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 ae presented for examination.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from examination.
Restriction/election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 7-9 and 11-12 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 1 is indefinite as to the phrase “including”. The phrase “including”, renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation, following the phrase “including” is part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05 (d).
Claim 7 is indefinite in using improper Markush language. The replacement of “and/or” with “,” in the last line and the replacement of “or” with “and” in the last line will overcome the rejection.
Claims 8, 9, 11 and 12 are indefinite in using improper Markush language. The replacement of “or” in the last line with “and” will overcome the rejection.
Claims depending on the rejected claims are also rejected as they have all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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 including at least ammonium sulfate and at least one additional agricultural
component, 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.
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.
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