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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 6 it is unclear if the Applicant is improperly attempting to no longer require the claim limitation from claim 1 of applying the composition to standing water and instead apply the composition to soil before contact with standing water which would seemingly prevent future contact with standing water.
Claim 8 has limitations drawn to the composition in use with soil however the independent claim does not include the presence of soil therefore the condition of the claimed soil properties is indefinite and undefined.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the soil" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 9-13 are drawn to a soil treatment however the independent claim does not include the presence of soil.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-21, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Farmer et al. (WO 2021/030385) (references included herein correspond to related publication US 2022/0259114 for clarity of citations).
In re. claims 1, 15, 16, with reference to [0132], [0049], [0053], and [0142], Farmer et al. disclose a method of preventing and/or mitigating undesirable standing water [0132], the method comprising applying a composition comprising a surface active molecule to standing water ([0132] and [0137]), wherein said surface active molecule is a biosurfactant [0021], the method further utilized to control a pest that breeds in the standing water [0142], wherein the pest is a mosquito [0221].
In re. claims 2-4, with reference to [0021], Farmer et al. disclose the biosurfactant is a sophorolipid. The examiner considers this to meet the claimed requirement of a micelle size less than 25nm as being an accepted, inherent property.
In re. claim 5, with reference to [0018], Farmer et al. disclose the composition is mixed with water and applied via an irrigation system.
In re. claim 6 as best understood, with reference to [0137], Farmer et al. disclose the composition is applied to soil before the soil is contacted with standing water.
In re. claim 7, with reference to [0022], Farmer et al. disclose the composition is applied at a concentration of 10 to 100 ppm with respect to the amount of water.
In re. claim 8 as best understood, with reference to [0131], Farmer et al. disclose the composition improves drainage of water into soil, reduces compaction of the soil by penetrating pores within the soil, increases porosity of the soil, and lowers the surface and interfacial tension of the water and soil.
In re. claim 9 as best understood, with reference to [0141], Farmer et al. disclose applying a microbial soil treatment composition to the soil, wherein the microbial soil treatment composition comprises one or more beneficial microorganisms capable of colonizing soil and/or plant roots.
In re. claim 10 as best understood, with reference to [0066], Farmer et al. disclose the one or more beneficial microorganisms are selected from Trichoderma harzianum, Trichoderma viride, Trichoderma koningii, Trichoderma guizhouse, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus megaterium, Bacillus polymyxa, Bacillus lichenformis, Brevibacillus laterosporus, Meyerozyma guilliermondii, Meyerozyma caribbica, Pichia occidentalis, Pichia kudriavzevii, Wickerhamomyces anomalus, and Debaryomyces hansenii.
In re. claim 11 as best understood, with reference to [0071], Farmer et al. disclose the beneficial microorganism is Bacillus amyloliquefaciens NRRLB-67928.
In re. claim 14, with reference to [0112], Farmer et al. disclose the standing water is flooded soil.
In re. claim 17, with reference to [0132], [0049], [0053], and [0142], Farmer et al. disclose a method of controlling a pest which comprises applying a composition comprising a biosurfactant to soil that will be contacted with water, wherein the pest is a type that breeds in the soil that will be contacted with water.
In re. claim 18, the claimed limitations to standing water have antecedent basis to an optional method step. Independent claim 17 was treated as applying the biosurfactant to soil, therefore the method step of applying a biosurfactant to standing water was not taken.
In re. claim 19, with reference to [0112], Farmer et al. disclose the standing water is flooded soil. However, it is noted that the claimed limitations to standing water have antecedent basis to an optional method step. Independent claim 17 was treated as applying the biosurfactant to soil, therefore the method step of applying a biosurfactant to standing water was not taken.
In re. claim 20, with reference to [0132], [0049], [0053], and [0142], Farmer et al. disclose the pest is a mosquito.
In re. claim 21, with reference to [0132], [0049], [0053], and [0142], Farmer et al. disclose the composition lowers the surface tension of the water, which controls the mosquito by killing adults that visit the water surface to lay eggs, or wherein the composition lowers the surface tension of the water, which prevents mosquito larva and pupa from developing into airborne adults. However, it is noted that the claimed limitations to water have antecedent basis to an optional method step. Independent claim 17 was treated as applying the biosurfactant to soil, therefore the method step of applying a biosurfactant to water was not taken and the presence of water has not been positively claimed.
In re. claims 25-26, with reference to [0021], Farmer et al. disclose the biosurfactant is a sophorolipid. (Examiner notes that the reference to “surface active molecule” in claim 25 lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of examination the examiner has considered this to be merely an inherent property of the biosurfactant.)
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.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al. (WO 2021/030385) (references included herein correspond to related publication US 2022/0259114 for clarity of citations).
In re. claims 12-13 as best understood, with reference to [0065-0066], Farmer et al. disclose a beneficial microorganism. Not specifically disclosed is Wickerhamomyces anomalus NRRL Y-68030 and B. subtilis B4 NRRL B-68031. However the claimed microorganisms and their characteristics were known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have substituted one known microorganism for another based on the intended use and desired purpose, and the substitutions would have yielded predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Farmer fails to disclose treatment of standing water is not persuasive. Examiner contends that there are several instances within the prior art disclosure that either clearly disclose or make reference using terms one with ordinary skill in the art would understand to include “standing water”. It is noted that examiner considers any surface water to meet the limitation of standing water. It is also noted that the Applicant considers flooded soil to meet the limitation of standing water in claims 14 and 19. Farmer discloses in [0112] the method can be utilized in areas damaged by flooding. [0113] method can be utilized in wetlands. [0131-0132] biosurfactants decrease tendency of water to pool and once a biosurfactant is applied a breathable soil is established. [0137] the method is used to improve dispersal or drainage of water in waterlogged soil. [0142] the method is used to control above ground pests. [0197] method is utilized in conditions where soil hydrophobicity caused water to collect on the soil surface and treatment allows penetration of the water into the soil and even more dispersion of water in the soil. The examiner contends that for at least these reasons, Farmer provides disclosure for the application of a biosurfactant to standing water.
Conclusion
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 MONICA L PERRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights