DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's claim amendment submission filed on July 28, 2026 and subsequent Request for Continued Examination filed September 18, 2026 have been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 28, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Office Action mailed on July 28, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-2 and 5-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an aqueous dispersion comprising magnesium oxide as an active agent” in liens 2-3. It is unclear what concentration of magnesium oxide is required to be present in the aqueous dispersion to be considered an active agent. Applicant argues on Page 6 of the Remarks filed July 28, 2026 that magnesium oxide is capable of serving as a solid filler and carrier and does not necessarily serve as an active agent in its own right. Applicant also argues on Page 10 of the Remarks filed July 28, 2026 that magnesium oxide can be added as an additive and is not necessarily an active agent. It is unclear what concentration magnesium oxide is required to be present in order to read on the claimed active agent and not merely be considered a solid filler, carrier, and/or additive.
Clarification is required.
Claims 2 and 5-14 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hanuka et al. US 2020/0337301 as further evidenced by Rathore et al. “Post harvest Management and Processing of Fruits and Vegetables” (published May 2018) (herein referred to as “Rathore et al.”).
Examiner notes that normally only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 USC 102. However, a 35 USC 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent (MPEP § 2131). Extrinsic evidence may be used to explain but not expand the meaning of terms and phrases used in the reference relied upon as anticipatory of the claimed subject matter in view of In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP § 2131.01.II.).
Regarding Claim 1, Hanuka et al. discloses a method of prolonging the shelf life of fruits and vegetables (using an antimicrobial composition) (‘301, Paragraphs [0011] and [0124]) wherein the method comprises applying to the fruits and vegetables an aqueous dispersion comprising magnesium oxide (‘301, Paragraphs [0114]-[0116]) as an active agent (‘301, Paragraphs [0105]-[0106]). Hanuka et al. also discloses the antimicrobial composition being applied to freshly cut fruits and vegetables (‘301, Paragraph [0124]), which necessarily reads on applying the antimicrobial composition to the fruits and vegetables post harvest. Rathore et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food processing art that cutting vegetables is a type of mechanical aid to harvested vegetables (Rathore et al., Page 26) Therefore, the freshly cut fruits and vegetables disclosed by Hanuka et al. necessarily describes a post harvest step involving applying the antimicrobial composition as evidenced by Rathore et al. Furthermore, Hanuka et al. discloses the antimicrobial composition being in the form of a coating/film (‘301, Paragraph [0002]). The coating/film is made by drying a suspension containing a dispersion comprising magnesium oxide (‘301, Paragraphs [0117]-[0119]). Claim 1 does not specify the final form factor of the composition that prolongs the shelf life of the fruits and vegetables. Rather, Claim 1 only requires an aqueous dispersion comprising magnesium oxide to be applied to the fruits and vegetables post harvest. Any subsequent drying step of the aqueous dispersion is encompassed by the open ended transitional phrase “comprising” recited in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Hanuka et al. discloses the aqueous dispersion further comprising at least one suspension aid (nanocrystalline cellulose NCC) (‘301, Paragraphs [0006] and [0011]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hanuka et al. et al. discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising between 10% and 20% MgO (‘301, Paragraph [0030]), which falls within the claimed concentration of at least 2% magnesium oxide of the aqueous dispersion. Hanuka et al. also discloses 0.5% NCC (‘301, Paragraph [0147]), which also falls within the claimed concentration of at least 0.05% by weight of the suspension aid based on the total weight of the aqueous dispersion. When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art in view of Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (MPEP § 2131.03.I.).
Regarding Claim 11, Hanuka et al. discloses at least one additional step of a washing step (‘301, Paragraph [0121]).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-2, 5, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahajan et al. “Postharvest treatments of fresh produce” (published 2014) (herein referred to as “Mahajan et al.”) in view of Hanuka et al. US 2020/0337301.
Regarding Claim 1, Mahajan et al. discloses a method of prolonging the shelf life of fruits and vegetables wherein the method comprises applying to the fruits and vegetables an aqueous dispersion (solution) comprising an antimicrobial agent (Mahajan et al., Page 7) wherein the aqueous dispersion (solution) is applied to the fruits and vegetables post harvest (Mahajan et al., Table on Page 3).
Mahajan et al. is silent regarding the aqueous dispersion comprising magnesium oxide as an active agent.
Hanuka et al. discloses a method of prolonging the shelf life of fruits and vegetables (using an antimicrobial composition) (‘301, Paragraphs [0011] and [0124]) wherein the method comprises applying to the fruits and vegetables an aqueous dispersion comprising magnesium oxide (‘301, Paragraphs [0114]-[0116]) as an active agent (‘301, Paragraphs [0105]-[0106]).
Both Mahajan et al. and Hanuka et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of prolonging the shelf life of fruits and vegetables using an aqueous dispersion comprising an antimicrobial agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Mahajan et al. and use magnesium oxide as an active agent as taught by Hanuka et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Hanuka et al. teaches there was known utility in the food preservation art to use magnesium oxide as an active ingredient in making an antimicrobial composition used to prolong the shelf life of fruits and vegetables.
Regarding Claim 2, Mahajan et al. discloses the aqueous dispersion further comprising at least one suspension aid (organic acid) (Mahajan et al., Page 7).
Regarding Claim 5, Mahajan et al. discloses the fruits and vegetables comprising citrus fruits (Mahajan et al., Page 10).
Regarding Claim 8, Hanuka et al. et al. discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising between 10% and 20% MgO (‘301, Paragraph [0030]), which falls within the claimed concentration of at least 2% magnesium oxide of the aqueous dispersion. Hanuka et al. also discloses 0.5% NCC (‘301, Paragraph [0147]), which also falls within the claimed concentration of at least 0.05% by weight of the suspension aid based on the total weight of the aqueous dispersion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of using the antimicrobial composition Mahajan et al. and incorporate magnesium oxide and a suspension aid in the claimed concentrations based on the total weight of the aqueous dispersion as taught by Hanuka et al. since where the claimed concentration ranges of magnesium oxide and suspension aid in the aqueous dispersion encompasses concentration ranges of magnesium oxide and suspension aid in the aqueous dispersion disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Hanuka et al. discloses the method comprising applying an antimicrobial substance having a magnesium oxide concentration of the matrix material that varies and the film comprising between 1% and 50% w/w (‘301, Paragraph [0030]). The antimicrobial composition is applied to the fruits and vegetables by immersing or spraying the aqueous dispersion onto the fruits and vegetables (‘301, Paragraphs [0116]-[0118] and [0120]). Although Mahajan et al. modified with Hanuka et al. does not explicitly disclose applying at least 0.1 gr magnesium oxide per 1 kg fruits and vegetables or applying 0.1-5.0 gr magnesium oxide per 1 kg fruits and vegetables, differences in the concentration of the magnesium oxide applied to the fruits and vegetables will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of magnesium oxide applied to the fruits and vegetables is critical. Where 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of magnesium oxide applied to the fruits and vegetables of Mahajan et al. since Hanuka et al. teaches that the antimicrobial substance of magnesium oxide can be adjusted to desired antimicrobial levels.
Regarding Claim 11, Mahajan et al. discloses at least one additional step of a washing step (Mahajan et al., Page 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Mahajan et al. discloses the fruits and vegetables being protected from decay by controlling fungi on the fruits and vegetables (Mahajan et al., Page 12).
Regarding Claim 13, Mahajan et al. discloses the fruits and vegetables being
Hanuka et al. discloses the fruits and vegetables being citrus fruits (Mahajan et al., Page 10). Hanuka et al. discloses applying to the fruits an aqueous dispersion as defined in Claim 1 above. Hanuka et al. also discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising 20% MgO and 0.5% NCC (‘301, Paragraph [0147]), which falls within the claimed concentrations of at least 2% magnesium oxide and at least 0.05% by weight of a suspension aid (NCC) based on a total weight of the aqueous dispersion, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of using the antimicrobial composition Mahajan et al. and incorporate magnesium oxide and a suspension aid in the claimed concentrations based on the total weight of the aqueous dispersion as taught by Hanuka et al. since where the claimed concentration ranges of magnesium oxide and suspension aid in the aqueous dispersion encompasses concentration ranges of magnesium oxide and suspension aid in the aqueous dispersion disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Hanuka et al. also discloses the antimicrobial composition being applied as a suspension (‘301, Paragraph [0147]), which necessarily entails immersing the fruits in the aqueous dispersion or spraying the aqueous dispersion onto the fruits. Hanuka et al. also discloses the particle size distribution of the magnesium oxide being between 1 and 10 µm (‘301, Paragraphs [0032]-[0033]). Hanuka et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the magnesium oxide has a particle size d(0.9) of between 14.02-35.18 µm (‘301, Table 6) (‘301, Paragraph [0139]), which falls within the claimed particle size distribution of the magnesium oxide being characterized by 5.0 µm ≤ d90 ≤ 45.0 µm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of using the antimicrobial composition Mahajan et al. and incorporate magnesium oxide in the claimed particle size distribution as taught by Hanuka et al. since where the claimed particle size distribution of magnesium oxide falls within particle size distribution ranges of magnesium oxide disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, claims directed to an antimicrobial composition containing magnesium oxide of appreciable size is held unpatentable over prior art antimicrobial compositions containing magnesium oxide because limitations relating to the size of the magnesium oxide particles are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.).
Claims 5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahajan et al. “Postharvest treatments of fresh produce” (published 2014) (herein referred to as “Mahajan et al.”) in view of Hanuka et al. US 2020/0337301 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Jacobsen et al. US 2017/0251669.
Regarding Claims 5 and 13, Mahajan et al. modified with Hanuka et al. renders obvious the limitations of Claims 5 and 13 as discussed above. However, in the event that it can be argued that the citrus fruits that are treated in the process of Mahajan et al. does not relate to the antimicrobial composition being relied upon, Jacobson et al. discloses a method providing antimicrobial protection to plants and plant parts from plant pathogens (‘669, Paragraph [0169]) wherein the plant and plant parts are citrus fruits (‘669, Paragraphs [0136]-[0137]) wherein the method uses an aqueous dispersion (liquid composition) (‘669, Paragraph [0147]).
Both modified Mahajan et al. and Jacobson et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of treating food with formulations to extend the shelf life of food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the process of modified Mahajan et al. and apply its teachings to citrus fruits such as those disclosed by Jacobson et al. based upon the desired food substrate to be treated with antimicrobial compositions.
Regarding Claim 14, Mahajan et al. discloses protecting the fruits from decay from fungal infection (Mahajan et al., Page 12).
Jacobsen et al. discloses protecting the citrus fruits (oranges) from decay from fungal infection wherein the fungal infection is caused by Penicillium (‘669, Paragraph [0179]) or Geotrichum candidum (‘669, Paragraphs [0175] and [0178]).
Both modified Mahajan et al. and Jacobson et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of applying antimicrobial compositions to food. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Mahajan et al. and apply the composition to control fungi caused by Penicillium digitatum and/or Geotrichum candidum as taught by Jacobson et al. based upon the desired food to be treated in order to destroy unwanted fungus present on the food product. The particular origin of the fungal infection that plagues the food item is prima facie obvious as one of ordinary skill in the art would apply fungicide to the food product irrespective of the particular fungal origin of the food product.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahajan et al. “Postharvest treatments of fresh produce” (published 2014) (herein referred to as “Mahajan et al.”) in view of Hanuka et al. US 2020/0337301 as applied to claim 2 above in further view of Heath US 2017/0027168.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Hanuka et al. discloses the antimicrobial composition comprising a suspension aid (nanocrystalline cellulose) (NCC) (‘301, Paragraph [0013]). However, Mahajan et al. modified with Hanuka et al. is silent regarding the at least one suspension aid being a phosphate based dispersant of a water soluble phosphoric acid salt.
Heath discloses a composition comprising nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) and pesticides (‘168, Paragraph [0440]) for fruits (‘168, Paragraph [0439]) wherein the composition comprises at least one suspension aid that is a phosphate based dispersant containing salts of polyphosphoric acid (dissolution media of phosphoric acid) (‘168, Paragraphs [0233] and [0464]).
Both modified Mahajan et al. and Heath are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food antimicrobial compositions. Both food antimicrobial compositions of modified Mahajan et al. and Heath contain nanocrystalline cellulose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Mahajan et al. and incorporate at least one suspension aid made of a phosphate based dispersant of phosphoric acid salt as taught by Heath since the selection of a known material based on it suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Heath teaches that there was known utility in the antimicrobial food art to use phosphoric acid as a suspension aid in making food antimicrobial compositions.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous Claim Objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous anticipation rejections under 35 USC 102 to Dahmen et al. as well as the previous obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103 to Hoover have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cai et al. “Magnesium Oxide Nanoparticles: Effective Agricultural Antibacterial Agent Against Ralstonia solanacearum” (published April 24, 2018) discloses antimicrobial doses of MgONP that could kill pathogenic microorganisms with the advantage of not being genotoxic or cytotoxic to humans and for controlling plant disease (Cai et al., Page 6).
Chen et al. “Comparative Study on the Fungicidal Activity of Metallic MgO Nanoparticles and Macroscale MgO Against Soilborne Fungal Phytopathogens” (published March 11, 2020) discloses MgO nanoparticles (nMgO) used as antibacterial agents to suppress agricultural bacterial and fungal diseases caused by a foodborne pathogen (Chen et al., Page 2).
Sun et al. “Applications of gaseous chlorine dioxide on postharvest handling and storage of fruits and vegetables A Review” (published January 2019) discloses post harvest fruits and vegetables, especially their fresh cut products, are highly perishable due to water and nutrient loss caused by physiological deterioration, biochemical changes, and microbial degradation wherein most spoilage of fruits and vegetables is caused by microorganisms.
Higuchi US 5,662,881 discloses an apparatus and method for the production of active magnesium hydroxide (‘881, Column 1, lines 6-9).
Thomsen US 2,576,731 discloses a magnesium hydroxide slurry made from a standard magnesium oxide as the basis for a foliar spray as a carrier for active biocides.
Morita et al. US 2021/0007356 discloses an agricultural adjuvant used for making an agricultural fungicide containing an imide derivative as an active ingredient including a carrier (‘356, Paragraph [0417]).
Pesaro et al. US 2019/0282478 discloses antimicrobial active compounds (‘478, Paragraph [0003])
Wada et al. US 2017/0231226 discloses a fungicide or agricultural chemical composition comprising a salt that is acceptable as an agricultural chemical as the active component and a carrier that is acceptable as an agricultural chemical fungicidal composition (‘226, Paragraph [0842]).
Pluchon et al. US 2021/0032178 discloses active compounds having a synergistic or supplementary action on a plant such as nutrients of magnesium and/or mineral raw materials and fungicides (‘178, Paragraph [0074]).
Magee et al. US 4,548,929 discloses a pesticidally active compound used in formulations or compounds with appropriate dispersible pesticide carrier vehicles.
Zhao et al. US 2013/0189375 discloses inorganic antibacterial agents used in the food industry having improved safety and stability at high temperatures and pressures to treat food processing equipment and other food contact surfaces to reduce the chances of cross contamination wherein MgO is used to inactive a wide range of gram positive and gram negative bacteria (‘375, Paragraph [0111]).
Lee US 6,589,928 discloses a non toxic cleaning agent with biocidal and dirt removing properties which is used together with a solvent and contains at least one surface active agent and phosphorus containing bioactive glass particles that contain MgO wherein the cleaning agents are well suited for cleaning surfaces in food serving establishments.
Hekal et al. US 4,478,860 discloses a method of improving the organoleptic properties of canned green vegetables wherein the vegetables are bleached with a highly alkaline solution and suspended in a brine having in a hermetically sealed container internally coated with an organic coating filled with an alkaline earth compound of MgO wherein the vegetables are sterilized.
Zhang et al. US 2021/0396730 discloses a method of preharvest and postharvesting monitoring of perishable food (‘730, Paragraphs [0046]-[0047]).
Brown et al. US 2014/0322168 discloses contamination of produce may occur preharvest during field production or postharvest in the processing plant (‘168, Paragraph [0208]).
Droby US 2004/0115171 discloses one of the most serious problems in modern produce of fruit, vegetable, and flower industry is decay or spoilage of produce after harvest wherein postharvest losses of fruits and vegetables is estimated at 50% which loss is attributable to fungal and bacterial infections to a great degree wherein postharvest decay of fruits and vegetables can be traced to infections that occur either between flowering and fruit maturity or during harvesting and subsequent handling and storage (‘171, Paragraph [0003]) wherein synthetic fungicides have traditionally been a primary means of controlling postharvest produce loss (‘171,Paragraph [0004]).
McLaughlin et al. US 6,500,425 discloses a method of biological control of plant pathogens either preharvest or postharvest on agricultural commodities such as fruits, vegetables by use of at least one microorganism which is antagonist against plant pathogens.
Sahin et al. US 2021/0301170 discloses an antimicrobial surface coating material to protect fruits and vegetables via spraying or immersion.
Weller et al. US 2020/0260761 discloses a composition for the inhibition and/or elimination of mold on fruit and vegetables to increase the shelf life of food using an antimicrobial coating composed of an aqueous chitosan solution composition to food by spraying and/or immersion (‘761, Paragraph [0026]).
Gurtler et al. US 2020/0093128 discloses a process for treating agricultural products such as fresh fruits and vegetables to reduce microbial load or contamination on the surface of the agricultural product being treated using an antimicrobial wash composition comprising an aqueous solution containing an effective or sufficient amount of at least one organic acid and at least one surfactant to reduce microbe contamination on the surface of the agricultural product being treated (‘128, Paragraph [0034]).
Dong et al. US 2014/0348945 discloses a method of applying antimicrobial washes to fresh fruits and/or vegetables via spraying, misting, fogging, immersion (‘945, Paragraph [0016]).
Bast et al. US 2005/0136134 discloses a method for sanitizing a surface comprising applying an antimicrobial composition comprising at least a chelated metal salt and a barley extract to a surface that is food of fruits or vegetables or a food handling surface wherein the antimicrobial composition is applied as a liquid, spray, or coating and the composition further includes a carrier or diluents to enhance its application (‘134, Paragraph [0015]).
The prior art made of record, cited on a previous 892 Notice of References Cited form, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winston US 5,432,146 discloses a dry blend fungicide composition can be diluted with water to form aqueous fungicidal solutions with controlled rheological properties wherein an aqueous fungicidal solution typically contains less than about 5 weight percent of active ingredients based on the solution weight wherein the fungicide composition includes one or more other biologically active ingredients such as those which exhibit herbicidal insecticidal or plant growth regulating activity.
Matsumoto et al. US 4,917,820 discloses a postharvest preservation agent comprising active components comprising magnesium salts wherein the active components are employed in a ratio of 0 to 50% by weight.
Shinde et al. US 2019/0008157 discloses a microalgae based composition comprising at least one mineral of magnesium (‘157, Paragraph [0022]) wherein seaweed extract applications have a wide range of beneficial effect on plats such as enhanced postharvest shelf life of perishable products (‘157, Paragraph [0106]).
Toreki et al. US 2017/0156340 discloses a liquid water borne formulation for imparting antimicrobial activity to a substrate wherein the formulation is an aqueous dispersion, suspension, or solution comprising magnesium oxide or magnesium hydroxide (‘340, Paragraphs [0049]-[0050]) wherein the substrate is food preparation surfaces or food packaging material (‘340, Paragraph [0047]).
Vadakekuttu et al. US 2018/0325105 discloses a water disintegrable granular composition including at least one agrochemical and one or more agrochemically acceptable excipients wherein the agrochemical is a pesticidal active ingredient (‘105, Paragraph [0002]) wherein the water insoluble nutrient includes magnesium (‘105, Paragraph [0046]).
Sakai et al. US 2016/0286794 discloses a plant disease control agent and method using calcined magnesium oxide (‘794, Paragraph [0001]) wherein a surfactant is added to an active ingredient to achieve solubilization of an active substance into a solvent to improve dispersibility of microparticles (‘794, Paragraph [0005]) wherein the calcined magnesium oxide is likely to be solubilized in an active substance solvent while improving the dispersibility of the calcined magnesium oxide (‘794, Paragraph [0044]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
