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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-5, and 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (KR 20210030108, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Okuzono et. al. (JP 2007-045797A, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claims 11, 3, 4, Lee teaches a method for controlling green tide (refer abstract), the method comprising:
Administering a green tide control agent comprising hydrogen peroxide (refer abstract), a carboxylic acid compound (Refer page 3 disclosing “The organic acid is not limited thereto, but citric acid, acetic acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid, maleic acid, fumaric acid, formic acid, propionic acid, oxalic acid, trifluoroacetic acid, benzoic acid, gluconic acid, metasulfonic acid, glycolic acid, succinic acid, 4-toluenesulfonic acid, Includes glutamic acid and aspartic acid”), and a flavonoid-based compound (refer abstract, page 3). Lee teaches that the flavonoid-based compound is amentoflavone (refer abstract). Amentoflavone comprises apigenin (refer attached evidentiary reference: Xiong X, Tang N, Lai X, Zhang J, Wen W, Li X, Li A, Wu Y, Liu Z. Insights Into Amentoflavone: A Natural Multifunctional Biflavonoid. Front Pharmacol. 2021 Dec 22;12:768708.).
Lee does not teach that the green tide control agent comprises a ketone compound.
Okuzono teaches a algicidal and bactericidal treatment agent comprising (A) a saturated aliphatic alcohol having a carbon number of 4-30, (B) a saturated aliphatic aldehyde having a carbon number of 1-18, (C) an ester compound of an unsaturated fatty acid having a number of 4-20, (D) an ester compound of a thiocarboxylic acid having a carbon number of 1-10, (E) an ester compound of anisic acid and other acids, (F) an ester compound of an isothiocyanic acid having a carbon number of 1-8, (G) an aliphatic single ether having a carbon number of 2-20, (H) an aliphatic saturated ketone having a carbon number of 3-20, (I) a thioether compound having a carbon number of not more than 20, (J) a thiol compound having a carbon number of not more than 20, (K) a monoterpene, and (L) a β-lactone and further contains a pH regulating agent (refer abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the composition of Okuzono to include ketone because Okuzono establishes that it is known in the art to use ketone in an algicidal composition.
Regarding claim 2, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Lee further teaches that the composition contains hydrogen peroxide at concentration of 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L (refer page 4). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Adjusting hydrogen peroxide concentration would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Okuzono teaches that content of the pH adjusting agent to be used is not particularly limited, but when it contains an organic acid, it is 0.1 to 90% by weight, preferably 10 to 90% by weight in the total amount of the processing agent (refer page 7). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Adjusting hydrogen peroxide concentration would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Lee further teaches that the flavonoid-based compound is in a range of 0.001% by weight to 99% by weight based on total weight of the composition (refer page 4). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Adjusting hydrogen peroxide concentration would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Lee further teaches that the flavonoid-based compound is in a range of 0.001% by weight to 99% by weight based on total weight of the composition (refer page 4). Lee further teaches that the composition contains hydrogen peroxide at concentration of 0.1 to 1.0 mg/L (refer page 4). kuzono teaches that content of the pH adjusting agent to be used is not particularly limited, but when it contains an organic acid, it is 0.1 to 90% by weight, preferably 10 to 90% by weight in the total amount of the processing agent (refer page 7). Selecting/adjusting proportions of the compounds in the composition would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Adjusting hydrogen peroxide concentration would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. In table 1 and 2, and fig. 1, Lee discloses different concentration of green tide control agent and its effectiveness in algicidal effect. Optimizing concentration of the agent would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Adjusting hydrogen peroxide concentration would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. Also refer In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et. al. (KR 20210030108, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Okuzono et. al. (JP 2007-045797A, refer attached English language machine translation for claim mapping) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of van Aller et al. (US 4398937).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee teaches limitations of claim 11 as set forth above. Modified Lee does not teach that ketone is contained at a concentration in a range of 5 to 500 ppm.
van Aller teaches selective control of algae in water bodies using algaecides (refer abstract), wherein treatment is accomplished by spraying on the water or by injection just below the water surface with distribution as evenly as possible in the area to be treated, and discloses that composition comprises a about 15% to 30% dispersing agent which comprises ketone (refer C3/L19-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select desired/effective concentration of ketone in the composition of modified Lee to enable dispersion of green tide control agent as taught by van Aller.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejection of claim 11, applicant argued: “The flavonoid-based compound presently recited in claim 11 is limited to specific flavones, namely apigenin, luteolin, baicalein, and chrysin. Lee neither discloses nor suggests the use of these flavones in a green tide control agent. Accordingly, the amended claim is not taught by Lee”. This is not found to be persuasive because Lee teaches that the flavonoid-based compound is amentoflavone (refer abstract). Amentoflavone comprises apigenin.
Applicant further argued:
PNG
media_image1.png
454
1128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This is not found to be persuasive because the alleged unexpected results is achieved when the composition is made with following concentrations (page 11 of instant specification).
PNG
media_image2.png
364
668
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The comparative examples were prepared without flavonoid based compound (refer page 11 of the instant specification).
PNG
media_image3.png
202
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, Lee discloses a combination of hydrogen peroxide, carboxylic acid and flavonoid-based compound. The instant disclosure or arguments do not provide data supporting unexpected results over the combination taught by Lee. Furthermore, the evidence has not established criticality over the entire range of concentrations claimed in claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 101536687A teaches use of flavone and isoflavone derivatives as anti-bio-fouling material, also teaches apigenin and luteolin.
CN 112574610A teaches a coating comprising luteolin for reducing fouling.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
