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 .
Priority
This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/US2022/074567, filed 08/05/2022; PCT/US2022/074567 Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63230311, filed 08/06/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 1/23/2025 and 8/1/2025 have been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 form.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-29) and divalent metal ion salt as the crosslinking agent in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group II is limited to the use of the composition in Group I. This is not found persuasive because, as discussed in the restriction requirement office action (12/17/2025), the common technical feature was known in the art and thus unity of invention is lacking.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11 and 15-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species/invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
Receipt of Remarks filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-49 are currently pending. Claims 11, 15-17 and 30-49 have been withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-10, 12-14, 18-29 are currently under examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5, 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, the recitation “a solidifying agent” should recite “said solidifying agent” because the claim from which it depends (claim 1) already recites a solidifying agent.
In claim 5, the recitation “a glucomannan” should recite “said glucomannan” because the claim from which it depends (claim 1) already recites a glucomannan.
In claim 7, the recitation “a carrageenan” should recite “said carrageenan” because the claim from which it depends (claim 1) already recites a carrageenan.
In claim 24, the recitation “the composition comprises a cellulose” should recite “the composition further comprises a cellulose” because cellulose in this claim appears to be in addition to the components recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, 18-29 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.
Claims 1, 2 and 9 recite “dehydrating/polysaccharide”. The meaning of the slash “/” is ambiguous and it is unclear whether this limitation requires both a dehydrating and a polysaccharide compound, a dehydrating or a polysaccharide compound, or whether it’s a single compound which is a polysaccharide and a dehydrating agent. The claim is therefore rendered indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “one or more of a solidifying agent, a glucomannan, and a carrageenan”. It is unclear whether this limitation suggests including either a solidifying agent, a glucomannan, a carrageenan, or a combination of these, or whether the limitation requires one or more of each of a solidifying agent, a glucomannan, and a carrageenan.
Claim 23 recites wherein the composition comprises a polymer hydrogel matrix. It is unclear whether this limitation is suggesting that the composition is in the form of a polymer hydrogel matrix or whether the composition further comprises a polymer hydrogel matrix component in addition to what is required in claim 1. Claim 23 does not recite the composition further comprises a polymer hydrogel matrix and therefore it is unclear whether it is an additional component that is added to the composition or whether the composition takes the form of being a polymer hydrogel matrix.
Claims 3-8, 10, 12-14, 18-22, 24-29 are included in the rejection as they depend on a rejected base claim and do not clarify the issues discussed above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 12-14, 18, 23, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sason (WO2021009755A1; Jan. 21, 2021).
Sason throughout the reference teaches protective coating for plants and postharvest plant matter.
Regarding claim 1, Sason teaches a composition comprising alginate, gellan, pectin and carrageenan (see e.g., claims; example 1). Gellan and pectin act as polysaccharide and solidifying agent. Sason teaches alginate can be in a form of a free acid or a salt (e.g., page 21, line 10-15). Thus, one skilled in the art would have readily envisioned using alginate salt as there are only two choice, either a free acid or a salt of alginate. Thus, claim 1 is anticipated by Sason.
Regarding claim 2, Sason teaches gellan and pectin which are polysaccharides and thus reads on two or more polysaccharides.
Regarding claim 3, carrageenan taught by Sason reads on a solidifying agent as instant specification (para 0047-0048) also disclose carrageenan forming gels which reads on solidifying agent.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed supra, Sason taches the composition comprises carrageenan.
Regarding claims 10, 12, 13, 14, Sason teaches the composition comprises a crosslinking agent wherein the crosslinking agent is calcium chloride. (see claims; example 1).
Regarding claim 18, Sason teaches the composition comprises 1% alginate (see e.g. example 1).
Regarding claim 23, Sason in example 1 discloses polysaccharide solution comprising alginate and calcium chloride solution crosslink and form a film of alginate gel, which would necessarily have a hydrogel matrix. Although Sason does not disclose all the characteristics and properties of the composition disclosed in the present claims (e.g., forming a hydrogel matrix), based on the substantially identical process using identical components, the Examiner has a reasonable basis to believe that the properties claimed in the present invention are inherent in the composition disclosed by Sason. Because the PTO has no means to conduct analytical experiments, the burden of proof is shifted to the Applicant to prove that the properties are not inherent. ““[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).” MPEP § 2112, I.
Regarding claim 26, Sason anticipates the composition of claim 1 and therefore would necessarily be capable of being non-toxic to plants, animals and humans. Moreover, Sason teaches the composition is a protective coating for plants which would render it non-toxic to plants.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sason (WO2021009755A1; Jan. 21, 2021) as applied to claims 1-3, 7, 10, 12-14, 18, 23, 26 above.
The teachings of Sason discussed supra are incorporated herein.
Sason does not explicitly exemplify the composition comprises gelatin, sorbitol, a pigment and/or dye, a cellulose, a surfactant and an alkalinity source. However, Sason teaches the composition further comprises adhesion promoter and specifically gelatin as adhesion promoter. The composition further comprises humectant and specifically sorbitol. Sason also teaches including a colorant/pigment and cellulose can be added as a suitable polysaccharide. The composition can also include a surfactant and a pH modifier such as sodium carbonate (alkalinity source). (e.g., pages 20, 24-25; claims 20, 21, 35).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to further include gelatin, sorbitol, a pigment and/or dye, a cellulose, a surfactant and an alkalinity source in the composition of Sason. One would have been motivated to do so because while Sason does not explicitly exemplify the composition comprises gelatin, sorbitol, a pigment and/or dye, a cellulose, a surfactant and an alkalinity source, Sason does teach in its disclosure that these ingredients can be further included in the composition. Therefore, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
From the combined teaching of the cited reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sason (WO2021009755A1; Jan. 21, 2021) as applied to claims 1-3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 above and further in view of Ke et al. (Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences 2017 vol. 22 No. 3).
Sason does not expressly teach the composition comprises konjac glucomannan. However, Ke cures this deficiency.
Ke teaches effect of konjac glucomannan (KGM) on sodium alginate membrane which is prepared by coagulation of sodium alginate and konjac glucomannan in an aqueous solution. The results indicate that the two polysaccharides (sodium alginate and KGM) in the blend membrane have good compatibility and the surface of blend film is smooth and uniform. The addition of KGM can significantly improve moisture absorption and moisture retention performance of sodium alginate film and its mechanical performance is also improved. Ke also teaches sodium alginate is applied in field such as food preservation. (see entire document).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Sason and Ke et al. and combine glucomannan with sodium alginate. Sason teaches the polysaccharide which is alginate salt and specifically sodium alginate (page 21, line 10-21). Also, as discussed supra, Sason teach the composition is a protective coating/film for plants and postharvest plant matter. Ke also teaches sodium alginate is applied in field such as food preservation and that combining sodium alginate with KGM provides good film forming property and improves its mechanical performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further include konjac glucomannan along with sodium alginate in the composition of Sason for the benefits which are taught by Ke.
From the combined teaching of the cited reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sason (WO2021009755A1; Jan. 21, 2021) as applied to claims 1-3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 above and further in view of Balqis (International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 10 (2017) 721-732).
As discussed supra, Sason teaches the composition comprises carrageenan. Sason does not expressly teach the composition comprises kappa carrageenan. However, Balqis cures this deficiency.
Balqis teaches that compared to other forms of carrageenan, kappa-carrageenan form stronger films with better gelling properties. Kappa carrageenan has the potential to form a strong and rigid gel that enhances its good film-forming ability. The findings demonstrated that kappa carrageenan obtained from E. cottonii could be produced as films and coatings, thus having high potential to be applied for food packaging and to prolong the shelf life of food products.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Sason and Balqis et al. and specifically incorporate kappa carrageenan as the form of carrageenan. As discussed supra, Sason already teaches the composition comprises carrageenan. Sason does not expressly teach the composition comprises specifically kappa carrageenan. Balqis teaches that compared to other forms of carrageenan, kappa-carrageenan form stronger films with better gelling properties. Kappa carrageenan has the potential to form a strong and rigid gel that enhances its good film-forming ability. The findings demonstrated that kappa carrageenan obtained from E. cottonii could be produced as films and coatings, thus having high potential to be applied for food packaging and to prolong the shelf life of food products. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to specifically include kappa carrageenan as the type of carrageenan in the composition of Sason.
From the combined teaching of the cited reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sason (WO2021009755A1; Jan. 21, 2021) as applied to claims 1-3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 above and further in view of Qian et al. (US20210051956A1; Feb. 25, 2021).
As discussed supra, Sason teaches the composition comprises colorant/pigment. Sason does not teach the pigment comprises titanium dioxide. However, Qian cures this deficiency.
Qian teaches surface coating composition which can be applied to plants wherein the composition comprises pigments and specifically titanium dioxide can be added as the pigment in the composition. (see e.g. abstract; claims; para 0061; 0075).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Sason and Qian et al. and specifically incorporate titanium dioxide as the pigment in the composition of Sason. As discussed supra, Sason teaches the composition comprises colorant/pigment. Sason does not teach the pigment is specifically titanium dioxide. Qian teaches surface coating composition which can be applied to plants wherein the composition comprises pigments and specifically titanium dioxide can be added as the pigment in the composition. Thus, absence any unexpected effect, it would have been obvious to add the pigments known in the art and specifically titanium dioxide which was known in the art as suggested by Qian.
From the combined teaching of the cited reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sason (WO2021009755A1; Jan. 21, 2021) as applied to claims 1-3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 above and further in view of Pacific (Pacific Fertilisers, Sodium bicarbonate, July 27 2016, https://pacificfertiliser.com/2016/07/sodium-bicarbonate/#:~:text=Sodium%20bicarbonate%20is%20used%20in%20the%20agriculture%20industry.&text=Sodium%20bicarbonate%20is%20used%20to,vital%20to%20producing%20healthy%20crops.).
As discussed supra, Sason teaches the composition comprises a pH modifier such as sodium carbonate (alkalinity source). Sason does not teach the alkalinity source comprises sodium bicarbonate. However, Pacific cures this deficiency.
Pacific teaches sodium bicarbonate is used in the agriculture industry to promote healthy growing conditions while simultaneously limiting fungal and other unwanted growth. Sodium bicarbonate is a naturally alkaline compound that help maintain proper pH to maximize crop production. (see entire document).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Sason and Pacific and specifically incorporate sodium bicarbonate as the pH modifier in the composition of Sason. As discussed supra, Sason teaches the composition comprises a pH modifier such as sodium carbonate and Pacific teaches sodium bicarbonate is used in the agriculture industry to promote healthy growing conditions while simultaneously limiting fungal and other unwanted growth. Sodium bicarbonate is a naturally alkaline compound that help maintain proper pH to maximize crop production. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use sodium bicarbonate because it is also taught as a pH modifier to maximize crop production and also provides the benefit of promoting healthy growing conditions while simultaneously limiting fungal and other unwanted growth.
From the combined teaching of the cited reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sason (WO2021009755A1; Jan. 21, 2021) as applied to claims 1-3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 above and further in view of Bierre (WO2015043750A1).
Sason does not teach the composition comprises microfibrillated cellulose. However, Bierre cures this deficiency.
Bierre teaches compositions comprising pesticides which include fungicides and microfibrillated cellulose. Bierre discloses it is an object of the present invention to provide an environmentally friendly adjuvant for pesticide compositions, which increases the activity of the pesticide against the target pest. Bierre teaches the solution to this problem is the use of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) as such an adjuvant. (see e.g. Background of the Invention; Entire Document).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Sason and Bierre and incorporate microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) in the composition of Sason. Sason teaches the protective coating composition can include fungicides (see e.g. Summary of Invention) and Bierre discloses it is an object of the present invention to provide an environmentally friendly adjuvant for pesticide (e.g. fungicide) compositions, which increases the activity of the pesticide against the target pest. Bierre teaches the solution to this problem is the use of microfibrillated cellulose (MFC) as such an adjuvant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include microfibrillated cellulose in the composition of Sason to enhance the activity of the fungicide and to provide an environmentally friendly adjuvant for pesticide.
From the combined teaching of the cited reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sason (WO2021009755A1; Jan. 21, 2021) as applied to claims 1-3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 above and further in view of Aguilar (US20190159446a1).
Sason does not teach the composition comprises silica particles. However, Aguilar cures this deficiency.
Aguilar also teaches solutions and methods for forming an exogenous flexible film on a plant. The coating comprises UV protectant component which includes silica. (see e.g., para 0031; abstract; claims; entire document).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Sason and Aguilar and incorporate silica in the coating composition of Sason. One would have been motivated to do so because both Sason and Aguilar teach compositions which are used as protective coating for plants and Aguilar teaches silica is included to provide UV protection. Thus, it would have been obvious to include silica in the composition of Sason to provide UV protection to the coating and the plant on which it is applied.
From the combined teaching of the cited reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sason (WO2021009755A1; Jan. 21, 2021) as applied to claims 1-3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28 above and further in view of Joerger et al. (US8048920B2).
Regarding claim 29, Sason teaches the composition in the form of solution and wherein water can be included at concentration of up to 99.5% (see e.g. claims; page 35) which reads on the composition being a liquid. Sason does not expressly teach the viscosity of the composition. However, Joerger cures this deficiency.
Joerger teaches water thin compositions, for example sprays, have a viscosity of less than about 100 cps (cp). (see col. 25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Sason and Joerger and make the composition of Sason having a viscosity of less than 100 cp as taught by Joerger. Sason teaches the composition can be applied by spraying (see e.g. claims) and as discussed supra, Sason also teaches the composition can have water up 99%. Joerger teaches water thin compositions, for example sprays, have a viscosity of less than about 100 cp. Thus, it would have been obvious to manipulate the viscosity (e.g. with amount of water added) and make the viscosity of Sason’s composition to be less than 100 cp when the formulation is used as spray because Joerger teaches sprays having a viscosity of less than 100 cp.
From the combined teaching of the cited reference, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI SAEED whose telephone number is (571)272-2371. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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 5712725539. 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.
/ALI S SAEED/Examiner, Art Unit 1616