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. The instant application was filed 20 April 2024. Claims 1-4 are currently pending and examined on the merits within.
Claim Objections
2. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to fungicidal compound” should instead recite “to a fungicidal compound”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
3. 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.
4. Claims 2 and 4 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.
5. Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
6. Regarding claim 4, the phrase “e.g.,” meaning "for example" 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).
7. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “magnetic material”, and the claim also recites “(e.g., FE3O4 or other magnetically responsive and safe substances) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim recites the broad recitation “an adhesive matrix”, and the claim also recites “(silica gel, polymer)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim recites the broad recitation “Particles are prepared from the acidic copper solution”, and the claim also recites “(for example, obtained by leaching)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim recites the broad recitation “the precipitant”, and the claim also recites “(sodium carbonate)” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
8. Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example" 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).
9. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the acidic copper solution" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
10. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the precipitant" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
11. Claim 4 is directed to three separate sentences. The first sentence is directed to a method of preparation. The second and third sentences are directed to the particles. A claim should only embody one sentence. Based on the conflicting preambles, it is unclear if the claim is directed to a method of making or the product thereof. Clarification is requested. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as a product by process claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 102
12. 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.
(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.
13. Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bhukhanwala (WO2025/141591).
Regarding instant claims 1 and 4, Bhukhanwala disclose 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.
Regarding instant claim 2, dispersing agents include polyvinyl pyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol, etc. See claim 21. The composition can be in the form of a gel. See claim 3.
Regarding instant claim 3, 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.
Thus the instant claims are anticipated by Bhukhanwala.
14. Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lockwood (U.S. Patent No. 996,491).
Regarding instant claims 1 and 4, Lockwood disclose combining 100 lbs of ore containing copper carbonate and 4 lbs of magnetite in a saponifiable oil. See page 1.
Thus the instant claims are anticipated by Lockwood.
Correspondence
15. No claims are allowed at this time.
16. 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