DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 1-21 are pending and under current examination in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6, 12 and 14 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, regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 6, 12 and 14 are rejected recite a component at a specified "wt. %", however, the claims fail to specify what the % weight is relative to, leading to ambiguity in the scope of the claims. The claims do not clarify whether the % weight of the component is relative to the total weight of the composition or another undefined reference. Without an explicit reference, the % weight could be interpreted in multiple ways, rendering the claim scope unclear. Claims must be "definite" to inform the public of the invention's boundaries with reasonable certainty (Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014)) and provide clear meaning to a skilled artisan (MPEP 2173.02). To overcome this rejection, the Applicant may amend the claims to specify the reference basis for the % weight (e.g., the at least one active component is present in an amount of about 0.5 wt % to about 15.0 wt % by weight of the total composition, etc.) or provide a definition in Specification clarifying the basis for % weight where not explicitly stated.
Claim 6 is also rejected because it recites the limitation "(a) in (i)" in the claim, which depends from claim 5 and ultimately claim 1, however there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation to “(a) in (i)” in the claim, as there is no part (a) recited for (i) in claim 5 or claim 1 (part (a) is only disclosed for (ii) in claim 5). To overcome this rejection, the Applicant is may amend the claim language to ensure every term has a clear antecedent.
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 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blomberg et al. (WO-2011061399-A1; published 26 May 2011, hereinafter referred to as “Blomberg”).
Blomberg explicitly discloses oxidized lignin as a biosorbent material for purifying aqueous fluids and industrial effluents by removing charged components like heavy metals including Pb, Cr, and Cd (Abstract; page 4, line 29- page 5, line 7; and page 15, lines 10-15), thus teaching the limitations of instant claims 18 and 20. Claims 10-15 teach contacting a fluid with the sorbent to reduce contaminants, which reads directly on instant claim 21.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cannan et al. (US-20110251064-A1; published 13 October 2011, hereinafter referred to as “Cannan”) in view of Blomberg et al. (WO-2011061399-A1; published 26 May 2011, hereinafter referred to as “Blomberg”) and Zhou (US-20180007898-A1; published 11 January 2018).
Cannan teaches a flowable aqueous concentrate composition comprising a dinitroaniline herbicide pesticide (i.e., pendimethalin), at least one surfactant as a anionic surface-active substance, and an aqueous phase as the solvent (Abstract; pesticide ¶[0008] and ¶[0016]; surfactant ¶[0008] and ¶[0072]; aqueous phase solvent ¶[0002] and ¶[0008] as the polar protic solvent water).
Cannan discloses that the anionic surfactant can be the salts of oxidized lignins or oxidized alkali-lignin (¶[0074] and ¶[0076]). It lists this use alongside other common surfactants like lignosulfonates and naphthalene sulfonate condensates, establishing it as a known, conventional option for a person of ordinary skill in agricultural formulation chemistry. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the composition contains at least one anionic oligomeric or polymeric surface-active substance, including lignosulfonic acid (¶[0074]), wherein lignosulfonates are considered plant biostimulants, often used in agriculture to enhance plant growth, root development, and stress resistance. Thus, a prospective combination of a oxidized lignin, a naphthalene sulfonic acid formaldehyde condensate surfactant, an ethoxylated lignosulfonic acid biostimulant is taught by Cannan (¶[0074]).
Cannan teaches a particle size of formulation microcapsule particles will preferably not exceed 30 μm and preferably a D50 value ranging from 0.5 to 20 μm, in particular from 1 to 10 μm, and a D90 value of the particles in the formulation have diameters in the range from 0.5 to 20 μm (¶[0015]). Achieving a D90 <30µm and D50 <15µm is an obvious optimization of Cannan's teaching.
Cannan teaches the that the composition may further contain a hydrocarbon solvent (¶[0017]) and customary auxiliaries which are usually employed in aqueous formulations of pesticides, including inorganic thickening agents or fillers, such as clays (¶[0106] and ¶[0107]), anti-freezing agents or protectants (¶[0106] and ¶[0109]), preservatives (¶[0106] and ¶[0108]) and defoamers (¶[0106]), which are all well-known, routine additives in solid and liquid agrochemical formulations to improve storage stability and handling.
Cannan teaches the composition further containing at least one surface-active substance/surfactant wherein, the surfactants may be nonionic, anionic and/or cationic. Compositions of the invention preferably contain at least one anionic surfactant, optionally in combination with at least one nonionic surfactant selected from surfactants disclosed in “McCutcheon's Detergents and Emulsifiers Annual”, MC Publishing Corp., Ridgewood, N.J., USA 1981; H. Stache, “Tensid-Taschenbuch”, 2nd ed., C. Hanser, Munich, Vienna, 1981; M. and J. Ash, “Encyclopedia of Surfactants”, vol. I-III, Chemical Publishing Co., New York, N.Y., USA 1980-1981 (¶[0072]). The total amount of anionic surfactant is preferably in the range from 0.2 to 10% by weight, based on the microcapsules in the composition (¶[0073]), wherein the anionic surface-active substance may include one or more anionic oligomers or polymers, selected from oxidized alkali-lignin, lignosulfonates, ligninsulfates, and the salts thereof (¶[0076]; thus overlapping with the instant claimed oxidized lignin range of about 0.5-15 wt % in instant claims 4, 5i and 5ii, about 0.5-10 wt % in instant claim 12 and about 5-20 wt % in instant claim 14). The inclusion of the polar protic solvent water is exemplified in Suspension Reference Example R1 (¶[0141]), Example 1 and Comparative Examples C2 to C8 (¶[0146]), and Example 9 (¶[0152]).
Reference Example R3 exemplifies that is known in the art to formulate pesticides like pendimethalin in nutrient salt solutions such as water soluble MgSO4 to lower the solubility of pendimethalin in the aqueous continuous phase and improve storage stability (¶[0148]- [0150]; Table 2; the use of 15% w/w MgSO4 solution meets the limitation range for a nutrient included at ≤ about 20 wt % in instant claims 4, 5i, and 5ii). Magnesium sulfate is a well-known key plant nutrient source known in the art to provide essential magnesium and sulfur and act as a fertilizer to enhancing the uptake of nitrogen and phosphorus.
Cannan teaches a method of making the composition in the preparation of a pendimethalin stock suspension Reference Example R1, which includes combining the composition components and mixing until uniform (¶[0139]- [0144]; see also ¶[0114] and ¶[0115]), thus meeting the limitations of instant claim 7. In addition, Cannan teaches wherein the composition is applied as a method of treating plants and vegetation (¶[0116]), comprising applying the composition before, during and/or after the emergence of undesired plants (¶[0136]), applying together with the seed of a crop plant, by applying the seed of a crop plant pretreated with a diluted application form the compositions of the invention, applying to the leaves plants, or applying the composition in a manner such that the leaves of the crop plants are not sprayed, while the composition reaches the leaves of the plants growing below or the exposed soil surface (¶[0138]), thus meeting the limitation of instant claim 17.
Blomberg teaches obtaining oxidized lignin as a carboxyl- containing construction wherein, “the "carboxyl charged" lignin can be obtained by any method capable of achieving oxidation of the phenolic groups to corresponding carboxylic acids. Examples of agents that can be employed in oxidation are any oxygen containing agents such as C"2, Η202 and organic peroxides.” (page 8, lines 21-24), which would include using Fenton-type reactions, although not explicitly stated. Kraft lignin is also explicitly used (page 13, lines 10-15).
Blomberg teaches the lignin-containing material consisting essentially of lignin or derivatives thereof from a lignin fraction of a pulping process of a lignocellulosic raw-material (claims 2 and 5), wherein lignin and its modified derivatives from the pulp act as effective plant biostimulants. Blomberg also teaches that the oxidized lignin material can function as a formulation component in various applications. Specifically, page 13, lines 24-27, recites, "As a polyelectrolyte lignin-containing biosorbents are usable e.g. as a chelating agent, as a flocculant in water purifications, as thickener, emulsifier, conditioner, dispersion agent, as a filler in composites, as additive in soap, shampoo or other cosmetics...". This passage teaches that oxidized lignin can serve as an emulsifier (a primary function of surfactants), a dispersion agent, and a filler. Blomberg also teaches using oxidized lignin in combination with other materials. For instance, it can be used in combination with other sorption materials or other functional materials (page 16, lines 1-2).
Zhou teaches a biopesticide composition comprising a modified lignin chelated with one or more pesticides, wherein the modified lignin can be an oxidized lignin (claims 1 and 7). This directly teaches the claimed combination of at least one pesticide with at least one oxidized lignin and provides a clear suggestion that an oxidized lignin can be effectively combined with pesticides in a biopesticide composition. Zhou's composition, designed as a degradable biopesticide that releases elements like zinc, manganese, humic acid or any combination thereof (¶[0023]), which inherently function as plant micronutrients (i.e., zinc and manganese) or a biostimulant (i.e., humic acid). Therefore, Zhou teaches a composition containing an active pesticide combined with oxidized lignin, providing or degrading into nutritive and or biostimulant components.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date seeking to develop a low-cost, versatile and efficient agricultural adjuvant formulation that can improve the water solubility and dispersion of pesticides, provide plant nutrition, and function as a soil remediation agent capable of heavy metal adsorption to use the basic formulation architecture of Cannan using conventional lignosulfonates as dispersants and formulation aids in pesticide formulations containing surfactants and adjuvants and replace the lignosulfonate (having sulfur content, lower charge density, and harsher regeneration limitations, as taught by Blomberg), in the pesticide formulation with a superior oxidized lignin motivated by the teachings of Zhou to improve dispersancy, stability and add new nutrient delivery functions and the teachings of Blomberg for adsorbing heavy metals to create a single, unified composition that is not just a pesticide formulation or a fertilizer, but a multi-functional agricultural product that can also remediate soils.
The oxidized lignin could reasonably be expected to act as a dispersant, stabilizer, and heavy metal adsorption agent in a aqueous suspension from the teachings of Blomberg in the pesticide formulation of Cannan. Using an oxidized lignin as a surfactant/dispersant in a nutrient solution is an obvious application of the same formulation principle to a different active ingredient, a nutrient instead of a pesticide. Moreover, given that Zhou's composition degrades into nutritive components (humic acid, zinc, manganese), a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily conceive of using oxidized lignin as a carrier or delivery agent for other nutrients. Creating a mixture of a nutrient, oxidized lignin, and a solvent (e.g., water) with a surfactant is an obvious formulation for a nutrient delivery system.
The combined teachings of Cannan, Blomberg and Zhou provide a clear rationale for the combination of the instant claims as obvious to try for a person of skill in the art seeking to formulate pesticides or nutrients using available lignin-based materials. The instant claims recite a combination of known elements (i.e., oxidized lignin with its taught functionality as a formulation adjuvant, plus standard agrochemical ingredients) yielding a predictable result.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cannan and Kierkus (US-20110251064-A1; published 13 October 2011, hereinafter referred to as “Cannan”) in view of Blomberg and Kalliola (WO-2011061399-A1; published 26 May 2011, hereinafter referred to as “Blomberg”), Zhou (US-20180007898-A1; published 11 January 2018) and Sawant et al. (US-20210188726-A1; published 24 June 2021, hereinafter referred to as Sawant).
Cannan, Blomberg and Zhou teach the limitations of instant claims 1 and 5, as described above, from which instant claims 2, 4, and 6 depend, however does not teach specific limitations of instant claims 2, 4, and 6.
Cannan Example R1 teaches the use of a stock suspension concentration (w/w) of 57.9% pendimethalin (an active agent within the limitation of about 5-90 wt % of instant claims 5i and 5ii), 0.98% sodium lignin sulfonate (which can be oxidized per ¶[0074] and ¶[0076] and is within the range limitation of about 0.5-15 wt % of instant claims 4, 5i and 5ii and about 0.5-10 wt % of instant claim 12), 0.08% naphthalenesulfonic acid formaldehyde condensation product sodium salt (Morwet D-425 of BASF SE) suspending agent/surfactant (within the range limitation of about 0.01-5 wt % of instant claims 4 and 12 and about 0.01-7.5 wt % of instant claims 5i and 5ii) which also can function as a binder (within the range limitation of ≤10.0 wt % of instant claim 5i), 38.37% water solvent (within the range limitation of about 20-45 wt % of instant claim 4 and about 40-70 wt % of instant claim 12), 0.05% xanthan gum thickener which can function as a binder and stabilizer (within the binder range limitation of ≤10.0 wt % of instant claim 5i and the about 0.01-2 wt % of stabilizer or thickener range limitation instant claim 12), 0.08% 2-methylisothiazol-3-one and 1,2-benzisothiazol-3-one (Acticide MBS) biocide preservative (within the range limitation of ≤0.5 wt % of instant claim 5ii), 0.02% antifoam silicone-based emulsion (within the range limitation of about 0.01-2 wt % of instant claim 12 and anti-freezing agent of about 0.01-1.5 wt % of instant claim 5ii), and 2.52% wall material (selected from polyamides, a polycarbonates, aminoresins, polysulfonamides, polyureas and polyurethanes and mixtures thereof; claim 28) which can function as a coating binder (within the binder range limitation of ≤10.0 wt % of instant claim 5i) (¶[0140]- [0142]).
Cannan further teaches Example 1 and Comparative Examples C2-C8 in a preparation of a composition mixing 150 g of pendimethalin stock suspension R1 with 100 g of herbicide salts or water (¶[0145] and ¶[0146]) resulting in a total mass of each formulation of 250 g. Thus, the final concentration (w/w) of the active component of preparation C3 of dicamba diglycolammonium salt solution prepared from a 38.5% w/w stock would be 15.4%, preparation C6 of quinclorac dimethylammonium salt solution prepared from a 15.9% w/w stock would be 6.36% and preparation C8 of imazethapyr isopropylammonium salt solution prepared from a 19.4% w/w stock would be 7.76% (within the active component range limitation of about 0.5-15 wt % of instant claim 4). For C2 preparation, the water solvent concentration in the final formulation is 63% w/w (within the solvent range limitation of about 60-90 wt % of instant claim 5ii and 14). The final concentration (w/w) of the protectant wall material in all of the C2-C8 preparations is 1.512% (within the protectant range limitation of ≤2 wt % of instant claim 5ii).
Cannan exemplifies the use of 0.02% w/w defoamer in stock suspension R1 (¶[0141]) and 0.03% w/w in the final formulation Example 9 (¶[0152]), within the defoamer concentration range of about 0.05-2 wt % of instant claim 4 and about 0.01-2 wt % of instant claim 12.
Cannan teaches the use of clays, hydrated magnesium silicates, xanthan gum, guar gum, gum arabic and cellulose derivative fillers as thickening agents (¶[0107]) and anti-freezing agents such as ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, other glycols, glycerin or urea (¶[0109]) in compositions of the invention, however does not fully encompass all the range limitations of the instant claims.
Sawant teaches a liquid suspension agricultural composition and a process of preparing the composition for soil application comprising 0.1%-70% of at least one amino acid, their polymers, salts or derivatives or mixtures thereof, 1%-65% elemental sulphur, 0.01-5% of at least one structuring agent, and at least one micronutrient, their salts, derivatives, or mixtures thereof or plant growth promoters. According to an embodiment, carriers are used in the agricultural composition at 0.1% to 98% w/w of the composition including the filler clay (¶[0086]-[0088]), encompassing the about 5-90 wt % filler limitation of instant claim 5i.
Sawant also teaches the use of 0.1% to 95% w/w of the total composition anti-freezing agents ethylene glycol or propylene glycol as water miscible solvents (¶[0079] and ¶[0080]), encompassing the about 1-10 wt % anti-freezing agent limitation of instant claim 4, the about 1-15 wt % anti-freezing agent limitation of instant claim 12 and overlapping with the about 0.01-1.5 wt % anti-freezing agent limitation of instant claim 5ii, wherein Cannan teaches the lower end of the range.
Sawant teaches the use of at least one micronutrient at a concentration of 0.1%-70% by weight of the total composition (claim 31), wherein the micronutrient is selected from magnesium, calcium, zinc, iron, boron, manganese, copper, molybdenum, cobalt, selenium, their salts, derivatives or mixtures thereof (claim 33), encompassing the ≤ about 20 wt % nutrient limitation of instant claim 4, 5i, and 5ii, the about 25-50 wt % nutrient limitation of instant claim 12, and about 5-20 wt % nutrient limitation of instant claim 14.
Sawant also teaches the addition of 1% to 90% by weight of the total composition macronutrient fertilizers nitrogen, phosphate, ammonium nitrate, sodium nitrate, potassium chloride, potassium sulfate, potassium nitrate, monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, super phosphates, triple super phosphates, NPK fertilizers or salts or complexes or derivatives, or mixtures thereof (¶[0064] and ¶[0065]), 0.1% to 90% by weight of the composition pesticidal actives (¶[0066]), 0.1%-60% by weight of the total composition at least on surfactant (¶[0017]), and 1% to 90% by weight of the total composition agrochemical excipients including solvents, binders, antifoaming agents or defoamers, preservatives, ultraviolet absorbent/UV ray scattering agent protectants, stabilizers, structuring agents, antifreezing agent or freeze point depressants, and mixtures thereof (¶[0067]-[0070]). Thus, the inclusion and recited weight percentage range limitations for components of the composition in instant claims 4, 6, 12 and 14 are a matter of ordinary experimentation and routine optimization to achieve a stable, flowable formulation.
Cannan teaches a method of making the composition in the preparation of a pendimethalin stock suspension Reference Example R1, which includes combining the composition components and mixing until uniform (¶[0139]- [0144]; see also ¶[0114] and ¶[0115]), thus meeting the limitations of instant claim 15.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to add nutrients and use the effective ranges of active, surfactant, solvent, anti-freeze agents, defoamers, preservatives, thickeners, fillers and binders as taught by Sawant to the formulation template of Cannan employing the oxidized lignin, as taught by Blomberg and Zhou, as these were known workable compositional ranges in the art at the time of the invention for pesticidal agricultural formulations. Arriving at the specific addition of adjuvants and precise weight percentage ranges claimed for every component as in the instant claims would be a matter of routine experimentation to optimize the formulation for stable, high-performance agricultural compositions. One would be motivated to optimize the formulation to ensure the oxidized lignin-based composition has physical stability and superior performance to achieve a practical and commercially viable product.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cannan et al. (US-20110251064-A1; published 13 October 2011, hereinafter referred to as “Cannan”) in view of Blomberg et al. (WO-2011061399-A1; published 26 May 2011, hereinafter referred to as “Blomberg”), Zhou (US-20180007898-A1; published 11 January 2018), and Kent (WO-2022221209-A1; published 20 October 2022).
Cannan, Blomberg and Zhou teach the limitations of instant claim 1, as described above, from which instant claim 16 depends, however does not teach specific limitations of instant claim 16.
Kent teaches a method to convert water-insoluble lignin into water-soluble polyacid comprising the use of a chelator/Fe complex with a water-insoluble lignin followed by an incubation with the addition of an oxidizing agent to the reaction mixture, the adding additional water-insoluble lignin and oxidizing agent during the incubation and optionally repeating the addition one or more times until at least about 90% of the water-insoluble lignin in the reaction mixture is converted into a water-soluble polyacid by the opening of at least one aromatic ring in each water-insoluble lignin (Abstract and ¶[0008]). In some embodiments, the method comprises contacting a Fe salt (e.g., Fe(III) salt) and a chelator to form the chelator/Fe complex (¶[0009]). The method results in a lignin polymer where at least one aromatic ring is opened (¶[0025]), explicitly described as a chelator-mediated Fenton process (Title; ¶[0059]). Kent discloses wherein the lignin is oxidized lignin (¶[0047]) and as, “In one aspect of the present invention, the invention can produce lignin that is oxidized in a chelator-mediated Fenton (CMF) process that results in partial or complete de- aromatization. This modified lignin can be used for soilization of desert lands, wherein soil is created from sand or sand-like material in arid lands. This modified lignin can be used as a soil amendment by promoting the growth of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and by increasing the availability of nitrogen and phosphorus supplied by fertilizers. The end use of such products can be for agriculture.” (¶[0063]).
Kent teaches this process exemplified using the unsulfonated kraft lignin derived from pine, Indulin AT (¶[0061], ¶[0088] and ¶[00104]). Kent describes potential uses of the water-soluble lignin-derived polymer as a water-purification agent or soil amendment (¶[0060]), which implies heavy metal adsorption, as key function of water-purification agents are to remove contaminants, such as heavy metals. Kent also teaches a method for providing nutrients to a plant or plant substrate, the method comprising introducing a mixture of modified lignin comprising a lignin with at least one aromatic ring opened to form a polyacid to soil, sand, or substrate for plants, or mixture thereof, to form an enhanced substrate composition (claim 15).
One would be motivated to combine the process taught by Kent in the invention of Cannan, modified by the teachings of Blomberg and Zhou, to solve a critical manufacturing problem associated with the oxidized lignin taught by the prior art, having a practical limitation for commercial use using a batch process requiring separation/concentration steps, which is inefficient and costly at scale. Kent directly addresses this limitation by teaching a continuous or semi-continuous process for making oxidized lignin that eliminates the need for separation and concentration, achieving high conversion (>90%) in a single batch. This is a direct and obvious solution to a known problem in the prior art for one seeking to commercialize a product based on oxidized lignin, providing an improved manufacturing process to overcome practical deficiencies.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to one of skill in the art wishing to use a oxidized lignin in the invention of Cannan to create a multi-functional composition with superior properties to apply the improved, optimized method for making oxidized lignin using a sequential addition process that achieves over 90% conversion in a single batch, without separation steps taught by Kent to improve commercial scalability in making a commercial agricultural product and ensures the composition is made using the most efficient and practical method available.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blomberg et al. (WO-2011061399-A1; published 26 May 2011, hereinafter referred to as “Blomberg”) in view of Kent (WO-2022221209-A1; published 20 October 2022).
Blomberg teaches the limitations of instant claim 18, as described above, from which instant claim 19 depends, however does not teach specific limitations of instant claim 19.
Kent teaches a method to convert water-insoluble lignin into water-soluble polyacid comprising the use of a chelator/Fe complex with a water-insoluble lignin followed by an incubation with the addition of an oxidizing agent to the reaction mixture, the adding additional water-insoluble lignin and oxidizing agent during the incubation and optionally repeating the addition one or more times until at least about 90% of the water-insoluble lignin in the reaction mixture is converted into a water-soluble polyacid by the opening of at least one aromatic ring in each water-insoluble lignin (Abstract and ¶[0008]). In some embodiments, the method comprises contacting a Fe salt (e.g., Fe(III) salt) and a chelator to form the chelator/Fe complex (¶[0009]). The method results in a lignin polymer where at least one aromatic ring is opened (¶[0025]), explicitly described as a chelator-mediated Fenton process (Title; ¶[0059]). Kent discloses wherein the lignin is oxidized lignin (¶[0047]) and as, “In one aspect of the present invention, the invention can produce lignin that is oxidized in a chelator-mediated Fenton (CMF) process that results in partial or complete de- aromatization. This modified lignin can be used for soilization of desert lands, wherein soil is created from sand or sand-like material in arid lands. This modified lignin can be used as a soil amendment by promoting the growth of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and by increasing the availability of nitrogen and phosphorus supplied by fertilizers. The end use of such products can be for agriculture.” (¶[0063]).
Kent teaches this process exemplified using the unsulfonated kraft lignin derived from pine, Indulin AT (¶[0061], ¶[0088] and ¶[00104]). Kent describes potential uses of the water-soluble lignin-derived polymer as a water-purification agent or soil amendment (¶[0060]), which implies heavy metal adsorption, as key function of water-purification agents are to remove contaminants, such as heavy metals. Kent also teaches a method for providing nutrients to a plant or plant substrate, the method comprising introducing a mixture of modified lignin comprising a lignin with at least one aromatic ring opened to form a polyacid to soil, sand, or substrate for plants, or mixture thereof, to form an enhanced substrate composition (claim 15).
One would be motivated to combine the process taught by Kent in the invention of Blomberg for the adsorption of contaminants like heavy metals to solve a critical manufacturing problem associated with the oxidized lignin in having a practical limitation for commercial use using a batch process requiring separation/concentration steps, which is inefficient and costly at scale. Kent directly addresses this limitation by teaching a continuous or semi-continuous process for making oxidized lignin that eliminates the need for separation and concentration, achieving high conversion (>90%) in a single batch. This is a direct and obvious solution to a known problem in the prior art for one seeking to commercialize a product based on oxidized lignin, providing an improved manufacturing process to overcome practical deficiencies.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to one of skill in the art wishing to use a oxidized lignin in the invention of Blomberg to create a multi-functional composition with superior properties to apply the improved, optimized method for making oxidized lignin using a sequential addition process that achieves over 90% conversion in a single batch, without separation steps taught by Kent to improve commercial scalability in making a commercial agricultural product and ensures the composition is made using the most efficient and practical method available.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L. SCOTLAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-2979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. 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.
/RL Scotland/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615