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 .
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and III are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product.
Inventions I and II are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product.
Inventions II and III are unrelated. Inventions are unrelated if it can be shown that they are not disclosed as capable of use together and they have different designs, modes of operation, and effects (MPEP § 802.01 and § 806.06). In the instant case, the different inventions differ in modes of operation.
I. Claims 1-13,17 drawn to pesticidal formulation comprising nanoparticles and chitosan; wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises oxymatrine, tea saponin tea, geraniol, peppermint oil, and cottonseed oil, rosemary oil, peppermint oil, cinnamon oil, neem oil. Thyme oil and clove oil being at predetermined concentrations; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in chitosan, classified in A01N 25/28.
II. Claims 14 drawn to a process of producing a pesticide composition comprising
centrifuging a formulation comprising spearmint, garlic oil, clove oil, and thyme oil to create a nanoparticle formulation comprising nanoparticles; and encapsulating the nanoparticles in chitosan, classified in A01N 31/02.
III. Claim 15,16, drawn to a method of controlling nematodes, the method comprising: using a nematicide; wherein the nematicide comprises a nanoparticle formulation comprising garlic oil, clove oil, and thyme oil, and the nanoparticle formulation is encapsulated in chitosan, classified in A01N 27/00.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Each group could require a different search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Attorney Linda Saltiel on 09/15/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I claims 1-13,17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-18 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1,2,4-6,10-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13,17 of copending Application No. 18484622 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both instant application claims and Application No. 18848622 claims make claim to a “pesticide formulation used to control pest, 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(see instant claim 16 and US ‘622 claim 1) “; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in the chitosan.”
Both applications make claim to claim 2 being:
“2. The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the pesticide composition is an insecticide(instant ‘648 claim 2; USAN ‘622 claim 2).”
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising a chitosan solution(US ‘622 claim 5 and instant ‘648 claim 4), wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution(instant claim 4 and USAN ‘622 claim 5).
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles formulation comprises nanoparticles with a diameter of 20-200 nm ”is (instant claim 7 and USAN ‘622 claim 9).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation wherein the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge(instant claim 11 and US ‘622 claim 10”).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation 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(Instant claim 9 US ‘648 application and USAN ‘622 claim 11).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant in the pesticide formulation(instant claim 11 and USAN ‘622 claim 12).
Both applications make claim to:: The pesticide formulation of claim 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(instant claim 1, para 716.174 and US ‘622 claim 13).
Claims 1,7,10-14 (US Application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6,9,12,17-21 of copending Application No. 18/484603 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both instant application claims and Application No. 18/484603 claims make claim to a “pesticide formulation used to control pest, the pesticide formulation comprising a plurality of nanoparticles; and chitosan wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises” geraniol and oxymatrine(see instant claim 1,2 and US ‘603 claims 2,3 “; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in the chitosan.”
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution(instant claim 6 and USAN ‘603 claim 12).
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles formulation comprises nanoparticles with a diameter of 20-200 nm ”is (instant claim 8 and USAN ‘603 claim 17.)
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation wherein the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge(instant claim 11 and US ‘603 claim 18”).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation 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(Instant claim 10 and USAN ‘603 claim 19).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant in the pesticide formulation(instant claim 11 and USAN ‘603 claim 21).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation of claim 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(instant claim 14 and USAN ‘603 claim 21).
Claims 1,5,7,9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18476743 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions make claim to a formulation comprising a plurality of 20-200nm nanoparticles comprising essential oil such as peppermint, clove, oxymatrine and geraniol(instant ‘648 claims 5; US ‘743 claim 5) plus saline(instant US ‘648 claim 11; US ‘743 claim 9); wherein the nanoparticles are wrapped in chitosan(instant US ‘648 claim 8). Centrifuge is used. The instant claims differ from USAN ‘743 claims in Statutory Subject matter ( instant formulation claims versus USAN ‘648 method claims).The instant claims differ from USAN ‘743 claims in Statutory Subject matter ( instant formulation claims versus USAN ‘743 method claims). Note instant USAN ‘743 suggest/embrace instant composition clams, thus, USAN ‘743 rendering instant claims obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1,5,7-10,14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2,4 of copending Application No. 18484648 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions make claim to a formulation comprising a plurality of 20-200 nm nanoparticles comprising essential oil such as peppermint, clove, 50-4000 ppm oxymatrine and geraniol plus saline; wherein the nanoparticles are wrapped in chitosan. Centrifuge is used. The instant claims differ from USAN ‘743 claims in Statutory Subject matter ( instant formulation claims versus USAN ‘648 method claims). Note instant USAN ‘648 suggest/embrace instant composition clams, thus, USAN ‘648 rendering instant claims obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1,3,4-8, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2,4,8-10 of copending Application No. 18433393 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions make claim to a formulation comprising a plurality of 20-200 nm nanoparticles comprising essential oil such as peppermint, clove, 50-4000 ppm essential oil(e,g,, geraniol) plus saline; wherein the nanoparticles are wrapped in chitosan. Centrifuge is used. Note USAN ‘393 suggest/embrace instant composition clams, thus, USAN ‘393 rendering instant claims obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1,4-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,2,4 of copending Application No. 18433392 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions make claim to a formulation comprising a plurality of 20-200 nm nanoparticles comprising essential oil such as peppermint, clove, 50-4000 ppm essential oil(tea tree oil, saponin oil) plus saline; wherein the nanoparticles are wrapped in chitosan. Centrifuge is used.
Note instant USAN ‘392 suggest/embrace instant composition clams, thus, USAN ‘392 rendering instant claims obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1,7,10-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,6,9,12,17-21 of copending Application No. 18/484603 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both instant application claims and Application No. 18/484603 claims make claim to a “pesticide formulation used to control pest, the pesticide formulation comprising a plurality of nanoparticles; and chitosan wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises” geraniol and oxymatrine(see instant claim 15 and US ‘603 claim 1) “; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in the chitosan.”
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution(instant claim 6 and USAN ‘603 claim 12).
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles formulation comprises nanoparticles with a diameter of 20-200 nm ”is (instant claim 10 and USAN ‘603 claim 17.)
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation wherein the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge(instant claim 11 and US ‘603 claim 18”).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation 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(Instant claim 12 and USAN ‘603 claim 19.
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant in the pesticide formulation(instant claim 13 and USAN ‘603 claim 20).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation of claim 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(instant claim 14 and USAN ‘603 claim 21).
Claims 1,6,10-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,7-15 of copending Application No. 18/484686 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both instant application claims and Application No. 18/484427 claims make claim to a “pesticide formulation used to control pest, the pesticide formulation comprising a plurality of nanoparticles; and chitosan wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises” garlic oil(see instant claim 16 and US ‘427 claim 5) “; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in the chitosan.”
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution(instant claim 6 and USAN ‘427 claim 4).
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles formulation comprises nanoparticles with a diameter of 20-200 nm ”is (instant claim 10 and USAN ‘427 claim 8.)
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation wherein the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge(instant claim 11 and US 427 claim 9”).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation 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(Instant claim 12 and USAN ‘427 claim 10.
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant in the pesticide formulation(instant claim 13 and USAN ‘622 claim 12).
Both applications make claim to:: The pesticide formulation of claim 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(instant claim 14 and ‘427 claim 12).
Both applications make claim to:: The pesticide formulation of claim wherein the formulation can comprise geraniol and oxymatrine(instant claim 15 and US ‘427 claim 13).
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution(instant claim 6 and USAN ‘427 claim 4).
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles formulation comprises nanoparticles with a diameter of 20-200 nm ”is (instant claim 10 and USAN ‘427 claim 8.)
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation wherein the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge(instant claim 11 and US 427 claim 9”).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation 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(Instant claim 12 and USAN ‘427 claim 10.
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant in the pesticide formulation(instant claim 13 and USAN ‘427 claim 12).
Both applications make claim to:: The pesticide formulation of claim 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(instant claim 14 and ‘427 claim 12).
