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 .
Detailed Action
Status of Application
1. Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 30 April 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-3 and 5 are currently pending. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 1-3 are amended. Claim 5 is newly added. Claims 1-3 and 5 are examined on the merits within.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
2. Applicants’ arguments, filed 30 April 2026, with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C 112(b) Rejections of claims 2 and 4 are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) Rejection of Bhukhanwala and the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) Rejection of Lockwood have been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made in view of Wee et al. (Chemistry Select, 2022).
New Rejections
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102/103
3. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
4. Claim(s) 1-2 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wee et al. (Chemistry Select, 2022).
Regarding instant claims 1 and 5, Wee et al. disclose iron based magnetic nanoparticles. See abstract. For instance, ZnO/Fe3O4 nanocomposite has improved antioxidant ability and photocatalytic properties than its individual compound. Metal oxides were found to have lower toxicity to soil bacterial communities and have less impact on the macroscopic properties of soil. These effects are also dependent on type and concentration of metal oxide. Therefore, metal oxides are more suitable to functionalize MNPs for agricultural applications. See page 9. Both copper ferrite and cobalt ferrite NPs demonstrate excellent antimicrobial activity against microorganisms, such as E.Coli, S. aureus, Bacillus subtilis and Candida albicans. See page 9. Since Wee et al. teach the same combination of ingredients, it would function in the same manner, i.e., magnetically responsive to a magnetic field. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With respect to claim 2, which recite product-by-process limitations, the Examiner notes “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Thus Wee et al. envision copper ferrite and, in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to substitute one metal oxide for another, i.e., copper oxide for zinc oxide to yield a nanocomposite with the iron based magnetic nanoparticle to provide antimicrobial activity.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
5. 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.
6. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wee et al. (Chemistry Select, 2022) as applied to claims 1-2 and 5 above and further in view of Bhukhanwala (WO2025/141591).
Wee et al. do not teach 20-90% copper compound and 10-40% magnetic material.
Bhukhanwala teach a crop nutrition and fortification composition comprising a water insoluble or water soluble iron salt, a water insoluble or water soluble copper salt, and surfactant. See abstract. The copper salt includes copper carbonate. See claim 19. The iron salt includes magnetite. See claim 12. Iron salts are present in a range of 0.1 to 55%. Copper salts are present in a range of 0.1 to 45%. See page 19.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the amounts of magnetic material and copper compound to achieve the desired effect because Bhukhanwala teach effective amounts of iron salt in the range of 0.1 to 55% and copper salts in the range of 0.1 to 45% for crop nutrition and fortification.
Conclusion
7. 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.
Correspondence
8. No claims are allowed at this time.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WORSHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-5).
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, Robert Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/JESSICA WORSHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights