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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/13/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 2/13/2026:
Claims 1-19 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 claims 1 and 4)
Claims 5 and 11-18 are withdrawn
Claims 6-10 are cancelled
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the word count exceeds 150 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claims 1-4 and 19 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “3%-5% of protein and nucleic acid” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the range of 3-5% applies to only the protein, or the combination of both the protein and the nucleic acid. For example, it is unclear whether a protein content within the range of 3-5% along with a nucleic acid in any amount would read on this limitation, or whether both the protein and the nucleic acid content must add up to an amount within the range, or whether each of the protein and nucleic acid must be present individually in an amount between 3%-5%. For purposes of examination, the 3-5% is regarded as relating only to the protein content, and any nucleic acid content is therefore acceptable.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “15%-25% of 2-keto-L-gulonic acid and 3%-5% of protein and nucleic acid” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it includes measurements in percentages without setting forth a standard of measurement such as weight or volume. For purposes of examination, the percentages are regarded as referring to percent by weight OR volume, with either standard of measurement reading on the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the regulation solution" in lines 11 and 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Lines 1-10 of the claim refer to a “regulating” solution, not a “regulation” solution, and as such it is unclear whether this refers back to the same solution. For purposes of examination, the regulation solution is regarded as referring back to the regulating solution.
Regarding claim 19, the recitation “1%-2% of formic acid, 2%-3% of oxalic acid, and 1%-2% of sorbose” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it includes measurements in percentages without setting forth a standard of measurement such as weight or volume. For purposes of examination, the percentages are regarded as referring to percent by weight OR volume, with either standard of measurement reading on the limitation.
Note that all other claims are being included as a result of their dependency upon a rejected claim as set forth above.
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, 3-4 and 19 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) [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) [Title & Para. 0010] and an alkaline solution (e.g., the pH is adjusted using an alkaline solution) [Para. 0010 & 0013],
The waste gulonic acid mother solution comprises 15-35% of 2-keto-L-gulonic acid (e.g., 20% 2-keto-L-gulonic acid) [Para. 0024] and 3-5% of protein (e.g., 4% protein) [Para. 0024], and
The solution has a pH value between 3.0-9.0 (e.g., the pH is adjusted to between 4-8) [Para. 0019] (Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; See MPEP 2144.05).
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.
Xu also does not explicitly teach that 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. 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 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., one method of obtaining the mother solution is the fermentation method, 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) [Para. 0019]. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, 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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu and Lixiao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mi (Chinese Patent No. 102199087 A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Mi”).
Regarding claim 2, Xu as modified by Lixiao teaches the solution wherein the alkaline solution is prepared by an alkaline reagent and water, wherein the alkaline is a sodium or potassium hydrate or ammonia water (e.g., the alkali used to adjust the pH can be any kind of sodium hydrate, potassium hydrate, ammonia water, or sodium carbonate) [Xu Para. 0022] but does not explicitly state that the solution has a concentration of 10-50 wt. %. However, Mi teaches that it is standard when treating gulonic acid mother liquor [Mi Para. 0008] with a base in order to raise the pH [Mi Para. 0011] to implement a 30-50% sodium hydroxide solution [Mi Para. 0018 & Para. 0044]. As such, in adjusting the pH of the gulonic acid mother liquor as taught by Xu, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that using a 30-50% sodium hydroxide solution is standard and preferable for this exact purpose. 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 specifically implement a solution having a concentration and components selected from the group as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and the rejection over Guo and Lixiao, the arguments regarding the new “consisting of” limitation are 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 and the arguments regarding the regulating solution being “effective in increasing the Vitamin C content of plants” (Remarks Page 8), these are not found persuasive. Applicant asserts that the cited references do not indicate or suggest that the product can be used to increase the Vc content of plants. However, 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). 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).
For at least the foregoing reasons, these arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
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./ /JENNIFER A SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1731 Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights