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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over the article by Lin Guo (“Synthesis and Characterization of Poly(vinylpyrrolidone) Modified Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles. No distinction is seen between the composition disclosed by Lin Guo, and that recited in claims 1 and 5. Lin Guo discloses zinc oxide nanocrystals capped by poly(vinylpyrrolidone) (See the title and Introduction.) Accordingly Lin Guo anticipates claims 1 and 5, since the poly(vinylpyrrolidone provided as a surface medication for the zinc oxide nanoparticles would constitute a “coating”. In any event, it would have been obvious to provide a coating of poly(vinylpyrrolidone on the zinc oxide nanoparticles in the composition of Lin Guo, since a coating would be a form of surface modification. The poly(vinylpyrrolidone-modified zinc oxide nanoparticles disclosed by Lin Guo would constitute a “nanofertilizer” to no less extent than that recited in claims 1 and 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the article by Lin Guo. Lin Guo is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore.
Regarding claim 6, Lin Guo discloses that the ZnO is the form of nanocrystals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that such crystals could be hexagonal or cubic.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable diameter of the ZnO nanocrystals of Lin Guo.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO 2023/126895 A1. No distinction is seen between the composition disclosed by WO 2023/126895 A1, and that recited in claims 1,5 and 6. WO 2023/126895 A1 discloses a plant additive encapsulated by a polysaccharide polymer forming an encapsulated plant additive composite, wherein the plant additive can be a micronutrient. (See Paragraph [0061]. WO 2023/126895 A1 teaches in Paragraph [0043] that the micronutrient can be zinc oxide. WO 2023/126895 A1 also discloses in Paragraph [0067] that the plant nutrient has a size of from about 25 nm to about 500 nm, which would suggest nanocrystals Accordingly WO 2023/126895 A1 anticipates claims 1, 5 and 6, since one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage from WO 2023/126895 A1 a composition comprising crystalline zinc oxide nanoparticles coated with a polysaccharide polymer. In any event, it would have been obvious to provide zinc oxide nanoparticles coated with polysaccharide polymer as the composition of WO 2023/126895 A1, since such composition is suggested by the aforementioned passages. There is no “description support” in provisional application 63/424722 for the zinc oxide including a biocompatible polymer as a coating. Accordingly the earliest effective filing date which can be accorded the instant claims is the actual filing date of the non-provisional application, and WO 2023/126895 A1 is properly available as prior art.
Regarding claim 6, zinc oxide inherently has a hexagonal crystal structure under standard conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 3, 9-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/126895 A1. WO 2023/126895 A1 is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, WO 2023/126895 A1 discloses in Paragraph [0043] that the micronutrient may include copper oxide and iron. One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that mixtures of zinc oxide, iron oxide and copper oxide would be suitable.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been within the level of kill of oner of ordinary skill in art to determine a suitable ratio of the copper, zinc and iron.
Regarding claims 9-22, WO 2023/126895 A1 discloses in Paragraph [0045] that the composition can be applied as a foliar treatment. It is conventional to provide foliar treatments in the form of aqueous solutions.
Regarding claims 12-14, WO 2023/126895 A1 teaches in Paragraph [0033] that the crop can include legumes, cereals or grains, and in Paragraph [0034] that the composition can be applied at the seedling stage.
Regarding claims 15-17, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable rate of application of the aqueous solution, and a suitable concentration of the fertilizer.
Rieger et al (US 2008/0193759) is made of record for disclosing zinc oxide with a surface modification including N-vinylpyrrolidone. (See the Abstract and Paragraphs [0008] and [0027].)
FARMER et al (US 2022/0411648) is made of record for disclosing zinc oxide nanoparticles for use as a fertilizer. (See Paragraph [0126 and claims 13 and 17.)
Deb (US 2013/0219979) is made of record for disclosing zinc nanofertilizers. (See Paragraphs [0030] and [0033].)
Claims 3 and 19 are objected to s based on rejected parent claims, and would be allowed if written in independent form.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Palchoudhury ‘253 (Us 2021/0292253) discloses iron oxide nanoparticles coated with polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) in an aqueous composition for enhancing plant growth.( See claims 1, 10 and 11.) However there is no teaching, disclosure or suggestion in Palchoudhury ‘253 to substitute zinc oxide for the iron oxide. Nor would there be any motivation from the prior art (other than through impermissible hindsight) to do so. Accordingly applicant’s claims are not rejected over Palchoudhury ‘253.
The article by Lin Guo (“Synthesis and Characterization of Poly(vinylpyrrolidone) Modified Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles” discloses zinc oxide nanocrystals capped by poly(vinylpyrrolidone) (See the title and Introduction.) However there is no teaching, disclosure or suggestion in the article to substitute a mixture of cubic phase Cu4Zn6Fe2O4 and trigonal hematite for the zinc oxide. Nor would there have been any motivation from the prior art to do so. Accordingly claim 3 is not rejected over Lin Guo.
WO 2023/126895 A1 discloses a plant additive encapsulated by a polysaccharide polymer forming an encapsulated plant additive composite, wherein the plant additive can be a micronutrient. (See Paragraph [0061]. WO 2023/126895 A1 teaches in Paragraph [0043] that the micronutrient can be zinc oxide. WO 2023/126895 A1 also discloses in Paragraph [0067] that the plant nutrient has a size of from about 25 nm to about 500 nm, which would suggest nanocrystals. However there is no teaching, disclosure or suggestion in WO 2023/126895 A1 to substitute polyethylenimine or polyvinylpyrrolidone for the polysaccharide as the polymer coating in the composition. Nor would there have been any motivation from the prior art to do so. Accordingly claim 19 is not rejected over WO 2023/126895 A1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4;15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights