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(e), 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/11/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 09/22/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 16, 19, 23, 25, 30, 33, 37 and 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (WO 2014/101269 A1) in view of Wickstrom et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0280613 A1) and Harrell (Louisiana rice production handbook, 2009).
In regard to claims 16, 23, 30 and 37, Xie et al. disclose a method of increasing plant crop yield (e.g. promote rice germinating, rooting and growth) [0003] and increasing protein levels in the plant product (e.g. providing protein-containing components to seedling) [0004] comprising the following steps:
applying a plant growth enhancer (e.g. stock special nutrient) comprising 1.2% by weight of a lipid (e.g. stearic acid) [pg. 6, last 3 lines] and 40%, 43% or 53% by weight of a source of nitrogen (e.g. urea, ammonium chloride) [Example 4; Example 5; Example 6],
wherein the plant is a seed or seedling (e.g. a rice seed at planting) [pg. 4, section 6],
PNG
media_image1.png
449
1147
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the weight percent based on the total weight of the fertilizer/plant growth enhancer raw materials, wherein composition provides increased plant crop yield (e.g. promote rice germinating and growth), increased plant root growth (e.g. promote rooting and growth), improved efficiency of nitrogen uptake by the plant, improved nitrogen levels in the plant and increased plant uptake of carbon (e.g. maximize the effectiveness of fertilizer which improves quality, saves resources, and protects the environment) [pg. 2, 2nd to last paragraph].
Xie does not explicitly disclose wherein the fertilizer comprises 0.5 to 30% by weight of a source of carbohydrate.
Wickstrom et al. is directed to enhancement of crop yields through the application of sugars to soil by applying in-furrow [abstract]. In-furrow application of sugars can be done in conjunction and/or simultaneously with in-furrow application of conventional fertilizer [0011]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a carbohydrate component within the amounts claimed in conjunction with the fertilizer application of Xie because application of sugars, including monosaccharides, and/or disaccharides and/or polysaccharides, provides a statistically noticeable improvement in crop yield [0039]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply a fertilizer containing a carbohydrate source to increase plant crop yields because the yield improvement mechanism associated with the application of sugars is believed to result from an improvement in microflora activity due to the presence of a readily consumable carbon-based energy source [0044]
Xie describes applying the fertilizer below the ground surface [pg. 6, para. 1] but does not explicitly teach applying the fertilizer beneath the soil from about 0.5 to about 10 inches deep to apply the growth enhancer to roots of the plant and wherein the fertilizer is moved under the soil by use of water or mechanical incorporation.
Harrell is directed to method of rice plant nutrient and fertilization [Abstract]. In permanently flooded systems, all or most of the total N requirement should be incorporated into a dry soil 2 to 4 inches deep prior to flooding [pg. 24, column 1, para. 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the fertilizer taught by the prior art below the soil as described by Harrell. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to prevent nitrogen loss and preserve applied nitrogen in rice planting applications [pg. 24, column 1, para. 3].
In regard to claims 19 and 33, Xie et al. disclose enhancing the growth of rice (e.g. paddy rice) [Abstract].
In regard to claim 25, Xie et al. disclose wherein the fertilizer is in solid (e.g. particulate) form [Abstract].
In regard to claims 41-42 and 44-45, Xie et al. disclose 1.2% by weight of a lipid (e.g. stearic acid) [pg. 6, last 3 lines].
In regard to claim 43, Xie et al. disclose a source of nitrogen comprising at least one of urea (e.g. urea, ammonium chloride) [Example 4; Example 5; Example 6].
In regard to claims 46-47, Xie et al. disclose wherein the plant is at least one of corn, wheat, rice, soybean, or cotton (e.g. for paddy rice) [abstract].
Claims 18 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie et al. (WO 2014/101269 A1) in view of Wickstrom et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0280613 A1) and Harrell (Louisiana rice production handbook, 2009) as applied to claims 16 and 30 above, and further in view of Wikipedia (Soil Test, 2016; IDS 04/13/2021).
In regard to claims 18 and 32, the prior art references do not explicitly teach a step for testing soil for growing the plants to check for amounts of nutrients, secondary nutrients, and micronutrients. However, Wikipedia describes soil testing as laboratory tests to check for plant nutrient in three categories (major nutrients, secondary nutrients, and minor nutrient) [Page 2]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform a step of soil testing before applying fertilizer because soil testing is used to facilitate fertilizer composition and dosage selection for land employed in agricultural industries [Page 2]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to estimate the plant-available concentration of plant nutrients in a soil to determine fertilizer recommendations in agricultural practices.
Claims 16, 20, 24-27, 30, 34, 38-39, 41-42 and 44-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sang (CN 106673843 A) as evidenced by Qui Et al. (Chinese Journal of Chromatography, 2018) in view of Dodla et al. (LSU Ag Center, 2018).
In regard to claims 16 and 30, Sang discloses a method of increasing plant crop yield (e.g. beneficial to the growth of plant roots and plants) [0003] and increasing protein levels in the plant product (e.g. providing lipid and nitrogen to plants) comprising the following steps:
applying a fertilizer/plant growth enhancer comprising about 15% by weight of a lipid (e.g. 15 parts cottonseed cake and 35 parts oil residue) [0016] wherein cottonseed comprises lipids (e.g. fatty acids), the major fatty acids of which are linoleic acid, oleic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, myristic acid, palmitoleic acid, arachidic acid, and docosanoic acid [Qi; Abstract], about 0.6% by weight of a source of carbohydrate comprising rice seed grind (e.g. 2 parts glutinous rice flour) [0016], and about 40% by weight of a source of nitrogen (e.g. sodium nitrate, ammonia, chicken manure, crop straw, cassava residue) [0016], wherein the plant growth enhancer provides increased plant crop yield and plant root growth (e.g. good growth of plant roots and crop cultivation), improved efficiency of nitrogen uptake by the plant, improved nitrogen levels in the plant and increased plant uptake of carbon (e.g. provide a large amount of physiologically active substances such as amino acids, vitamins, growth hormones and antibiotics necessary for the growth of crops, sufficient organic and inorganic nutrients) [0013].
Sang describes applying the fertilizer to soil, including compacted soil [0002] but does not explicitly teach applying the fertilizer beneath the soil from about 0.5 to about 10 inches deep to apply the growth enhancer to roots of the plant and wherein the plant is a seed or seedling.
Dodla et al. is directed to nutrient management in cropland [pg. 1, 1st para.]. It is common to have nutrients accumulate and concentrate in the top few inches of soil in no-till systems as a result of surface-broadcasting fertilizers [pg. 1, 3rd para.]. New methods for planting into previous years’ seedbeds have been successful in moving the process to an area of limited-till or no-till crop production. Stronger planters equipped with fertilizer and herbicide attachments can now place the seed into the soil without the requirement for a prepared seedbed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Sang’s fertilizer beneath the soil to the “top few inches of soi” (e.g. 0.5-10 inches deep) l in a no-till system as described by Dodla. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce in erosion, keep the soil in the fields and reduce the loss of organic matter and soil nutrients [pg. 5, last para.].
In regard to claims 20, 26, 34 and 39 Sang discloses a source of carbohydrate comprising rice seed grind (e.g. glutinous rice flour) [0016].
In regard to claims 24 and 38, the prior art references do not explicitly disclose a second application of the fertilizer two weeks or more after the first application However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the fertilizer disclosed by the prior art an additional time. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because fertilizers are generally applied every two weeks or more weeks during the growing season because fertilizer comprises plant nutrients including macronutrients and micronutrients which are essential for plant growth throughout the stages of plant growth and development.
In regard to claim 25, Sang discloses wherein the fertilizer is in solid (e.g. granular) form [Abstract] [0013].
In regard to claim 27 Sang discloses a source of carbohydrate comprising brown rice seed grind (e.g. glutinous rice flour) [0016]. Sang further describes use of the composition for straw plant growth [Abstract]. Rice straw is produced as a byproduct of rice production at harvest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the Sang composition for growing rice plants which result in rice straw.
In regard to claims 41-42 and 44-45, Sang discloses about 15% by weight of a lipid (e.g. 15 parts cottonseed cake and 35 parts oil residue) [0016] wherein cottonseed comprises lipids (e.g. fatty acids), the major fatty acids of which are linoleic acid, oleic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, myristic acid, palmitoleic acid, arachidic acid, and docosanoic acid [Qi; Abstract].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues (paras. bridging pgs. 6-7) the experimental data described in Example 1 and Example 2 is commensurate in scope with the claims and demonstrates unexpected and surprising yield improvement over baseline. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. The results obtained by Applicant show applying a fertilizer containing urea, stearic acid and magnesium stearate provided an increase in crop yield over fertilizing with urea alone. These results are not demonstrated to occur over the entire claimed range and claimed fertilizer, in general. Example 1 and Example 2 refer only to the system described in the application and not to the individual claims of the application. As such the results do not show that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. The Examples referenced are directed to applying a fertilizer with a much narrower scope than claimed (e.g. urea, paraffin wax, magnesium stearate, stearic acid applied to rice or cotton). The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Furthermore, the results are not commensurate in scope with the claims. "Objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support […]”.
Applicant argues (pgs. 7-8) there is no requirement to compare the claimed invention with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art. In response to this arguments, the Experiments presented by the Applicant are not commensurate in scope with the claims and therefore the evidence presented does not compare the claimed invention with the closest subject matter. There is no comparison of the claimed invention that that of the closest prior art or any prior art made of record, only an affirmation that the claimed subject matter functions as it was intended to function. This is not relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter and provides no objective evidence thereof. See MPEP § 716.
Applicant argues (pg. 9 and pg. 10) Sang utilizes only 0.26% lipids in combination with other ingredients in the formulation. This argument is not persuasive. Sang teaches 15 parts cottonseed cake and 35 parts oil residue [0016] wherein cottonseed comprises lipids (e.g. fatty acids), the major fatty acids of which are linoleic acid, oleic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, myristic acid, palmitoleic acid, arachidic acid, and docosanoic acid [Qi; Abstract]. Applicant’s calculations on pgs. 9 and 10 do not account for the presence of 35 parts oil residue which is rich in fatty acids (e.g. lipids). A better understanding of Sang’s 35 parts oil residue is by describing this material by the Chinese term "Youzha" represented by the character
PNG
media_image2.png
71
138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
also known as lard residue, pig oil residue or the residue left after frying pork fat. According to the Chinese Food Composition Table, every 100 grams of oil residue contains 800 kcal of calories and over 80% fat [Baidu Health, Popular Science Nursing Workshop, pg. 3]. Thus one of skill in the art would understand Sang’s teaching of 15 parts cottonseed cake and 35 parts oil residue [0016] meets the claim limitation wherein the fertilizer comprises “0.5% - 30% by weight of a lipid comprising stearic acid”.
Applicant argues (pg. 9, 3rd to last para.) Sang’s fertilizer would be very hard to inject into no till soil because of its components including crop straw and chicken manure […]. This argument is not persuasive. Sang’s fertilizer composition is described as applied to soil. “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”. Dodla provides motivation to incorporate fertilizer into the “top few inches of soi” (e.g. 0.5-10 inches deep) using a no-till method to reduce in erosion, keep the soil in the fields and reduce the loss of organic matter and soil nutrients [pg. 5, last para.].
Applicant argues (pg. 9, last para) Sang does not disclose a method of increasing crop yield and increasing protein levels in the plant product because Sang provides no experimental data related to increased crop yield. In response to this argument, Sang is cited as teaching a method for utilizing a fertilizer for improving soil fertilizer efficiency [0001]. Sang’s fertilizer comprises about 40% by weight of a source of nitrogen (e.g. sodium nitrate, ammonia, chicken manure, crop straw, cassava residue) [0016] and one of skill in the art would understand increased yield and protein is tied to an increase in nitrogen fertilizer because nitrogen deficiency can limit crop yield and protein content. Sang further describes the method capable of providing a large amount of physiologically active substances such as amino acids, vitamins, growth hormones and antibiotics necessary for the growth of crops, sufficient organic and inorganic nutrients) [0013].
Applicant’s arguments directed to the Xie reference (pg. 11) are not persuasive because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments filed 09/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 September 23, 2025