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
Claims 1-19 and 22 are pending and under examination in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 4/8/25 and 12/20/24. The Examiner has considered the references cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. Applicants cite EPA 25B compliant chemical The use of the acronym, PRL-3 seems to be conventional in the art. Applicants are requested to select one acronym that represents the term for consistency throughout the application; and
Correction is required.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Boal (US 2019/0345620)
Boal (US 2019/0345620) teaches with regards to instant claim 1 and 12, an aqueous organic haloamine solution from a precursor (see abstract), wherein the amino acid precursor is taurine, glycine and alanine (see 0006, claims 3, 14 as required by instant claims 2-3, 12-13), and a halide salt (see abstract, as required by instant claim 5, 15) a phosphate salt (see 0031) as required by claims 4, 6-7, 16-18) and the halide is bromine (as required by instant claim 6, see 0003).
Therefore the claims are anticipated by Boal because where the claims merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone”. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951)
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boal (US 2019/0345620) in view of Schneider et al. (US 2009/0197838) and Boal (US 11814739)
Boal (US 2019/0345620) teaches with regards to instant claim 1 and 12, an aqueous organic haloamine solution from a precursor (see abstract), wherein the amino acid precursor is taurine, glycine and alanine (see 0006, claims 3, 14 as required by instant claims 2-3, 12-13), and a halide salt (see abstract, as required by instant claim 5, 15) a phosphate salt (see 0031) as required by claims 4, 6-7, 16-18) and the halide is bromine (as required by instant claim 6, see 0003).
However fails to teach the composition comprises additive (as required by instant claims 8- 9, 19).
Schneider teaches N-halogenated amino acid salt (0036) comprising vegetable oil (see 0036),
Boal’739 teaches aqueous organic haloamine solutions from precursor solutions comprising at least one halide-containing salt, at least one organic amine component, and an acid additive (see abstract).
Douglas teaches a liquid agrochemical composition (see 0001)comprising organic amine (see 0029)pesticides (as required by instant claims 8-9 and 19, plant nutrient (see 0016), castor oil (see 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the composition taught by Boal incorporating the cited reference of Schneider and Boal’739 to result in the formulation of a plant nutrient or antimicrobial precursor solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
The motivation to combine can arise from the expectation that the prior art elements will perform their expected functions to achieve their expected results when combined for their common known purpose. Section MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 10-11 and 22 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY V GEMBEH whose telephone number is (571)272-8504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/SHIRLEY V GEMBEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 8/5/26
Prosecution Insights