Both applications make claim to:: The pesticide formulation of claim wherein the formulation can comprise geraniol and oxymatrine(instant claim 15 and US ‘427 claim 13).
Claims 1,8,10-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, of copending Application No. 18/476743 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both instant application claims and Application No. 18/484423 claims make claim to a “pesticide” formulation used to control pest, the pesticide formulation comprising a plurality of nanoparticles; and chitosan wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises” mint” (see instant claim 1 and US ’423 claim 8) “; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in the chitosan(‘423 claim 1)”. Instant application claim 10 teach 20-200 nm nanoparticle size which is disclosed by ‘423 claim 4. US ‘423 claim 7 teach the inclusion of fillers, extenders, surfactant which reads on instant claim 13-14. USAN ‘423 claim 11 teach the centrifuge which reads on instant claim 2. US ‘423 make claim to the pesticide being used in field, lawn which reads on instant claim 12
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution(instant claim 6 and USAN ‘423 claim 4).
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles formulation comprises nanoparticles with a diameter of 20-200 nm ”is (instant claim 10 and USAN ‘423 claim 8.)
Claims 1,-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both instant application claims and Application No. 18/484423 claims make claim to a “pesticide formulation used to control pest, the pesticide formulation comprising a plurality of nanoparticles; and chitosan wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises” garlic oil(see instant claim 16 and US ‘423 claim 8) “; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in the chitosan.”
Both applications make claim to claim 2 being:
“2. The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the pesticide composition is an insecticide.”
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution(instant claim 6 and USAN ‘427 claim 4).
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles formulation comprises nanoparticles with a diameter of 20-200 nm ”is (instant claim 10 and USAN ‘423 claim 4.)
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation wherein the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge(instant claim 3 and US ‘423 claim 2”).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation 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(Instant claim 12 and USAN ‘423 claim 15.
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant in the pesticide formulation(instant claim 6 and USAN ‘423 claim 12).
Both applications make claim to:: The pesticide formulation of claim 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(instant claim 14 and instant claim 13).
Claims 1,5,7,14, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/476743 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both instant application claims and Application No. 18/476743 claims make claim of combining/adding an active ingredient(essential oil including garlic, geraniol, castor, oxymatrine) in a centrifuging chitosan with the active forming into 20-200 nm diameter nanoparticle spheres The method Claims of 18/476743 make claim and encompasses the instant claims rendering instant claims obvious.
Claims 1,10,11,13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/18433393 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both instant application claims and Application No. 18/18433393 claims make claim to a “pesticide formulation used to control pest(e.g. 18/18433393), the pesticide formulation comprising a plurality of nanoparticles; and chitosan wherein each nanoparticle in the plurality of nanoparticles comprises” garlic oil(see instant claim 16 and US ‘393 claim 4) “; wherein the each of the nanoparticles in the plurality of nanoparticles are wrapped in the chitosan.”
Both applications make claim to claim 2 being:
“2. The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the pesticide composition is an insecticide.”
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising a chitosan solution, wherein the chitosan used to encapsulate the nanoparticles is in the chitosan solution(instant claim 1 and USAN ‘393 claim 11).
Both applications make claim to: “The pesticide formulation of claim 1, wherein the nanoparticles formulation comprises nanoparticles with a diameter of 20-200 nm ”is (instant claim 10 and USAN ‘393 claim 5.)
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation wherein the nanoparticles are created using a centrifuge(instant claim 11 and US ‘393 claim 6 ).
Both applications make claim to: The pesticide formulation of claim 1, further comprising at least one of a filler, an extender, a wetting agent, a disintegrant, and a surfactant in the pesticide formulation(instant claim 13 and USAN ‘393 claim 7,20).
Both applications make claim to:: The pesticide formulation of claim 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(instant claim 8 and US ‘393 claim 7).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Objection
Claims 3-5,9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Suggestion
In claim 6 line 1 delete “Wherein” and insert --- wherein ---.
Telephonic Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALTON NATHANIEL PRYOR whose telephone number is (571)272-0621. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00 M-F.
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, Liu, Sue 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.
/ALTON N PRYOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616