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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I: Claims 1-14 in the reply filed on November 6, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 15-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
An action on the merits of elected Claims 1-14 is provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on November 3, 2023, July 12, 2024, and October 10, 2024 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, 11, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A method of prolonging the shelf life of agricultural food products comprising” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “A method of prolonging the shelf life of agricultural food products, the method comprising” in order to directly refer to the phrase that the transitional phrase “comprising” modifies.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the food products” in line 2. It appears the claim should recite “the agricultural food products” in order to maintain consistency with “agricultural food products” recited in Claim 1, line 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the magnesium compound” in lines 1-2. It appears the claim should recite “the magnesium compounds” (plural) in order to maintain consistency with “magnesium compounds” recited in Claim 1, line 3.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the dispersion” in line 4. It appears the claim should recite “the aqueous dispersion” in order to maintain consistency with “an aqueous dispersion” recited in Claim 1, line 2.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the food products” in line 3 as well as in line 4. It appears the claim should recite “the agricultural food products” in order to maintain consistency with “agricultural food products” recited in Claim 1, line 1.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the dispersion” in line 4. It appears the claim should recite “the aqueous dispersion” in order to maintain consistency with “an aqueous dispersion” recited in Claim 1, line 2.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the food products” in line 3. It appears the claim should recite “the agricultural food products” in order to maintain consistency with “agricultural food products” recited in Claim 1, line 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the dispersion” in lines 4-5 as well as twice in line 5. It appears the claim should recite “the aqueous dispersion” in order to maintain consistency with “an aqueous dispersion” recited in Claim 1, line 2.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the food products” in line 6. It appears the claim should recite “the agricultural food products” in order to maintain consistency with “agricultural food products” recited in Claim 1, line 1.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 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 “very slightly water soluble or water insoluble magnesium compounds” in lines 2-3. The term “very slightly water soluble” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “vert slightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Furthermore, it is unclear if the phrase “very slightly” modifies only the phrase “water soluble” or if the phrase “very slightly” also modifies the phrase “water insoluble magnesium compounds.”
Claim 6 recites the limitation “said at least one suspension aid” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “agricultural food products” in line 3. It is unclear if this refers to “agricultural food products” recited in Claim 1, line 1 or to entirely different agricultural food products. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same agricultural food products.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “agricultural food products” in line 3. It is unclear if this refers to “agricultural food products” recited in Claim 1, line 1 or to entirely different agricultural food products. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same agricultural food products.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “preferably a waxing step, a washing step, and/or applying to the food products at least one fungicide” in lines 2-3. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “citrus fruits” in line 2. Citrus fruits is a type of agricultural food product. It is unclear if “citrus fruits” refers to “agricultural food products” recited in Claim 1, line 1 or if citrus fruits refers to an entirely different agricultural food product. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to require the agricultural food products comprising citrus fruits.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an aqueous dispersion” in lines 2-3. It is unclear if this refers to “an aqueous dispersion” recited in Claim 1, line 2 or to an entirely different aqueous dispersion.
Clarification is required.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 12, and 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 1-4 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by 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.”) and Man et al. US 2010/0108942.
It is noted that normally only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 USC 102. However, a 35 USC 102 rejection over multiple reference is held to be proper when the extra references are cited to show a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent (MPEP § 2131.01).
Regarding Claim 1, Macaigne et al. discloses a method for prolonging the shelf life of agricultural food products (using fungicide antimicrobial products having a bactericidal effect on crops) (‘298, Paragraphs [0042] 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 food products an aqueous dispersion comprising magnesium compounds of magnesium hydroxide (‘298, Paragraphs [0035]-[0037]). Man et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food antimicrobial art (‘942, Paragraph [0030]) that magnesium hydroxide is a type of water insoluble magnesium salt compound (‘942, Paragraph [0063]). It is noted that the claims does not specify any particular solubility levels to the define the claimed water insoluble magnesium compound.
Regarding Claim 2, Macaigne et al. discloses the aqueous dispersion further comprising at least one suspension aid (at least one dispersant) (‘298, Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 3, Macaigne et al. discloses the magnesium compound being magnesium hydroxide (‘298, Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 4, Macaigne et al. discloses the agricultural products being fruits and vegetables (‘298, Paragraphs [0045]-[0049]).
Regarding Claim 11, Macaigne et al. discloses at least one additional step (washing step of hydration of the magnesium product particles) (‘298, Paragraph [0027]).
Further regarding Claim 11, the limitations “preferably a waxing step, a washing step, and/or applying to the food products at least one fungicide” are optional limitations by virtue of the term “preferably.”
Regarding Claim 12, Macaigne et al. discloses the method comprising applying the fungicide to the agricultural food products (‘298, Paragraph [0031]), which reads on the claimed limitations of protecting the agricultural food product from decay by fungal infection and for controlling fungi on the agricultural food products.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.”) and Man et al. US 2010/0108942 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Santra et al. US 2020/0120937.
Regarding Claim 5, Macaigne et al. discloses the method being used on agricultural fruit crops (‘298, Paragraphs [0045]-[0049]). However, Macaigne et al. as further evidenced by Jin et al. and Man et al. is silent regarding the agricultural fruit products to be citrus fruits.
Santra et al. discloses an antimicrobial magnesium hydroxide particle composition for use as a fungicide (‘937, Paragraph [0030]) on fruit plants (‘937, Paragraph [0035]) wherein the fruit plants are citrus fruits (‘937, Paragraph [0038]) wherein the composition is applied in an aqueous vehicle to the plant (‘937, Paragraph [0050]).
Both Macaigne et al. and Santra et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of applying antimicrobial fungicides comprising magnesium hydroxide onto food products such as fruits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Macaigne et al. that applies an antimicrobial fungicide containing magnesium hydroxide onto citrus fruits specifically as taught by Santra et al. based upon the desired food substrate to be treated with antimicrobial compositions.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.”) and Man et al. US 2010/0108942 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Heath US 2017/0027168.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Macaigne et al. discloses the aqueous dispersion comprising at least one suspension aid (at least one dispersant) (‘298, Paragraph [0034]). However, Macaigne et al. is silent regarding the at least one suspension aid in the form of at least one dispersant to be a phosphate based dispersant.
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 Macaigne et al. 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 Macaigne 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.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.”) and Man et al. US 2010/0108942 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Toreki et al. US 2017/0156340 and Man et al. US 2010/0108942.
Regarding Claims 8 and 13, Macaigne et al. is silent regarding the aqueous dispersion comprising at least 2% magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide and at least 0.05% by weight of a suspension aid based on the total weight of the dispersion by immersing the food products in the dispersion or spraying the dispersion onto the food products.
Toreki et al. discloses an antimicrobial composition comprising an aqueous dispersion or suspension comprising a metal derivative of magnesium hydroxide in an amount of 0.1% to 15% of the formulation (‘340, Paragraphs [0058]-[0060]), which overlaps the claimed concentration of at least 2% magnesium hydroxide in the aqueous dispersion. Toreki et al. also discloses immersing the food products in the dispersion or spraying the dispersion onto the food products (‘340, Paragraph [0222]).
Both Macaigne et al. and Toreki et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of antimicrobial compositions comprising an aqueous dispersion comprising magnesium hydroxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Macaigne et al. and incorporate into the aqueous dispersion the claimed amount of at least 2% magnesium hydroxide as taught by Toreki et al. since where the claimed concentration of magnesium hydroxide in the aqueous dispersion overlaps concentration of magnesium hydroxide 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.). Furthermore, differences in the concentration of magnesium hydroxide in the aqueous dispersion of an antimicrobial composition will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of magnesium hydroxide in the aqueous dispersion of an antimicrobial composition 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.).
Further regarding Claims 8 and 13, Macaigne et al. modified with Toreki et al. is silent regarding at least 0.05% by weight of a suspension aid based on the total weight of the dispersion.
Man et al. discloses a stabilized peracid composition used on foods and plant species to reduce surface microbial populations (‘942, Paragraph [0141]) wherein the food is fruits and vegetables (‘942, Paragraph [0142]) wherein the stabilized peracid composition is combined with stabilizing compositions including an alkaline earth metal and a chelating agent for enhanced stability peracid composition (‘942, Paragraph [0013]) wherein the stabilizing composition includes a water insoluble magnesium salt of magnesium hydroxide (‘942, Paragraph [0063]) wherein the stabilized peracid composition is included in fungicides (‘942, Paragraph [0139]) and the chelating agent forms a soluble or insoluble complex which chelating agent is sodium tripolyphosphate (‘942, Paragraph [0015]) wherein the phosphate containing compound is present in the mixture of ingredients in an amount of less than about 1.0 wt% (‘942, Paragraph [0022]), which overlaps the claimed concentration of suspension aid of at least 0.05 wt% based on the total weight of the dispersion. Man et al. also discloses immersing the food products in the dispersion or spraying the dispersion onto the food products (‘942, Paragraphs [0149]-[0150]).
Both Macaigne et al. and Man et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of antimicrobial compositions applied to food products including fruits. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Macaigne et al. and incorporate into the aqueous dispersion the claimed amount of at least 0.05% by weight of a suspension aid in the form of a phosphate containing chelating agent as taught by Toreki et al. since where the claimed concentration of a generic suspension aid overlaps the concentration of a generic 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.). Furthermore, differences in the concentration of the generic suspension aid in the aqueous dispersion of an antimicrobial composition will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the generic suspension aid in the aqueous dispersion of an antimicrobial composition 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.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.”) and Man et al. US 2010/0108942 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Jin et al. “Antibacterial activities of magnesium oxide (MgO) nanoparticles against foodborne pathogens” (published 2011) (herein referred to as “Jin et al.”) and Man et al. US 2010/0108942.
Regarding Claim 9, Macaigne et al. is silent regarding the method comprising applying at least 0.1 grams magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide per 1 kg of agricultural food products by immersing the food products in the dispersion or spraying the dispersion onto the food products.
Jin et al. discloses a method of applying an antibacterial agent comprising magnesium oxide nanoparticles to foods (Jin et al., Abstract) wherein higher magnesium oxide (MgO) concentrations results in greater bacterial inactivation (Jin et al., Page 6883). The magnesium oxide nanoparticles in aqueous slurries are effective for killing certain bacteria (Jin et al., Page 6882).
Both Macaigne et al. and Jin et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of antimicrobial compositions applied to food wherein the antimicrobial compositions comprise magnesium compounds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Macaigne et al. and adjust the magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide concentration of the aqueous dispersion of antimicrobial composition applied relative to the weight of the agricultural food products since differences in the concentration of the magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide in the aqueous dispersion of an antimicrobial composition relative to the weight of the agricultural food product will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide in the aqueous dispersion of an antimicrobial composition relative to the weight of the agricultural food product 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.). Jin et al. teaches that higher magnesium oxide (MgO) concentrations results in greater bacterial inactivation (Jin et al., Page 6883). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide used in the aqueous dispersion until the desired bacterial inactivation is achieved within the food product.
Further regarding Claim 9, Jin et al. discloses incorporating the magnesium oxide into an aqueous slurry (Jin et al., Page 6882). Man et al. discloses applying an antimicrobial composition onto a food item by spraying the composition or by immersing the object in the composition (‘942, Paragraph [0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Macaigne et al. and immerse the food product in the dispersion or spray the dispersion onto the food products since Jin et al. and Man et al. teaches that these were known ways to apply an antimicrobial composition onto food products.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.”) and Man et al. US 2010/0108942 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Jin et al. “Antibacterial activities of magnesium oxide (MgO) nanoparticles against foodborne pathogens” (published 2011) (herein referred to as “Jin et al.”).
Regarding Claim 10, Macaigne et al. is silent regarding the method comprising applying 0.1-5.0 grams of magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide per 1 kg of agricultural food products.
Jin et al. discloses a method of applying an antibacterial agent comprising magnesium oxide nanoparticles to foods (Jin et al., Abstract) wherein higher magnesium oxide (MgO) concentrations results in greater bacterial inactivation (Jin et al., Page 6883). The magnesium oxide nanoparticles in aqueous slurries are effective for killing certain bacteria (Jin et al., Page 6882).
Both Macaigne et al. and Jin et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of antimicrobial compositions applied to food wherein the antimicrobial compositions comprise magnesium compounds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Macaigne et al. and adjust the magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide concentration of the aqueous dispersion of antimicrobial composition applied relative to the weight of the agricultural food products since differences in the concentration of the magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide in the aqueous dispersion of an antimicrobial composition relative to the weight of the agricultural food product will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide in the aqueous dispersion of an antimicrobial composition relative to the weight of the agricultural food product 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.). Jin et al. teaches that higher magnesium oxide (MgO) concentrations results in greater bacterial inactivation (Jin et al., Page 6883). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of magnesium oxide and/or magnesium hydroxide used in the aqueous dispersion until the desired bacterial inactivation is achieved within the food product.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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.”) and Man et al. US 2010/0108942 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Toreki et al. US 2017/0156340 and Man et al. US 2010/0108942 as applied to claim 13 above in further view of Tanaka et al. US 2019/0124923.
Regarding Claim 14, Macaigne et al. discloses a fungicide in the form of an aqueous dispersion in the form of a suspension (‘298, Paragraphs [0035]-[0037]). However, Macaigne et al. modified with Toreki et al. and Man et al. is silent regarding the fungal infection being treated by the fungicide being caused by at least one of Penicillium digitatum, Penicillium italickum, and geotrichm candidum.
Tanaka et al. discloses an agricultural fungicide composition (‘923, Paragraph [0048]) comprising magnesium oxide stabilizing agent (‘923, Paragraphs [0069] and [0082]) wherein the fungicide is used to treat penicillium digitatum and penicillium italicum for citrus (‘923, Paragraphs [0064]-[0066]).
Both Macaigne et al. and Tanaka et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of agricultural fungicide compositions comprising magnesium compounds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Macaigne et al. and apply the fungicide composition to control fungi caused by Penicillium digitatum and/or penicillium italicum as taught by Tanaka 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Das et al. US 2017/0209347 discloses a method of making an antimicrobial particulate composition comprising the steps of mixing an aqueous dispersion of an immobilizer of magnesium (‘347, Paragraphs [0024]-[0025]).
Bar-on et al. US 2017/0156335 discloses a fruit and/or vegetable packaging that increases the shelf life and decreases decay of at least one fruit and/or at least one vegetable (‘335, Paragraph [0835]) using a composition comprising an aqueous dispersion of magnesium (‘335, Paragraph [0004]).
Obot et al. US 11,180,856 discloses magnesium hydroxide is a type of compound that is soluble or slightly soluble in water.
Gabbay US 2021/0062405 discloses an antimicrobial compound or composition containing magnesium oxide (‘405, Paragraph [0287]) wherein magnesium hydroxide is a type of water insoluble particulate compound (‘405, Paragraph [0276]).
Sceats US 2019/0142011 discloses a method of making a biocide powder for use in agriculture and food applications (‘011, Paragraphs [0022] and [0055]) wherein the biocide powder is adapted for an application as a biocide spray, a foam, or a fog wherein the slurry or powder is mixed with oil to form an emulsion if required and processed into a foam or a fog (‘011, Paragraph [0057]) wherein magnesium hydroxide is well established as a product for removing iron and heavy metals from solids and water where the metals precipitate to form insoluble hydroxides (‘011, Paragraph [0112]).
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 hydroxide (‘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 application of fruit washing (‘330, Paragraph [0032]) wherein the composition comprises a non-hygroscopic coating for enhanced environmental stability and to restrict the rapid dissolution of the reactants and provide more time for contact for them to react (‘330, Paragraphs [0070]-[0071]) wherein the non-hygroscopic material is virtually insoluble magnesium hydroxide (“330, Paragraph [0050]).
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]).
Sakai et al. US 2016/0286794 discloses a plant disease control agent method using calcined magnesium oxide (‘794, Paragraph [0001]) wherein such calcined magnesium oxide exhibits an excellent plant disease control effect by catalyzing generation of radical species generated directly or indirectly acting on the plant disease (‘794, Paragraph [0033]).
Kardasz et al. US 2016/0130190 discloses a titanium containing formulation containing complexes of titanium salts with ascorbic acid and citric acid, a preservative agent, and water soluble sulfates of metals absorbable by plants in an aqueous environment alkalized with magnesium hydroxide (‘190, Paragraph [0018]) wherein the use of magnesium hydroxide allows the complete removal of sodium compounds and allows for pH control of the finished product (‘190, Paragraph [0028]) wherein it is known that magnesium, the main component of chlorophyll, the green pigment of plants necessary for photosynthesis and the activation of many enzymes is responsible for the formation of chlorophyll and photosynthesis of the plant (‘190, Paragraph [0042]).
Aral et al. US 5,906,804 discloses a method of making a magnesium hydroxide slurry.
Van de Walle et al. US 4,834,957 discloses magnesium oxide has numerous applications in agricultural fields.
Sceats et al. US 2018/0007913 discloses a pathogen inhibitor slurry for agriculture to remove microbes from surfaces (‘913, Paragraph [0055]) wherein the pathogen inhibitor comprises magnesium hydroxide in the slurry (‘913, Paragraph [0028]) wherein the magnesium hydroxide content is at least 80% by weight (‘913, Paragraph [0038]).
Kumar US 2011/0028546 discloses a method of using a composition for reducing levels of microorganisms in agricultural or food processing (‘546, Paragraph [0012]).
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