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
In response to the amendment received 7/8/2026:
Claims 1-5, 11-17 and 20 are presently pending, specifically as to the species of the fertilizer wherein the pH value of the regulating solution is 3.0 to 9.0 (note that this only includes portions of claim 4)
Claims 5 and 11-17 are withdrawn
Claims 6-10 and 18-19 are cancelled
The previously stated rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims
The previously stated objections to the Specification have been withdrawn in light of the amendments
All prior art grounds of rejection are maintained, with new grounds only as necessitated by amendment
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pH value of the soil conditioner is 3.5-8.5" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no soil conditioner is set forth in claim 1. The Examiner suggests amending claim 4 to only recite the pH of the fertilizer, as the soil conditioner is a nonelected species.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (Chinese Patent No. 1594266 A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Xu”) in view of Lixiao (Chinese Patent No. 109265215 A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Lixiao”).
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a solution (e.g., a 2-keto-L-gulonic acid mother liquor) [Xu Title & Para. 0010] wherein
The solution is a mixture consisting of a waste gulonic acid mother solution (e.g., a 2-keto-L-gulonic acid mother liquor from vitamin C production) [Xu Title & Para. 0010] and an alkaline solution (e.g., the pH is adjusted using an alkaline solution) [Xu Para. 0010 & 0013], wherein the waste gulonic acid mother solution is a residue after evaporation of a Vitamin C (Vc) fermentation broth (fermentation is the most productive method to produce 2-keto-L-gulonic acid and is implemented in the process of Xu to produce the crystalline stock solution, which is concentrated and then purified) [Xu Para. 0005-0008],
The waste gulonic acid mother solution comprises, by weight percentage, 15-35% of 2-keto-L-gulonic acid (e.g., 20% 2-keto-L-gulonic acid) [Xu Para. 0024], 3-5% of protein (e.g., 4% protein) [Xu Para. 0024], and
The solution has a pH value between 3.0-9.0 (e.g., the pH is adjusted to between 4-8) [Xu Para. 0019] (Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; See MPEP 2144.05).
Xu does not explicitly state (1) the solution is a regulating solution effective in its increasing vitamin C content of plants produced from a soil being treated with the regulating solution, (2) the inclusion of nucleic acids such that the protein and nucleic acid are present between 3-5% by weight in total, or (3) the inclusion of 1-2% of formic acid, 2-3% of oxalic acid, and 1-2% by weight of sorbose.
As to (1), this intended use limitation describes the purpose or intended use/result of the claimed invention and only limits the claims to the extent that the prior art must be capable of performing the purpose or intended use. In this case, the fertilizer taught by Xu is capable of increasing vitamin C content of plants produced from a soil because it comprises the same ingredients and components as those claimed (i.e., the wasted gulonic acid solution with the appropriate pH). Because Xu discloses the formulation claimed, and there appear to be no structural differences imparted by the intended use, it necessarily follows that the formulation meets the recitation of the intended use. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
As to (2), Xu states that the gulonic acid mother solution contains other organic acids [Para. 0024] but does not explicitly state that these include nucleic acids. However, Lixiao teaches that a typical gulonic acid mother liquor in vitamin C production containing 2-keto-L-gulonic acid and proteins also includes 0.2-2% nucleic acid [Lixiao Para. 0010]. As such, in implementing the gulonic acid mother liquor from vitamin C production in the solution of Xu, which Xu teaches contains other organic acids, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Lixiao and readily appreciate that nucleic acids specifically are a standard organic acid component in such a waste mother liquor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the solution of Xu to include nucleic acids as taught by Lixiao. Further, it is noted that the combined ranges of 0.2-2% nucleic acids and 4% of protein overlap with the claimed total range of nucleic acids and protein, creating a prima facie case of obviousness.
As to (3), Xu as modified by Lixiao teaches the solution having other organic acids and residual sugars from sorbose fermentation in the mother liquor [Para. 0024] but does not explicitly state the inclusion of 1-2% formic acid, 2-3% oxalic acid, and 1-2% of sorbose. However, Applicant’s specification describes a large amount (160,000-180,000 tons per year) of wasted gulonic acid mother solution in China from the Vitamin C industry, and its standard components. These include 1-2% formic acid, 2-3% oxalic acid, and 1-2% of sorbose. See the Specification Page 1 lines 12-22. This information disclosed in the Specification describing the standard wasted gulonic acid mother solution generated in the Vitamin C industry in China is regarded as being Applicant admitted prior art. See MPEP 2129. As such, the waste gulonic acid mother solution described by Xu in the vitamin C industry would appear to necessarily and inherently contain the respective components within the ranges of concentrations claimed, based on Applicant’s description of these solutions. Therefore, the solution of Xu is regarded as reading on these limitations.
Regarding claim 2, Xu as modified by Lixiao teaches the solution wherein the alkaline solution is a solution with a concentration of 10-50 wt. % prepared by an alkaline reagent and water, wherein the alkaline reagent is selected from the group consisting of sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and liquid ammonia (e.g., the pH is adjusted using any kind of sodium hydrate, potassium hydrate, or ammonia water [Xu Para. 0022]; in particular, a 40% potassium hydroxide solution [Xu Para. 0025]).
Regarding claim 3, Xu as modified by Lixiao teaches the solution wherein the 2-keto-L-gulonic acid in the waste gulonic acid mother solution is obtained by biosynthesis which comprises microbial fermentation using L-sorbose as a substrate (e.g., the mother solution is obtained using fermentation, which includes fermentation based on L-sorbinose) [Xu Para. 0004-5].
Regarding claim 4, Xu as modified by Lixiao teaches the solution wherein the pH value is 5.5-7.5 (e.g., the pH is adjusted to between 4-8) [Xu Para. 0019]. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (Chinese Patent No. 105175188 A) with reference to the machine translation provided 6/2/2025 (hereinafter “Guo”).
Regarding claim 1, Guo teaches a regulating solution, wherein the regulating solution is a mixture consisting of a waste gulonic acid mother solution and an alkaline solution (e.g., a fertilizer made from a wasted gulonic acid mother liquor, combined with potassium hydroxide to basify the pH) [Guo Abstract], wherein the waste gulonic acid mother solution is a residue after evaporation of a Vitamin C (Vc) fermentation broth (e.g., the gulonic acid mother liquor is crystallized from the Vc production process, produced by biological fermentation) [Guo Para. 0010], wherein the solution has a pH between 3.0-9.0 (e.g., the pH is adjusted to between 6 to 6.5) [Guo Abstract].
Guo does not explicitly state (1) the respective components of the mother liquor being, by weight, 15-35% of 2-keto-L-gulonic acid, 3-5% protein and nucleic acid, 1-2% of formic acid, 2-3% of oxalic acid, and 1-2% of sorbose, or (2) the solution is effective in increasing a Vc content of plants produced from a soil treated with the solution.
As to (1), Applicant’s specification describes a large amount (160,000-180,000 tons per year) of wasted gulonic acid mother solution in China from the Vitamin C industry, and its standard components. These include 15-35% 2-keto-L-gulonic acid, 1-2% formic acid, 2-3% oxalic acid, 1-2% of sorbose, and 3-5% protein and nucleic acid. See the Specification Page 1 lines 12-22. This information disclosed in the Specification describing the standard wasted gulonic acid mother solution generated in the Vitamin C industry in China is regarded as being Applicant admitted prior art. See MPEP 2129. As such, the waste gulonic acid mother solution described by Xu in the vitamin C industry would appear to necessarily and inherently contain the respective components within the ranges of concentrations claimed, based on Applicant’s description of these solutions. Therefore, the solution of Xu is regarded as reading on these limitations.
As to (2), this intended use limitation describes the purpose or intended use/result of the claimed invention and only limits the claims to the extent that the prior art must be capable of performing the purpose or intended use. In this case, the fertilizer taught by Xu is capable of increasing vitamin C content of plants produced from a soil because it comprises the same ingredients and components as those claimed (i.e., the wasted gulonic acid solution with the appropriate pH). Because Xu discloses the formulation claimed, and there appear to be no structural differences imparted by the intended use, it necessarily follows that the formulation meets the recitation of the intended use. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 20, Guo teaches a compound fertilizer comprising the regulating solution of claim 1 and one or more fertilizers selected from the provided group (e.g., the composition is made into a fertilizer by adding nutrients such as urea and potassium nitrate) [Guo Para. 0018].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not combine the references Xu and Mi. This argument is moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the references do not disclose “the regulating solution is effective in increasing a Vc content of plants . . .” Specifically, Applicant argues that the composition of Xu would not inherently increase vitamin C content of plants, because Xu does not suggest this specific biological effect or result (Remarks Pages 8-9). This argument is not found persuasive. Limitations setting forth the intended use or intended result of a composition only limit the claims to the extent that the prior art must be capable of performing the purpose or intended use. In this case, the fertilizer taught by Xu is capable of increasing vitamin C content of plants produced from a soil because it comprises the same ingredients and components as those claimed (i.e., the wasted gulonic acid solution with the appropriate pH and other acids). Because Xu discloses the formulation claimed, and there appears to be no structural differences imparted by the intended use, it necessarily follows that the formulation meets the recitation of the intended use. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure can perform the intended use, then it meets the claim. Here, Applicant appears to assert that the prior art would not necessarily perform the intended use but does not appear to point out any structural differences in the invention as claimed. It is noted that Applicant argues that the waste gulonic mother liquor in Xu is subject to electrodialysis, so the organic acid contents would differ (Remarks Page 11). However, Applicant does not point out a specific difference between the content of Xu and the content of the invention as claimed. It is also noted that Applicant generally alleges that Xu teaches a gulonic acid content outside the claimed range (Remarks Page 11). However, Applicant does not point out any specific different amount of gulonic acid content.
For at least the foregoing reasons, these arguments are not found persuasive.
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 HEATHER E RAINBOW whose telephone number is (571)272-0185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM PST.
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 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.
/H.E.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights