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€, 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1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17€ has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/22/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 4-22 are pending. Claims 1, 11 and 22 are independent. Claims 21 and 22 are new.
Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.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, 3-9, 11, 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rose et al. (US 2018/0245023 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 2, 10, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Rose et al. (US 2018/0245023 A1) in view of Ravier et al. (US20190098896A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-8 and 11,13-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0168405A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 2, 12, 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0168405A1) in view of Ravier et al. (US20190098896A1) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield et al. (US 2013/0085067 A1) in view of Giessler-Blank et al. (US2012/0220464 A1) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’ amendments.
The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield et al. (US 2013/0085067 A1) and Giessler-Blank et al. (US2012/0220464 A1) in view of Schwarz et al. (US 8,598,106 B2) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s urge that the references made of record do not teach the claim 1 proportions. In response, the claim amendments are addressed below.
New Grounds of 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 1 and 21 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.
Claims 1 and 21 recite limitation to “…50-80 by weight of monopropylene glycol…” which limitation is unclear and indefinite. For purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted the claims to recite 50-80%. Appropriate correction is required.
Furthermore, claim 21 recites limitation to "the combination of claim 11" wherein the combination consists of only 3 components. This is unclear and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for 3 component limitation dependent on independent claim 11 consisting of 4 components. For purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted claim 21 as dependent on claim 11 which requires the fatty acid. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1,4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0168405A1) in view of Ravier et al. (US20190098896A1).
With respect to claim 1, Suzuki teaches a combination of 38% polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate, 1.0% mannosylerythritol lipid (MEL) and 6.0% propylene glycol in a single composition, see Example 6. Suzuki further teaches the MEL acts as an activator/active ingredient and can be used in cosmetic compositions, see Abstract.
Suzuki et al. do not teach claim 1 limitation to 50-80% by weight of monopropylene glycol. Suzuki et al. Example 6 teaches 6.0% propylene glycol.
In the analogous art of MEL compositions, Ravier et al. teach the beneficial utility of 50-80% monopropylene glycol provides excellent wetting power of a MEL solution when there is greater than 75% monopropylene glycol. See [0043] and [0068]. Ravier et al. teach ncreasing the concentration of monopropylene glycol greater than 75%. See page 3, [0068] in a similar composition comprising 0.1-25% MELs. [0065-0067].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Suzuki et al. with the claimed 50-80% monopropylene glycol as required by claim 1 because Ravier et al. teach advantageously increasing the concentration of monopropylene glycol greater than 75% provides excellent wetting power of a MEL solution in a similar composition comprising 0.1-25% MELs. [0065]. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Suzuki et al. with that of Ravier et al. because both are in the analogous art of MEL compositions.
Claim 4 limitation to a process for preparing a combination comprising a step of mixing polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate, and at least one mannosylerythritol lipid is taught by example 6 and [0142].
Claim 5 limitation to a solution further including water is suggested by Suzuki et al. teaching the formulation can be in other forms such as a liquid. See [0145]. Example 6 is a cream teaching purified water with 1% MEL and 6% propylene glycol.
Claim 6 limitation to wherein the quantity of the combination is at least 0.1% by weight relative to the weight of the solution is encompassed by Suzuki et al. example 6 teaching a cream with 1% MEL and 6% propylene glycol and 38% sorbitan monostearate and upto 100% purified water along with Suzuki et al. teaching the formulation can be in other forms such as a liquid. See [0145].
Clam 7 limitation to further comprising a biostimulant active ingredient is met by the biosurfactant Suzuki et al. [0135].
Claim 8 limitation to wherein the quantity of the combination is at least 0.1% by weight relative to the weight of the solution is encompassed by Suzuki et al. example 6 teaching a cream with 1% MEL and 6% propylene glycol and 38% sorbitan monostearate and upto 100% purified water along with Suzuki et al. teaching the formulation can be in other forms such as a liquid. See [0145 and 0142] teaching the step of mixing a biosurfactant with cosmetics, drugs, or foods.
With respect to claims 9-10 limitations to soil and irrigation, Ravier et al. teach MEL are environmentally friendsly wetting agents used in both cosmetics and agriculture/irrigation of crops see [0002-0003]. Ravier et al. teach MEL are used in cosmetic compositions as taught by Suzuki as well as in the treatment of crops in agricultural fields, as claimed. One of ordinary skill is motivated to modify the MEL composition of Suzuki et al. for use in the treatment of soil, crops and agricultural fields, with the claimed proportions as taught by Ravier et al. because Ravier et al. teach MEL is used in both cosmetics and agriculture/irrigation of crops.
Claims 1, 4-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schofield et al. (US 2013/0085067 A1) and Giessler-Blank et al. (US2012/0220464 A1) further in view of Schwarz et al. (US 8,598,106 B2).
Shofield et al. teach a formulation of sophorolipid derivatives with antimicrobial activity and inhibit plant pathogens. See pg. 12 example 10 and clams 15-16. Modified sophorolids include MEL (see claim 16). The example 10 and claim 16 suggests a solution consisting of MEL dissolved in a combination with 5% w/v propylene glycol and 5% w/v tween20 (commonly known IUPAC name polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate).
Shofield do not teach the proportions of independent claim 1.
In the analogous art of sophorolipids, Giessler-Blank et al. teach treating crops with 30% sophorolipids encompassing the claimed MEL (see 0013 on page 2, right col.) and table 1 in a mixture with 30% water and 20% propylene glycol. See pg 6, table 1, [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shofield et al. with the claim 1 limitation to at least 1% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight as required by the independent claims and taught by Giessler-Blank et al. teaching the equivalence of sophorolipids and mannoserythritol lipids MELs [0013] synthesized by bacteria and yeast under gentle conditions from renewable raw materials [0014] in amounts greater than 80% by weight [0043] provides for their use in crop protection and functions as an emulsifier MEL solution wetting agent [0054-0056] and pages 5-6 and [0013]. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Shofield et al. with that of Giessler-Blank et al. because both are in the analogous art of MEL compositions for the treatment of crops in agricultural fields.
Schofield et al. and Giessler-Blank do not teach the claim 1 limitation to at least 22-40% by weight of the TWEEN 20 nonionic surfactant polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate required in claim 1. Examiner notes that Shofield formulation in example 10 has 5% TWEEN 20. See page 12 example 10 right col.
In the analogous art of antibacterial, antifungal, antimicrobial agents, Schwarz et al. teach in col.7,ln.1-16 and col.4,ln.65-col5,ln.5, provide guidance to one of ordinary skill to modify the amount of nonionic surfactant to 99% to kill microbes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shofield et al. with 20-40 wt% TWEEN 20 nonionic surfactant polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight as required by claims 1,13, and 21, because Schwarz et al. teach optimizing the amount of nonionic surfactant up to 99% in a formulation with at least one mannosylerythritol lipid to kill microbes in anti-microbial and/or microbiocidal composition. PHOSITA is motivated to increase the 5% amount of the nonionic surfactant polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate used for crop protection in Shofield to the claimed amount of 20% as taught by Schwarz et al. to achieve a higher microbial killing efficacy.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Schofield et al. with that of Giessler-Blank et al. and Schwarz et al. since all are in the analogous art of mannosylerythritol lipid based formulations in general.
With respect to the independent claim 11 Shofield et al. claims 15 and 16 and example 10 teach a combination at least one mannosylerythritol lipid (claim 16) dissolved in 5% w/v propylene glycol and 5% w/v tween20 on page 12, example 10. The fatty acid or fatty acid ester required in claim 11 is taught in [0011] teaching modification of sophorolipids is performed so that the chain length of the n-alkyl group (methyl, ethyl, propyl, butyl, and hexyl) esterified to the sophorolipid fatty acid was varied. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shofield et al. with the fatty acid and or fatty acid ester as that is specifically contemplated [0011].
Shofield et al. do not exemplify the claim 11 combination consisting of at least 1% by weight MEL and fatty acid ester with propylene glycol and (polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate) wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight as required by the independent claim 11.
Giessler-Blank et al. teach treating crops with 30% sophorolipids encompassing the claimed MEL (see 0013 on page 2, right col.) and table 1 in a mixture with 30% water and 20% propylene glycol. See pg 6, table 1, [0076].
Schwarz et al. teach in col.7,ln.1-16 and col.4,ln.65-col5,ln.5, provide guidance to one of ordinary skill to modify the amount of nonionic surfactant to 99% to kill microbes.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shofield et al. with at least 1% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid because Giessler-Blank et al. teach the equivalence of sophorolipids and mannoserythritol lipids MELs [0013] in amounts greater than 80% by weight [0043] provides for their use in crop protection and functions as an emulsifier MEL solution wetting agent [0054-0056] and pages 5-6 and [0013]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shofield et al. wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight as required by the independent claim 11 because Schwarz et al. teach optimizing the amount of nonionic surfactant upto 99% in a formulation with at least one mannosylerythritol lipid to kill microbes in anti-microbial and/or microbiocidal composition. PHOSITA is motivated to increase the 5% amount of the nonionic surfactant polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate used for crop protection in Shofield to the claimed amount of 20% as taught by Schwarz et al. to achieve a higher microbial killing efficacy.
Giessler-Blank et al. guide one of ordinary skill to claims 12 and 21 limitations to wherein the quantity of monopropylene glycol is at least 50% by weight by teaching in [0013] and [0043] that adjuvants (like the exemplified sophorolipid and the claimed mannoserythritol lipids) may comprise to an extent of 100% by weight of the sophorolipid or their derivatives. [0043].
Shofield et al. teach claims 4 and 14 process of preparing a combination comprising a step of mixing polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate (see claim 15) with at least one mannosylerythritol lipid, (see claim 16) and see the example 10 on page 12.
Giessler-Blank et al. guide one of ordinary skill to the water of claims 5-6, 8, 15-16 and 18 by teaching a mixture of sophorolipids or mannoserythritol lipids with 30% water and 20% propylene glycol provides crop protection (see table 1 on page 6 and [0013] on page 2). And Shofield et al. teach a similar mixture showed promising antimicrobial activity against plant fungal and bacterial pathogens. See page 12, example 10 and claim 16.
The biosurfactant and biopesticide of Shofield et al. claims 15 and 25 encompass the biostimulant, pesticidal active ingredient of claims 7-8 and 17-18.
Shofield et al. teach claims 9-10 and 19-20 by teaching the introduction of their sophorolipid and mannoserythritol lipid (claim 16) formulation (example 10) in soil (see prior art claim 22) to inhibit plant pathogens.
With respect to the independent claim 22 Shofield et al. claims 15 and 16 and example 10 teach a combination at least one mannosylerythritol lipid (claim 16) dissolved in 5% w/v propylene glycol and 5% w/v tween20 on page 12, example 10.
Shofield et al. do not teach at least 1% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight as required by the independent claim 22.
Giessler-Blank et al. teach treating crops with 30% sophorolipids encompassing the claimed MEL (see 0013 on page 2, right col.) and table 1 in a mixture with 30% water and 20% propylene glycol. See pg 6, table 1, [0076].
Schwarz et al. teach in col.7,ln.1-16 and col.4,ln.65-col5,ln.5, provide guidance to one of ordinary skill to modify the amount of nonionic surfactant to 99% to kill microbes.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Shofield et al. with at least 1% by weight of at least one mannosylerythritol lipid wherein the total quantity of polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate and mannosylerythritol lipid(s) is at least 25% by weight as required by the independent claim 22 because Giessler-Blank et al. teach the equivalence of sophorolipids and mannoserythritol lipids MELs [0013] in amounts greater than 80% by weight [0043] provides for their use in crop protection and functions as an emulsifier MEL solution wetting agent [0054-0056] and pages 5-6 and [0013]. And Schwarz et al. teach optimizing the amount of nonionic surfactant upto 99% in a formulation with at least one mannosylerythritol lipid to kill microbes in anti-microbial and/or microbiocidal composition. PHOSITA is motivated to increase the 5% amount of the nonionic surfactant polyethoxylated (20) sorbitan monolaurate used for crop protection in Shofield to the claimed amount of 20% as taught by Schwarz et al. to achieve a higher microbial killing efficacy.
Conclusion
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
