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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-20, in the reply filed on 2/18/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claims with a common special technical feature do not lack unity. This is not found persuasive because the technical feature common to all groups is obvious at least a posteriori as shown in the rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 21-30, 32, and 33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected process of making, a nonelected seed coating product, and a method of use which may include plant growth regulation, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 2/18/2026.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are under current examination.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/5/24 and 5/8/24 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 1, 3-11, and 15-17 include nonstandard abbreviations including “PL”, “ST”, “PP”, “PS”, and “IS” in a manner which is grammatically incorrect. Claims are required to be in the form of a single sentence. Additionally, it appears that the content of claim 16 depends from claim 15 and not claim 14 as amended; is this a typographical error? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites a parenthetical temperature condition at which said one or more active substance is in the liquid state, however it is unclear if this is a required or optional feature. Appropriate clarification is required. All examined claims depending from a rejected base claim are also rejected here.
Claim 5 recites “in its naturally occurring form”. It is unclear what structure this language adds, if any, to the structure of the protein otherwise included. For the purpose of search and examination the naturally occurring form is considered to have the same chemical structure as indicated by the compound itself.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, the phrases "preferably" and “like…” respectively render 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).
Claim 19 is entirely unclear because it recites a range of 1 to 95wt% but does not state the part and the whole, so it is unclear what this claim means and what content is being described by the percentage recited. Limitations are not imported from the specification into the claim.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN105287380A (“Cui”).
The elected claims are drawn to a microparticle [product] containing (i) at least one phospholipid, (ii) at least one sterol, (iii) at least one polypeptide, (iv) optionally at least one polysaccharide that is overall positively charged, and (v) optionally an inorganic salt as further specified in the claims, wherein said microparticle contains one or more active substance and wherein said microparticle is a microsphere or a microcapsule with the phospholipid, sterol, polypeptide, and polysaccharide comprised in the shell of said microcapsule, as further specified in the claims.
Cui teaches an antimicrobial agent product containing cinnamon essential oil nanoliposomes. The liposomes comprise cinnamon essential oil (one or more active substance and limitation of claim 20), soybean lecithin (at least one phospholipid and limitation of claim 3), and cholesterol (at least one sterol, limitation of claim 4) as well as chitosan (limitation of claims 9 and 10) and gelatin (peptide, oligopeptide, polypeptide, gelatin, limitations of claims 6-7, 11) (see abstract,in particular). The ratio of lecithin to cholesterol is 5:1 (see Cui claim 8)(limitation of claim 13). Cui’s liposome structure is understood to constitute a microparticle as in the instant claims wherein the liposome lipid bilayer constitutes a shell surrounding its core on a scale which may be considered a microcapsule or a microsphere. Cui’s cinnamon essential oil may be considered an active agent on account of its antibacterial efficacy that Cui discloses.
Regarding claim 2, Cui does not teach microplastic to be included.
Further regarding claim 8, Cui teaches the structure addressed above and accordingly teaches the function and/or capability of claim 8 since there is no showing that the process of making and/or use otherwise mentioned in claim 8 distinguishes over the product of Cui.
Further regarding claim 12, Cui also teaches the inclusion of polyvinylpyrrolidone as a surfactant, which is noted to be nonionic.
Regarding claim 18, Cui teaches polydispersity studies and diameters of lipidosome (liposome) structures ranging up to 263.5 nm which is equal to 0.2635 microns, a value within the claimed range (see paragraph immediately preceding “the zeta potential…” of translation).
Accordingly, Cui teaches each and every limitation claimed.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN105287380A (“Cui”).
The elected claims are drawn to a microparticle [product] containing (i) at least one phospholipid, (ii) at least one sterol, (iii) at least one polypeptide, (iv) optionally at least one polysaccharide that is overall positively charged, and (v) optionally an inorganic salt as further specified in the claims, wherein said microparticle contains one or more active substance and wherein said microparticle is a microsphere or a microcapsule with the phospholipid, sterol, polypeptide, and polysaccharide comprised in the shell of said microcapsule, as further specified in the claims.
Cui teaches an antimicrobial agent product containing cinnamon essential oil nanoliposomes. The liposomes comprise cinnamon essential oil (one or more active substance and limitation of claim 20), soybean lecithin (at least one phospholipid and limitation of claim 3), and cholesterol (at least one sterol, limitation of claim 4) as well as chitosan (limitation of claims 9 and 10) and gelatin (peptide, oligopeptide, polypeptide, gelatin, limitations of claims 6-7, 11) (see abstract,in particular). The ratio of lecithin to cholesterol is 5:1 (see Cui claim 8)(limitation of claim 13). Cui’s liposome structure is understood to constitute a microparticle as in the instant claims wherein the liposome lipid bilayer constitutes a shell surrounding its core on a scale which may be considered a microcapsule or a microsphere. Cui’s cinnamon essential oil may be considered an active agent on account of its antibacterial efficacy that Cui discloses. Regarding claim 2, Cui does not teach microplastic to be included. Further regarding claim 8, Cui teaches the structure addressed above and accordingly renders obvious the claimed product. There is no showing that the process of making and/or use otherwise mentioned in claim 8 distinguishes over the product of Cui. Further regarding claim 12, Cui also teaches the inclusion of polyvinylpyrrolidone as a surfactant, which is noted to be nonionic. Regarding claim 18, Cui teaches polydispersity studies and diameters of lipidosome (liposome) structures ranging up to 263.5 nm which is equal to 0.2635 microns, a value within the claimed range (see paragraph immediately preceding “the zeta potential…” of translation).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-13, 18, and 20, anticipation is the epitome of obviousness.
Regarding claim 14 and the overlapping range recited therein, according to Cui the concentration of the soybean lecithin is 1 g plus 150 mg of cholesterol sterol per 0.2 g cinnamon essential oil (see experimental techniques, section 1, step 1), whereas for the liposome the cinnamon essential oil to gelatin in solution is 1:10. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to perform routine optimization procedures with regard to these ratios in order to achieve the desired functional efficacy of the antibacterial agent and further as taught by Cui to achieve the desired envelop rate and therefore microparticle physical stability character desired, as such optimization is customary in the art.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN105287380A (“Cui”) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-14, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of US 5,716,637 (Anselem et al., “Anselem”).
The teachings of Cui have been delineated above. Cui does not teach an oligopeptide as in claim 5.
Anselem cures this deficiency. Anselem teaches nanoemulsions of particles having a lipid core surrounding by at least one phospholipid bilayer for parenteral, oral, intranasal, rectal, vaginal, or topical delivery of hydrophilic and lipophilic active agents; the particles have a mean diameter in the range of 10 to 250 nm (see abstract, in particular). Anselem teaches the state of the art with regard to peptides which are included, where the term “peptide” is explicitly defined to include both oligopeptides and proteins wherein a gelatin (see paragraph [0027]).
Both Cui and Anselem are directed to nanoscale liposomes in emulsion formulations for storage and/or delivery of an active agent. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute or include oligopeptides as in Anselem in place of the more generally defined peptides of Cui, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so since Anselem teaches the state of the art wherein the term “peptide” is considered to include oligopeptides.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN105287380A (“Cui”) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-14, 18, and 20 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (“Xu”, Biomaterials, 2007, pages 2687-2694).
The teachings of Cui have been delineated above. Cui does not teach the inorganic salt as in claims 15-17.
Xu teaches that hydroxyapatite present on the shell type structure of a liposome comprising water insoluble active agents provides influence of the release rate of the active agent from the liposomes (see abstract, in particular).
Both Cui and Xu are directed to liposome structures comprising a water insoluble active agent. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to add hydroxyapatite as in the microparticle structure of Xu to the analogous microparticle structure of Cui, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to allow tunability of release rate of the hydrophobic active agent as taught by Xu.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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