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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the dispersion” in line 7. It appears the claim should recite “the aqueous dispersion” in order to maintain consistency with “an aqueous dispersion” recited in Claim 1, line 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dahmen et al. US 2015/0313223.
Regarding Claim 1, Dahmen et al. discloses a method of prolonging the shelf life of fruits and vegetables (‘223, Paragraphs [0203] and [0248]). The method comprises applying to the fruits and vegetables an aqueous dispersion (water dispersible granules or liquid water carrier) (‘223, Paragraphs [0128], [0139]-[0140], and [0153])) comprising magnesium oxide (‘223, Paragraphs [0139]-[0141]) wherein the aqueous dispersion is applied to the fruits and vegetables post harvest (‘223, Paragraphs [0171], [0241], and [0248]).
Regarding Claims 2 and 6, Dahmen et al. discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising at least one suspension aid of a phosphate based dispersant (‘223, Paragraph [0233]).
Regarding Claim 5, Dahmen et al. discloses the fruits and vegetables comprising citrus fruits (lemons, oranges, mandarins, or grapefruit) (‘223, Paragraphs [0171]-[0172]). It is noted that applicant discloses examples of citrus fruits to include grapefruits, oranges, mandarins, and lemons (Specification, Page 19, lines 5-10). Therefore, the lemons, oranges, mandarins, or grapefruit disclosed by Dahmen et al. (‘223, Paragraphs [0171]-[0172]) reads on the claimed citrus fruits.
Regarding Claim 11, Dahmen et al. discloses at least one additional step of applying to the fruits and vegetables (‘223, Paragraphs [0171]-[0172]) at least one fungicide (‘223, Paragraph [0157]).
Regarding Claim 12, Dahmen et al. discloses protecting the fruits and vegetables (‘223, Paragraphs [0171]-[0172]) from decay by fungal infection (‘223, Paragraph [0137]).
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, 6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover US 2016/0262411.
Regarding Claim 1, Hoover discloses a method of prolonging the shelf life of vegetables (fresh produce) (‘411, Paragraph [0023]). The method comprises applying to the vegetables (fresh produce) an aqueous dispersion (cleansing liquid comprising electrolyzed saline solution (‘411, Paragraph [0022]) comprising magnesium oxide (‘411, Paragraphs [0076]-[0077]). Hoover discloses contamination of vegetables (fresh produce) can occur when pathogens are on the surface or skin of the fresh produce and that contamination can occur at various phases of the process including in the field or orchard, during harvest, during postharvest handling, during processing, during shipping, during marketing, or in the home (‘411, Paragraph [0005]). Although Hoover does not explicitly state that the method in its disclosure applies the aqueous dispersion onto the fresh produce vegetables post harvest, Hoover establishes that contamination can occur at various phases of processing including post harvest. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Hoover and apply the aqueous dispersion onto the fresh produce vegetables post harvest in order to remove contamination sources from the fresh produce vegetables post harvest. Additionally, Hoover discloses it was known in the art that raw vegetables and fruits can harbor pathogenic bacteria and that elimination of pathogens in fresh produce is a top priority for processers of fresh produce (‘411, Paragraph [0004]). Although Hoover does not explicitly state that the fresh produce used in its invention also includes fruits explicitly, Hoover establishes that fruits can harbor pathogenic bacteria. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Hoover that applies an aqueous dispersion onto fresh produce vegetables and also apply the aqueous dispersion onto fresh produce fruits based upon the desired type of fresh produce in which it is desired to remove unwanted pathogens.
Regarding Claims 2 and 6, Hoover discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising at least one suspension aid of a phosphate based dispersant (‘411, Paragraphs [0024]-[0025]).
Regarding Claim 8, Hoover discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising at least one additives in any suitable concentration such as about 0.001% w/v and 10% w/v of the formulation (‘411, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the at least one additives comprising salt additives of magnesium oxide and at least one phosphate based dispersant suspension aid of phosphate salt (‘411, Paragraphs [0076]-[0077]), which overlaps the claimed concentration of at least 2% magnesium oxide and at least 0.05% by weight of a suspension aid based on the total weight of the aqueous dispersion. It is noted that the particular suspension aid is not specified in the claims. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate magnesium oxide additive and suspension aid additives in the claimed concentration since where the claimed concentration ranges of magnesium oxide and suspension aid overlaps concentration ranges of magnesium oxide and suspension aid ranges 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, differences in the concentration of magnesium oxide and suspension aid will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of magnesium oxide and suspension aid 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.II.A.). Hoover discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising additives in any suitable concentration (‘411, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the additives comprises magnesium oxide (‘411, Paragraphs [0076]-[0077]). Given that the claims recite a generic suspension aid and since Hoover discloses that the additives can be present in any suitable concentration, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of any additive of suspension aid based upon the desired properties of the aqueous dispersion.
Regarding Claims 9-10, Hoover discloses immersing and/or spraying the aqueous dispersion onto the fresh produce vegetables (‘411, Paragraphs [0031] and [0115]) wherein the aqueous dispersion comprises one or more additives comprising magnesium oxide salt (‘411, Paragraphs [0066] and [0076]-[0077]). Although Hoover does not explicitly disclose application of at least 0.1 gr magnesium oxide per 1 kg fruits and vegetables or 0.1-5.0 gr magnesium oxide per 1 kg fruits and vegetables, Hoover discloses the formulations comprising the one or more additives in any suitable concentration (‘411, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the salt additives are added to water to prepare a brine solution in any suitable concentration that can be diluted at any suitable ratio (‘411, Paragraph [0080]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Hoover and apply an aqueous solution having the claimed concentration of magnesium oxide per unit weight of fresh produce vegetables since Hoover teaches the one or more additives are added in any suitable concentration (‘411, Paragraph [0066]).
Regarding Claim 11, Hoover discloses at least one additional step of a washing step (‘411, Paragraphs [0024], [0031], and [0115]).
Regarding Claim 12, Hoover discloses protecting the fresh produce vegetables (‘411, Paragraph [0116]) from decay by fungal infection (‘411, Paragraph [0116]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover US 2016/0262411 as applied to claim 1 above in view of Jacobsen et al. US 2017/0251669.
Regarding Claim 5, Hoover is silent regarding the fruits and vegetables comprising citrus fruits.
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 Hoover 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 Hoover 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover US 2016/0262411 as applied to claim 1 above in view of Heath US 2017/0027168.
Regarding Claim 7, Hoover is silent regarding the phosphate based dispersant being a water soluble salt of salts of phosphoric acid, salts of pyrophosphoric acid, and/or salts of polyphosphoric acid.
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 (dissolution media of phosphoric acid) (‘168, Paragraphs [0233] and [0464]).
Both Hoover and Heath are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food antimicrobial compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Hoover 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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover US 2016/0262411 as applied to claim 1 above in view of Jacobsen et al. US 2017/0251669, and Dahmen et al. US 2015/0313223.
Regarding Claim 13, Hoover discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising at least one additives in any suitable concentration such as about 0.001% w/v and 10% w/v of the formulation (‘411, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the at least one additives comprising salt additives of magnesium oxide and at least one phosphate based dispersant suspension aid of phosphate salt (‘411, Paragraphs [0076]-[0077]), which overlaps the claimed concentration of at least 2% magnesium oxide 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 incorporate magnesium oxide additive in the claimed concentration since where the claimed concentration ranges of magnesium oxide overlaps concentration ranges of magnesium oxide ranges 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, differences in the concentration of magnesium oxide will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of magnesium oxide 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.II.A.). Hoover discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising additives in any suitable concentration (‘411, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the additives comprises magnesium oxide (‘411, Paragraphs [0076]-[0077]). Hoover also discloses immersing or spraying the aqueous dispersion onto the fresh produce (‘411, Paragraphs [0024] and [0115]).
Further regarding Claim 13, Hoover is silent regarding the fresh produce being citrus fruits.
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 Hoover 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 Hoover 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.
Further regarding Claim 13, Hoover modified with Jacobsen et al. is silent regarding the particle size distribution of the magnesium oxide being characterized by 5.0 µm ≤ d90 ≤ 45.0 µm.
Dahmen et al. discloses a method of prolonging the shelf life of fruits and vegetables (‘223, Paragraphs [0203] and [0248]) wherein the fruits and vegetables are citrus fruits (lemons, oranges, mandarins, and grapefruit) (‘223, Paragraphs [0171]-[0172]). The method comprises applying to the fruits and vegetables an aqueous dispersion (water dispersible granules or liquid water carrier) (‘223, Paragraphs [0128], [0139]-[0140], and [0153])) comprising magnesium oxide (‘223, Paragraphs [0139]-[0141]) wherein the aqueous dispersion is applied to the fruits and vegetables post harvest (‘223, Paragraphs [0171], [0241], and [0248]). Dahmen et al. further discloses spraying the aqueous dispersion (‘223, Paragraphs [0158] and [0337]) onto the citrus fruits (lemons, oranges, mandarins, and grapefruit) (‘223, Paragraphs [0171]-[0172]) wherein the average particle size of the magnesium oxide is between 0.005 and 20 µm (‘223, Paragraph [0141]). Although Dahmen et al. does not characterize the average particle size to be a particle size distribution represent d90, Dahmen et al. teaches incorporating into the aqueous dispersion magnesium oxide particles having overlapping ranges of the particle size distribution d90 of the magnesium oxide to be between the claimed sizes of 5.0 µm and 45.0 µm. Differences in the d90 particle size distribution of magnesium oxide will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such d90 particle size distribution 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 d90 particle size ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Dahmen et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food disinfection art to utilize magnesium oxide having an average particle size that overlaps the d90 particle size distribution of magnesium oxide that is claimed.
Regarding Claim 14, 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 Hoover 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 Hoover 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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoover US 2016/0262411 as applied to claim 1 above in view of Jacobsen et al. US 2017/0251669, and Macaigne et al. US 2022/0183298 as further evidenced by Jin et al. “Antibacterial activities of magnesium oxide (MgO) nanoparticles against foodborne pathogens” (published 2011) (herein referred to as “Jin et al.”) (previously furnished with the Office Action mailed February 18, 2026).
Regarding Claim 13, Hoover discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising at least one additives in any suitable concentration such as about 0.001% w/v and 10% w/v of the formulation (‘411, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the at least one additives comprising salt additives of magnesium oxide and at least one phosphate based dispersant suspension aid of phosphate salt (‘411, Paragraphs [0076]-[0077]), which overlaps the claimed concentration of at least 2% magnesium oxide 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 incorporate magnesium oxide additive in the claimed concentration since where the claimed concentration ranges of magnesium oxide overlaps concentration ranges of magnesium oxide ranges 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, differences in the concentration of magnesium oxide will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of magnesium oxide 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.II.A.). Hoover discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising additives in any suitable concentration (‘411, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the additives comprises magnesium oxide (‘411, Paragraphs [0076]-[0077]). Hoover also discloses immersing or spraying the aqueous dispersion onto the fresh produce (‘411, Paragraphs [0024] and [0115]).
Further regarding Claim 13, Hoover is silent regarding the fruits and vegetables to be citrus fruits.
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 Hoover 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 Hoover 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.
Further regarding Claim 13, Hoover modified with Jacobson et al. is silent regarding the particle size distribution of the magnesium oxide being characterized by 5.0 µm ≤ d90 ≤ 45.0 µm.
Macaigne et al. discloses a method for prolonging the shelf life of fruits and vegetables (using fungicide antimicrobial products having a bactericidal effect on vegetable and/or fruit crops) (‘298, Paragraphs [0042]-[0051] and [0078]-[0079]). Jin et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food art that the use of antimicrobials extends the shelf life of foods (Jin et al., Page 6877). Macaigne et al. also discloses the method comprising applying to the fruits and vegetables an aqueous dispersion comprising magnesium compounds of magnesium hydroxide (‘298, Paragraphs [0035]-[0037]). Macaigne et al. further discloses the particle size distribution D90 of the magnesium compounds ranging from 1 micron to 30 microns (‘298, Paragraph [0023]), which overlaps the claimed d90 particle size distribution of between 5.0 µm and 45.0 µm.
Both modified Hoover and Macaigne et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of prolonging the shelf life of food. Both methods of modified Hoover and Macaigne et al. use an aqueous dispersion comprising magnesium compounds. Hoover discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising oxides and/or hydroxides (‘411, Paragraphs [0010] and [0022]). 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 Hoover and utilize a particle size distribution d90 of the magnesium compound to have the claimed d90 particle size distribution range as taught by Macaigne et al. since where the claimed d90 particle size distribution range overlaps d90 particle size distribution ranges 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.). Macaigne et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food sterilization art to apply an aqueous dispersion to food which aqueous dispersion has magnesium compounds in the claimed d90 particle size distribution range.
Regarding Claim 14, 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 Hoover 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 Hoover 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.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that most of the previous Claim Objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that one of the previous Claim Objections has been maintained herein.
Examiner notes that the previous indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous anticipation rejection under 35 USC 102 as well as the previous obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103(a) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Hoover is currently being relied upon in an obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103(a) to render Claim 1 obvious. Alternatively Dahmen et al. is being relied upon in an anticipation rejection under 35 USC 102 to anticipate Claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Carnes et al. US 6,827,766 discloses an antimicrobial agent comprising aqueous solvents and dispersants wherein the solvents are generally capable of solvating the biocide fraction of the products wherein the dispersants are used to create dispersions or suspensions which are not true solutions (‘766, Column 3, lines 31-44) comprising MgO (‘766, Column 6, lines 5-14).
Ishaque et al. US 2011/0111957 discloses an agrochemical formulation comprising a pesticide and coated metal oxide nanoparticles (‘957, Paragraph [0001]) comprising formulation auxiliaries of further solvents and/or carriers and/or surfactants of dispersing agents of water solvents (‘957, Paragraphs [0053]-[0054]) wherein the carriers are mineral earth such as magnesium oxide (‘957, Paragraph [0056]) wherein the formulation is used to control a multitude of phytopathogenic fungi or insects on plants or fruits and vegetables (‘957, Paragraphs [0153] and [0155]).
Matsumoto et al. US 4,917,820 discloses a postharvest preservation agent utilized to maintain the freshness of postharvest vegetables, fruits, and flowers by mainly removing ethylene evolved from them (‘820, Column 1, lines 9-15) comprising magnesium oxide (‘820, Column 12, lines 17-22).
Falcione et al. US 4,230,610 discloses the use of pigment dispersants for magnesium oxide to reduce the viscosity of magnesium oxide to permit the storage and pumping of higher solids slurries of magnesium oxide (‘610, Column 1, lines 5-22).
Shemesh et al. US 2019/0289866 discloses a method for treating, preventing, inhibiting, and/or reducing biofilm formation and/or reducing or breaking down existing biofilms on a surface, the method comprising the steps of providing a composition comprising an effective concentration of magnesium ions and contacting the surface with the composition (‘866, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the magnesium ions sources is an aqueous solution (‘866, Paragraph [0078]).
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 plants such as enhanced postharvest shelf life of perishable products (‘157, Paragraph [0106]).
Williams et al. US 2016/0324172 discloses an antimicrobial coating material for post harvest coating of product (‘172, Paragraph [0010]) wherein the antimicrobial coating is applied onto produce after harvest and cleaning to inactivate microbial spores on the produce (‘172, Paragraph [0012]) wherein the post harvest treatment is applied to fruits and vegetables to add a physicochemical hurdle for spoilage organisms that reduce the shelf life of fresh produce and pathogenic microbes that cause foodborne illness (‘172, Paragraph [0025]) wherein the antimicrobial coating material comprises an acid component of alkali metals of magnesium (‘172, Paragraphs [0030] and [0038]).
Chakrabortty et al. US 2019/0387743 discloses an antimicrobial composition (‘743, Paragraph [0001]) comprising an inorganic carrier of magnesium oxide having a particle size of 1 to 10 µm (‘743, Paragraph [0020]).
Flores et al. US 2018/0020607 discloses a concentrated liquid suspension agricultural formulation (‘607, Paragraph [0008]) used as a spray for providing nutrients to plants wherein the nutrients include magnesium in the form of dispersed particles with a mean particle size of less than 100 µm or less than 10 µm (‘607,Paragraph [0035]).
Winston US 5,432,146 discloses a fungicide composition comprising magnesium silicate having an average particle size of about 10 microns.
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.
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]).
Santra et al. US 2020/0120937 discloses metal oxide materials such as magnesium oxide (MgO) have been extensively studied as antimicrobial agents (‘937, Paragraph [0003]).
Man et al. US 2010/0108942 discloses an antimicrobial composition for reducing surface microbial populations on fruits and vegetables (‘942, Paragraphs [0141]-[0142]) wherein the composition comprises magnesium oxide (MgO) (‘942, Paragraphs [0063] and [0152]).
Gabbay US 2021/0062405 discloses insoluble particulates of magnesium oxide that impart antimicrobial properties including antibacterial and/or antifungal and/or antiviral properties to fiber (‘405, Paragraph [0034]) or magnesium hydroxide (‘405,Paragraph [0276]).
Sceats US 2019/0142011 discloses a biocide powder adapted to use in agriculture and food (‘011, Paragraph [0055]) wherein there has been extensive development of nanomaterials with biocide properties of MgO (‘011, Paragraph [0007]).
Vadakeuttu et al. US 2018/0325105 discloses a water disintegrable agricultural granular composition including a pesticidal active ingredient (‘105, Paragraph [0002]) comprising a water insoluble nutrient of magnesium oxide (‘105, Paragraph [0047]).
Martin US 2011/0027330 discloses a solid composition in the form of a tablet that releases an antimicrobial solution for the treatment of food processing applications including vegetable and fruit washing, cleaning of animal processing equipment, cleaning of animal carcasses, treatment of poultry and animal habitats (‘330, Paragraphs [0032] and [0046]).
Hanuka et al. US 2020/0337301 discloses a method for applying an antimicrobial coating to a food surface substrate (‘301, Paragraph [0059]) wherein the food surface substrate is fruits and vegetables (‘301, Paragraph [0120]) wherein the antimicrobial coating and film is made from nano-crystalline cellulose into which magnesium oxide or hydroxide is incorporated to articles comprising at least one surface coated with such coatings (‘301, Paragraph [0002]) wherein the size of the MgO particles can be adjusted (‘301, Paragraph [0117]).
Van de Walle US 4,834,957 discloses an aqueous suspension of hard burned magnesium oxide in water wherein the suspension displays minimal hydration of MgO to MgOH2 (‘957, Column 1, lines 13-23) wherein magnesium oxide has numerous applications in both agricultural and industrial fields (‘957, Column 1, lines 26-37).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
Prosecution Insights