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 1-3 and 5-20 are currently pending.
Claim 4 is canceled.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3 and 5-17 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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on April 02, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search or examination burden.
This is not found persuasive because each group is classified differently and requires a different search.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
There is not an Information Disclosure Statement provided.
Claim Objection(s) / Rejection(s) Withdrawn
All previous claim Objection(s) / Rejection(s) as set forth in the previous Office action (mailed 10/22/25) that are not repeated and/or maintained in the instant Office action are withdrawn.
New / Maintained Claim Objection
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is missing “; wherein” between “cottonseed oil” and “rosemary oil”.
Claim 5 is missing a space between “of and “claim 1”.
Claim 16 is missing “oil” after the term “citrus”.
New / Maintained Claim Rejection(s)
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.
Claims 12 and 14 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 12 states “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”, it is unclear because how can the pesticide formulation comprise an environment.
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 14 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.
New / Maintained Claim Rejection(s)
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 1-3 and 5-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Shakeel et al (WO2022140638; Published on June 30, 2022; Filled on December 22, 2021) in view of Hsinhung et al (US20010055628A1; Published on December 27, 2001) and Hugh et al (US1949798A; Published on March 06,1934).
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 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.
Shakeel et al. throughout teaches minicells containing bioactive agents for targeting fungal pests.
For claim 1: Shakeel teaches a fungicidal composition comprising a minicell (also referred to as AgriCell within the reference, both terms read on the nanoparticles of claim 1) and a bioactive agent having fungicidal activity, wherein the bioactive agent is an essential oil (claim 1). The references also teaches that essential oil is selected from the group consisting rosemary oil, peppermint oil (page 16, paragraph 68) and cottonseed oil (page 28, paragraph 128). Reference further discusses that the minicell can be coated by chitosan (page 50, paragraph 227).
For claim 5: Shakeel teaches that the composition comprises bioactive agent having fungicidal activity, which is intended use of the composition (claim 1).
For claims 6 and 11: Shakeel teaches that the AgriCell was coated through ionic gelation reaction, where the chitosan solution was mixed with essential oil loaded AgriCells under continuous stirring yielding chitosan coated AgriCell-EO…by centrifugation (page 60, paragraph 284).
For claims 8 and 16: Shakeel teaches non-limiting examples of essential oils including sesame oil and spearmint oil among the listed (page 16, paragraph 68) Reference also teaches bioactive agents with fungicidal and bactericidal activity include, sesame oil (page 31, paragraph 140), mineral oil (page 32, paragraph 144) and rosemary oil and cottonseed oil (page 29, paragraph 128).
For claim 9: Shakeel teaches in claim 1 that the bioactive agent is an essential oil (claim 1). The specification defines “absolute botanical” as less volatile, more pure essential oil (paragraph 0439).
For claim 10: Shakeel illustrates in figure 1 various particle diameters of AgriCells produced e.g. 0.2µm (200nm) (page 81, figure 2).
For claim 12: Shakeel teaches that the fungi pest is a plant pest and the method comprises applying the composition or formulation of the present disclosure to the plant or its surroundings (page 35, paragraph 151). Shakeel further discusses ornamental plants that include for example trees and lawns (page 35, paragraph 156).
For claim 13 and 14: Shakeel teaches that the composition can be mixed with… agriculturally acceptable carriers such as wetting agents (page 41, paragraph 186). Shakeel also discloses that the further comprises a surfactant (claim 18) and various alcohols (page 42, paragraph 191).
For claim 15: Shakeel teaches wherein said essential oil comprises an eugenol, a geraniol, or a thymol (claim 4). Reference further teaches that the fungicidal composition… wherein said essential oil is a geraniol (claim 6).
Shakeel does not teach the oil combination and concentration as recited in claims 1, 7, and 17. Reference also does not teach the formulation is an insecticide, recited in claims 2 and 3.
However, Hsinhung teaches throughout a concentrated pesticide composition comprising oil components.
For claim 1: Hsinhung teaches natural pesticide comprising oil component, selected from the group… cottonseed oil… rosemary oil… and peppermint oil (claim 2). Reference also discloses that mixing two oil components greatly increases the effectiveness for use as a pesticide (abstract).
For claims 2 and 3: Hsinhung teaches natural pesticide compositions (claim 1), which is intended use and reads on the claims.
For claim 7: Hsinhung teaches the ratio of the oils is ranged between one to ten and ten to one by weight (claim 1).
Hugh et al throughout teaches an insecticidal composition.
For claim 17: Hugh teaches insecticide for sensitive plant foliage, a refined white mineral oil (claim 5), which reads on the claim.
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 incorporate rosemary oil, peppermint oil, cottonseed oil, and white mineral oil in the composition taught by Hsinhung and Hugh in the chitosan coated minicell taught by Shakeel for the pesticide formulation because it is routine and known in the art that the listed oils above all have fungicidal/insecticidal/bactericidal effects. In addition, because the Shakeel, Hsinhung and Hugh references teach pesticide compositions with various botanical/essential oil combinations at various concentrations for pest management, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to optimize the concentration of botanical oils 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 Shakeel reference demonstrates a chitosan wrapped nanoparticle pesticide formulation with botanical oils for controlling various pests in multiple environments is routine and known in the art.
Answer to Argument
Since all previous rejections have been withdrawn, and all new rejections are added, applicants’ arguments are moot. All previous double patenting has been withdrawn due to terminal disclosure.
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