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 claims
The claims filed on 07/07/2026 are hereby being considered. Claims 1-15, 17-19, 21, 23, and 28 are cancelled by the applicant. Claims 16, 20, 22, 24-27, and 29-30 are currently amended. Claims 16, 20, 22, 24-27, and 29-30 are pending and under examination.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/FR2022/052377, filed on 12/15/2022. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. FRANCE 2113693, filed on 12/16/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/07/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Rejections/objections withdrawn
All 35 USC § 112 (b) rejections imposed in the previous correspondence are hereby withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments. All arguments towards these are now moot.
All 35 USC § 102 rejections imposed in the previous correspondence are hereby withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments of incorporating the key limitations of claim 23 into claim 16. All arguments towards these rejections are now moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
New rejections made in view of amendments to claim 16:
Claims 16, 22, 24-25, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites “a precursor of ethylene”. The specifications of this application, while apparently describing an example (e.g., ethephon), does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the applicant had possession of the full genus of a “precursor of ethylene” as of the filing date. The term “precursor” encompasses a broad class of structurally and functionally distinct materials having different structures, substitution types, and degrees of substitution that provide diverse functions or activities. The specifications of this application do not provide sufficient representative species or identify structural features common to the full scope of the claimed genus to demonstrate possession of the entire genus. At most, the specification appears to describe only a species of “a precursor of ethylene”, rather than the full breadth of the genus encompassed by claim 16.
Claims 22, 24-25, 27, and 29 are also rejected for being dependent to claim 16 without fixing the written description issue.
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.
New rejections made in view of amendments to claim 16:
Claims 16, 22, 24-25, 27, and 29 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.
Claims 16 recites a “a precursor of ethylene”, which is a broad and undefined genus encompassing a wide variety of chemically distinct materials, each having different properties. The claim and specifications fail to provide any structural, functional, or compositional limitation that would define what constitutes “a precursor of ethylene” to provide the metes and bounds of this genus. Therefore, the scope of this claim is unclear, and thus indefinite.
Claims 22, 24-25, 27, and 29 are also rejected for being dependent to claim 16 without fixing the indefiniteness issue.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Rejections maintained in view of amendments: prior arts unchanged yet rearranged, mappings unchanged, obviousness statement unchanged.
Claims 16, 20, 22, 24-27, and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lommel et al. (US20150033418A1) in view of Simon et al. (US6191071B1).
Lommel et al. discloses agricultural composition comprising nanoparticles, an agrochemical active ingredient in the nanoparticles, and optionally a carrier for the nanoparticles (abstract). Lommel et al. teaches that the composition may include biodegradable and biocompatible polymers [¶62]. Lommel et al. teaches that such compositions may contain carriers in the form of natural or synthetic fibers [¶57], and specifically fibrous matrices to provide an additional mechanism for controlled release of active ingredients [¶93]. Lommel et al. teaches that such fibers may be extensible or elongatable, extending up to two, three, four or five times their length, or more, to accommodate growth of the plant contained in the carrier or to which the carrier is applied—such as the growth of roots and/or shoots [¶71]. Lommel et al. teaches that the polymer matrices of the composition can include polyesters such as polyol/dicarboxylic acid based bioelastomers including poly (glycerol sebacate) ––which are elastic and have more resiliency than a more rigid thermoplastic––to design a seed coating with sufficient mechanical properties that extends with the growing root [¶99]. Lommel et al. teaches that glycerol and sebacic acid (an aliphatic dicarboxylic acid) are the monomers of poly (glycerol sebacate) [¶99]. Lommel et al. teaches that the active ingredient of the composition can be selected from fungicides, herbicides, pesticides, plant growth regulators (which can include stimulants), nutrients, and combinations thereof [¶13]. Lommel et al. teaches that the composition may include adhesive shaping agents such as carboxymethylcellulose (a thickener) and gum Arabic (a binder) [¶56], stabilizers and compatibilizers such as emulsifiers [¶53], and controlled release agents for active ingredients such as polycaprolactone (PCL) [¶62]. Lommel et al. teaches that the compositions of the present invention can be provided as solutions, pastes, and granules [¶53]. Lommel et al. teaches that biodegradable and biocompatible polymers (such as the one listed above) may be used alone or in combination in any particular weight percent, for example, ranging from 1% to 99% [¶62]. Lommel et al. teaches that solvents such as water [¶64] can be included in the composition at concentrations ranging from 80% to 95% by weight [¶61]. Lommel et al. teaches that the soil can be treated with the disclosed composition [¶79]. Lommel et al. teaches that the composition can also be directly applied to plants [¶77], including azalea (a shrub) and citrus trees [¶76]. Lommel et al. specifically teaches that the composition may be applied to the stem of the plant (which in the case of a tree would be its trunk) [¶14 & ¶18; claims 15 & 18 of Lommel et al.].
However, Lommel et al. fails to teach that the phytosanitary active ingredient and/or biostimulant is a precursor of ethylene, specifically ethephon per claim 16.
Simon et al. discloses plant-treatment agents comprising at least one thermoplastically processable biodegradable polyester amide, optionally in a mixture with one or a plurality of further thermoplastically processable, biodegradable polymer components; at least one agrochemical substance; and optionally additives (abstract). Simon et al. teaches that the plant-treatment compositions according to the invention contain one or more agrochemically active compounds including plant growth regulators [column 4, lines 60-67]. Simon et al. teaches that examples of such plant growth regulators include ethephon, which [column 6, lines 32-33]. Simon et al. teaches that such agrochemically active compounds are present in the composition generally between 1 and 30% by weight [column 7, lines 1-11].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the controlled-release composition of Lommel et al. with the agrochemical active ingredient taught by Simon et al. This is because Simon et al. expressly identifies ethephon as a known agrochemical active ingredient suitable for plant treatment compositions comprising biodegradable polymers, and provides such active ingredients at concentration ranges overlapping with those in the present claims. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have thus been motivated to incorporate the ethephon disclosed in Simon et al. into the composition of Lommel et al. to achieve the known and predictable effect of regulating plant growth while maintaining controlled release from the biodegradable carrier, as both references are directed towards the same field of agrochemical drug delivery systems using compatible polymers for delivering active agents to plants. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because Lommel et al. and Simon et al. both teach these components to be compatible and conventional for such agricultural applications, making the formulation of the claimed invention a matter of routine optimization using result-effective variables.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument [p. 6, ¶4–p. 7, ¶2] that Lommel is directed primarily to PVN-based nematicide compositions for treatment of soil or seeds and does not suggest the presently claimed formulation:
A prior art reference is relevant for all that it teaches and is not limited to its exemplified or preferred embodiments. Lommel expressly teaches agrochemical actives including fungicides, herbicides, pesticides, plant growth regulators, nutrients, and combinations thereof; biodegradable and biocompatible polymers, controlled release of active ingredients from fibrous matrices, PGS as a polyol/dicarboxylic acid bio-elastomer formed from glycerol and sebacic acid; direct application of the composition to plants, including azaleas and citrus trees, and applications to plant stems. Accordingly, Lommel’s teachings are not limited to nematicide-containing compositions applied only to soil or seeds.
Regarding applicant’s argument [p. 7, ¶2] that Lommel merely mentions PGS once in connection with a seed coating and does not disclose ethylene precursor:
One cannot show nonobvious Ness 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).
The argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Lommel alone for all limitations. Lommel expressly teaches PGS and identifies glycerol and sebacic acid as its constituent monomers, in addition to the other limitations stated in the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Simon is relied upon for the limitations not taught by Lommel, namely an ethylene precursor, and expressly identifies ethephon as a plant growth regulator. The references are therefore considered together, rather than individually, in determining obviousness.
Regarding applicant’s argument [p. 7, ¶¶2, 4] that Lommel does not disclose or suggest a composition in the form of a paste:
The argument is contradicted by Lommel, which as previously mapped in the aforementioned 35 USC 103 rejection above, expressly teaches that its compositions may be provided as solutions, pastes, and granules [¶53].
Regarding applicant’s argument [p. 7, ¶¶2, 4] that Lommel does not disclose application of the claimed composition to the trunk of a tree or shrub:
This is not persuasive. As previously mapped in the aforementioned 35 USC 103 rejection above, Lommel teaches application of its composition to plants, identifies azalea shrubs and citrus trees as suitable plants, and teaches application to the stem of a plant (e.g., trunk of citrus trees). Thus, Lommel teaches application of the agricultural composition to the corresponding stem/trunk structure of trees and shrubs.
Regarding applicant’s argument [p. 7, ¶¶3- 4] that example 2 demonstrates controlled release and continuous stimulation because application of the PGS/ethephon paste resulted in ripening after 15 days:
This argument does not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. Lommel already teaches use of polymer matrices to provide controlled release of active agents, and Simon expressly teaches ethephon as an agrochemical plant growth regulator. Applicant has not established that the asserted results are unexpected relative to the teachings of prior art, rather than the expected results of delivering a known plant growth regulator using a controlled release system.
Regarding applicant’s argument [p. 8, ¶1] that Simon does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Lommel because Simon contains extensive lists of agrochemical ingredients, and ethephon is only mentioned once.
This argument is not persuasive. Simon expressly identifies plant growth regulators as suitable agrochemical active compounds and specifically identifies Ethephon as a plant growth regulator. A disclosed embodiment is not disregarded merely because other compounds are additionally disclosed or exemplified. Moreover, Simon teaches agrochemically active compounds at concentrations overlapping with those claimed. Thus, Simon expressly supplies the ethephon teaching relied upon in combination with Lommel.
Regarding applicant’s argument [p. 8, ¶1] that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Lommel and Simon:
This argument is not persuasive. Lommel teaches agricultural controlled release compositions comprising polymer matrices and agrochemical actives, while Simon teaches agrochemical compositions comprising biodegradable polymers and expressly teaches ethephon as plant growth regulators. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to incorporate Simon’s known plant growth regulator, ethephon, into Lommel’s controlled release, agricultural polymer composition to obtain the known and predictable plant-growth-regulating effect, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding applicant’s argument [p. 8, ¶2] that claims 20, 22, 24-27, 30 are now patentable because they depend directly or indirectly from claim 16:
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons stated above, as claim 16 is still not allowable over the prior art (i.e., Lommel and Simon). Further, the additional limitations are separately addressed by the recited teachings of Lommel and Simon in the rejection. Accordingly, applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of those claims.
Conclusions
No claim is found to be allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ARYA AHMADI BAZARGANI whose telephone number is (571)272-0211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11:30AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571) 272-0581. 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.
Arya A. Bazargani, Ph.D.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1613
/MARK V STEVENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
