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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhong et al. (Water, Air, & Soil Pollution, 2017) as evidenced by Sigma-Aldrich (2026), regarding claims 2-3.
In regard to claim 1, Zhong et al. disclose a method for preparing a composition (e.g. ozonated HA water) [pg. 229, section 2.2], comprising a step of treating a liquid composition consisting essentially of humic substances and water (e.g. 10 mg/L concentration HA in aqueous solution) [pg. 229, para. bridging cols 1-2] with an oxidizing agent (e.g. O3) [pg. 229, 2nd col., 1st full para.] to obtain a liquid composition of oxidized humic substances (e.g. ozonated HA waters) [pg. 229, Table 1], wherein the oxidizing agent is ozone and the ratio ozone weight/humic substance weight is less than 8 (e.g. 1 mg ozone/10 mg humic substance = 0.1) [pg. 229, 2nd col., line 3, Table 1 dose). While Zhong does not explicitly disclose the weight-average hydrodynamic ratios, the prior art’s disclosure of oxidation treatment of the humic substance solution will necessarily result in a hydrodynamic radius value greater than the hydrodynamic radius before treatment by changing the humic acid surface layer’s interaction with the aqueous solvent thus improving solubility and stability in aqueous environments. “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property (e.g. weight-average hydrodynamic radius) which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the step of treating a humic substance with an oxidizing agent results in the formation of intermediates including aldehydes, short-chain acids, and aromatic acids [pg. 229, section 4.1]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce polar carboxyl groups to the liquid HA of Zhong because the intermediate carbonaceous products are more hydrophilic and thus more soluble in water.
In regard to claims 2-3, Zhong et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the liquid composition having humic substances is standard of HA obtained from Sigma-Aldrich [pg. 229, section 2.1, 1st para.]. Sigma-Aldrich HA is prepared by alkaline treatment of brown coal [pg. 8, 1st para.]. Sigma-Aldrich HA is a technical grade substance comprising dry (e.g. solid) humic acid (e.g. at least 50% by dry weight of humic substances) [pg. 3, properties].
In regard to claim 5, Zhong et al. the method according to claim 1 but does not explicitly recite wherein the Hr average post-treatment is at least 5 times higher than the Hr average pre-treatment. However, the prior art’s disclosure of oxidation treatment of the humic substance solution will necessarily result in a hydrodynamic radius value 5 times greater than the hydrodynamic radius before treatment by changing the humic acid surface layer’s interaction with the solvent thus improving solubility and stability in aqueous environments. “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property (e.g. weight-average hydrodynamic radius) which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the step of treating a humic substance with an oxidizing agent results in the formation of intermediates including aldehydes, short-chain acids, and aromatic acids [pg. 229, section 4.1]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce polar carboxyl groups to the liquid HA of Zhong because the intermediate carbonaceous products are more hydrophilic and thus more soluble in water to achieve a hydrodynamic radius at least 5 times higher than pre-treatment.
In regard to claim 6, Zhong et al. disclose the method according to claim 1 but does not explicitly recite the claimed comparison of weight proportion of particle size before and after oxidation. However, the prior art’s disclosure of oxidation treatment of the humic substance solution will necessarily result in particles having a smaller hydrodynamic radius because the oxidation process will increase particle solubility in water thus decreasing hydrodynamic diameter [see discussion in claim 1].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/30/2026, with respect to rejection of the claim(s) based on the teachings of Meng have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s amendment(s) necessitated the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is (571)270-3599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-6pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 September 26, 2026
