DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) and the species of citric acid in the reply filed on 22 July 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that unity of invention is present in view of the evidence of the IPRP. This is not found persuasive because the reasoning provided in the restriction requirement showed the lack of unity in view of the shared technical feature not being special in view of the prior art. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 2, 6-7, and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0144993).
Kim et al. discloses cellulose nanocrystal emulsions-based emulsions that are used for improved agrochemical application efficacy (abstract). The emulsion has two phases with the nanocrystal as a replacement to petroleum-based surfactants (figure 1). The cellulose is crosslinked as part of this stabilization (id.). This resultant emulsion anticipated the composition recited by independent instant claim 1.
Instant claim 3 recites a limitation to how much of the interface is covered by the nanocrystals. Instant claim 8 recites a limitation to the amount of the nanocrystals present. Kim et al. states that the crosslinked cellulose nanocrystals lay at the interface of the oil and water phases (paragraph [44]). Kim et al. also discloses that there is present between 0.25 and 3 wt% of the cellulose nanocrystals (claim 1).
While Kim is silent as to the percentage of the cellulose at the interface, it appears reasonable to conclude that using amounts such as disclosed would lead to this result. The instant specification also states the cellulose is at the interface of the two phases (paragraph [22]) and that amounts such as 0.1 to 3 wt% are useful therein. Thus, the coverage of the phases would be expected to be similar or the same in view of the same amounts of the same ingredient being present (which localizes in the same place).
Instant claim 4 recites a limitation to the effect of the cellulose, This property would be expected to be present in view of the same amounts of the same ingredient being present.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0144993).
Kim et al. discloses cellulose nanocrystal emulsions-based emulsions that are used for improved agrochemical application efficacy (abstract). The emulsion has two phases with the nanocrystal as a replacement to petroleum-based surfactants (figure 1). The cellulose is crosslinked as part of this stabilization (id.).
Instant claim 10 recites a limitation to the droplet size. The droplet size is not explicitly suggested by Kim et al., but it is controllable using a variety of variables (paragraph [49]). This size impacts the drift during spraying (paragraph [5]). Generally, differences in concentration and tempera-ture will not support the patentability of subject mat-ter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Different sizes (multimodal) distribution is not explicitly suggested, and this is a feature recited by instant claim 9. However, varying the droplet size is suggested, and this includes the use of the crosslinker and biopolymer (paragraph [49]). And thus more than one size can be present based on these different variables at the same time.
Claims 5 and 12 (as well as above rejected claims 1, 3-4, and 8-10) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0144993) in view of Bauli et al. (Coll. Surf. A: Physicochem. Eng. Asp., 2021, vol. 623, page 126771).
Kim et al. discloses cellulose nanocrystal emulsions-based emulsions that are used for improved agrochemical application efficacy (abstract). The emulsion has two phases with the nanocrystal as a replacement to petroleum-based surfactants (figure 1). The cellulose is crosslinked as part of this stabilization (id.).
Instant claim 5 further limits the cross-linker, and while crosslinking is suggested by Kim et al., the elected species (and instantly recited) crosslinker of citric acid is not taught therein. This deficiency is remedied by Bauli et al., which discloses citric acid as a crosslinker for cellulose (abstract).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used citric acid as the crosslinker in the composition taught by Kim et al. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07.
Instant claim 12 recites a limitation to the speed of release from the composition. It appears the speed is governed by the crosslinker, with the elected species (citric acid) being a fast release (paragraph [118]) and other crosslinkers (such as glutaraldehyde) providing for a slow release (paragraph [118]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Gulledge whose telephone number is (571) 270-5756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am - 4pm.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at (571) 272-3311. 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.
/Brian Gulledge/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights