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 .
Status of Claims
Claim amendment filed on 05/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22-23, 26-27, 29, 33-53 remain cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18-19 and 21 remain withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected group.
Claims 24-25, 28, and 30-32 are amended.
Claims 24-25, 28 and 30-32 are pending and being examined on the merits herein.
Priority
This instant application 18570313, filed on 12/14/2023, is a 371 of PCT/IL2022/050651, filed on 06/16/2022, which claims domestic benefit of 63/211009, filed on 06/16/2021.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
All previous claim Objection(s) / Rejection(s) as set forth in the previous Office action (mailed02/23/2026) that are not repeated and/or maintained in the instant Office action are withdrawn, in light of applicant’s amendment and remark filed on 05/20/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 recites “ a content of said water” and “ a concentration of the active agent”, the indefinite article “a” is suggested to revise into “the” to match the specific description led by “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
New Matter Rejection
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 24 is amended to recite “ (iii) a cross-linking agent consisting of a) boric acid or b) boric acid and calcium ions”. However, the instant specification does not support a cross-linking agent as “boric acid and calcium ions”, although boric acid and CaCl2 is seen [e.g., 00499; 00501; 00503] in the cross-linked solution. “Calcium ions” is not an equivalent term of CaCl2.
If Applicant believes this rejection is in error, applicant must disclose where in the specification support for the entire scope of the amendment(s) and/or new claims can be found. As a result, Claim 24 represents new matter.
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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 30 recites Formula for PVP, however, the Formula does not describe the letter “n”. This unknown meaning of n renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the “n” is considered an integer greater than 1.
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 (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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 24-25, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forden et al. (US20110034887, 02/10/2011), in view of Choi et al. (International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 145 (2019), 104788, in record of 02/23/2026), as evidenced by BASF (Luvitec K products, 07/2025, PTO-892).
Forden throughout the reference teaches a cooling product comprising a substrate impregnated with a polymer gel, e.g., PVP/PVA blend, comprising an antimicrobial agent (e.g., Claim 1; Abstract; [0010]).
Forden specifies that the polymer gel has an antimicrobial agent (e.g., Claim 1), and the gel is a PVA/PVP blend (e.g., Claim 3), PVA is about 4 to about 10 wt.% (e.g., Claim 7) and PVP can be about 0.25 to about 1.0 wt.% (Claim 8) resulting in PVA to PVP ratio between about 40 : 1 to 4 : 1 (calculated from max. PVA 10 %/min. PVP 0.25% = 40 :1, and min. PVA 4%/max. PVP 1.0 wt.% = 4 : 1) (overlapping with PVA:PVP between about 15 :1 and about 1: 1 in instant claim 24). Forden indicates that active ingredient such as antimicrobial agent can be about 2 wt.% to about 7 wt.% in the aqueous solution during preparation (e.g., Claim 28), or 2-5 wt%, preferred 2-3%, more preferrable 3% (e.g., [0096]), overlapping with active ingredient amount range between 0.5 and 20% in instant claim 24. Forden teaches in an illustrative embodiment PVA at 4--10 wt%, preferred 6 wt%; PVP preferred 0.25-1.0 wt%; antimicrobial 2-5 wt.%, preferred 3 wt%; glycerin 1-7 wt%, preferred 2-5 wt%; with the rest as water (e.g., [0088-0093]) (calculated at amount range 76 to 92.75 wt%) (overlapping with water range between 10 and 90% in instant claim 24).
Forden teaches that PVA/PVP blends can be crosslinked using physical techniques such as heat treatment and radiation or chemical agents such as, boric acid, sodium borate (e.g., [0073]), and about 3 to 8 wt% of inorganic coagulating agent (corresponding to crosslinking agent) such as sodium borate is exemplified in an illustrative embodiment as crosslinking agent (e.g., [0086]) (corresponding to crosslinking agent in instant claim 24, overlapping with between 0.5 and 10 wt% of crosslinking agent in instant claim 25).
Forden teaches that PVP, such as sold under the name Luvitec®, BASF for example, includes vinylpyrrolidone homopolymers and copolymers with different molecular weights, and homopolymers of PVP such as sold as Luvitec K grade can be used (e.g., [0064]). As evidenced by BASF, Luvitec K PVP products have the formula (Pg. 2, top) as instantly claimed in instant claim 30, and Luvitec K 86, K 90, or K 90 solution approx. 20% have the molecular weight range from 5,000 to 40, 000 (overlapping with molecular weight range between 10,000 and 100,000 in instant claim 32).
Forden does not teach the composition comprising the PVA/PVP blend polymer hydrogel as a plurality of beads as recited in instant claim 24. Forden does not teach the polymeric constituent further comprises alginate as recited in instant claim 25 or claim 32.
Choi throughout the reference teaches crosslinking of PVA/alginate carriers using crosslinking agents, such as acid catalyst at concentration (0, 0.1 and 0.5%) to treat PVA/alginate carrier for enhanced crosslinking (e.g., Abstract).
Choi teaches that PVA carriers is cheap and non-toxic to microorganisms, and PVA/alginate gel matrix has been reported to suit the deammonification process (Pg. 1, left column, bottom), furthermore, reversible crosslinking is formed due to labile polar covalent interactions between PVA and boric acid, resulting in elastic carrier structures which does not constitute long-term stability (Pg. 1, right column, bottom), with no expected influence on hydrophilicity of the carrier (Pg. 4, left column, top). Choi teaches the preparation of PVA/alginate carriers mixing PVA 15% and sodium alginate 2% in deionized water with equal volume of deammonification biomass (such as deammonification bacteria) being dropped into a concentration boric acid/calcium chloride solution to prepare beads (Pg. 2, 2.1 preparation of the carriers, 1st paragraph); later using 2% boric acid to treat PVA/alginate carrier (Pg. 2, 2.1 preparation of the carriers, 1st-2nd paragraphs), corresponding to beads of hydrogel in instant claim 24, and the polymeric constituent further comprising alginate as recited in instant claim 25 or claim 32.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate alginate into the polymer constituent and composition form as a plurality beads taught by Choi into the PVP/PVA blended polymer gel established by Forden to arrive at current invention. Because Forden teaches that PVA/PVP polymer gels can be crosslinked using boric acid, while Choi teaches that PVA/alginate carriers using boric acid as crosslinking agent can generate elastic carriers in hydrogel beads form, artisans in the field would be motivated to incorporate PVA/alginate with PVA/PVP to generate the elastic economical non-toxic degradable polymers with boric acid crosslinking. One would have reasonable expectation of success resulting from the combination of these specific elements taught by prior art. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP §2144.05(I) states that “A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For this instance, all the concentrations, ratio ranges, molecular weight overlap with those in prior art. Furthermore, “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize additive amount through nothing more than “routine experimentation,” because of a reasonable expectation of success resulting from the optimization for desirable features of intended use of the composition (MPEP §2144.05 (II)). See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forden et al. (US20110034887, 02/10/2011), in view of Choi et al. (International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 145 (2019) 104788, in record of 02/23/2026), evidenced by BASF (Luvitec K products, 07/2025, PTO-892), as applied to claims 24-25, 30 and 32 above, and further in view of Reap et la. (WO2017143130, 08/24/2017, in record of 02/23/2026).
Forden and Choi combined teaching teaches a composition comprising a plurality of beads of hydrogel consisting of i) a polymeric constituent that can consist of PVA, PVP, and alginate with a w/w PVA : PVP ratio between about 40 : 1 to 4 : 1, ii) water about 76 to 92.75 wt%, and iii) an active antimicrobial agent present at about 2 wt.% to about 7 wt.%, or 2-5 wt%, preferred 2-3%, more preferrable 3% based on the total weight of the hydrogel, with boric acid as crosslinking agent, as applied to instant claims 24-25, 30 and 32 discussed above in great detail and incorporated herein.
Choi teaches that PVA carriers is cheap and non-toxic to microorganisms, and PVA/alginate gel matrix has been reported to suit the deammonification process and PVA carriers are commonly employed as whole-cell entrapment for microorganisms (Pg. 1, left column, bottom), As discussed above, Choi teaches the preparation of PVA/alginate carriers mixing PVA 15% and sodium alginate 2% in deionized water with equal volume of deammonification biomass (e.g., viable deammonification bacteria, corresponding to a viable organism in instant claim 28), being dropped into a concentration boric acid/calcium chloride solution to prepare beads (Pg. 2, 2.1 preparation of the carriers, 1st paragraph) (corresponding to crosslinking agent as boric acid and calcium ions in instant claim 32).
Forden and Choi does not teach each bead size as instant claim 28, or the composition as a pesticidal composition configured for the specific intended use as recited in instant claim 31.
Reap throughout the reference teaches compositions and methods for coating seeds with biological materials such as bacteria, fungi, parasites, recombinant vectors, and viruses (e.g., Abstract).
Reap teaches the seed coating compositions can be cross-linked hydrogel formulation (e.g., Pg. 21, lines 24-25), and exemplifies preparation of hydrogel compositions containing probiotic bacteria for seed coating through many examples, e.g., example 5 containing probiotic bacteria Bifidobacterium lactis (Pg. 38) examples 11-12 (Pg. 40), example 18 (Pg. 43), example 25 (Pg. 46), example 38 (Pg. 51). Reap teaches to use moistening polymers, e.g., PVA, PVP, in a moistening liquid comprising biological materials (e.g., Claims 13-14 and 37; Pg. 3, lines 13-17), e.g., microorganisms including bacteria (e.g., nitrogen fixing bacteria), fungi ( e.g., yeasts or molds), parasites, or viruses, recombinant vectors, antibodies, or enzymes for coating seeds (e.g., Pg. 3, lines 23-25). Reap teaches that stable dry biological powder can be prepared via mixing cell cultures with polysaccharides, glass enhancing compounds to form the viscous formulation and rapidly freeze into solid droplets, strings or beads (e.g., Pg. 14 Lines 24-31; Pg. 15, Lines 5-12). Reap specifies that the particle (e.g., bead) size in the composition can be less than about 10,000, 5,000, 1,000 or 500 um (equal to 10, 5, 1, and 0.5 mm) (e.g., Pg. 19, Lines 1-4; Claim 18), overlapping with bead size between 1 and 50 mm in instant claim 28.
Reap teaches the composition can contain a pesticide in multiple embodiments (e.g., Pg. 41, example 13, line 7; Pg. 47, example 28, line 21; Pg. 47, example 29, line 30) as coating of seeds (corresponding to composition is applied to a plant part). Reap indicates that the bioactive material, for example, microorganisms, including bacteria such as nitrogen fixing bacteria, viruses, parasites, or fungi such as yeasts and molds, are configured for disease and insect control, enhancing soil fertility and plant vigor (e.g., Pg. lines 12-15), corresponding to instant claim 31.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills of art prior to filing date incorporate Reap’s teaching of bioactive hydrogel composition configured for pest control into the composition of plurality of beads taught by Forden and Choi to arrive at current invention. Because Forden and Choi combined teaching teaches that active agents, e.g., antimicrobial agents, or viable microorganisms, are suitable to be carried by hydrogel and PVP/PVA matrix can function as drug carriers, while Reap demonstrates that the specific agricultural agents including probiotic materials can be included in the composition, it would have motivated artisans in the field to add the suitable functions of the composition and would have provided reasonable expectation of success since Reap already demonstrates the applications of coating seeds. Further, the configured features in instant claim 31 are interpreted as intended use or properties of the composition, since prior art teaches the composition, these features would necessarily present in prior art as inherent properties of the composition, in addition to the teaching of prior art that the compositions are intended for controlling plant vigor (corresponding to plant growth), and preventing or reducing plant disease or insect (as pest) control when applied to plant part, e.g., seeds. Moreover, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP §2144.05(I) states that “A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For this instance, the bead size range overlaps with that in prior art. Furthermore, “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize additive amount through nothing more than “routine experimentation,” because of a reasonable expectation of success resulting from the optimization for desirable features of intended use of the composition (MPEP §2144.05 (II)). See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 05/20/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to art rejections have been considered but are moot because in light of applicant’s amendment and remarks, the new ground of rejection has applied new prior art Forden et al. (US20110034887, 02/10/2011) to teach PVA/PVP using boric acid as crosslinking agent instead of Nho as previously applied in office action mailed on 02/23/2026. Forden’s teaching in combination with Choi and Reap has thoroughly addressed the subject matter in amended claims, e.g., claim 24 reciting the hydrogel consists of the agents (i)-(iii), the cross-linking agent consists a) boric acid or b) boric acid and calcium, and the polymeric content of the hydrogel includes both PVA and PVP and optionally further includes alginate (Claim 25); PVP is linear, or specific MW range in amended claims 30 and 32. As presented above in this office action, the subject matter shall be no longer specifically challenged in the argument.
Please refer to the entire office action as the complete response to the remarks/arguments.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 DONGXIU ZHANG SPIERING whose telephone number is (703)756-4796. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm (Except for Fridays).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SUE X. LIU can be reached at (571)272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DX.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights