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 of the Claims
Claims 2-11 have been canceled. Claim 1 is pending in the application
Withdrawn Rejections and Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/12/2026 (hereafter, “Remarks”) have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
The following rejections are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed 6/12/26: the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 101; the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b); the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by CN113304504A. Applicant’s arguments to these effects are persuasive. New grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment are presented below.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendments of 6/12/2026
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN110384015A (hereafter “Wang”, cited in Applicant’s IDS dated 11/4/2025 and listed in the file wrapper as a foreign reference) in view of “Study on the inhibition of phytopathogenic fungi by chlorogenic acid within the burdock leaf”, Plant Protection, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp 35-38, Linnology, Sulvet Dove, hospegreen, China, 20050608 (hereafter “Study” and provided by Applicant as non-patent literature dated 11/4/2025 in file wrapper and cited accordingly on the IDS filed 11/4/2025).
Claim 1 as amended is drawn to a method for treating citrus huanglongbing (HLB) disease in an HLB-infected citrus tree comprising administering chlorogenic acid or a chlorogenic acid-rich substance to an HLB-infected citrus tree in need thereof, wherein the chlorogenic acid has a concentration greater than or equal to 0.5 mg/mL as further specified in the claim.
Wang teaches chlorogenic acid as an ingredient for application and treatment of citrus holongerone disease by spraying citrus gardens with an aqueous suspension of 7-10 days spraying and 3-4 treatments to kill pathogenic bacteria for instance. The formulations may include insecticide active agents as well to destroy vector insects. See Wang paragraphs 0012-0013 in particular.
While Wang teaches the administration method step as claimed, Wang does not specify the claimed concentration. “Study” cures this deficiency. “Study” teaches concentrations including chlorogenic acid having an effective concentration of 5 g/L (equal to 5.0 mg/mL) to be applied in methods of treating fungal spore and/or pathogenic fungi on certain plants.
Both Wang and “Study” teach methods of applying chlorogenic acid to treat agents (i.e., bacteria, fungus) harmful to citrus plants. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the chlorogenic acid concentration demonstrated in the treatment methods of “Study” in the particular application methods of Wang, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in the absence of Wang’s specification of a chlorogenic acid concentration to be effective and further in view of the suggestion of “Study” to effectively apply chlorogenic acid active agents to other plants for analogous methods of eliminating undesirable pathogens from agricultural or plant applications. Moreover, it would have been obvious to do so because Wang teaches application of chlorogenic acid to citrus plants which demonstrates an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose and because “Study” provides rationale for selecting a particular concentration as a starting point from which to perform routine optimization procedures so to ascertain efficacy alongside any reduced harms.
Conclusion
No claim is 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 AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights