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 through 3, 6 through 10, 46, 48 and 56 through 58; in the reply filed on January 22, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the cited reference Beldi (U.S. Patent # 9,302,816) did not teach a plasma coated article containing an agrochemical formulation. This is not found persuasive because new reference Cotter (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0313702) teaches a plastic/polymer container which held an agrochemical formulation (Abstract and Page 1 Paragraph 0001). Cotter does not teach that the article/container was plasma coated however as was discussed in the previous Office Action, Beldi taught a process for plasma coating a plastic container used for storing chemical compositions wherein the plasma coating was a barrier for the permeation of fluids. Therefore, no special technical feature exists between Groups I and II as Cotter in view of Beldi render obvious a plasma-coated article containing an agrochemical formulation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 23-25 and 28-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on January 22, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 6-10 and 56-58 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 6 is indefinite because it is not clear if “the agrochemical formulation” of claim 6 is the same as or different from the “an emulsifiable-concentrate (EC) formulation” of parent claim 2. Though both formulations have similar components it is not clear if they are the same because “the agrochemical formulation” of claim 6 further includes a triazole fungicide and “a non-polar liquid” which is not specifically the same as “the non-polar liquid” of the parent claim. For the purpose of this examination, they will be considered the same.
Claim 6 is indefinite because the claim contains trademarks/tradenames for various chemical components and it is not clear if these particular products are required by the claim. See MPEP section 2173.05(u).
The term “low pressure” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 7 is indefinite because it is not pressure what pressure is required during step a) to deposit the first deposit layer in order to be considered “low pressure”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the article made of polymer material" in step i) of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if “the article made of polymer material” is the same as or different from the “article” of parent claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, they will be considered the same.
Claim 8 is indefinite because the claim requires that the agrochemical formulation is stored in the plasma coated article for a period over 8-15 days and it is not clear if the formulation has to be stored for a period within the range of 8 to 15 days or for a period above the disclosed range. For the purposes of this examination this limitation will be considered to require that the formulation is stored for 8 to 15 days.
The term “low-pressure discharge plasma” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-pressure discharge plasma” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 9 is indefinite because it is not clear what pressure the plasma discharge has to have in order to be considered a “low-pressure” discharge plasma.
Claim 10 is indefinite because it is not clear if “the precursor gas” is the same as or different from the “at least one precursor gas” of parent claim 7. Furthermore, it is not clear if what “the precursor gas” of claim 10 is referring to because claim 7 discloses that “the precursor gas” is a mixture of argon and hydrogen gas or acetylene gas while parent claim 7 requires depositing a first layer using acetylene gas and a second layer using tetrafluoroethane or pentafluoroethane gas.
The term “low pressure” in claim 56 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claim 56 is indefinite because it is not pressure what pressure is required during step a) to deposit the first deposit layer in order to be considered “low pressure”.
Claim 56 recites the limitation "the article made of polymer material" in step i) of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear if “the article made of polymer material” is the same as or different from the “article” of parent claim 46. For the purposes of this examination, they will be considered the same.
Claim 57 is indefinite because it is not clear if “the precursor gas” is the same as or different from the “at least one precursor gas” of parent claim 56. Furthermore, it is not clear if what “the precursor gas” of claim 57 is referring to because claim 57 discloses that “the precursor gas” is a mixture of argon and hydrogen gas or acetylene gas while parent claim 56 requires depositing a first layer using acetylene gas and a second layer using tetrafluoroethane or pentafluoroethane gas.
Claim 58 is indefinite because is it not clear if the limitation of “depositing a first deposit layer” is the same as or different from the limitation of “depositing a first deposit layer” in parent claim 7. For the purposes of this examination, they will be considered the same.
Claim 58 is indefinite because is it not clear if the limitation of “depositing a second deposit layer” is the same as or different from the limitation of “depositing a second deposit layer” in parent claim 7. For the purposes of this examination, they will be considered the same.
Claim 58 is indefinite because the claim requires forming the second deposit layer by introducing acetylene while the specification of the present application as originally filed on Page 25 only discloses that the second deposit layer was deposited using either tetrafluoroethane or pentafluoroethane. For the purposes of this examination step i) of step b) will be taken to require introducing either tetrafluoroethane or pentafluoroethane being introduced.
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 and 46 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).
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, polypropylene or polycarbonate (Page 1 Paragraph 0013).
Beldi ‘816 teaches a polymer article having a plasma deposited coating comprising SiOxCyHz wherein x was 0 to 1.7, y was 0.5 to 0.8 and z was 0.35 to 0.6 (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.
As for claims 2 and 3, as was discussed previously the plasma coating of Cotter in view of Beldi ‘816 was SiOxCyHz wherein x was 0 to 1.7, y was 0.5 to 0.8 and z was 0.35 to 0.6. Furthermore, 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).
In the case of claim 46, it is rejected for the same reasons as discussed previously in the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, Cooter teaches a step of filling the article/container with the agrochemical formulation (Page 3 Paragraph 0030).
Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, 46 and 56-58 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).
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.
As for claim 2, as was discussed previously, the agrochemical formulations of Cotter included emulsions in water (EW) and emulsifiable-concentrates (Page 5 Paragraph 0040). Furthermore, Beldi ‘129 teaches that the plasma included tetrafluoroethan-1,1,1,2 or pentafluoroethane gas (Abstract).
As for claim 7, 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).
As for claim 9, 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).
As for claim 10, Cotter teaches that the article comprised polyethylene, high density polyethylene or polypropylene (Page 1 Paragraph 0013).
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.
In the case of claim 46, it is rejected for the same reasons as discussed previously in the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, Cooter teaches a step of filling the article/container with the agrochemical formulation (Page 3 Paragraph 0030).
As for claims 56 and 57, they are rejected for substantially the same reasons discussed previously in the rejections of claims 7 and 10, respectively.
As for claim 58, it is rejected for the same reasons as were discussed previously in the rejection of claim 7. 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).
Claims 6, 8 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter in view of Beldi ‘816 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Stock et al (U.S. Patent # 8,097,631).
The teachings of Cotter in view of Beldi ‘816 as they apply to claims 1 and 2 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 6, as was discussed previously, Cotter in view of Beldi ‘816 taught and agrochemical formulation comprised of an aromatic compound and a non-polar solvent. Cotter further teaches that the formulation included a triazole fungicide (Page 4 bottom of Paragraph 0036). However, Cotter does not teach any of the specific non-polar liquids and aromatic compound of claim 6. Cotter does teach 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 a emulsifiable concentrate or an emulsion in water (Column 6 Lines 19-29).
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 in view of Beldi ‘816 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 8 and 48, Stock teaches 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), which was within the claimed range.
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.
Claims 6, 8 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotter in view of Beldi ‘129 as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Stock et al (U.S. Patent # 8,097,631).
The teachings of Cotter in view of Beldi ‘129 as they apply to claims 1 and 2 have been discussed previously and are incorporated herein.
In the case of claim 6, as was discussed previously, Cotter in view of Beldi ‘129 taught and agrochemical formulation comprised of an aromatic compound and a non-polar solvent. Cotter further teaches that the formulation included a triazole fungicide (Page 4 bottom of Paragraph 0036). However, Cotter does not teach any of the specific non-polar liquids and aromatic compound of claim 6. Cotter does teach 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 a emulsifiable concentrate or an emulsion in water (Column 6 Lines 19-29).
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 in view of Beldi ‘129 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 8 and 48, Stock teaches 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), which was within the claimed range.
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.
Conclusion
Claims 1 through 3, 6 through 10, 46, 49 and 56 through 58 have been rejected. Claims 23 through 25 and 28 through 31 have been withdrawn. No claims were allowed.
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