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. Status of Claims Preliminary amendment filed on 09/21/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 and 10 are amended. Claims 11-12 are new. Claims 1-12 are pending and being examined on merits herein. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 09/21/2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. Priority The instant application 18551685 , filed on 09/21/2023, is a 371 of PCT/IB2022/052706, filed on 03/24/2022, which claims foreign priority of Italy 102021000007145, filed on 03/24/2021. Claim Objections Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “effective dose of sorbic acid salt or salt thereof”. The phrase “or salt thereof” should be eliminated since sorbic acid salt is the only active ingredient. Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-12 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. Claims 1 and 9 each recites “to kill at least 70% of nematodes” without defining the percentage base of calculation. It is unclear out of what nematode population pool of settings the percentage is calculated from. It would be unable to kill at least 70% of nematodes in the world for sure. Claim 1 recites as a “method for killing a pest belonging to phylum of nematodes with a sorbic acid salt, …”. However, the claim does not have active method steps and it is rejected as being incomplete for missing essential steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: method regarding how to kill a pest with a sorbic acid salt and/or method how the composition comes to have effect of killing a pest . The current claim language describes the material or composition with dose, function, and effect, but the active step of how the composition is administered or applied is missing. Claims 2 and 9 each recites “sodium sorbate, and salts deriving from the reaction with alkali metals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim s, because “the reaction” is not defined earlier. It is unclear whether the reaction is supposed to be between sorbic acid with alkali metals, or other acid species with alkali metals. Therefore, i t is unclear what salts are meant to be deriving from the reaction with alkali metals, while potassium sorbate, calcium sorbate, sodium sorbate are already listed and they can be the salts derived from the reaction of sorbic acid with alkali metals. For the compact prosecution purpose, the claim is interpreted as “said sorbic acid salt is derived from the reaction of sorbic acid with alkali metals, selected from the group consisting of potassium sorbate, calcium sorbate, sodium sorbate, and other alkali metal salts of sorbic acid”. Claims 2-8 and 10-12 are directly or indirectly depending on claim 1, and they are rejected coordinately because they do not clarify the issue addressed above in claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 - 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN111748503, 10/09/2020, Machine translated English copy uploaded ; Table 1 machine translated copy uploaded, PTO-892). Zhang throughout the reference teaches a method using culture medium supernatant comprising sodium benzoate or potassium sorbate for Meloidogyne incognita treatment (e.g., Abstract). Regarding instant claim s 1 - 3 and 5-6 , Zhang teaches plant parasitic nematodes (phylum of nematodes, genus of Meloidogyne, Meloidogyne spp. ) are a type of pathogenic animal (pest) that can parasitize various tissues of plants, causing vegetable root-knot nematode diseases endangering vegetable yield reduction by 20-30%, in severe cases by as much as 75% in China [0004]. Zhang specifies an object for the invention is to provide a fermentation method for Mycobacterium tsukiaense [0010] and the final objective is to provide a stable nematode insecticide [0011], having a nematocidal effect. The fermentation culture medium preferably comprises 3% fish meal, 1 % glucose, 1.5% sodium chloride, 0.075% magnesium chloride, 0.1 % calcium chloride, 0.01 % ferric citrate, all of which are mass percentages, with a pH of 8.5, and the remainder being water [0014], preferably, 0.25-1% sodium benzoate or 0.1-0.3% potassium sorbate ( corresponding to instant claim 2 ) as a specific sorbic acid salt is added to the fermentation broth or fermentation supernatant [0017] as the nematode insecticide [0016]. Inevitably, water is an agrochemically acceptable carrier or diluent in the potassium sorbate containing supernatant, corresponding to instant claim 3 . Therefore, Zhang teaches potassium sorbate can be the only active substance having nematocidal effect at a defined dose. Zhang presents in Table 1 experimental results of killing efficiency on nematodes, in 48 hr , Meloidogyne incognita ( corresponding to instant claims 5-6 ) or C. elegans mortality in supernatant liquid of medium fermentation is 100% , killing efficacy remains above 70% (75.33% and 83.66% for M. incognita and C. elegans respectively) for both nematode species even at 2x diluted supernatant (Table 1; [0034-0035]). Thus Zhang teaches that 0.1-0.3% potassium sorbate as the only nematocidal agent in the culture supernatant is an effective dose for killing at least 70% nematode in the experimental settings within 48 hrs , corresponding to instant claim 1 . Regarding instant claim 4 , since claim 4 recites “the method according to claim 3, wherein said composition is formulated in the form of …” without structural step of formulating the composition, it is interpreted as “intended use”. There is no structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, for this instance, the supernatant composition taught by Zhang can be used as spray or wetting agent , and therefore, prior art meets the claim. Regarding instant claim 7 , Zhang teaches applying the fermentation supernatant comprising potassium sorbate to 96-well plate to determine insecticidal toxicity (e.g., [0033]), wherein the plate reads on the substrate. Regarding instant claim 9 , in summary as presented above , Zhang teaches the method for treating a substrate, e.g., plate containing nematodes, comprising the step of applying sorbic acid salt as potassium sorbate, to kill a pest belonging to phylum of nematodes, genus Meloidogyne, species Meloidogyne incognita, present in an effective dose at 0.1-0.3% as the only nematocidal component in the culture supernatant, allowing to kill 100% of nematodes in 48 hrs , and kill 75.33% at 2x diluted concentrations. 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 . Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN111748503, 10/09/2020, Machine translated English copy uploaded; Table 1 machine translated copy uploaded, PTO-892) , as applied to claims 1-7 and 9 above, in view of Lai (WO2020226482, 11/12/2020, PTO-892). Zhang teaches the method for treating a substrate, e.g., plate containing nematodes, comprising the step of applying sorbic acid salt as potassium sorbate, to kill a pest belonging to phylum of nematodes, genus Meloidogyne, species Meloidogyne incognita, present in an effective dose at 0.1-0.3% as the only nematocidal component in the culture supernatant, allowing to kill 100% of nematodes in 48 hrs , and kill 75.33% at 2x diluted concentrations as discussed in great detail and applied to instant claims 1-7 and 9 above, and incorporated herein. Zhang teaches the composition can comprise an agrochemically acceptable carrier or diluent, e.g., water, in the supernatant as presented above , corresponding to instant claim 10 (a dependent claim of instant claim 8). Zhang does not teach the substrate is an agricultural substrate in instant claim 11, the substrate is a substrate in which plant roots develop as recited in instant claim 8, the substrate is selected from the group consisting of a growing medium, soil and loam as recited in instant claim 12 . Lai throughout the reference teaches synergistic compositions methods for controlling plant pathogens, e.g., nematodes, using the synergistic compositions which can include antimicrobial chemical preservatives such as calcium sorbate, potassium sorbate, sodium sorbate, etc. (e.g., Pg. 7 bottom- Pg. 8 top), and the composition can include a carrier selected from the plant growth nutrient, organic fertilizer that aid in the delivery or contacting of the pesticidal composition to the recipient plant or vicinity of the plant to be protected (e.g., Pg. 23, bottom paragraph) , wherein the composition can comprise sorbic acid salts ( e.g., Pg. 7 bottom- Pg. 8 top ) and can be formulated in any manner, including but not limited to emulsifiable concentrates, wettable powders, soluble liquids, aerosols, emulsions, microencapsulates, granules, and many other forms (e.g., Pg. 86 bottom – Pg. 87 top) . Lai teaches the method for controlling plant pest infestation, comprising treating the plants, its growth substrate, and/or plant seed with an effective amount of the composition as disclosed (e.g., Claim 27), corresponding to agriculture substrate in instant claim 11 . Lai teaches the method for modulating pest infestation in a plant comprising applying to agricultural soil or plant materia l an amount of the pesticidal composition that is effective to modulate said pest infestation: in some embodiments, provide for the composition to be applied to the vicinity or a plant, such as around the roots, stems, trunk, seed, or leaves of the plant, applied onto such parts of the plant, or to treat or sterilize the soil or plant growth medium, by direct contact the soil or plant growth medium with an effective amount of the composition (Pg. 22 bottom – Pg. 23 top). Lai provides further that the method for promoting plant growth by applying to the plant thereof and/or substrate used for growing the plant an amount of the pesticidal composition that is effective to promote plant growth (e.g., Pg. 23, 2 nd paragraph) . Thus, Lai teaches the substrate can be a substrate in which plant roots develop as recited instant claim 8 , and the agricultural substrate can be selected from the group growing medium, soil as recited in instant claim 12 . It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate Lai’s teaching of method into the composition and method taught by Zhang, applying the composition to specific agricultural substrates , e.g., plants, growth medium, or soil, to treat nematodes for promoting plant health and growth to arrive at current invention. Because Zhang shows excellent nematocidal effect of potassium sorbate as the only active agent in the culture supernatant to kill nematodes effectively , in addition, Zhang suggests that the potassium sorbate-containing nematocidal culture medium as the composition can be very suitable for industrial large-scale popularization (e.g., Abstract), while Lai teaches detailed information how to apply a pesticidal composition onto more practical agricultural substrates, it would have motivated artisans in the field to combine the prior art teachings to achieve the ultimate goal of controlling plant nematode diseases in agricultural industry . It would have provided reasonable expectation of success by combining and applying the teachings of prior art. This renders obviousness as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see In Supreme Court KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) . MPEP 2144.01 points out "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda , 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DONGXIU ZHANG SPIERING whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4796 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7:30am-5:00pm (Except for Fridays) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT SUE X. LIU can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /DX.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 1616 /SUE X LIU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616