DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of geraniol as the species of pesticidal active and humic acid as species of fertilizing active ingredient in the reply filed on 02 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the requirement does not meaningfully reduce search burden. This is not found persuasive because search burden was demonstrated in the restriction requirement mailed 17 December 2025. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 2-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claims all recite the limitation "the method of…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. These claims all further limit system claims which are compositions of matter. For purposes of examination, these claims will be taken to be further limiting the system of the independent claims they depend there from.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “true” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “3” 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.
Claims 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The claims recite limitations to the "plant essential oil” and “plant extract” of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shakeel et al. (PCT Patent Application Publication WO 2022/140638) in view of ‘971 document (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0267971) and Atkinson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0053248)
Shakeel et al. discloses a composition comprising a minicell and an essential oil bioactive agent (claim 1), and the bioactive agent can be an essential oil such as geraniol (claim 6). The minicell encapsulates the essential oil (claim 3). And the minicell and essential oil can be encapsulated in a layer of a biopolymer such as chitosan (paragraph [227] and example 4). The minicell and encapsuled form have liquid in the core (as it has the water-based cell) and are relatively spherical (figure 1B).
While Shakeel et al. teaches the inner layers of the claimed system, the layer of a fertilizer with an additional outer layer of chitosan is not taught. Shakeel et al. does suggest additional ingredients be include, such as fertilizers (paragraph [180]), but not in the arrangement claimed.
The ‘971 document discloses an agricultural formulation comprising a minicell with at least one active compound in the cell (claim 1). The active compound may be a combination of a biocontrol compound active against a pest and a biostimulant to stimulate growth of the plant (id.). These can be encapsulated (abstract). The ‘971 document further suggests using humic acid (the elected species of fertilizer) as the biostimulant (paragraph [102]). However, the ‘971 document does not suggest using chitosan to encapsulate the biostimulant.
Atkinson et al. discloses pesticidal compositions with enhanced active ingredient retention (abstract). The coating of the particles with a polymer provides for this effect (id.). Chitosan is such a polymer useful for the coating (table 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have added the humic acid biostimulant to the coated nanocell disclosed by Shakeel et al., as doing so would provide for the additional benefit to the plant treated. And it would have been prima facie obvious to also apply a chitosan coating as taught by Atkinson et al. in order to enhance retention. Thus, the system recited by independent instant claims 1 and 16, as well as dependent instant claims 3, 6-10, and 19-20, are rendered prima facie obvious.
Instant claims 2 and 17 further limit how the nanoparticles are prepared. The patent-ability of a product does not depend on its method of production, and 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. See MPEP 2113. Thus, while Shakeel et al. does not disclose the instantly recited method steps, the composition disclosed reads on the limitations instantly recited with regards to the composition.
Instant claim 4 further limits the size of the nanoparticle, and the nanoparticle disclosed by Shakeel et al. has a range for the size which overlaps the instantly recited range (paragraph [120]). And in cases involving overlapping ranges, where the instantly claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Instant claims 5-6 further limit how the nanoparticles are used. However, the claims are drawn to a composition, and the body of the claim recites a structurally complete invention. Furthermore, the intended use does not appear to result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. As such, the preamble is not considered to further limit the claim and only states only an intended use. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
Instant claim 18 recites an alternative arrangement for the layers. And the rearrangement of elements is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Gulledge whose telephone number is (571) 270-5756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am - 4pm.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at (571) 272-3311. 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.
/Brian Gulledge/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights