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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/21/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15, 18, 20, 23-24, 26-28, 31, 41, 43 and 45-47 are pending.
Claim 1 and 31 are independent. Clams 46-47 are new.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 11-14, 16-17, 19, 21-22, 25, 29-30, 32-40, 42 are cancelled. Support for the claim amendments can be found in at least Applicant's specification US20230365865A1 [0050] and [0010].
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15, 18, 20, 23-24, 26, 28-29, 31, 41 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (WO2018/148482A1) in view of Loick et al. (US 10,287,379 B2) is withdrawn upon further consideration of Applicant’s amendments to uniform mechanical mix.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15, 18, 20, 23-24, 26-29, 31, 41-44 as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,326,327 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 3/24/2026, with respect to claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15, 18, 20, 23-24, 26-28, 31, 41, 43 and 45-47 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Upon an updated search and further consideration of Yu et al., a new grounds of rejection is made below addressing the claim amendments. a new grounds of rejection is made below.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15, 18, 20, 23-24, 26-28 are product-by-process claims. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. See MPEP 2113.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15, 18, 20, 23-24, 26, 28, 31, and 45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (WO2018/148482A1) in view of Windhoevel (US 8,883,677 B2), Loick et al. (US 10,287,379 B2) and further in view of Komoriya et al. (US 6,000,641).
Yu et al. teach a) water harvesting material comprising an interpenetrating network comprising: i) a hygroscopic polymer; and ii) a thermoresponsive water storage polymer. See page 2,ln.30-34 and Figure 4 which discloses their i) hygroscopic polymer is a doped polypyrrole (reading upon the hygroscopic polymer of claim 1i and the teaching of ii) poly-N-isopropylacrylamide reads upon the thermoresponsive water storage polymer of claim 1ii.
Yu et al. is silent as to the water harvesting super moisture absorbent gels (SMAGs) uniform mechanical mixture into soil as is required by claim 1. Yu et al. page 1, lines 20-30 copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
350
868
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Yu et al. explains that since many of the worlds water starved regions are far inland, the hydrogel polymers extract water from the air to benefit the most water starved land regions. See page 1,ln.20-30.
However Yu et al. do not specifically teach mixing the water harvesting hydrogel material with soil as required by claim 1.
Windhoevel (US 8,883,677 B2) teach that it is commonly known to use hydrogels as a soil improver. See abstract and claim 1.
Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yu et al. to mix the water harvesting hydrogel material with soil as required by claim 1 because Yu et al. motivate one of ordinary skill to apply their atmospheric water harvesting network to water-starved regions, far inland, away from the oceans, which regions as disclosed by Yu et al. would reasonably be interpreted as having soil because one of ordinary skill would reasonably understand that land regions have soil in general and furthermore, Windhoevel et al. establish the state of the art common knowledge that the hydrogels as taught by Yu et al. are commonly known soil additives to improve soil.
Yu et al., Windoevel do not teach the uniform mixing required in claim 1. Komoriya et al. teach it is commonly understood in the soil mix amendments art that mechanical mixing enables the soil and a soil improving agent to be mixed uniformly and efficiently (see col.5,ln.42-43 & col.2,ln.22) and claim 10.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed water harvesting material mechanical and uniform mix into soil as claimed because Yu et al. teach the water harvesting super moisture absorbent gels (SMAGs) polymers extract water from the air to benefit the most water starved land regions include soil in general and Komoriya et al. teach it is commonly understood in the soil mix amendments art that mechanical mixing enables the soil and a soil improving agent to be mixed uniformly and efficiently. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Yu et al. with Komoriya et al. since both are in the analogous art of land benefits.
Yu et al. is silent as to the particle size in their water harvesting super moisture absorbent gels (SMAGs) and do not specifically teach the claim 1 limitation to an average particle size from 0.1 µm to 500 µm.
Loick et al. teach that the claimed particle size range is commonly known dimensions of acrylamide (col.7,ln.44) and pyrrole (col.6,ln.37-47) which are the same hygroscopic polymer and thermoresponsive polymer as claimed and as taught by Yu et al. See col.4,ln.57-59 and col.22,ln.61 of Loick et al. teaching grinding the claimed polymers to a powder having a particle size of 150 to 850 um is commonly known in superabsorbent polymer art.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the presence of the claimed particle size properties as claimed in the water harvesting system of Yu et al. because Loick et al. teach that the claimed particle size range is commonly known in superabsorbent polymers (SMAG) used in soil (col.20,ln.56) comprising acrylamide (col.7,ln.44) and pyrrole (col.6,ln.37-47) which are the same hydroscopic polymer and thermoresponsive polymer as claimed and as taught by Yu et al. The combination of teachings from Yu et al. and Loick et al. render obvious the instantly claimed ingredients as superabsorbent water harvesting materials and it is reasonable that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed particle sizes in the polymer of Yu et al. since Loick et al. teach it is especially preferable that the proportion of the SMAG polymer particles have a particle size within a range from 300 to 600 µm. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Yu et al. with Loick et al. since both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of trapping water.
Yu et al. teach on page 2,ln.30-34 and Figure 4 their i) hygroscopic polymer is a doped polypyrrole reading upon the hygroscopic polymer of claims 4 and 8 with page 6,ln.15 teaching the claim 7 limitation to 0.010 holes per monomer.
Regarding claim 9 Yu et al. teach wherein their hygroscopic polymer has a Mw less than about 500,000 on page 5,ln.20.
Claim 10 limitation to wherein the thermoresponsive water storage polymer is characterized by a Lower Critical Solution Temperature between about 30-60° C is taught in the paragraph linking pages 6-7.
Yu et al. teach on page 2,ln.32 and Figure 4 which discloses the teaching of ii) poly-N-isopropylacrylamide reading upon the thermoresponsive water storage polymer in claims 15 and 18.
Limitation to the thermoresponsive water storage polymer being crosslinked as required by claims 20 and 23 wherein the crosslinking monomer comprises N,N-methylenebisacrylamide, N,N- ethylenebisacrylamide, N,N-propylenebisacrylamide, N-allylacrylamide or N,N- diallylacrylamide is taught on page 7, last paragraph.
Claim 24 limitation to the ratio of hygroscopic polymer to thermoresponsive water storage polymer is from about 1:0.05 is taught on page 8,ln.7-8.
Yu et al. reads upon the claim 28 limitation to wherein the water harvesting polymer network is present in an amount from 1-50% on page 5, 1st paragraph.
Regarding claim 29, Yu et al. read upon the assembly structure with an average particle size from 1 um to 1 cm since the art discloses tablets with area of 1cm2.
Claim 31 method to mechanical and uniform mixing a water harvesting polymer network with soil, is met by Yu et al. teach the water harvesting super moisture absorbent gels (SMAGs) polymers extract water from the air to benefit the most water starved land regions include soil in general (see page 1, lines 20-30) and Komoriya et al. teach it is commonly understood in the soil mix amendments art that mechanical mixing enables the soil and a soil improving agent to be mixed uniformly and efficiently (see col.5,ln.42-43 & col.2,ln.22) and claim 10. Also, claim 31 limitation to adding water to the mixture is taught by Yu et al. claim 44 teaching the polymerization of the claimed polymers is conducted in an aqueous medium. It is the Examiner’s position that the prior art claim 44 encompasses the claim 31 language to wherein adding water is either before mixing or in a dropwise manner while mixing because dropwise addition is a routine mixing technique used throughout science and Yu et al guide one of ordinary skill to inclusion of water in their aqueous medium.
Claim 31 limitation to drying the wet mixture to form a dried mixture is taught in example 3, page 11, ln.3.
Claim 31 limitation to wherein the water harvesting polymer network comprises i) a hygroscopic polymer and ii) a thermoresponsive water storage polymer is met by Yu et al. teaching on page 1, ln.25-35, the very purpose of their atmospheric water harvesting system is to address the water starved regions far inward from the oceans which regions one of ordinary skill would reasonably understand to include soil as these regions will necessarily be land regions. It is also the Examiner’s position that the region of Yu et al. in page 1,ln.25 would read upon claim 26 to the soil prior to combination with the polymer and the agricultural field of claim 41.
Yu et al. do not explicitly teach the method of combining a water harvesting polymer network with a soil to yield the modified soil having an average particle size in a range from 1um to 1cm in the method of claim 31.
However, Loick et al. teach that the claimed particle size range is commonly known in superabsorbent polymers used in soil (col.20,ln.56) comprising acrylamide (col.7,ln.44) and pyrrole (col.6,ln.37-47) which are the same hydroscopic polymer and thermoresponsive polymer as claimed and as taught by Yu et al. See col.4,ln.57-59 and col.22,ln.61 teaching grinding the claimed polymers to a powder having a particle size of 150 to 850 um is commonly known in superabsorbent polymer art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the modified soil as claimed because Yu et al. teach the claimed water harvesting polymer network comprising the same hydroscopic polymer and thermoresponsive polymer and Loick et al. teach that the claim 31 particle size range is commonly known in superabsorbent polymers used in soil (col.20,ln.56) comprising acrylamide (col.7,ln.44) and pyrrole (col.6,ln.37-47) which are the same hydroscopic polymer and thermoresponsive polymer as claimed and as taught by Yu et al. Further Yu et al. motivate one of ordinary skill to apply their atmospheric water harvesting network to water-starved regions, far inland, away from the oceans, which regions as disclosed by Yu et al. would reasonably be interpreted as having soil because one of ordinary skill would reasonably understand that land regions have soil.
Claim 31 limitation to grinding the dried mixture to form the modified soil composition having an average particle size in a range from 1 µm to 1 cm, wherein the average particle size is of particles including soil particles and water harvesting network particles is met by Komoriya et al. teaching that the soild and the soil improving agent are commonly known to be crushed and mixed into small lumps or small particles is well understood and Loike et al. teach the claimed particle size does not provide a contribution over the art of record.
Claim 45 limitation to adding Mg2+ is taught by Yu et al. example 3 page 11.
Claim 47 is met by Komoriya et al. teaching a mechanical device for efficiently crushing and mixing soil improving agent with watery clay, sticky soil, or soil containing pebbles, without clogging. See paragraph linking col.1 and col.2. Also, It is the Examiner’s position that the prior art claim 44 encompasses a dropwise manner while mixing because dropwise addition is a routine mixing technique used throughout science and Yu et al guide one of ordinary skill to inclusion of water in their aqueous medium.
Claims 27, 41 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (WO2018/148482A1), Windhoevel (US 8,883,677 B2), DE 295 16 675 U1, Loick et al. (US 10,287,379 B2) and Komoriya et al. (US 6,000,641) as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15, 18, 20, 23-24, 26, 28, 31, 45 and 47 above and further in view of Lignier et al. (US 2013/0101354A1).
The combination of Yu et al., Windhoevel (US 8,883,677 B2), DE 295 16 675 Komoriya et al. and Loick et al. as set forth above teach the claimed water harvesting material in a mechanical uniform mixture having the claimed particle size and polymers.
Yu et al. do not teach the claim 27 limitation to further comprising mulch, topsoil, hydroponics, gravel, compost, wood fibers, peat, forest bark, straw, loam, clay aggregate, or particulate plastic. Also, Yu et al. do not teach the rate of claim 41, and the seed of claim 43.
In the analogous art, Lignier et al. teach stabilizing the air, water, soil, and plants with a polymeric stabilizer using a hydroseeder applied to bare soil at a thickness of 2-5 mm further comprising mulch to demonstrate the advantages of limiting the penetration of atmospheric water into the soils during storms. See [0081-0083, 0088, 0099-0101]. Regarding the material limitations of claim 43, to contacting a seed to the modified soil, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill understands that seeds are put into contact with soil to germinate and grow and as such claim 43 does not provide a contribution over the norm. Furthermore, Lignier et al. teach one of ordinary skill that their modified stabilizer layer with mulch and wood fibers absorbed water and prevented unnecessary accumulation protecting plants on sloped banks. See [0081-0083, 0088, 0099-0101].
Regarding claim 41 limitation to wherein the modified soil composition is added to the field at a rate of 0.1-1,000 Ib/ft2, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skilled in soil understands to apply amendments to soil as directed which rate does not provide a contribution over the art. See for example the attached search notes guiding one of ordinary skill to optimize the soil with amendments per the amounts as directed. Furthermore, it is the Examiner’s position that the hydroseeder used in Lignier et al. would read upon the broadly claimed rate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the modified soil composition as claimed because Yu et al. teach the claimed water harvesting polymer network is applied to water-starved regions which one of ordinary skill will reasonably understand these regions have soil in general and Lignier et al. exemplify stabilizing sloped banks with polymeric stabilizer comprising wood and mulch applied by hydroseeder is commonly known. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine Yu et al., Komoriya et al. Loick et al. with Lignier et al. since all are in the analogous art of polymers that absorb water to benefit the land.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (WO2018/148482A1), Windhoevel (US 8,883,677 B2), Loick et al. (US 10,287,379 B2) and Komoriya et al. (US 6,000,641) as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-10, 15, 18, 20, 23-24, 26, 28, 31, 45 and 47 above and further in view of Kim et al. KR101937980B1 - Composition for preparing soil conditioner, soil conditioner and method of conditioning soil using the soil conditioner - Google Patents translation attached.
The combination of Yu et al., Windhoevel (US 8,883,677 B2), Komoriya et al. and Loick et al. as set forth above teach the claimed water harvesting material in a mechanical uniform aqueous mixture having the claimed particle size and polymers. However, do not teach the claim 46 ratio to the amount of water to solids as claimed.
Kim et al. teach it is understood in the art of soil preparation to optimize the amount of water specifically teaching 7.5 to 10 parts by weight of water are added to a machine to 100 parts by weight of the solid mixture in general (see abstract and page 3) and further guide one of ordinary skill to optimize the amount of water amount of water used in the preparation of the soil modifying agent increases to cause aggregation between solids. When the soil modifying agent exceeds 15 parts by weight, the amount of water used in the production of the granules may be reduced and the granulation may not be smoothly performed. One of ordinary skill understands the granulation ratio during the production of the soil conditioner is lowered if the amount of water is less than 7.5 parts. If the water content exceeds 10 parts by weight, it can cause lumps. See page 3, 2/3rds down the page about 4 paragraphs from the bottom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yu et al. with the 1:5 to 1:10 ratio of water to solids in the wet mixture as required by claim 46 with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results because Kim et al. guide one of ordinary skill to optimize the ratio of water to solids such that granulation is smooth in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings because all are in the analogous art of soil improvements.
Conclusion
Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above. The prior art Zhou et al. “Super Moisture Absorbent Gels for Sustainable Agriculture via Atmospheric Water Irrigation” October 1, 2020 ACS Materials Letters Vol.2/Issue 11 pg. 1419-1422. available at https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsmaterialslett.0c00439 is made of record in the search notes not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes that Panpan Zhang not named in the instant application. Pertinent to the instant claims is that “SMAG-soil composed of uniformly mixed micro-particles of SMAG and soil can harvest water from the air and store water in the gels under a cool and moist condition (Figure S2),” Page 1, right col. middle.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights