach wherein the at least one surfactant constitutes 3% by weight based on the weight of the composition, and wherein 0 to 12% by weight of water or an aqueous solution.
Regarding claims 8, and 11, Olson et al. teach for certain applications and desired embodiments, additional ingredients may be added to the release coating mixture. These constituents may consist of additional emulsifiers, coupling agents, and surfactants. additional components include wherein at least the surfactant comprises a preferred composition which includes 2%-6% PAS-8 (See page 4, column 5, lines 65-66). Olson et al. disclose a release agent composition suitable for industrial applications. Olson et al. further teaches that the composition is non-toxic and biodegradable, thereby providing an environmentally safe alternative for industrial use (See page 2, column 2, lines 39-41).
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 14, Olson et al. describe the composition of the releasing agent, which is a combination of lecithin and disclose wherein at least one organic solvent, a dispersion agent chosen from the group that includes ethylene glycol and methyl ether. Wherein the dispersing agent’s weight percentage ranges from 5 to 25, and about 3 weight percent to about 50 weight percent water (See claims 13 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the surfactant concentration in the compositions of Milne et al. to 3% by weight, as taught within the preferred surfactant concentration range of Olson et al. in order to improve stability, spreading characteristics, and release performance, which represents a routine optimization of component amounts. See MPEP 2144.05 (optimizing ranges and amounts of known components is ordinarily considered obvious where results are predictable).
Additionally, Olson et al. teaches the inclusion of water or aqueous systems in amounts overlapping the claimed 0-12% range to aid in processing and dispersion. Incorporating such amounts into the composition of Milne et al. would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions to obtain a workable formulation. See KSR Int’l v.Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 15, Milne et al. disclose the composition of a lipid (20.34% bw lecithin), and an active ingredient (20.29% bw), (See example 4).
However, Milne et al. do not disclose wherein at least one organic solvent in an amount from 20% to 75% by weight of the final composition.
Olson et al. describe the composition wherein at least one organic solvent, a dispersion agent chosen from the group that includes ethylene glycol and methyl ether. Wherein the dispersing agent’s weight percentage ranges from 5 to 25, and about 3 weight percent to about 50 weight percent water (See claims 13 and 14).
However, Olson et al. do not disclose wherein at least one organic solvent is selected from a group consisting of ethers and present from 20% to 75% by weight, and the composition further includes: from 0.1% to 35% by weight of at least one agrochemically acceptable auxiliary substance including at least one surfactant selected from the group consisting of polysorbate 20, etc.
Ghyczy et al. disclose a phospholipid concentration that can be used as a supplementary agent for making and using a plant protectant. 5 to 60 weight percent phospholipid, either synthetic or natural, from the group that includes phosphatidyl choline and its combinations. 3.3 to 30 weight percent non-iogenic co-emulsifier made up of ethoxylates of fatty alcohols, nonyl phenol, or fatty acid amides; 5 to 62.5 weight percent physiologically acceptable solvent from the group made up of an ether and mixtures thereof; and 3.3 to 35 weight percent dissolving intermediates from the group made up of sorbitan fatty acid esters. In respect to the total amount of phospholipids, the phospholipid concentrate comprises a mixture of 10-50 weight percent phosphatidyl choline and 3-10 weight percent other phosphates from the group (See claims 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the composition of Olson et al. to include an ether solvent in an amount of 20-75% by weight as taught by Ghyczy et al. in order to improve solubility and emulsification of hydrophobic agrochemical actives, particularly in concentrate formulations. MPEP 2143; KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (combining known elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Barber whose telephone number is (703) 756-5302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. 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.
/KIMBERLY BARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights