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 1 is presented for examination.
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.
Claim 1 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 1 is indefinite as to the phrase “complex fertilizer”. Such phrase fails to define the meaning of complex fertilizer. Claim 1 is indefinite as to the phrase “as well as”. The phrase fails to set forth bounds and metes of the claimed invention. The phrase “as well as” can be interpreted as “and’, “or” or “including”. Claim 1 is indefinite as to the phrase “the water is pre-structured with shungite”. The phrase fails to set forth the intended meaning. Claim 1 is indefinite in using “,” instead of “.” in showing the amounts of the claimed components. The claim uses “0,9” for silver nitrate, “0,4”and “2,8” for sodium borohydride. Correction of the amounts is requested. Applicant is also requested to correct the spelling “sodium tall amphopolycarboxyglycinate”. “tall” show be changed to “tallow”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krutyakov et al. (Tallow amphopolycarboxyglycinate-stabilized silver nanoparticles: new frontiers in development of plant protection products with a broad spectrum of action against phytopathogens) in view of Deb (US 20130219979 submitted by the applicant) and further in view of Sekhon (Chelates for Micronutrient Nutrition among Crops)
Claim 1 is drawn to Liquid complex fertilizer contains colloidal silver and a complex of macro- and
microelements in salt form, as well as in the form of metal-ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid
chelates, characterized in that it additionally contains sodium tallow amphopolycarboxyglycinate, polyvinylpyrrolidone, and the water is pre-structured with shungite with the following content of components, g/l:
silver nitrate 0.9-6; sodium borohydride 0.4-2.8; sodium tallow amphopolycarboxyglycinate 7-46; polyvinylpyrrolidone 5-80, ammonium molybdate 1.8-7; sodium octaborate tetrahydrate 11-40; copper chelate 33-70; zinc chelate 23-70, manganese chelate 7-35; cobalt chelate 7-35; structured water 561-883.9.
Regarding claim 1, Krutyakov teaches the use of colloidal silver, such as silver nitrate in a plant protection product. See the abstract. Krutyakov teaches that sodium tallow amphopolycarboxyglycinate stabilizes colloidal silver nitrate. See page 2. The use of polyvinyl pyrrolidone in combination with silver nitrate and sodium tallow amphopolycarboxyglycinate as claimed herein is taught on page 6. Krutyakov differs from the claimed invention in the presence of components, such as, sodium borohydride, ammonium molybdate, sodium octaborate tetrahydrate, copper chelate, zinc chelate, manganese chelate, cobalt chelate and water. Deb teaches a fertilizer having plant nutrients. See the abstract. Deb teaches that Plant nutrients are divided into two categories: macronutrients, which are in quantities from about 0.2% to about 4.0% by dry matter weight; and micronutrients, which are consumed in smaller quantities and may range from about 5 parts per million (ppm) to about 200 ppm or less than about 0.2% dry weight. Macronutrients include carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, potassium, nitrogen, sulfur, calcium, magnesium, and silicon. Micronutrients include iron, molybdenum, boron, copper, manganese, sodium, zinc, nickel, chlorine, selenium, vanadium and cobalt. See Para [0002]. The use of sodium borohydride is taught in Para [0007]. The use of silver nitrate is taught in Paras [0009] and [0039]. The use of zinc chelate, copper chelate, manganese chelate, sodium octaborate tetrahydrate and ammonium molybdate is taught in Para [0033]. The salt of cobalt is taught in Para [0039]. The use of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) is taught in Para [0058]. The use of double distilled water is taught in Para [0049]. Krutyakov and Deb do not teach the use of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid for making a chelates, cobalt as a chelate and the concentrations of each component. Sekhon teaches the chelated forms of micro nutrients have a number of advantages over more traditional forms of trace elements such as oxides and sulphates. See Page 48. The use of chelated cobalt is taught on page 46. The use of EDTA as a chelator is taught on page 49.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to add the additional components in a salt or chelated form to the composition of Krutyakov, motivated by the teachings of Deb, which teaches the use of the additional components as plant nutrients in agricultural field as old and well know. The superiority of chelated form of plant nutrients is taught by Sekhon. Sekhon teaches the use of cobalt in a chelated form as a plant nutrient. The determination of optimum proportions or amounts are considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Applicant’s attention is drawn to In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), where the court states “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. "[W]here 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."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHREH A FAY whose telephone number is (703)756-1800. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6:00.
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 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.
/ZOHREH A FAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617