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 .
The previous claim rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Durpekova (CZ 35728 U1) as indicated in the Office action dated January 29, 2026 has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment made to claim 11 which requires the superabsorbent polymer and the cellulosic fiber in the composition not covalently bonded.
All previous claim rejections made under 35 U.S.C 103 have been withdrawn for the same reason.
New rejections have been made to address the amended claims.
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 11-13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya et al. (US 5112902 A, published on May 12, 1992)(“Moriya” hereunder) in view of Dalebroux (US 5672434 A, published September 30, 1997) (“Dalebroux” hereunder) or Dai et al. (CN 111438180 A, published on July 24, 2020) (“Dai” hereunder).
Moriya teaches granule particles comprising dry-mixed superabsorbent polymer (“SAP”) 10-60 wt% and a water-soluble polymeric binder 0.01-5 wt%. See reference claim 1.
Although Moriya mentions cellulose derives as a suitable binder, the reference fails to specifically disclose methyl cellulose and hydroxyethyl cellulose. See col. 4, lines 4-10. The reference discloses using polyvinyl alcohol.
Dalebroux teaches that hydroxyethylcellulose, methylcellulose and polyvinyl alcohol are well known binders in agricultural compositions including mulching composites. See col. 7 lines 3-7.
Dai discloses soil conditioning granules comprising mineral powder 75-90 wt % and binder 1-5 parts, soil treatment agent 1-5 parts, surfactants and bacterial liquids. See translation, abstract. The reference discloses hydroxyethyl cellulose as a suitable binding agent. See translation, p. 2, 7th sentence from the bottom.
Combining or substituting art-recognized equivalence useful for the same purposes would have been prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.06, II. Since Dalebroux establishes that hydroxyethylcellulose, methylcellulose and polyvinyl alcohol are functional equivalents, combining the polyvinyl alcohol Moriya with methylcellulose and/or hydroxyethylcellulose or substituting the polyvinyl alcohol with at least one of these cellulose derivatives to make a similar soil conditioning granules would have been prima facie obvious.
Alternatively, given the teachings of Moriya to use cellulose derivatives as a binder, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application would have been obviously be motivated to look to prior arts such as Dai or Dalebroux for suitable binding polymers. Since Dai teaches hydroxyethylcellulose is used as a binding agent to make soil conditioning granules, the skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully producing a similarly stable granules useful to condition and retain moisture in the soil.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Moriya mentions crosslinked starch-acrylic acid salt graft copolymer as a suitable high water-absorbent resin, which viewed equivalent to the SAP of the present claim. See col. 2, line 61-62.
Regarding claims 15, although Moriya fails to teach the additives of the present claim, Dai teaches that soil condition granules can comprise soil treatment agents including iron, soil conditioning agent, microorganisms, etc. See Dai, translation, p. 2, 6th sentence from the bottom. Incorporating such additives to make an enhanced soil conditioning composition would have been prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 17, Although Moriya is silent as to the specific method of using the soil conditioning composition, Dai teaches a method of mixing polluted soil with its soil conditioning composition. Applying such method to use the soil conditioning composition of the combined references would have been prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 20, Moriya teaches the SAP and the water-soluble polymeric binder is use in the amount of 10-60 wt % and 0.01-5 wt %, respectively, which overlaps with the presently claimed SAP: cellulosic fiber ratio.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya, Dalebroux and Dai as applied to claims 11-13, 15, 17 and 20 as above, and further in view of Savich (US 7607259 B2, published on October 27, 2009).
Although Moriya fails to specifically mention the SAP of the present claim 14, Savich teaches that SAPs such as starch-g-poly (2-propenamide-co-2-propenoic acid) copolymer is used in root dip composition.
As Moriya and Savich establish that starch grafted-2-propenoic acid crosslinked polymer and starch-g-poly (2-propenamide-co-2-propenoic acid) copolymer the crosslinked are used as SAP in soil conditioning agent, combining the two or substituting one for the other to make a similar composition useful for the same purpose would have been prima facie obvious.
Claims 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moriya, Dai and Dalebroux as applied to claims 11-13, 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 Dai teaches and suggests combining the soil conditioning composition with additives such as nutrients or microorganism, 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 Dai to incorporate to the soil conditioner nutrients and microorganisms, 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 Moriya composition, 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 Moriya fails to specifically disclose the rate at which the soil conditioner 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 soil conditioner, 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 applied 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 soil conditioner composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 11-20 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights