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 .
Claims 1-13 are presented for examination.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
The amendments and remarks filed on 05/20/2026 have been received and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and remarks have been noted. Applicant in his remarks argues that “in the Office Action, the Examiner admits that Berg and Highsmith do not disclose solid agricultural particles having an average particle size of less than about 500 µm, and at page 5, improperly relies on Parrish as remedying this fundamental disclosure and teaching deficiency. Particularly, Applicant submits that on careful review of Parrish, the reference does not disclose this missing subject matter. The Examiner's cited portion of Parrish at the reference's Example 10 is directed to the evaluation of droplet size distribution of sprayed solutions where the droplets”. Applicant goes on by arguing that “Parrish does not disclose solid agricultural particles anywhere in the reference, let alone solid agricultural particles having an average particle size of less than about 500 µm, in the manner recited in amended claim 1”. It is the examiner’s position that Parrish teaches that the present application relates to compositions for application to agricultural land. Specifically, the present application relates to combination water conditioning adjuvant and drift reduction compositions which can be added to agricultural chemicals, such as herbicides to be sprayed on crops, for the purpose of improving efficacy and reducing drift of the sprayed chemicals away from the target areas. See column 1, lines 14-20. Parrish further teaches that Embodiments of the product include the results of a process comprising addition of an emulsifier and/or an additive selected from a buffering agent, a defoaming agent, a wetting agent, a sticking agent and a tank cleaner. In one aspect, the water content of the composition is below 5% (v/v), before dilution of the composition in carrier water. In another aspect, the water content of the composition is below 1% (v/v), before dilution of the composition in carrier water. See column 6, lines 65-67, column 7, lines 1-3 and claim 59. Such teaching indicates the water content of less than 1%, which can read in no water before dilution with water in the tank. Such teaching also indicates that the ingredients are in solid form and not dissolved in the surfactant or methylated seed oil before dilution with the water in the tank. The determination of the particle size is considered to be
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.
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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (US 20170127668 submitted by the applicant) in view of Highsmith (US 6,423,667 submitted by the applicant) and further in view of Parrish (US 8,809,234 submitted by the applicant) and Imtiaz et al. (THE ROLE OF MICRONUTRIENTS IN CROP PRODUCTION AND HUMAN HEALTH).
The claims are drawn to a method of spraying a multifunctional agricultural adjuvant composition, comprising the steps of:
combining the multifunctional agricultural adjuvant composition with water and an agricultural chemical in a spray tank to form a tank mix,
the multifunctional agricultural adjuvant composition comprising a liquid component and solid agricultural particles dispersed therein, the liquid component comprising methylated seed oil and one or more surfactants, the dispersed solid agricultural particles comprising a water conditioner at least one additional agricultural component, said water conditioner comprising ammonium sulfate said particles having an average particle size of less than about 500 µm, wherein prior to the step of combining in the tank mix, the multifunctional agricultural adjuvant is free of water and the solid agricultural particles remain dispersed in the liquid component,
wherein upon the step of combining the multifunctional agricultural adjuvant in the spray tank, the solid agricultural particles dissolve in the tank mix; and spraying the tank mix containing the dissolved multifunctional agricultural adjuvant.
Regarding claim 1, Berg teaches the use of agricultural adjuvants for improving pesticidal activity. See Para [0001]. Berg teaches that adjuvants that are primarily oil based are typically crop oil concentrates that contain a high concentration of emulsifiable crop oil and a surfactant. The purpose of the surfactant is to emulsify the oil in the spray solution and lower the surface tension of the overall spray solution. See Para [0003]. Berg teaches that the most common method has been through esterification of common seed oils such as methylated sunflower, soybean, cotton, and linseed oils. Berg teaches that the adjuvant is a concentrate that is to be diluted for use in water. See Para [0024]. Berg further teaches that the concentrate may be further diluted with water in a mixing tank, spray tank or container, in an inline irrigation system or in the field with other devices. See para [0025] and claim 35. The use of methylated seed oil is taught in Para [0134]. The use of ammonium sulfate is taught in Para [0145]. The use of an additional pesticides, such as glyphosate is taught in Para [0145]. Berg does not specifically teach that the adjuvant is free of water and the particle size of less than 500 um. However, Highsmith teaches that the suspension of an adjuvant composition of ammonium sulfate and oil and surfactant does not have any water. See Examples 50-57. Parrish teaches a sprayable agricultural adjuvant comprising methylated seed oil in combination with a surfactant having the particle sizes in a range from 0.5 to 1550 microns. See Example 10. Such range encompasses the claimed particle size of less than 500 micron. Applicant’s attention is further drawn to column 13, lines 62-67 of Parrish, which teaches AQ 284 combination water conditioning adjuvant and drift reduction composition was prepared by combining 50% AQ 283 water conditioning adjuvant and 50% AQ 323 drift reduction agent. Table 4 provides for the preparation of a 100 lb. batch of AQ 284. The final density of AQ 284 is 8.6715 lbs./gallon. Parrish in column 16, lines 3-10 teaches that in addition, the data of Table 6 show that AQ 284 reduced the percent of droplets under 150 microns in size, nearly 16% compared to RPM+AMS. AQ 284 provided equivalent increase in droplet size as AQ 268 (drift reduction alone) indicating that the combination of water conditioning adjuvant in AQ 284 did not reduce efficacy for increasing droplet size. Furthermore, the determination of droplet size is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant's attention is drawn to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), wherein the court states "Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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".
Regarding claim 2, Berg teaches the use of methylated seed oil in combination with another oil. See Para [0134]. The combination with a surfactant is taught in Para [0013]. Berg teaches the purpose of surfactant is to emulsify the oil in the spry solution. See Para [0003].
Regarding claim 3, the determination of optimum proportions and amount of the solid particles are considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant's attention is drawn to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), wherein the court states "Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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".
Regarding claim 4, Berg does not teach the particle size of at least 350 um. However, Parrish teaches a sprayable agricultural adjuvant comprising methylated seed oil in combination with a surfactant having the particle sizes in a range from 0.5 to 1550 microns. See Example 10. Such range encompasses the claimed particle size of less than 350 um.
Regarding claim 5, Berg does not teach the concentration of a liquid component, such as methylated seed oil. However, Parrish teaches the concentration of 5-50% by weight of methylated seed oil in an agricultural adjuvant. See column 6, line 16.
Regarding claim 6, Berg does not teach the concentration of ammonium sulfate. However, Highsmith teaches the concentration of ammonium sulfate of more than about 99%, which overlaps the claimed concentration of at least 42 wt.%. See column 4, line 20.
Regarding claim 7, Berg teaches the combination of an adjuvant with other components, such as amino acids and synthetic compounds. See Para [0028].
Regarding claim 8, Berg teaches the use of acids such as, lactic, malic, tartaric, citric and ascorbic in an adjuvant composition. See Para [0129].
Regarding claim 9, Berg teaches the addition of a pesticides, such as glyphosate. See Para [0145]. The use of micronutrients and amino acids is taught in Para [0028].
Regarding claim 10, Berg teaches the addition of a pesticides, such as glyphosate. See Para [0145]. The use of micronutrients is taught in Para [0028].
Regarding claim 11, Berg teaches the use of micronutrients, but does not teach the specific micronutrients as claimed herein. However, Imtiaz et al. teach the elements essential for plants are C, H, O, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Cu, B, Mn, Mo, Zn, Cl. See the abstract and introduction.
Regarding claim 12, Berg teaches the use of micronutrients, but does not teach the specific micronutrients as claimed herein. However, Imtiaz et al. teach The elements essential for plants are C, H, O, N, P, K, Ca, Mg, S, Fe, Cu, B, Mn, Mo, Zn, Cl. See the abstract and introduction.
Regarding claim 13, Berg teaches the use of ionic and amphoteric surfactants. See Para [0013]. Berg does not teach the HLB value of 4 to about 30. However, Highsmith teaches Stable concentrated suspensions readily dispersible in water comprising ammonium sulfate, a surfactant, and an seed oils. The surfactant has an HLB rating from about 10 to about 15. The HLB of 10 to about 15 is within the scope of the claimed HLB of 4 to about 30.
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 ZOHREH A FAY whose telephone number is (703)756-1800. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6:00.
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.
/ZOHREH A FAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights