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 .
This Application is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed June 9, 2026. Claims 1-13 and 15-17 are pending in the application. Claims 10-12 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-9, 13, and 15-17 will presently be examined to the extent they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt of Information Disclosure Statement filed April 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
The rejection of claims 1-9, 13, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blease et al. (WO 2014/181099) in view of Lindner et al. (WO 2012/024276) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blease et al. (WO 2014/181099) in view of Lindner et al. (WO 2012/024276) as applied to claims 1-9 and 13-17 above, and further in view of the Stepan Alkoxylate Product Guide (2020, Stepan Alkoxylates) is maintained.
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.
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 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 1-9, 13, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blease et al. (WO 2014/181099) in view of Lindner et al. (WO 2012/024276). Blease et al. and Lindner et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 5/11/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a soil treatment formulation consisting of: (i) ethoxylated/propoxylated fatty acid mono-esters of sorbitan wherein the carbon chain length of the fatty acid is from 8 to 16, and the overall degree of ethoxylation is on average from 5 to 25; (ii) ethylene oxide-propylene oxide copolymer, and (iii) compatibilising surfactant selected from an alkoxylated fatty alcohol, alkoxylated fatty alcohol phosphate ester, and/or alkoxylated glycerides and (iv) one or more of a biocide, a nutrient, a binder, a diluent, an absorbent, a surfactant, a swelling agent, a wetting agent, a dispersant, an emulsifier, an antifoam agent, a viscosity modifier and preservative.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claim 1, Blease et al. teach a method and/or conditioning soil comprises applying a soil treatment composition containing hydrolysed protein to the soil. The soil treatment composition contains a surfactant selected from ethylene oxide-propylene oxide (EO/PO) block copolymer and/or an alkyl polyglycoside (Abstract, page 15, claim 3). Blease et al. teach the soil treatment composition comprises (i) hydrolysed protein, (ii) at least on polyalkylene oxide block copolymer(s), and (iii) at least one additional surfactant selected from fatty acid alkoxylates, fatty alcohol alkoxylates and alkoxylated glyceride esters (page 8, lines 32-34-page 9, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 1, Blease et al. teach that examples of suitable protein include wheat starch (page 3, lines 1-2). Blease et al. teach the hydrolysed protein component may contain starch, for example hydrolysed wheat protein may contain wheat starch (page 3, lines 9-11). The hydrolysed protein that is wheat starch reads on component (iv) a starch.
Regarding claim 3, Blease et al. teach the polyalkylene oxide block copolymers have an average molecular weight of 1,500 to 15,000 (page 5, lines 8-10).
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 6, Blease et al. teach the suitable hydrophobized alkoxylate surfactant include alcohol alkoxylates of the formula (a) R1-O-(AO)n-H, wherein R1 is C8 to C24, AO is independently ethylene oxide or propylene oxide group and n in the molecule is from 2 to 200 (page 7, lines 13-20).
Regarding claim 7, Blease et al. teach test solutions were prepared in water to give solutions containing 14.5% active solids (page 13, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 8, Blease et al. teach the soil treatment concentrate is formed which will generally be diluted prior to applying to the soil (page 4, lines 6-8).
Regarding claim 9, Blease et al. teach a method and/or conditioning soil comprising applying a soil treatment composition (page 15, claim 1).
Regarding claim 16, Blease et al. teach the ethylene oxide-propylene oxide (EO/PO) block polymer has an average molecular weight of approx. 2400, which falls within the range of 1,200 to 8,000 currently claimed (page 5, lines 21-22).
Blease et al. teach the soil treatment composition may further comprise at least one additional surfactant, i.e. not a polyalkylene oxide block copolymer or alkyl polyglycoside (page 6, lines 12-15).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Blease et al. do not specifically disclose the composition comprises ethoxylated/propoxylated fatty acid mono-esters of sorbitan wherein the carbon chain length of the fatty acid is from 8 to 16, and the overall degree of ethoxylation is on average from to 35. It is for this reason Lindner et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Lindner et al. teach ethoxylated fatty acid mono-ester(s) of sorbitan with a fatty acid chain length from 8 to 14 and an overall degree of ethoxylation from 7 to 16 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Lindner et al. teach the ethoxylated fatty acid mono-esters of sorbitan are compounds of formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
195
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 15, claim 10).
Lindner et al. teach it is found that the solution behaviour and wetting properties of mono-esters are superior in agrochemical adjuvant applications (page 4, paragraph [0024]).
Lindner et al. teach the agrochemical include additional ingredients such as surfactants (page 7, paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 13, Lindner et al. teach the sorbitan residue is formed from 1,4-androsobitol, 1,5-anhydrosorbitol, and 3,6-anhydrosorbitol (page 14, claim 4).
Regarding claim 14, Lindner et al. teach the mixture may also typically include some 1,4,3,6-dianhydrosorbitol (page 3, paragraph [0021].
