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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/08/2024 and 01/03/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
In regard to claim 17, the limitation “wherein boric acid or boron monoethanolamine are present in an amount from 10-50 weight%” is interpreted in view of the Specification as originally filed and the priority document. The Specification discloses both boric acid and boron monoethanolamine but only boric acid is described in the range of 10-50 weight% [pg. 6, 4th para.]. Thus, claim 17 is interpreted as wherein boric acid is present in an amount from 10 to 50 weight% OR wherein boron monoethanolamine is present (thereby maintaining the either/or disjunctive nature of claim 6). If boron monoethanolamine is considered present within this ratio, a new matter rejection and/or 35 USC § 112 4th paragraph rejection may apply.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “phosphorous” is misspelled as “phosphorous”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward (WO-2019106338 A1) in view of Arioli et al. (US Patent No. 2017/0121234 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Ward discloses an aqueous solution (e.g. the fertilizer is an aqueous fertilizer solution) [pg. 5, line 18] comprising phosphorus (e.g. salts of phosphoric acid) [pg. 5, line 19], boron [pg. 6, lines 24-25], wherein Ward exemplifies a liquid fertilizer comprising 10% boron [pgs. 9-10; Example 3] and an alkanolamine [pg. 5, line 19].
Ward does not explicitly disclose wherein the aqueous solution comprises from 2.0 to 20 weight% of a seaweed extract.
Arioli et al. is directed to the preparation of liquid seaweed extract fertilizer and biostimulants [para. 0032] and a liquid composition comprising a seaweed extract and borate compound [0037]. The aqueous solution of the seaweed extract comprises preferably up to 90% w/w/ water such as up to 85% w/w/ water (interpreted as a 10-15% seaweed extract aqueous solution) [0049]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 2.0 to 20 weight% of a seaweed extract, such as the seaweed extract described by Arioli et al. in the aqueous fertilizer composition disclosed by Ward. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because seaweed has been used as a fertilizer and soil conditioner for many years [Arioli; 0002] and seaweed extracts have been shown to increase crop yields, resistance of plants to frost, uptake of inorganic soil nutrients, resistance to environmental stress conditions, resistance to some pests such as red spider mite and aphids and to reduce fruit losses during storage, improve the root system of plants and increase their reproductive capacity, increasing the number of flowers per plant as well as the number of flowers per flowering season [0003]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the known biostimulant (seaweed extract) described by Arioli with the known aqueous fertilizer solution described by Ward without undue experimentation.
In regard to claims 2 and 14, Ward in view of Arioli disclose the aqueous solution of claim 1, wherein the aqueous solution comprises from 1.0 to 10 weight% or 2.0 to 10 weight % (claim 14) of phosphorus expressed as P205 (e.g. the P2O5 content of said aqueous fertilizer solution ranges from 5 to 40 weight% (w/w), relative to the total weight of the aqueous composition which overlaps the claimed range) [Ward; pg. 5, lines 20-21]. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [see MPEP 2144.05].
In regard to claims 3-4 and 15, Ward in view of Arioli disclose the aqueous solution of claim 1, wherein the alkanolamine is mono-ethanolamine [Ward pg. 5, lines 3-5], wherein Ward exemplifies an aqueous liquid fertilizer comprising 12.6% mono-ethanolamine (e.g. 170.25 g ethanolamine / 1349.00 g total) [pgs. 9-10; Example 3] which lies within the claimed ranges
In regard to claims 5 and 16, Ward in view of Arioli disclose the aqueous solution of claim 1, wherein Ward exemplifies a liquid fertilizer comprising 10% boron [pgs. 9-10; Example 3] which lies within the claimed ranges.
In regard to claims 6 and 17, Ward in view of Arioli disclose the aqueous solution of claim 1, wherein the aqueous solution comprises boron monoethanolamine [Ward; pg. 6, line 19], wherein boron monoethanolamine is present in an amount from 10 to 50 weight% (e.g. Ward exemplifies a liquid fertilizer comprising 902.06 g boron ethanolamine / 1349.00 g total, which when normalized to ‘boric acid’ is about 39%) [pgs. 9-10; Example 3]
In regard to claim 7, Ward in view of Arioli disclose the aqueous solution of claim 1, wherein the seaweed extract is obtained through extraction of seaweed species including Ascophyllum, Durvillaea, Ecklonia, Laminaria, Lessonia, Macrocystis, Fucus and Sagassum. Specific examples of brown seaweeds include Bull Kelp (Durvillae potatorum), Durvillae species D. antarctica and Knotted Kelp (Ascophyllum nosodum) [Arioli; para. 0032] which are commercially available and may be obtained commercially or prepared by extraction of suitable seaweeds.
In regard to claim 8, Ward in view of Arioli disclose the aqueous solution of claim 1, wherein the aqueous solution of the seaweed extract comprises preferably up to 90% w/w/ water such as up to 85% w/w/ water (interpreted as a 10-15% seaweed extract aqueous solution) [Arioli; para. 0049].
In regard to claims 9 and 18, Ward in view of Arioli disclose the aqueous solution of claim 1, wherein the aqueous solution comprises a phosphate salt, wherein the phosphate salt is an alkanolamine phosphate salt (e.g. alkanolamine salts of phosphoric acid) [Ward; pg. 4, line 26].
In regard to claims 10 and 19, Ward in view of Arioli disclose the aqueous solution of claim 1, wherein the aqueous solution has a pH of from 5.0 to 10.0 or wherein the pH is 7.0 to 9.0 (claim 19), wherein Ward exemplifies an aqueous fertilizer having a pH of 8.2 [pgs. 9-10; Example 3] which lies within the claimed ranges
In regard to claim 11, Ward in view of Arioli disclose the aqueous solution of claim 1, wherein the aqueous solution comprises from 5.0 to 10.0 weight% of phosphorus expressed as P205 (e.g. the P2O5 content of said aqueous fertilizer solution ranges from 5 to 40 weight% (w/w), relative to the total weight of the aqueous composition which overlaps the claimed range) [Ward; pg. 5, lines 20-21], from 5.0 to 10 weight% of boron (Ward exemplifies a liquid fertilizer comprising 10% boron) [pgs. 9-10; Example 3], and from 5.0 to 15 weight% of seaweed extract (Arioli discloses seaweed extract comprises preferably up to 90% w/w/ water such as up to 85% w/w/ water, interpreted as a 10-15% seaweed extract aqueous solution) [0049].
In regard to claim 12, Ward in view of Arioli disclose a method for producing an aqueous solution according to claim 1 comprising the steps of:
a) providing water or an aqueous solution (e.g. 90 weight% aqueous solution) [pg. 9, lines 26-27; pg. 10, lines 6-10];
b) adding a source of phosphorus to the water or the aqueous solution (e.g. phosphoric acid is added) [pg. 10, lines 8-10 ;
c) adding a source of boron to the water or the aqueous solution (e.g. water and boron ethanolamine were placed in a glass vessel) [pg. 10, lines 6-8].
Arioli et al. provide motivation for d) adding a seaweed extract to the water or the aqueous solution provided in step a) as described in the rejection of claim 1 above.
In regard to claim 13, Ward discloses a process comprising applying a fertilizer to a foliar surface [e.g. the aqueous fertilizer solution is applied by foliar application) [pg. 5, lines 24-26], the fertilizer comprising an aqueous solution (e.g. the fertilizer is an aqueous fertilizer solution) [pg. 5, line 18] comprising phosphorus (e.g. salts of phosphoric acid) [pg. 5, line 19], boron [pg. 6, lines 24-25], wherein Ward exemplifies a liquid fertilizer comprising 10% boron [pgs. 9-10; Example 3] and an alkanolamine [pg. 5, line 19].
Ward does not explicitly disclose wherein the aqueous solution comprises from 2.0 to 20 weight% of a seaweed extract.
Arioli et al. is directed to the preparation of liquid seaweed extract fertilizer and biostimulants [para. 0032] and a liquid composition comprising a seaweed extract and borate compound [0037]. The aqueous solution of the seaweed extract comprises preferably up to 90% w/w/ water such as up to 85% w/w/ water (interpreted as a 10-15% seaweed extract aqueous solution) [0049]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include 2.0 to 20 weight% of a seaweed extract, such as the seaweed extract described by Arioli et al. in the aqueous fertilizer composition disclosed by Ward. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because seaweed has been used as a fertilizer and soil conditioner for many years [Arioli; 0002] and seaweed extracts have been shown to increase crop yields, resistance of plants to frost, uptake of inorganic soil nutrients, resistance to environmental stress conditions, resistance to some pests such as red spider mite and aphids and to reduce fruit losses during storage, improve the root system of plants and increase their reproductive capacity, increasing the number of flowers per plant as well as the number of flowers per flowering season [0003]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the known biostimulant (seaweed extract) described by Arioli with the known aqueous fertilizer solution described by Ward without undue experimentation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seh et al. (US 20230212090 A1) describes foliar fertilizer adjuvants including biostimulants such as seaweed [0036].
Sun (CN 107935747A – cite no 1 in 03/08/2024 IDS) discloses a foliar fertilizer comprising boric acid, potassium dihydrogen phosphate and seaweed [example 1, paragraph 0025]
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 July 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights