DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-27 are currently pending.
Claims 2-10, and 22-27 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 11-21 are being examined on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This application is a CON of 18/484,427(10/10/2023) as reflected in the filing receipt issued October 11, 2023.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse Group I (claims 1-21) and geraniol as the additional ingredient in the reply filed on April 02, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the 1) identification of the active ingredients is not critical and 2) there is no undue search or examination burden because the field of search and prior classes would be relevant to all groups and species.
This is not found persuasive because the process as claimed can be used to make another materially different product such as making a system for delivering geraniol as a drug for inventions in groups I and II.
For inventions II and III, the inventions differ in modes of operation
because invention II is an operation of producing a pesticide composition and Invention III is the process of controlling one of nematodes, fungus, insects, bacteria, and weeds.
Claims 2-10 and 22-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on April 02, 2026.
In addition, Claims 2-10 are withdrawn because they read on other oils and not on the elected geraniol by applicant.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
There is no Information Disclosure Statement provided.
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 11, 19, and 21 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.
Claim 11 states “the pesticide formulation of claim 1, further including a chicken that has chicken red mites, wherein the pesticide formulation is used to control the chicken red mites”, it is unclear how the pesticide formulation can comprise a chicken.
Claim 19 states “the pesticide composition of claim 1, further comprising an environment in which the pesticide composition is used, wherein the environment is one of a field, lawn, wooded area, forest, jungle, swamp, and body of water”, it is unclear because howe can the pesticide formulation comprise an environment.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "pesticide composition" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant, and the claim also recites one of alcohol, water, dextrin, calcium carbonate, lactose, propylene glycol, liquid paraffin, and saline. which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 11-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oliveira et al (Geraniol Encapsulated in Chitosan/Gum Arabic Nanoparticles: A promising System for Pest Management in Sustainable Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Vol 66 (21):5325-5334; 2018)
Claim 1, 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”.
Oliveira et al throughout teaches chitosan encapsulated geraniol nanoparticle for pest management.
For claim 1: Oliveira teaches geraniol encapsulated in the chitosan/gum arabic nanoparticles (page 5326, column 2), where the encapsulation efficacy and total amount of geraniol were calculated for the formulation (page 5326, column 2).
For claims 11, 13, 14, 15: Oliveira teaches the chitosan encapsulated geraniol nanoparticle for intended use of pest management in agriculture (page 5325, column 1 paragraph 1 and 2), which the functionality of the composition performs as a pesticide, as evidenced by the instant specification (paragraph 0004).
For claim 12: Oliveira teaches two-step process for preparing the chitosan nanoparticles containing geraniol, which consisted of the formation of geraniol droplets in a chitosan solution by means of the oil-in-water emulsion technique performed with Tween 80 (Page 5328, column 2, paragraph 2).
For claim 17: Oliveira teaches the prepared nanoparticles diameter values of around 200 nm, which were determined by dynamic light scattering and nanoparticle tracking (Table1, Figure 3 graph B, and page 5328, column 2, last paragraph).
For claim 18: Oliveira teaches geraniol encapsulated in the chitosan/gum arabic nanoparticles were quantified by an ultrafiltration/centrifugation (page 5326, column 2, second paragraph).
For claim 19: Oliveira teaches the formulated nanoparticle for sustainable agriculture (page 5326, column 1 paragraph 2). Reference further teaches that the nanoparticles were investigated in several temperatures because this is an important factor to consider in the development of formulations for agricultural applications. (page 5331, column 1 paragraph 3), which reads on the environments recited in the clam.
For claims 20 and 21: Oliveira teaches the formation of geraniol droplets in the chitosan solution by means of the oil in-water emulsion technique performed with Tween 80 (page 5328, column 2, paragraph 2), which can be considered as filler and surfactant, which reads on both claims.
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, 11-15, 16, 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira et al (Geraniol Encapsulated in Chitosan/Gum Arabic Nanoparticles: A promising System for Pest Management in Sustainable Agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Vol 66 (21):5325-5334; 2018) in view of Tamarkin et al (US20070020304/ Published on January 01, 2007)
Oliveira et al throughout the publication, teaches geraniol nanoparticle encapsulated in chitosan for pest management as discussed above.
Oliveira et al does not teach “the geraniol oil concentration of 50-4000 ppm”, as recited in claim 16.
However, Tamarkin et al throughout teaches an insecticide composition comprising of essential oils.
For claims 16: Tamarkin teaches a hydrophobic carrier… or mixture thereof, at a concentration of about 2% to about 50% by weight of the composition (claim 30, step 2). Reference also teaches insecticides are included in the composition in a concentration between about 0.05% and about 12% by weight, depending on their potency (paragraph 60).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration of oil taught by Tamarkin in the chitosan wrapped nanoparticle taught by Oliveira for the pesticide formulation. In addition, because both the Oliveira and Tamarkin references teach pesticide compositions with different ranges of geraniol to deter several pest types, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to increase the amount of geraniol as desired in the chitosan wrapped nanoparticle to achieve effective agricultural and environmentally friendly pesticides.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success of achieving such modifications since Oliveira reference has demonstrated a chitosan wrapped nanoparticle pesticide formulation with geraniol for controlling various pests in multiple environments is routine and known in the art.
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, 11-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/433,392 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 is 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.
Reference claim 1 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 differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim additional additives well known in the art to be incorporated in the composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 11-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 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 instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 stated above.
Reference claim 1 is drawn, 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.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim specifically discloses “to control chicken red mites on a chicken” which is known in the art for the composition.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 11-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/484,427 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 stated above.
Reference claim 1 is drawn, 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 garlic oil, clove oil, and thyme oil, the garlic oil, clove oil, and thyme oil being at predetermined concentrations; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in the chitosan.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim specifically discloses specific additives which is known in the art for pest control compositions incorporating essential/botanical oils.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 11-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/484,622 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 stated above.
Reference claim 1 is drawn, 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 garlic oil, castor oil, lemongrass oil, and cedarwood oil, the garlic oil, castor oil, lemongrass oil, and cedarwood oil being at predetermined concentrations; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in the chitosan.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim specifically discloses specific additives which is known in the art for pest control compositions incorporating essential/botanical oils.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 11-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 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 instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 stated above.
Reference claim 1 is drawn, 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.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim specifically discloses specific additives which is known in the art for pest control compositions incorporating essential/botanical oils.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 11-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-17 of copending Application No. 18/484,686 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 stated above.
Reference claim 1 is drawn, 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 rosemary oil, peppermint oil, and cottonseed oil, rosemary oil, peppermint oil, and cottonseed oil being at predetermined concentrations; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in chitosan; and wherein the pesticide formulation is a fungicide.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is that the reference claim specifically discloses specific additives which is known in the art for pest control compositions incorporating essential/botanical oils.
However, the differences are close enough that they would be anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMINE A EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-9796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00EST.
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.
/J.A.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights