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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending in this application. This application is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2022/044826, filled on 12/06/2022. This application claims foreign priority to
claims foreign priority to JP 2021-198600, filed on 12/07/2021 in Japan.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of group I, claims 1-8, filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-8 will presently be examined to the extent they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puterka et al. (6,514,512 B1).
Puterka et al. teach a pesticide (the claimed agrochemical in the instant claim 1) delivery system comprising
finely divided particulate material (the claimed granules in the instant claim 8) at least partially coated with the pest control agent (abstract and claim 1); and
adjuvants such as surfactants (the instant claim 7) and speaders/stickers (column 8, line 36-39) including latex (polymeric emulsion, the claimed resin emulsion in the instant claim 1) (column 9, line 3-11); and
exemplified Dimilin in example 2 (0.08-0.2 mg/L water solubility, the claimed agrochemical active ingredient in the instant claims 1 and 6);
wherein the particulate material includes siloxane treated calcined kaolin Surround (the claimed silane surface-treated kaolin in the instant claims 1 and 3) (column 5, line 25-27).
The limitations in the instant claims 4 and 5 are further limitations of alternative components.
Puterka et al. do not specify Surround and latex in one embodiment.
This deficiency is cured by the rationale that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
it would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in Puterka et al. as a whole to specify the pesticide delivery system comprising Surround as the particulate material and latex as an adjuvant. Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. Please refer to MPEP 2141 I.:
“[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.”Id. at 415-16, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
“[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.).
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Puterka et al. (6,514,512 B1) in view of Guo et al. (US 2002/0086809 A1).
The teachings of Puterka et al. are discussed above and applied in the same manner. Puterka et al. the speaders/stickers including starch (column 9, lime 3-11).
Puterka et al. do not specify the speaders/stickers including acrylic resin emulsion in the instant claim 2.
This deficiency is cured by Guo et al. who teach binders (stickers) in an agrochemical pellet including acrylic based emulsion polymer and starch (claims 1, 2, and 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in Puterka et al. and Guo et al. to replace starch speader/sticker in the composition taught by Puterka et al. with acrylic based emulsion polymer binder. Both acrylic based emulsion polymer and starch being suitable binders in an agrochemical pellet was well to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for replacing starch speader/sticker in the composition taught by Puterka et al. with acrylic based emulsion polymer binder flows from both having been used in the prior art, and from both being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG YU whose telephone number is (571)270-1328. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am - 5:30 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, Ali Soroush can be reached on 571-272-9925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONG YU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights