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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (CN 102960350) in view of Ke et al. (CN 107056782) and further in view of Imran et al. (Application of Glycerin and Polymer Coated Diammonium Phosphate in Alkaline Calcareous Soil for Improving Wheat Growth, Grain Yield and Phosphorus Use Efficiency) (submitted by the applicant).
The claims are drawn to a composition, comprising: pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ); a salt; an acid; and water.
Regarding claims 1-3, Gu teaches an agricultural composition comprising pyrroloquinoline quinone in preventing and treating plant wilt. See the abstract and Para [0001]. The use of water is taught in para [0025]. The use of an acid, such as phosphoric acid is taught in Para [0048]. Gu differs from the claimed invention in the presence of a salt. However, it would have been obvious to add a salt to the composition of Gu, motivated by the teachings of Imran et al., which teaches the use of diammonium phosphate in the agricultural field for improving plant height and yield. See the abstract and conclusion.
Regarding claim 4, Gu teaches the use of PQQ in a powder form. See Para [0058] and claim 6.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 19 and 20, Gu does not teach the amount of PQQ and diammonium phosphate. However, the determination of optimum proportions or amounts are considered to be within the skill of the artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Gu does not teach the length of the time that the composition stays in solution. However, the determination of the length of a composition staying in a solution would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art. Gu makes clear that the PQQ is in a solution. To select a specific length of time within the scope of Gu would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 9, Gu teaches that the composition can be in a solution form. See Para [0058] and claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, Gu and Imran teach the claimed components as discussed in claim 1. To add the claimed composition to a container is taught by Gu, which teaches the use of a container for storing and housing PQQ. See Para [0042].
Regarding claim 11, Gu teaches the addition of an acid to PQQ. Therefore, adjusting the pH is the expected property of adding an acid to PQQ as taught by Gu et al.
Regarding claim12 Gu teaches the use of water for dissolving PQQ powder and as in solutions, emulsions and suspensions. To use a specific water is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 13, Gu teaches PQQ is a brown, odorless, thermally stable, water-soluble organic substance is found in the bacteria. See Para [0007].
Regarding claim 14, Gu does not teach that PQQ is extracted from methylotrophic bacteria, however Ke teaches that a separation and purification method of pyrroloquinoline quinone in methylotrophic bacteria fermentation liquor and application of the method. See the abstract.
Regarding claim 15, the determination of the temperature of mixing the ingredients is considered to be within the skill of the artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, Gu teaches that Because PQQ active material has good stability under normal conditions (e.g. room temperature, air humidity, etc.). See Para [0066]. Room temperature reads on the temperature claimed herein.
Regarding claim 16, Gu teaches the application of PQQ to the foliage of a plant. See Para [0075].
Regarding claim 17, Gu teaches the application of PQQ to the soil. See Para [0098].
Regarding claim 18, Gu teaches the application of PQQ to the seeds. See Para [0073].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHREH A FAY whose telephone number is (703)756-1800. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZOHREH A FAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617