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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is written in response to applicant’s amendments received on 4/1/26.
The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(a) and (b)is overcome by amendment.
The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 is overcome by amendment.
Amended claims 2-3, 8-17, 25, and 27 are under examination herein.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 2-3, 7-17, 25 and 26 in the reply filed on 9/29/25 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s election of humic acid in the reply filed on 9/29/25 is acknowledged.
Claim 26 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/29/25.
Priority
Application claims priority to 62/535,109 and 62/635,984 provisional application with an effective filing date of 7/20/17 and 2/27/2018. Those applications have support for a third mixture comprising a carrier and oxygen but not for the claimed third carbohydrate or claimed third fermented time interval. Therefore, the filing date 1/27/22 is the effective priority date of instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 4/29/22, 6/23/23, 12/20/24 have been fully considered except where references have been lined through.
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.
Modified rejection necessitated by amendment. Claims 2-3, 11-17, 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 028 (CN110195028A) in view of 625 (KR20040059625A) and Medoff (US20190112571A1), as evidenced by Dihman (Extraction of humic acid from biological matrix – dry cow dung powder, Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews, 2:4, 217-221), Barot ( (2009) Extraction of humic acid from biological matrix – dry cow dung powder, Green Chemistry Letters and Reviews, 2:4, 217-221 (Year: 2009)), Cornell ("Nitrogen Credits from Manure" available from https://cceonondaga.org/resources/nitrogen-credits-from-manure (Year: 2005)), Beef extract (available from https://www.geneseesci.com/product/beef-extract/), and The cattle site (available from https://www.thecattlesite.com/articles/4672/how-much-manure-should-be-applied-to-land#:~:text=Increasing%20levels%20of%20various%20elements,crop%20grown%20on%20the%20land).
Regarding claims 2, 27, and 12-13 028 teaches a method for preparing a fertilizer (bio-stimulant) (p2 9th full paragraph). 028 teaches the bacteria used were isolated from cow dung (natural environment) (p3 Embodiment 1). 028 teaches that the media comprising water can have the pH adjusted (p3 2. Preparation method of beef extract peptone solid medium). 028 teaches that the strains can be activated (cultured/fermented) three times (p3 last full paragraph). 028 teaches that following the initial cultivation, the bacteria can be placed in a liquid media comprising beef extract and cultivated for 48 hours (second mixture/addition of second carbohydrate and fermented) (p4 paragraph 5). As evidenced by Beef Extract, beef extract comprises carbohydrates (p3). 028 teaches that following the second fermentation the mixture is diluted to 1% in fresh medium (carrier comprising water and 3rd carbohydrate), and further fermented (p5 paragraph 6). 028 teaches this mixture can be added to cow dung (fertilizer ingredient) (p4 Embodiment 3).
028 does not explicitly teach the starting environment of soil or humus, the claimed species or the low pH water.
625 teaches the isolation and cultivation of soil microorganisms (abstract). 625 teaches that soil comprises fluids from animals and microorganisms that exist with the soil and animal fluids (p2 11th paragraph). 625 teaches their invention results in improved efficiency and synergy in the desired uses (p2 paragraphs 2-5).
O28 and 625 do not specifically teach the low pH water or the claimed species.
Medoff teaches using cell fermentation to create products (abstract). Medoff teaches Bacillus subtilis can be used ([0088]). Medoff teaches that an acidified slurry comprising water (low pH water) can be generated to a pH of 4 and added to the fermentation mixture (example 2). Medoff teaches their method allows for a reduction in the use of expensive nutrients ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify use the soil of 625, B. subtilis and low pH water of Medoff in the process of 028. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because 625 teaches improved efficiency and Medoff teaches reduced costs. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as 625, 028, and Medoff are in the same field of endeavor of fermentations. Further, MPEP 2144.04 states that “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, as evidenced by Dihman, cow dung contains both micro and macronutrients (title and “4.9 Dung in Agrobiological Practices”).
Regarding claims 14 and 25, as evidenced by Barot, humic acid can be extracted from cow dung (abstract). As evidenced by Cornell, cow manure comprises urea (“Nitrogen in Manure”).
Regarding claim 15, As evidenced by The Cattle Site, cow manure comprises metal salt (p1).
Regarding claim 16, 028 teaches that the manure and bacteria can be fermented a 4th time for up to 14 days (p4 embodiment 3).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, 028 teaches that the compost piles were only ventilated with oxygen every 3 days (anaerobic conditions, facultative anaerobic bacteria) (p4 embodiment 3).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 028 (CN110195028A) as applied to claims 2-3, 7, 11-17, and 25 above, and further in view of 003 (CN102816003A) Anzar ("Carbon nanotube-A review on Synthesis, Properties and plethora of applications in the field of biomedical science." Sensors International 1 (2020): 100003)
Regarding claims 8-10, 028 does not teach the addition of a carbon nanotube.
003 teaches a nanocarbon fertilizer fermented by bacteria (claim 1). 003 teaches their fertilizer is particularly effective (p2 3rd paragraph). MPEP 2144.04 states that “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”
003 does not teach where the nanocarbon is carbon nanotubes.
Anzer teaches that carbon nanotubes are most exploited carbon nanomaterial in various applications (introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a carbon nanotube in the method of 028, Medoff and 625 above as taught by 003 and Anzer. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because 003 teaches their fertilizer is particularly effective and Anzer teaches that carbon nanotubes are the most used form of carbon nanomaterial. There would be a reasonable expectation of success as both 028 and 003 are in the same field of endeavor of fertilizer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection herein.
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 TREVOR L KANE whose telephone number is (571)272-0265. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am-4:00pm.
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, Louise Humphrey can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
/TREVOR KANE/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/ROBERT J YAMASAKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1657
Prosecution Insights