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 of the Claims
By amendment filed July 30, 2026, claims 1 through 3, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 58 have been amended and claims 59 through 69 are new. Claims 8, 23 through 25, 28 through 31, 46, 56 and 57 have been cancelled. Clams 1 through 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 48 and 58 through 69 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 30, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that neither Beldi ‘816 nor Beldi ‘129 were directly related to preventing the leakage of an aromatic compound, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). As was discussed in the previous Office Action and again in this Office Action, both Beldi ‘816 and Beldi ‘129 taught plasma coating a polymeric container to prevent the leakage/permeation of the container’s contents from the polymeric container. Furthermore, the plasma coatings formed by Beldi ‘816 and Beldi ‘129 were substantially the same as those required by the claims. Therefore, the processes of Cotter in view of Beldi ‘816 and Cotter in view of Beldi ‘129 would have prevented the leakage of aromatic compounds as required by the claims.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant’s arguments that neither Cotter nor Stock teach plasma coating an article and neither Beldi ‘816 nor Beldi ‘129 teach preventing the leakage of an aromatic compound form a formulation comprised of about 10% to about 40% by weight of the aromatic compound are not persuasive.
The amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections.
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.
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 1-3, 6, 48 and 59-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0313702) in view of Beldi ‘816 (U.S. Patent # 9,302,816) and Stock et al (U.S. Patent # 8,097,631).
In the case of claims 1, 60 and 61, Cotter teaches an article in the form of a polymer/resin container used to hold agrochemical formulations (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0001). Cotter teaches that the agrochemicals were a liquid containing herbicides, fungicides and insecticides (Page 3 Paragraph 0031) and that the herbicides, fungicides and insecticides comprised aromatic compounds (Page 3 Paragraphs 0035-0038). Furthermore, Cotter teaches that the agrochemical comprised a polar or non-polar liquid and wherein the formulations were emulsions in water and emulsifiable-concentrates (Page 5 Paragraph 0040).
Cotter does not teach that the article/container was plasma coated in order to prevent leakage. Cotter does teach that the article/container was formed from polyethylene, polypropylene or polycarbonate (Page 1 Paragraph 0013).
Beldi ‘816 teaches a polymer article having a plasma deposited coating comprising a first layer of SiOxCyHz wherein x was 0 to 1.7, y was 0.5 to 0.8 and z was 0.35 to 0.6 and a second layer of SiOxCyHz wherein x was 1.7 to 1.99, y was 0.2 to 0.7 and z was 0.2 to 0.35 (Abstract, Column 1 Lines 6-8 and Column 4 Line 58 through Column 5 Line 17). Beldi ‘816 teaches that silicon oxide films were known in the art to be used as barrier layers preventing plastic container from absorbing the components contained therein (Column 1 Lines 13-20 and 47-58). Beldi ‘816 further teaches that the silicon oxide barrier coating prevented the permeation of fluids from the article (Column 4 Lines 15-19) and that the polymer articles comprised polypropylene, polyethylene and polycarbonate (Columns 9 and 10 Claim 1 and 2).
Based on the teachings of Beldi ‘816, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have plasma coated the polymer article of Cotter with the barrier coating of Beldi ‘816 because Beldi ‘816 taught a known barrier coating in the art for prevent permeation/leakage of fluids from a polymer container.
Though Cotter teaches that the formulation comprised aromatic compounds Cotter did not teach that the aromatic compounds were present in the amount of about 10 to 40 wight % based on the total weight of the formulation. However, Cotter further teaches that the formulation included a triazole fungicide (Page 4 bottom of Paragraph 0036) and that the agrochemical comprised a specific fungicide in the form of cyprodinil (Page 4 top of Paragraph 0037).
Stock teaches a fungicidal/agrochemical formulation comprised of cyprodinil (Abstract) and additional agrochemical active ingredient such as additional fungicides (Column 6 Lines 14-18) including triazoles (Column 9 Lines 1-23). Stock teaches that the formulation comprised a carrier which was provided as a single carrier or mixture wherein the carrier included non-polar liquid such as cyclohexane and paraffins and aromatic ketones including acetophenone (Column 5 Lines 8-42). Furthermore, Stock teaches that the formulation was provided as an emulsifiable concentrate or an emulsion in water (Column 6 Lines 19-29) and that the carrier which comprised an aromatic compound was present in the formulation in the amount of 15 to 35 wt% of the formulation (Column 5 Lines 43-46).
Based on the teachings of Stock, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the aromatic compound of Cotter in the amount of 15 to 35 wt% of the formulation because this was a known aromatic carrier amount in the art for fungicidal/agrochemical formulations.
As for claims 2 and 3, Cotter teaches that the agrochemical formulations included emulsion-in-water (EW) formulations (Page 5 Paragraph 0040) and aromatic compounds with macrocyclic lactones endectodices in the form of abamectin (Page 5 beginning of Paragraph 0038).
As for claims 6 and 59, though Cotter teaches that the formulation comprised water/polar liquid (Page 5 Paragraph 0039) Cotter does not teach that the formulation comprised any of the aromatic compounds of claim 6. However, as was discussed previously, Stock comprised a known fungicidal formulation which was an emulsifiable concentrate or an emulsion in water and which comprised acetophenone.
Based on the teachings of Stock, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have stored the fungicidal/agrochemical formulation of Stock in the container/article of Cotter because Stock taught a known agrochemical formulation in the art and therefore one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the combination.
As for claim 48, as was discussed previously, the aromatic compound of Cotter in view of Beldi ‘816 and Stock comprised acetophenone. Furthermore, Stock teaches that stable storage temperature for preventing phase separation and/or crystal development within the formulation was -10 to 54 ℃ for at least 2 weeks/14 days (Column 4 Lines 12-17 and 33-44).
Based on the teachings of Stock, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have stored the agrochemical formulation of Cotter in view of Beldi ‘816 and Stock at a temperature of -10 to 54 ℃ for at least 2 weeks/14 days in order to prevent phase separation and/or crystal development within the formulation. Furthermore, the taught ranges of Stock overlapped with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
As for claim 62, as was discussed previously, the agrochemical formulation of Cotter in Beldi ‘816 and Stock comprised 15 to 35 wt% aromatic compound which overlapped with the claimed range of about 20 to 30 wt%. As was discussed previously, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
As for claims 63 and 64, Stock teaches that it was known to store agrochemicals for at least 2 weeks/14 days at a temperature in the range of 0 to 40 ℃ (Column 4 Lines 11-17 and 39-44) both of which overlapped with the claimed ranges. As was discussed previously, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
As for claim 65, Cotter teaches that the polymer material comprised polyethylene, high-density polyethylene, propylene and polycarbonate (Page 1 Paragraph 0013).
As for claim 66, as was discussed previously, the agrochemical of Cotter in view of Beldi ‘816 and Stock comprised a triazole fungicide and a non-polar liquid.
As for claims 67 and 68, Cotter teaches that the triazole fungicide included prothioconazole (Page 5 bottom of Paragraph 0037) and Stock also teaches that the triazole fungicide included prothioconazole (Column 9 Lines 1-10).
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 48, 58-60 and 62-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter in view of Beldi ‘129 (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0081129) and Stock et al.
In the case of claim 1, Cotter teaches an article in the form of a polymer/resin container used to hold agrochemical formulations (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0001). Cotter teaches that the agrochemicals were a liquid containing herbicides, fungicides and insecticides (Page 3 Paragraph 0031) and that the herbicides, fungicides and insecticides comprised aromatic compounds (Page 3 Paragraphs 0035-0038). Furthermore, Cotter teaches that the agrochemical comprised a polar or non-polar liquid and wherein the formulations were emulsions in water and emulsifiable-concentrates (Page 5 Paragraph 0040).
Cotter does not teach that the article/container was plasma coated in order to prevent leakage. Cotter does teach that the article/container was formed from polyethylene or polypropylene including high density polyethylene (Page 1 Paragraph 0013).
Beldi ‘129 teaches a method for treating a polymer article with plasma to deposit a hydrocarbon diffusion barrier wherein the article includes packaging to chemical products (Abstract, Page 1 Paragraphs 0001-0006 and Page 5 Paragraph 0119).
Based on the teachings of Beldi ‘129, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have plasma deposited the barrier coating of Beldi ‘129 on the article of Cotter because Beldi ‘129 taught a known hydrocarbon diffusion barrier in the art.
Though Cotter teaches that the formulation comprised aromatic compounds Cotter did not teach that the aromatic compounds were present in the amount of about 10 to 40 wight % based on the total weight of the formulation. However, Cotter further teaches that the formulation included a triazole fungicide (Page 4 bottom of Paragraph 0036) and that the agrochemical comprised a specific fungicide in the form of cyprodinil (Page 4 top of Paragraph 0037).
Stock teaches a fungicidal/agrochemical formulation comprised of cyprodinil (Abstract) and additional agrochemical active ingredient such as additional fungicides (Column 6 Lines 14-18) including triazoles (Column 9 Lines 1-23). Stock teaches that the formulation comprised a carrier which was provided as a single carrier or mixture wherein the carrier included non-polar liquid such as cyclohexane and paraffins and aromatic ketones including acetophenone (Column 5 Lines 8-42). Furthermore, Stock teaches that the formulation was provided as an emulsifiable concentrate or an emulsion in water (Column 6 Lines 19-29) and that the carrier which comprised an aromatic compound was present in the formulation in the amount of 15 to 35 wt% of the formulation (Column 5 Lines 43-46).
Based on the teachings of Stock, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the aromatic compound of Cotter in the amount of 15 to 35 wt% of the formulation because this was a known aromatic carrier amount in the art for fungicidal/agrochemical formulations.
As for claims 2 and 3, Cotter teaches that the agrochemical formulations included emulsion-in-water (EW) formulations (Page 5 Paragraph 0040) and aromatic compounds with macrocyclic lactones endectodices in the form of abamectin (Page 5 beginning of Paragraph 0038).
As for claims 6 and 59, though Cotter teaches that the formulation comprised water/polar liquid (Page 5 Paragraph 0039) Cotter does not teach that the formulation comprised any of the aromatic compounds of claim 6. However, as was discussed previously, Stock comprised a known fungicidal formulation which was an emulsifiable concentrate or an emulsion in water and which comprised acetophenone.
Based on the teachings of Stock, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have stored the fungicidal/agrochemical formulation of Stock in the container/article of Cotter because Stock taught a known agrochemical formulation in the art and therefore one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the combination.
As for claims 7-10, 60 and 69, Beldi ‘129 teaches that the plasma included tetrafluoroethan-1,1,1,2 or pentafluoroethane gas (Abstract).
Furthermore, Beldi ‘129 teaches that the plasma coating process included:
Depositing a first deposit layer with a discharge plasma in acetylene gas at low pressure; and
Depositing a second deposit layer with a discharge plasma in at least one of tetrafluoroethane-1,1,1,2 or pentafluoroethane precursor gas,
Wherein depositing the first and second deposit layer comprised:
Introducing the article into a treatment chamber;
Introducing at least one precursor gas into the treatment chamber;
Applying one of electrical energy or electromagnetic energy of a sufficient space density power and a sufficient frequency to bring the at least one precursor gas to a plasma state; and
Subjecting the article to the plasma state for a sufficient plasma phase time so as to deposit one of the first or second deposit layer (Page 5 Claim 16).
Beldi ‘129 further teaches a preparation step to prepare the surface of the article prior to deposition of the first and second deposit layer comprising:
(i) Implanting a low pressure discharge plasma in at least one gas selected from the groups consisting of oxygen, hydrogen, argon, carbon dioxide, helium, nitrogen and combination thereof by introducing the at least one gas into the treatment chamber;
(ii) applying one of electrical energy or electromagnetic energy of a sufficient space density and sufficient frequency to bring the at least one gas to a plasma state; and
(iii) subjecting the article to the plasma state for a sufficient phase time to prepare the article surface (Pages 5-6 Claim 24).
Furthermore, Beldi ‘129 teaches that the precursor gas was introduced at a flow rate wherein the pressure within the treatment chamber was about 0.002 mbar to about 10 mbar (Page 4 Claim 22). Beldi ‘129 further teaches that the frequency was selected from the groups consisting of 40 kHz, 13.56 MHz and 2,450 MHz (Page 5 Claim 19). Furthermore, Beldi ‘129 teaches that the plasma phase time was from about 1 second to about 2 minutes (Page 5 Claim 20) and as was discussed previously, the precursor of Beldi ‘129 comprised acetylene.
As for claim 48, as was discussed previously, the aromatic compound of Cotter in view of Beldi ‘129 and Stock comprised acetophenone. Furthermore, Stock teaches that stable storage temperature for preventing phase separation and/or crystal development within the formulation was -10 to 54 ℃ for at least 2 weeks/14 days (Column 4 Lines 12-17 and 33-44).
Based on the teachings of Stock, at the time the present invention was effectively filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have stored the agrochemical formulation of Cotter in view of Beldi ‘129 and Stock at a temperature of -10 to 54 ℃ for at least 2 weeks/14 days in order to prevent phase separation and/or crystal development within the formulation. Furthermore, the taught ranges of Stock overlapped with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See section 2144.05.I of the MPEP.
As for claim 58, it is rejected for the same reasons as were discussed previously in the rejection of claims 7-10. Furthermore, Beldi ‘129 teaches that the internal pressure of the treatment chamber during deposition of the first and second deposit layers was from about 0.05 mbar to about 0.3 mbar; microwave energy was applied at a power of 300 W to form the plasma and the plasma duration lasted about 1 and 6 seconds, respectively (Page 6 Claims 33-35).
As for claim 62, as was discussed previously, the agrochemical formulation of Cotter in Beldi ‘129 and Stock comprised 15 to 35 wt% aromatic compound which overlapped with the claimed range of about 20 to 30 wt%. As was discussed previously, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
As for claims 63 and 64, Stock teaches that it was known to store agrochemicals for at least 2 weeks/14 days at a temperature in the range of 0 to 40 ℃ (Column 4 Lines 11-17 and 39-44) both of which overlapped with the claimed ranges. As was discussed previously, overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness.
As for claim 65, Cotter teaches that the polymer material comprised polyethylene, high-density polyethylene, propylene and polycarbonate (Page 1 Paragraph 0013).
As for claim 66, as was discussed previously, the agrochemical of Cotter in view of Beldi ‘129 and Stock comprised a triazole fungicide and a non-polar liquid.
As for claims 67 and 68, Cotter teaches that the triazole fungicide included prothioconazole (Page 5 bottom of Paragraph 0037) and Stock also teaches that the triazole fungicide included prothioconazole (Column 9 Lines 1-10).
Conclusion
Clams 1 through 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 48 and 58 through 69 have been rejected. No claims were allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 P WIECZOREK whose telephone number is (571)270-5341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
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 Cleveland can be reached at (571)272-1418. 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 P WIECZOREK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