Regarding claim 15, Lindner et al. teach the carbon chain length of the fatty acid is from 10-4 (page 14, claim 6).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Blease et al. and Lindner et al. and use ethoxylated/propoxylated fatty acid mono-esters of sorbitan wherein the carbon chain length of the fatty acid is from 8 to 16, and the overall degree of ethoxylation is on average from 5 to 25. Blease et al. teach a soil treatment composition comprises (i) hydrolysed protein, (ii) at least on polyalkylene oxide block copolymer(s), and (iii) at least one additional surfactant selected from fatty acid alkoxylates, fatty alcohol alkoxylates and alkoxylated glyceride esters. Blease et al. teach suitable hydrolysed protein include wheat starch. Blease et al. teach a method and/or conditioning soil comprising applying a soil treatment composition. Blease et al. teach the soil treatment composition may further comprise at least one additional surfactant, i.e. not a polyalkylene oxide block copolymer or alkyl polyglycoside (page 6, lines 12-15). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add an ethoxylated fatty acid mono-ester of sorbitan of formula (I)
PNG
media_image1.png
195
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to the soil treatment formulations taught by Blease et al. Since Lindner et al. teach the mono-ester of sorbitan of formula (I) is used in agrochemical formulations to treat soil around crops that reduce antagonism between active combinations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the sorbitan of mono-ester of sorbitan of formula (I) with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blease et al. (WO 2014/181099) in view of Lindner et al. (WO 2012/024276) as applied to claims 1-9 and 13-17 above, and further in view of the Stepan Alkoxylate Product Guide (2020, Stepan Alkoxylates).
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a soil treatment formulation comprising: (i) ethoxylated/propoxylated fatty acid mono-esters of sorbitan wherein the carbon chain length of the fatty acid is from 8 to 16, and the overall degree of ethoxylation is on average from 5 to 25; (ii) ethylene oxide-propylene oxide copolymer, and (iii) compatibilising surfactant selected from an alkoxylated fatty alcohol, alkoxylated fatty alcohol phosphate ester, and/or alkoxylated glycerides.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Blease et al. and Lindner et al. with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is hereby incorporated and are therefore applied in the instant rejection as discussed above.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Blease et al. and Lindner et al. do not specifically disclose the average molecular weight of the compatibilising surfactant is 1,000 to 8,000. It is for this reason that the Stepan Alkoxylate Product Guide is added as a secondary reference.
The Stepan Alkoxylate Product Guide teaches various alkoxylates including BIO-SOFT® E-840 and BIO-SOFT® E-847, C12-14 Alcohol ethoxylates that has a molecular weight of 1209 (page 1, Lauryl Alcohol Ethoxylates). The Stepan Alkoxylate Product Guide teaches alcohol alkoxylates, including MAKON® TD-50 and TOXIMUL® 8315, which have molecular weights of 2478 and 3500, respectively. The molecular weights for the Alcohol Alkoxylates range from 2478-6200(page 4, Alcohol Alkoxylates).
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Blease et al., Lindner et al., and the Stepan Alkoxylate Product Guide and use a compatibilising surfactant with an average molecular weight of 1,000 to 8,000. Blease et al. teach a soil treatment composition comprises (i) hydrolysed protein, (ii) at least on polyalkylene oxide block copolymer(s), and (iii) at least one additional surfactant selected from fatty acid alkoxylates, fatty alcohol alkoxylates and alkoxylated glyceride esters. Blease et al. teach the suitable hydrophobized alkoxylate surfactant include alcohol alkoxylates of the formula (a) R1-O-(AO)n-H, wherein R1 is C8 to C24, AO is independently ethylene oxide or propylene oxide group and n in the molecule is from 2 to 200. The Stepan Alkoxylate Product Guide teaches various alkoxylates including lauryl alcohol ethoxylates and alcohol alkoxylates that fall within the definition of compatibilising surfactants claimed and the alcohol alkoxylates taught by Blease et al. The Alkoxylate Product Guide teaches the molecular weights range from 1209 to 6200. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compatibilising surfactants taught by Blease et al., as modified by Lindner et al., would have average molecular weights in the range of 1,000 to 8,000, without evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, the claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to delete the term “a starch” from the list of component (iv). Applicant argues that as amended, the soil treatment formulation of claim 1 does not contain a hydrolyzed protein as required by Blease and that Lindner is unable to cure this deficiency in Blease. In response to Applicant’s argument, even though “the starch component”, has been canceled, claim 1 recites a number of other component (iv), including a biocide, a nutrient, a binder, a sugar, …and a preservative. Blease et al. teach that “hydrolysed protein” include polypeptides, peptides, amino acids, collagen, casein, and wheat protein. Each of these substances, i.e. hydrolysed proteins, are all nutrients. Since the instant claims recite component (iv) is a nutrient, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the hydrolysed protein reads on a nutrient as component (iv), without evidence to the contrary.
The claims remained rejected.
Conclusion
No claims are 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 Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
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 at 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 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights