DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s Response to Restriction Requirement filed May 7, 2026.
The examiner assigned to the instant application has changed. Contact information is provided below.
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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on May 7, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Groups are not distinct from one another and no serious search or examination burden exists. This is not found persuasive because the product as claimed can be made by a materially different process such as via ultrasonic dispersion followed by encapsulation in chitosan; the processes are materially different as evidenced by their different method steps; and the product can be used in a materially different process such as application to the soil. Thus the different groups are distinct. Additionally, each Group has acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classifications and the inventions require a different field of search including searching different classes/subclasses and employing different search strategies and queries. See Restriction Requirement for further details.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Accordingly, claims 1-10 are currently under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: said claim recites, “is used to control Yellow Sigatoka”. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, “used to control Black Sigatoka on banana leaves”. In order to be properly further limiting the intended use of claim 1, claim 2 should be amended to include “further” prior to “used to control”. Appropriate correction is requested.
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 3 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 3 recites, “further comprising a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution”. Claim 3 depends form claim 1. Claim 1 sets out that chitosan wraps around or encapsulates the nanoparticles. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the chitosan referred to is the chitosan already recited in claim 1 or if additional chitosan is required and, if the latter, then how is the additional chitosan structurally related to the original chitosan recited.
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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (WO 2022/140639 A1, Jun. 30, 2022, hereafter as “Frank”).
The claimed invention is drawn to a pesticide formulation used to control Black Sigatoka on banana leaves, the pesticide formulation comprising: a plurality of nanoparticles; and chitosan; wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises at least one of tea tree oil, tea tree absolute, tea saponin oil, and tea saponin absolute; wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles is wrapped in chitosan.
Regarding instant claim 1, Frank teaches a pesticide formulation (abstract; [188], compositions and methods for controlling insect pests with bioactive agent; [0172], Examples of such agronomic plants the banana family; [183], the insecticidal compositions of the present disclosure are also useful for control of pests such as Mycosphaerellaceae), the pesticide formulation comprising: nanoparticles ([09] and [201], a minicell AgriCell; [127]; The minicell is about 10 nm - about 1000 nm in size); wherein the nanoparticles comprises at least one of tea tree oil, tea tree absolute, tea saponin oil, and tea saponin absolute ([202], Once the AgriCell is loaded with active ingredients, it serves as a carrier;[09] and [255], a bioactive agent essential oils; [74]; claim 7, Non-limiting examples of essential oils are tee tree oil); and wherein the nanoparticles are wrapped in chitosan ([010]; Example 4, the bioactive agent is present within the minicell; [230], the AgriCell platform can be coated by biopolymer. The biopolymer is a chitosan).
In regards to the limitation, “used to control Black Sigatoka on banana leaves”, said limitation is a recitation of intended use and, as such, does not alone show patentable distinction. A recitation of intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim.
Frank does not teach a particular embodiment combining chitosan and one of tea tree oil, tea tree absolute, tea saponin oil, or tea saponin absolute.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the particular active agent, one of tea tree oil, tea tree absolute, tea saponin oil, or tea saponin absolute which the particular biopolymer coating, chitosan with a reasonable expectation of success because Frank teaches each of the components are suitable for the invention and combining said particular components amounts to routine experimentation.
Regarding instant claim 2, the claim recites, “used to control Yellow Sigatoka”, said limitation is a recitation of intended use and, as such, does not alone show patentable distinction. A recitation of intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim. Said claim does not further include any structural limitations. As such, Frank meets the limitations of the claim.
Regarding instant claim 3, Frank further teaches a chitosan solution is mixed with the minicells yielding chitosan coating minicells ([286]).
Regarding instant claim 4, Frank further teaches that the active agent, e.g., essential oil can be present in an amount of about 0.1 to about 99.9% and amount various aspects, the encapsulated bioactive can be present in the minicells in an amount of least about 0.1%, at least about 0.2%, at least about 0.3%, or at least about 0.4% ([237]-[238]). It is noted that 0.1% equates to 1000 ppm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Because the claimed range of 50-4000 ppm overlaps with the ranges disclosed by prior art (at least 1000 ppm, at least 2000 ppm, etc.), a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding instant claim 5, Frank, as discussed above, teaches that the minicell is about 10 nm - about 1000 nm in size ([127]). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Because the claimed range of 20-200 nm lies inside the ranges disclosed by prior art (10-1000 nm), a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding instant claim 6, said claim recites, “created using a centrifuge” which is deemed a product-by-process limitation, and as such, determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not by the method in which it is made. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113). Claim 6 does not further limit the product itself, therefore Frank meets the limitation of said claim. It is further noted that Frank teaches centrifugation (Example 4; [286]).
Regarding instant claims 7 and 8, Frank further teaches that the insecticidal composition can comprise a surfactant, wetting agents, an aqueous solvent, ethanol, Tween 80 and phosphate buffered saline (PBS ([09], [188], [245], [254] and [288]).
Regarding instant claim 9, Frank further teaches the particular essential oil, geraniol ([09], [11], [139], [162] [253]). MPEP 2144.06(I) states, "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the particular active agent, one of tea tree oil, tea tree absolute, tea saponin oil, or tea saponin absolute with another essential oil such as geraniol with a reasonable expectation of success because both essential oil compounds are useful as bioactives in pesticidal compositions.
Regarding instant claim 10, Frank teaches that the active agent, e.g., essential oil can be present in an amount of about 0.1 to about 99.9% and amount various aspects, the encapsulated bioactive can be present in the minicells in an amount of least about 0.1%, at least about 0.2%, at least about 0.3%, or at least about 0.4% ([237]-[238]). It is noted that 0.1% equates to 1000 ppm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Because the claimed range of 50-4000 ppm overlaps with the ranges disclosed by prior art (at least 1000 ppm, at least 2000 ppm, etc.), a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Thus, the teachings of Frank render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,568,961 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant claims and the subject matter of the patented claims are significantly overlapping.
The claimed invention is drawn to a pesticide formulation used to control Black Sigatoka on banana leaves, the pesticide formulation comprising: a plurality of nanoparticles; and chitosan; wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises at least one of tea tree oil, tea tree absolute, tea saponin oil, and tea saponin absolute; wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles is wrapped in chitosan.
The patented invention is drawn to a method of encapsulating a pesticidal active ingredient selected from the group consisting of a plant essential oil, a plant extract, an organic absolute botanical, and an organic essential oil, the method comprising: adding a first active ingredient to a centrifuge; adding a solution containing chitosan into the centrifuge; centrifuging the chitosan-active ingredient mixture to create nanoparticle spheres of a first diameter; collecting the nanoparticle spheres of a first diameter; adding the nanoparticle spheres, a second active ingredient, and a solution containing chitosan into a centrifuge; centrifuging the mixture to create nanoparticle spheres having a second diameter larger than the first diameter; and collecting the nanoparticle spheres of a second diameter, wherein the centrifuge comprises a nozzle having an internal portion with a diameter of 0.2-0.6 millimeters and an external portion with a diameter of 0.7-1.0 millimeters, the centrifuge operates at 4000-8000 rps, and the centrifuge operates at 4000-8000 rps, and the resulting nanoparticle spheres form a formulation effective for protecting plants from pests. The patented claims further recite, “wherein the first active ingredient is a plant essential oil or plant extract”, “wherein the plant essential oil or plant extract is selected from the group consisting of oxymatrine, geraniol, castor oil, castor extract, linseed, cedar, cinnamon, mint, peppermint, citronella, clove, corn, rosemary, cottonseed, sesame, garlic, soybean, thyme, geranium, lemongrass, tea tree, white mineral oil, citrus, spearmint, and a mixture thereof”; “ wherein the nanoparticle spheres having the second diameter have a diameter of 20-200 nm”; “wherein the chitosan and active ingredient combine to form a mixture that is centrifuged at 6000 rps to obtain substantially spherical nanoparticles comprising chitosan-encapsulated active ingredient”; and “further comprising adding a diluent to the nanoparticle spheres after the second centrifugation step, the diluent being selected from the group consisting of water, dextrin, calcium carbonate, lactose, propylene glycol, liquid paraffin, and normal saline”.
While the patent is drawn to a method of making and the instant application is drawn to a product, the method of making necessarily results in the same product.
In regards to the limitations, “used to control Black Sigatoka on banana leaves” (instant claim 1) and “used to control Yellow Sigatoka” (instant claim 2), said limitations are recitations of intended use and, as such, do not alone show patentable distinction. A recitation of intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim.
Thus, the instant claims are anticipated by the patented claims and are, thereby, unpatentable over the patented claims.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/433,393 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant claims and the subject matter of the copending claims are significantly overlapping.
The instant claims are described above.
The copending claims are drawn to a pesticide formulation used to control Chicken red mites on a chicken, the chicken containing an egg, the pesticide formulation comprising: a plurality of nanoparticles; and chitosan; wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises at least geraniol and an essential oil; wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles is wrapped in chitosan; wherein the pesticide formulation does not translocate to the egg inside the chicken; and methods of making and using thereof. The copending claims further recite, “further comprising a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution”; “wherein geraniol is at a concentration of 50-4000 ppm”; tea saponin as an essential oil; nanoparticle diameter of 20-200 nm; “the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge”, “further comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant in the pesticide formulation”, “wherein the at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant is one of alcohol, water, dextrin, calcium carbonate, lactose, propylene glycol, liquid paraffin, and saline”, “wherein each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles further comprises at least one of geraniol and oxymatrine”; and “wherein each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles further comprises geraniol at a concentration of 50-4000 ppm”.
In regards to the limitations, “used to control Black Sigatoka on banana leaves” (instant claim 1) and “used to control Yellow Sigatoka” (instant claim 2), said limitations are recitations of intended use and, as such, do not alone show patentable distinction. A recitation of intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim.
Thus, the instant claims are anticipated by the copending claims and are, thereby, unpatentable over the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/484,423 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant claims and the subject matter of the copending claims are significantly overlapping.
The instant claims are described above.
The copending claims are drawn to a system for a formulation of nanoparticles used for protecting plants from pests while promoting plant growth, the formulation comprising: A solution comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant; nanoparticles with relatively spherical layers in the solution, the nanoparticles comprising: a relatively spherical liquid core layer comprising a pesticidal active ingredient; a relatively spherical first layer comprising chitosan, the relatively spherical first layer wrapping the relatively spherical liquid core layer and located directly on the relatively spherical liquid core layer; a relatively spherical second layer comprising a fertilizing active ingredient, the spherical second layer wrapping the first spherical layer; a relatively spherical final layer comprising chitosan, the relatively spherical final layer being the outermost relatively spherical layer of the nanoparticle; wherein the formulation is applied to an environment, and the pesticidal active ingredient and the fertilizing active ingredient are released into the environment; and methods thereof. The copending claims further recite, “the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge”; a nanoparticle diameter of 20-200 nm; wherein the at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant is one of water and alcohol; wherein the at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant is one of, dextrin, calcium carbonate, lactose, propylene glycol, liquid paraffin, and saline; and wherein the one of plant essential oil and plant extract is oxymatrine, geraniol, castor oil, castor extract, linseed, cedar, cinnamon, mint, peppermint, citronella, clove, corn, rosemary, cottonseed, sesame, garlic, soybean, thyme, geranium, lemongrass, tea tree, white mineral oil, citrus, spearmint, and a mixture thereof.
In regards to the limitations, “used to control Black Sigatoka on banana leaves” (instant claim 1) and “used to control Yellow Sigatoka” (instant claim 2), said limitations are recitations of intended use and, as such, do not alone show patentable distinction. A recitation of intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim.
Thus, the instant claims are anticipated by the copending claims and are, thereby, unpatentable over the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of copending Application No. 18/484,603 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant claims and the subject matter of the copending claims are significantly overlapping.
The instant claims are described above.
The copending claims are drawn to a pesticide formulation used to control pests, the pesticide formulation comprising: a plurality of nanoparticles; and chitosan; wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises geraniol, the geraniol being at a predetermined concentration; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in the chitosan; and methods of making and using thereof. The copending claims further recite, “wherein each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles further comprises at least one of oxymatrine and neem oil”; “wherein each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles further comprises tea tree oil”; “wherein the composition is used to control black sigatoka”; “further including a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution”; “wherein the geraniol oil is at a concentration of 50-4000 ppm”; “wherein the nanoparticle formulation comprises nanoparticles with a diameter of 20-200 nm”; “wherein the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge”; “further comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant in the pesticide formulation”; and “wherein the at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant is one of alcohol, water, dextrin, calcium carbonate, lactose, propylene glycol, liquid paraffin, and saline”.
In regards to the limitations, “used to control Black Sigatoka on banana leaves” (instant claim 1) and “used to control Yellow Sigatoka” (instant claim 2), said limitations are recitations of intended use and, as such, do not alone show patentable distinction. A recitation of intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim.
Thus, the instant claims are anticipated by the copending claims and are, thereby, unpatentable over the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/484,648 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant claims and the subject matter of the copending claims are significantly overlapping.
The instant claims are described above.
The copending claims are drawn to a pesticide formulation used to control pests, the pesticide formulation comprising: a plurality of nanoparticles; chitosan; wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises at least one of oxymatrine and tea saponin, the at least one of oxymatrine and tea saponin being at predetermined concentrations; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are encased in the chitosan, and a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution; and methods of making and using thereof. The copending claims further recite, “wherein the at least one of oxymatrine and tea saponin are at a concentration of 50-4000 ppm”; “wherein the nanoparticle formulation comprises nanoparticles with a diameter of 20-200 nm”; “wherein the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge”; “further comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant in the pesticide formulation”; “wherein the at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant is one of alcohol, water, dextrin, calcium carbonate, lactose, propylene glycol, liquid paraffin, and saline”; and “wherein each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles further comprises geraniol”.
In regards to the limitations, “used to control Black Sigatoka on banana leaves” (instant claim 1) and “used to control Yellow Sigatoka” (instant claim 2), said limitations are recitations of intended use and, as such, do not alone show patentable distinction. A recitation of intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art is capable of performing the intended use, it meets the claim.
Thus, the instant claims are anticipated by the copending claims and are, thereby, unpatentable over the copending claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASEY S HAGOPIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights