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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 29, 2025.
Claims 11-20 are examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claims 11, 12, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Durpekova (CZ 35728 U1, January 18, 2022).
Durpekova discloses a method of increasing soil retention and quality of cultivated plants, the method comprising applying to the soil an agrohydrogel, which comprises carboxymethylcellulose and hydroxyethyl cellulose. See translation, abstract; Examples. As applicant defines carboxymethylcellulose is defined as a superabsorbent polymer, the present claims 11 and 12. Applying SAPs to soil or other plant-growing media in agricultural settings have resulted in earlier seed germination and/or blooming, decreased irrigation requirements, increased propagation, increased crop growth and production, decreased soil crusting, increased root development, stronger/heartier plants, plants less susceptible to disease, increased yield and decreased time of emergence.
Regarding claim 15, Durpekova teaches that the agrohydrogel also contains acid whey, which is a by-product of fresh cheese and curd production and serves as a nutrient for the plants. See translation, p. 3, bridging paragraph. The reference further teaches that the hydrogel can be enriched with fertilizers needed for plant growth, which would be gradually released into the soil along with water. See translation, p. 4, first full paragraph.
Regarding claim 17, Durpekova teaches that the composition is applied to the soil in the powder, crystals or granules by plowing, which necessarily mixes the composition with the soil. See translation, p. 5, first full paragraph.
Regarding claim 20, Durpekova teaches that 2.33-3 parts by weight of carboxymethylcellulose and 0.67-1 part by weight of hydroxyethyl cellulose are used, which would represent the SAPs: cellulosic fiber ratio of 2.33:1 to 4.48:1, which overlaps with the presently claimed range of about 90:10 to about 75:25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derpevoka as applied to claims 11, 12, 15, 17 and 20 as above, and further in view of Andrew et al. (GB 2593268, published on February 24, 2021) (“Andrew” hereunder).
Derpevoka fails to teach starch-g-poly (2- propenamide-co-2-propenoic acid).
Andrew teaches starch-g-poly (2- propenamide-co-2-propenoic acid) potassium salt is a well-known superabsorbent polymer which is useful as a water retention agent in agricultural art. See p. 7, the bridging paragraph. – p. 8, last full paragraph. The reference discloses a soil conditioner comprising (a) at least one seaweed extract; (b) at least one superabsorbent polymer; and (c) at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient. See p. 22. The reference further teaches that the at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient can be methyl cellulose, which serves as a solid carrier and thickener. See p. 27, 2nd-3rd full paragraph. The reference teaches that the use of a superabsorbent polymer with the seaweed extract “during the flowering state of the crop delayed the senescence in the crop to which they were applied, which increases the level of photosynthesis occurring within the plant, which in turn lead to a greater yield from the crop to which they were applied. See p. 5, the first full paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to modify the teachings of Durpekova and incorporate to the soil conditioner starch-g-poly (2- propenamide-co-2-propenoic acid) potassium salt as motivated by Andrew. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, because the latter teaches that concurrently applying the superabsorbent polymer and a nutrient during flowering stage extends the functional life span of plant tissue and produces a greater yield from the crops to which they were applied. Since 1) both Durpekova and Andrew are directed to soil conditioning methods with water retention agents, and 2) Andrew particularly teaches that the starch graft polymer is compatible with cellulosic carriers including methyl cellulose, which is used in Durpekova, the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing and using an improved soil conditioning composition which maintains leaf greenness for a longer period and produces greater yield of crops.
Claims 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Derpevoka as applied to claims 11, 12, 15, 17 and 20 as above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN110511097 A, published November 19, 2019) (“Wang” hereunder).
Regarding claim 16, although Derpevoka teaches and suggests combining the hydrogel with additives such as nutrients or fertilizers, the reference fails to disclose a Bacillus licheniformis strain or potassium humate as required in the present claim.
Wang teaches agricultural application of a soil modifying agent comprising flax seed meal, an organic fertilizer, a water retention agent and humic acid; the composition is said to improve the water retention of soil nutrient preserving capability and stability and improve the survival rate and yield of crops. See translation, abstract. The reference teaches that humic acid as a free acid as well as its metal salt (humates) are found in coal and provide survival energy of microorganisms in the soil and improve soil the number of nitrogen-fixing bacteria and enrich the nitrogen nutrient in the soil. See translation, p. 8, 1st- 3rd full paragraph.
Given the teachings of Derpevoka to incorporate to the hydrogel nutrients or fertilizers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the present application to look to prior arts such as Wang for such additives. Since Wang teaches that humic acid or its metal salt humates are used as a soli modifying agent and improve the microorganism activity and nutrients in the soil, adding humic acid or its metal salts to improve the soil condition would have been obvious. Since Wang further suggests that humic acid or its salts can be formulated with water retention agents, which are equivalent to the superabsorbent polymers in the Derpevoka invention, the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a stable soil-conditioning composition and improving soil condition using the resulting product.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, although Derpevoka fails to specifically disclose the rate at which the agrohydrogel is applied to the soil, Wang suggests that such rate would vary depending on the frequency of application. For example, the reference teaches that a soil modification agent comprising a water retention agent can be used on ground of sandy soil by dosage of 30 kg per acre once a year before ploughing land. See translation, p. 9, first paragraph. As more frequent application would obviously require less dosage of the Derpevoka hydrogel, determining the optimal dosage to improve the soil condition would have been obviously well within one of ordinary skill in agricultural art. Wang teaches that the soil conditioner application can be made using rotary cultivator which can plough the soil about 30 cm deep; such method would result in both mixing (claim 18) and subsurface application (claim 19) of the Derpevoka/Andrew composition.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20020042346 A1 teaches a method of applying a moisture-providing composition to soil by injection beneath the surface of the soil; US 7607259 B2 teaches that SAPs such as starch-g-poly (2-propenamide-co-2-propenoic acid) copolymer is used in root dip composition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GINA JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)272-8605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 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, BETHANY BARHAM can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/GINA C JUSTICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617