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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim limitation:
a complex that is synthesized by combining:
(a) an aqueous solution consisting of one equivalent of ferrous ion; and
(b) an aqueous solution consisting of two equivalents of pyruvate ion.
is not supported by the specification as originally filed. Applicants point to para [0074] of the priority document. However, this citation describes a FDP complex made by combining two equivalents of pyruvic acid with one equivalent of ferrous ion and does not describe an aqueous solution of the ionic components as recited in the claim. Applicant further references para [0161] in Example 2 as describing a “50 mM solution of ferrous di-pyruvate” “prepared by reacting 13.9 grams of ferrous
sulfate (heptahydrate) with 11 grams sodium pyruvate in one liter of deionized water”. When the phrase "consisting of" appears in a clause of the body of a claim, rather than immediately following the preamble, there is an "exceptionally strong presumption that a claim term set off with ‘consisting of’ is closed to unrecited elements." [MPEP 2111.03]. Applicants do not adequality describe the synthesization required in the claim by combining a solution consisting only of ferrous ion and a solution consisting only of pyruvate ion because the materials described by the Specification as originally filed include salts of the recited ions (e.g. ferrous sulfate heptahydrate and sodium pyruvate) and therefore the aqueous solution would necessarily consist of elements unrecited by the claims.
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.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ju (CN 104058951-A).
In regard to claims 7-8, Ju teaches a method for treatment of iron deficiency in a plant, which results in chlorosis (e.g. when iron is deficient, plant leaves lose green and turn yellow, and the photosynthetic intensity decreases) [para. 0002], the method comprising:
contacting the plant with an aqueous iron complex (e.g. the organic iron fertilizer is applied to the roots of plants or sprayed on the leaves of crops) [0052]. The iron complex of Ju is represented by chemical formula (R-COO)2Fe wherein R is wherein R is […] CH3CO […] which is a ferrous ion and two pyruvate ions (e.g. the result of the combination of an aqueous solution consisting of one equivalent of ferrous ion and an aqueous solution consisting of two equivalents of pyruvate ion is illustrated by the Formula of Figure 1 of the present specification and therefore is considered an equivalent composition).
In regard to claims 9-10, Ju teaches the method of claim, wherein contacting is by root drench or foliar application complex (e.g. the organic iron fertilizer is applied to the roots of plants or sprayed on the leaves of crops) [0052].
Response to Arguments
The rejection of the claim(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s).
Applicant argues (end of pg. 5) the specification at paragraph [0074] and [0161] describes the step of combining an aqueous solution consisting of one equivalent of ferrous ion and an aqueous solution consisting of two equivalents of pyruvate ion. This argument is not persuasive. When the phrase "consisting of" appears in a clause of the body of a claim, rather than immediately following the preamble, there is an "exceptionally strong presumption that a claim term set off with ‘consisting of’ is closed to unrecited elements." [MPEP 2111.03]. Applicants do not adequality describe the synthesization required in the claim by combining a solution consisting only of ferrous ion and a solution consisting only of pyruvate ion because the materials described by the Specification as originally filed include salts of the recited ions (e.g. ferrous sulfate heptahydrate and sodium pyruvate) and therefore the aqueous solution would necessarily consist of elements unrecited by the claims.
Applicant argues (paras. bridging pgs. 6-7) the claimed method utilizes a composition containing solely ferrous ions and pyruvate ions while the Ju prior art also contains urea and surfactant. While the organic fertilizer utilized in the contacting step of Ju may contain additional components, the present claims use of the transitional term "comprising" is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The iron complex of Ju is represented by chemical formula (R-COO)2Fe wherein R is wherein R is […] CH3CO […] which is a ferrous ion and two pyruvate ions. This is interpreted as the result of the combination of an aqueous solution consisting of one equivalent of ferrous ion and an aqueous solution consisting of two equivalents of pyruvate ion is illustrated by the Formula of Figure 1 of the present specification and therefore is considered an equivalent composition to the claimed complex.
For these reasons Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/2025 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 December 23, 2025