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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 2-11 in the reply filed on 04/01/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 1 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 04/01/2026.
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 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “wherein the carboxylic acid compound, the ketone compound, and the flavonoid-based compound are contained in a weight ratio of 1:0.5 to 1.5:0.5 to 1.5” renders the claim indefinite because there are three compounds listed however ratio is claimed as “1:0.5 to 1.5:0.5 to 1.5” suggesting only two compounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Conclusion
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 1777
Prosecution Insights