DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/18/2025 has been entered.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 18, 2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 1-6, 10-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Blease et al. (US 2016/0075944 A1) in view of Dungworth et al. (WO2017/203261 A1) and as evidenced by Honda et al. (EP 1 943 901 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Blease discloses a soil treatment composition which may be used on seeds [0013] containing a hydrolyzed protein [Abstract] in an amount of 4 to 17 wt.% [0050] and a solvent [0019].
Blease does not disclose the composition includes 6 to 25 wt.% of a polymeric binder wherein the polymeric binder is a copolymer of acrylic acid with an alkyl methacrylate or styrene.
Dungworth discloses an emulsion polymer system for coating seeds with a core polymer and stabilizer polymer (abstract). The preferred stabilizer polymer is a copolymer of acrylic acid with alkyl methacrylates or styrene (pg. 5, lines 25-26). Dungworth discloses that the core polymer is most preferably selected from copolymers of an acrylate, such as acrylic acid and a styrene (pg. 14, lines 15-21). The core polymer can also be selected from those including styrene-maleic copolymers, cellulose, and gelatin (pg. 14, lines 5-15). Dungworth teaches that the emulsion polymer system comprises from 0.001 to 10 wt.% of the core-stabilizer copolymers (claim 11) where the ratio of stabilizer polymer to core polymers in the emulsion polymer is 50:50 (pg. 16, lines 17-18). Dungworth teaches that the stabilizer polymer behaves as a stabilizer in the composition (pg. 5, lines 13-14) and the polymers provide seed coatings having desired properties while allowing passage of water from the surroundings to the seeds (pg. 3, lines 16-20).
Since Blease generally teaches a composition to be used on seeds, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a copolymer of acrylic acid with alkyl methacrylates or styrene, within the teachings of Blease, because Dungworth teaches a copolymer of acrylic acid with alkyl methacrylates or styrene as a stabilizer polymer in a composition to be used as a seed coating. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use the copolymer of Dungworth because Dungworth teaches that the stabilizer polymer behaves as a stabilizer in the composition (pg. 5, lines 13-14) and the polymers provide seed coatings having desired properties while allowing passage of water from the surroundings to the seeds coated (pg. 3, lines 16-20).
In regards to the amount of the components, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Further regarding the limitation of 6 to 25 wt.% of a polymer binder. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of a copolymer of acrylic acid with alkyl methacrylates or styrene was known in the art (Dungworth; claim 11, pg. 16, lines 17-18); as such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum amount of copolymer via routine experimentation.
Regarding the “consisting of” limitation of claim 1, while Dungworth requires the use of both a core polymer and a stabilizer polymer, Dungworth discloses that core polymers include those selected from styrene-maleic copolymers, cellulose, and gelatin (pg. 14, lines 5-15).
As evidenced by Honda, in compositions for coating seeds [0002] [0023]-[0024] a copolymer of maleic acid with styrene is a known surfactant [0035], cellulose is a known diluent [0029], and gelatin is a known carrier [0055]. Therefore, the core polymer of Dungworth falls within the scope of claim 1 as, for example, a surfactant, diluent, or carrier.
Additionally, because Dungworth discloses that the preferred stabilizer polymer is a copolymer of acrylic acid with alkyl methacrylates or styrene (pg. 5, lines 25-26) and the core polymer is most preferably selected from copolymers of an acrylate, such as acrylic acid and a styrene (pg. 14, lines 15-21) both the core and stabilizer polymer fall within the scope of the polymeric binder of claim 1 where “the polymeric binder is a copolymer of acrylic acid with an alkyl methacrylate or styrene”.
Claim 2 is rendered prima facie obvious because Blease discloses the hydrolyzed protein may be derived from animal or vegetable sources [0014].
Claim 3 is rendered prima facie obvious because Blease discloses the hydrolyzed protein comprises amino acid chains [0018].
Claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious because Blease discloses the hydrolyzed protein is hydrolyzed wheat protein produced by enzyme hydrolysis [0015].
Claim 5 is rendered prima facie obvious because Blease discloses the molecular weight of the hydrolyzed protein is from 50 Da to 50,000 Da [0017]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 6 is rendered prima facie obvious because Blease discloses the hydrolyzed protein comprises from 1.5 to 200 amino acids [0018]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 10 is rendered prima facie obvious because it would have been obvious to use the stabilizer polymer of Dungworth as previously discussed, and Dungworth teaches the stabilizer polymers of the disclosure have a molecular weight of 2,000 to 25,000 (pg. 5, lines 19-21). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 11 is rendered prima facie obvious because it would have been obvious to use the stabilizer polymer of Dungworth as previously discussed, and Dungworth teaches the stabilizer polymers of the disclosure have a molecular weight of 2,000 to 25,000 (pg. 5, lines 19-21) and a Tg value of more than 30°C (pg. 5, lines 25-26). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 20 is rendered prima facie obvious because it would have been obvious to use the stabilizer polymer of Dungworth as previously discussed, and Dungworth teaches the amount of acrylic acid in the stabilizer polymer is in a range from 10 wt.% to 70 wt.% (pg. 9, lines 19-20). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to recite “consisting of” language to exclude core polymers like those required by Dungworth.
The Examiner disagrees, the language of claim 1 does not exclude core polymers like those required by Dungworth because Dungworth discloses that core polymers include polymers such as those selected from styrene-maleic copolymers, cellulose, and gelatin (pg. 14, lines 5-15). As evidenced by Honda, in compositions for coating seeds [0002] [0023]-[0024] a copolymer of maleic acid with styrene is a known surfactant [0035], cellulose is a known diluent [0029], and gelatin is a known carrier [0055]. Therefore, the core polymer of Dungworth, while a required feature, does falls within the scope of claim 1 as, for example, a surfactant, diluent, or carrier.
Additionally, because Dungworth discloses that the preferred stabilizer polymer is a copolymer of acrylic acid with alkyl methacrylates or styrene (pg. 5, lines 25-26) and the core polymer is most preferably selected from copolymers of an acrylate, such as acrylic acid and a styrene (pg. 14, lines 15-21) both the core and stabilizer polymer fall within the scope of the polymeric binder of claim 1 where “the polymeric binder is a copolymer of acrylic acid with an alkyl methacrylate or styrene”.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Blease et al. (US 2016/0075944 A1) in view of Dungworth et al. (WO 2017/203261 A1) as evidenced by Honda et al. (EP 1 943 901 A2) and further in view of Cai (US 2015/0037492 A1) and Kan et al. (BMC Genomics, 2015, 16:731).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Blease in view of Dungworth and evidenced by Honda was previously discussed.
Additionally, Blease discloses that the hydrolyzed protein composition may be used to improve soil’s ability to provide nutrition for plants [0013] and that the composition with the hydrolyzed protein includes water [0008].
Blease does not disclose the amount of free amino acid in the hydrolyzed protein is less than 60 wt.%, as recited in claim 7.
Cai discloses a method for producing wheat peptide [Abstract] where the content of free amino acids is below 5 wt.% [Claim 5],[0026]. Cai discloses that the free amino acid, glutamine, has low solubility in water, which is increased by the peptide form [0004],[0006].
Kan discloses that glutamine is a major amino donor for synthesis of amino acids and other nitrogen-containing compounds in plants [pg. 1, right column, second paragraph].
Since Blease generally teaches hydrolyzed wheat proteins to provide nutrition to plants, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a content of free amino acids below 5 wt.%, within the combined teachings of the prior art, because Cai teaches hydrolyzed wheat proteins where the content of free amino acids is below 5% and that the free amino acid glutamine has low solubility in water, which can be improved by the peptide form [0004],[0006]. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to have less than 5 wt.% of free amino acids in order to improve the solubility of glutamine in the water containing composition of Blease [0008] and would be motivated to improve the solubility of glutamine because Kan teaches that glutamine is a major amino donor for synthesis of amino acids and other nitrogen-containing compounds in plants [pg. 1, right column, second paragraph]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 7 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Cai and Kan are not able to remedy the deficiencies of Blease and Dungworth.
The Examiner disagrees. Blease and Dungworth are not deficient expect where Cai and Kan teach the amount of free amino acid in the hydrolyzed protein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashlee E Wertz whose telephone number is (571)270-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/ASHLEE E WERTZ/Examiner , Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612