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 II, claims 24-25, 28 and 30-32 in the reply filed on 12/29/2025 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Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18-19 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/29/2025.
Status of Claims
Preliminary amendment filed on 12/14/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 16, 18-19, 21, 25, 28, and 30-32 are amended.
Claims 3, 6, 9, 12, 14, 17, 20, 22-23, 26-27, 29, 33-53 are cancelled.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13, 15-16, 18-19 and 21 are withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected group.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 02/12/2025, 12/29/2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 24-25, 28 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 24 recites “PVA” and “PVP”. Full chemical names should be in front of the acronym terms at first appearances in claim, e.g., poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA), polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP).
Claim 24 recites “ hydrogel.” The period “.” has to be revised to “;” since it is within the claim.
Claims 24 and 25 recite “% w/w” with a space in between, or “%w/w” without space, or “w/w” with “%” apart in the sentence. It is recommended to keep consistent format when weight percentage exists.
Claim 25 recites “boric acid and a dialdehyde, or any combination thereof”. The word “and” is recommended to change to comma “,” and the words “any combination thereof” should be “both”. The phrase as “boric acid, a dialdehyde, or both” is more readable for the three alternatives.
Claim 25 also recites “a w/w PVA:PVP ratio”. The article “a” should be revised to “the” because it is further defining the ratio of claim 24.
Claim 28 recites acronym “HP”. A full definition of the term in front of the term is required: hydrogen peroxide (HP).
Claim 28 also recites “comprises ..., …, and a plant hormone, a viable organism, or any combination thereof”. The word “and” should be eliminated since there are other alternatives behind “a plant hormone”. Also, the word “comprises” is recommended to change to “is selected from”, because all these listed components are alternatives.
Claim 31 recites “claim 24, being a pesticidal composition”. The phrase “, being” is suggested to change to “is”, because claim 24 does not express the composition “being” a pesticidal composition, and it is now further limited to “is a pesticidal composition”.
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 24-25, 28 and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 24 and 25 each recite w/w “%” values of ingredients. However, the foundation of the “%” calculation is not defined. Whether all the percentage amounts are based upon the total weight of the composition, or based on the hydrogel, or based on plurality of beads, or something else.
Claim 28 recitation of the phrase “an average cross-section of the plurality of beads” is unclear, whether the measurement is based on cross-section of each bead, or it is based on cross-section of the compiled plurality of beads.
Claims 30-32 are rejected accordingly because they directly or indirectly depend upon claim 24 and they do not further clarify the issues in claim 24 addressed above.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 24-25, 28 and 31-32 are interpreted as following.
Claim 24 is interpreted as a composition comprising plurality beads of hydrogel, comprising poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) and polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) at a w/w PVA : PVP ratio between about 15 : 1 and about 1:1; wherein:
the hydrogel having a water content between 10 and 90% w/w based on the total weight of the hydrogel;
the hydrogel further comprising an active agent present at an amount between 0.5 and 20% w/w based on the total weight of the hydrogel;
the hydrogel being cross-linked via a cross-linking agent.
The terms of “plurality of beads” and “each of the plurality of beads comprises a hydrogel” are interpreted as “plurality beads of hydrogel”, which means beads containing hydrogel, or the hydrogel being in the form of beads. The component concentrations in claim 24 and its dependent claims are based on the total amount of hydrogel, unless indicated specifically otherwise.
Claim 25 is interpreted as the composition of claim 24, wherein:
the cross-linking agent is selected from boric acid, a dialdehyde, or both, present at an amount between 0.5 and 10% based on the total weight amount of the hydrogel;
the w/w PVA:PVP ratio is between about 3:1 and about 1:1;
the hydrogel further comprises alginate present at an amount between 0.1 and 5% based on the total weight of the hydrogel.
Claim 28 is interpreted as the active agent in the composition of claim 24 is selected from hydrogen peroxide (HP) or a precursor thereof, halogen gas precursor, an essential oil, a fertilizer, a pesticide, a plant hormone, a viable organism, or any combinations thereof. The “optionally” feature is
Claims 31 and 32, the limitations led by phrase “configured for” are interpreted as properties or “intended use” of the composition.
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 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nho et al. (Korean J. Chem. Eng., 26(6), 1675-1678, 2009, IDS of 02/13/2025), in view of Choi et al. (International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 145 (2019), 104788, PTO-892) and Huang et al. (Designed Monomers and Polymers, 09/29/2017, 20(1):505-513, PTO-892), as evidenced by Wikipedia (glutaraldehyde, 2026, Weblink: Glutaraldehyde - Wikipedia, PTO-892).
Nho throughout the reference teaches preparation and characterization of PVA/PVP/glycerin/antibacterial agent hydrogels using gamma-irradiation followed by freeze-thawing (e.g., Title).
Nho teaches a composition comprising a crosslinked hydrogel of PVA/PVP/glycerin and an antibacterial agent (corresponding to active agent), the ratio of PVA/PVP is 6 : 4 (wt%), the antibacterial agent concentrations are at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 wt%, and the total concentration of the PVA/PVP/glycerin/
antibacterial agent is 15 wt%, resulting in distilled water content at 85 wt% (e.g., Pg. 1676, left column, 2.Preparation of hydrogels), antibacterial agent (as the active agent in the hydrogel) amount overlapping with between 0.5 and 20%, and PVA : PVP ratio overlapping with between about 15 : 1 and about 1 : 1 as recited in instant claim 24 or between about 3 :1 and about 1 :1 in instant claim 25.
Nho teaches that hydrogel being crosslinked by gamma radiation transforms the linear polymer into a three dimensional molecule, resulting in a significant increase in the molecule mass, low solubility in organic solvents, and improved mechanical properties, however, crosslinking and degradation occur simultaneously (Pg. 1676, right column, 1.Gel content). Nho also indicates that polymers are generally divided into those that predominantly crosslink and those that predominantly degrade, and both PVA and PVP are easily crosslinked in their homogeneous mixture with water (Pg. 1676, right column, 1.Gel content). Nho mentions that gamma irradiation for hydrogel formation has advantage over adding any initiators and crosslinkers that can possibly harmful and difficult to remove (Pg. 1675, right column, last 3rd paragraph). Therefore, Nho suggests that crosslinking agent can be used for easy linking PVA and PVP to form hydrogel, especially if the crosslinking agent is not harmful and removal is not required.
Nho does not teach the PVA/PVP hydrogel are in beads form, using a cross-linking agent to generate the cross-linked beads of hydrogel as in instant claim 24, and Nho does not teach the cross-linking agent is selected from boric acid, a dialdehyde, or both at an amount between 0.5 and 10% of the hydrogel, and the hydrogel further comprises between 0.1 and 5% w/w of alginate as interpreted claim 25.
Choi throughout the reference teaches crosslinking of PVA/alginate carriers using crosslinking agents (e.g., Abstract).
Choi teaches using crosslinking agent glutaraldehyde (GI) (as evidenced by Wikipedia, glutaraldehyde is a dialdehyde) at concentration of (0.2, 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0%) and acid catalyst at concentration (0, 0.1 and 0.5%) to treat PVA/alginate carrier for enhanced crosslinking (e.g., Abstract), and the acid crosslinking agent is boric acid, which is used prior to GI treatment to the PVA/alginate carrier (Pg. 2, left column, 2nd paragraph), and the powder PVA (15%) is prepared with sodium alginate (2%) in deionized water 83% into gel-type solution, later uses boric acid and other agents to form beads, and post treats with GI (Pg. 2, 2.1 preparation of the carriers, 1st-2nd paragraphs), and the surface and cross-section of the GI-crosslinked PVA/alginate beads can be examined by stereomicroscope ( Pg. 2, right column, 2nd paragraph), corresponding to beads of hydrogel and crosslinking agents in instant claim 24, and crosslinking agents as boric acid and dialdehyde (as glutaraldehyde) and further comprising alginate in instant claim 25, with cross-linking agent amounts overlapping with between 0.5 and 10% in instant claim 25, and overlapping amount of between 0.1 and 5% of alginate in instant claim 25.
Huang throughout the reference teaches PVA hydrogel modified by PVP using borax as the crosslinking agent (e.g., Abstract). Huang teaches that hydrogels have been applied as vehicles for drug delivery (e.g., 1. Introduction). Huang states that crosslinking PVA chains by crosslinking agent borax forms the dual network structure in PVA/PVP, thus endowing the hydrogel with high mechanical properties, and the developed hydrogel with high performances holds great potential for applications in biomedical and industrial fields (e.g., Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art to implement the chemical crosslinking for PVA and alginate into beads of hydrogel and crosslinking PVA and PVP by chemical crosslinking taught by Huang to the hydrogel taught by Nho to arrive at current invention. Because Nho already indicates that PVA/PVP polymers are easily crosslinked in their homogeneous mixture with water, using chemical crosslinking agents would be seen as more convenient and accessible as chemical compounds can be dissolved in solutions while preparing PVA/PVP hydrogel, since gamma irradiation for hydrogel formation is generally not available due to the specific required gamma irradiation facility, moreover, as demonstrated by Huang that crosslinking with agent for PVA and PVP can be beneficial and successful, and Choi teaches crosslinking agents as such that using GI crosslinking agent in combination with boric acid presents enhancement in hydrogel mechanical strength with no GI inhibition for total nitrogen (TN) removal efficiency (e.g., Pg. 6, Conclusion) for the deammonification bacteria, indicating the crosslinking conditions are not toxic crosslinking (e.g., Abstract). Moreover, PVA/PVP form homogenous solution as Nho indicates, while Choi teaches adding alginate and other crosslinking agents to PVA are compatible, an artisan in the field would have reasonable expectation that adding alginate and crosslinking agents to PVA/PVP would be compatible and successful. Therefore, selecting these specific agents would have provided reasonable expectation of success for the PVA/PVP beads of hydrogel. 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 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 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nho et al. (Korean J. Chem. Eng., 26(6), 1675-1678, 2009, IDS of 02/13/2025) in view of Choi et al. (International Biodeterioration & Biodegradation, 145 (2019), 104788, PTO-892) and Huang et al. (Designed Monomers and Polymers, 09/29/2017, 20(1):505-513, PTO-892), and evidenced by Wikipedia (glutaraldehyde, 2026, Weblink: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutaraldehyde, PTO-892), as applied to claims 24 and 25 above, and further in view of Reap et la. (WO2017143130, 08/24/2017, PTO-892).
Nho, Choi, and Huang combined teaches a composition comprising a plurality of beads of hydrogel comprising poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) and polyvinyl pyrrolidone (PVP) at a w/w PVA : PVP ratio 6:4, with an active antimicrobial agent present at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2 wt%, and 85% water content based on the total weight of the hydrogel, and the hydrogel can be cross-linked via gamma irradiation or via cross-linking agents including boric acid and dialdehyde, e.g., glutaraldehyde, or borax as discussed and applied to instant claims 24-25 above in great detail and incorporated herein.
Nho, Choi and Huang does not teach the active agent comprises the species as instant claim 28, the composition being an agricultural composition comprising an agriculturally effective amount of the active agent and optionally comprising an agriculturally acceptable carrier, and additive, or both as recited in instant claim 30, the composition is a pesticidal composition configured for the specific intended use when applied to a plant part, or an area under cultivation as recited in instant claim 31, and the agricultural composition of claim 30 being configured for the specific intended use when applied to the plant, to the plant part, or to an area under cultivation as recited in instant claim 32.
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), teaches to use moistening polymers, e.g., PVA, PVP, in a moistening liquid comprising biological materials (e.g., 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), corresponding to viable organism in instant claim 28. Reap teaches that the microorganisms on the seeds may have initial viability of at least 5 logs of colony
forming units per gram of seeds (CFU/g seed). The microorganisms may be bacteria, fungi (e.g., yeasts or molds), parasites, or viruses (Pg. 4, lines 15-17), corresponding to effective amount of the active agent in the agricultural composition in instant claim 30. 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 claims 31-32.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills of art prior to filing date implement Reap’s teaching of adding agricultural active agents, e.g., probiotic agent, pesticide, into the beads of PVA/PVP hydrogel composition taught by Nho, Choi and Huang to arrive at current invention. Because Nho, Choi and Huang teaches that active agents are suitable to be carried by hydrogel or hydrogel as drug carriers, and Reap demonstrates that the specific agricultural agents can be included in the composition. 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). Further, regarding instant claims 31-32, in light of the claim interpretation, the configured features in instant claims 31-32 are intended use or properties of the composition, since prior art taches the composition, these features are 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.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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