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
Applicant’s response dated 23 July 2026 to the previous Office action dated 23 March 2026 is acknowledged. Pursuant to amendments therein, claims 14-32 are pending in the application.
The drawing objections made in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s submission of acceptable replacement sheets.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 made in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments canceling the “use” claims.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 made in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments canceling the “use” claims.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 over Damo et al. (EP 0357559 A2; of record) made in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments canceling such rejected claims.
A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made herein in view of applicant’s claim amendments adding new claims.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 23 July 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
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) 14-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu et al. (CN 109874579 A; published 14 June 2019; citations herein to English machine translation made 10 September 2026) in view of Wang (New Rural Technology, No. 06, 30 June 2018, page 13; of record) as evidenced by Machado et al. (EP 4 620 304 A1; published 24 September 2025).
Qiu et al. discloses spraying of corn with a composition comprising lauryl alcohol (i.e., a higher aliphatic alcohol, dodecanol), emulsifier, emulsifying agent assistant, thickener, and water, to form a film high in fat thereon (abstract; claim 1) wherein the emulsifying agent assistant is propylene glycol (claim 4) wherein the ingredients are mixed (i.e., produces an aqueous emulsion) (claim 6) wherein the composition promotes plant growth and disease prevention (page 4 paragraph 11).
Wang discloses that a high fat film spray should be used to prevent and control blight in seedling stage (English translation page 2) of peanuts (i.e., legumes) (English translation page 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Qiu et al. and Wang by using an amount effective to promote plant growth and disease prevention of the high fat film spray composition of Qiu et al. as discussed above as the high fat film spray in the method of Wang as discussed above wherein peanut seedlings are sprayed with the high fat film spray to prevent blight, with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so to effectively prevent and control blight in peanuts as suggested by Wang with a known high fat film spray as in Qiu et al., given that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination per MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding the propylene glycol emulsifying agent assistant of Qiu et al. as discussed above, propylene glycol is a thickener as evidenced by Machado et al. which discloses that propylene glycol is a thickener (paragraph [0084] Table 1) in crop sprays (paragraph [0075]).
Regarding the claimed recitations “for increasing a nitrogen fixing capacity of legumes”, “wherein the nitrogen fixing capacity is increased by elevating lysophosphatidylcholine content of the legumes to raise root nodule quantity”, “for increasing phytoalexin content in legumes”, “wherein the phytoalexin content is elevated by accumulating 3,9-dihydroxypterocarpan in legumes”, “for increasing an anti-adversity activity of the legumes”, “wherein the higher aliphatic alcohol increases theanti-adversity activity of the legumes by increasing a content of calycosin and glycitein”, “for improving a germination rate and a germination potential, and shortening a germination time of peanuts”, “for improving a drought resistance of legumes”, and “wherein drought resistance is improved by up-regulating transcription of phenylpropanoid pathway genes and isoflavone biosynthetic pathway genes”, the fact that applicant has recognized latent properties or advantages which would flow naturally from following the suggestions of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious, per MPEP 2145(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejections in the previous Office action have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claims are 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 MICHAEL B. PALLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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.
/MICHAEL B. PALLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights