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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species A (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 11/3/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/3/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to due to the recitation “component (ii) comprises an ammoniacal liquor from an anaerobic digestion process” (lines 1-2 of the claim). Component (ii) is a source of nitric acid (see claim 1 line 3), not a source of ammonia. This would appear to be a typographical error intended to refer to component (iii), especially in light of the specification which recites that “component (iii) includes a source of ammonia . . . the source of ammonia is an ammoniacal liquor from an anaerobic digestion process” (Specification Page 4 lines 9-14). The claim is therefore being interpreted as referring to component (iii), not component (ii).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Joseph (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2012/0125064 A1, hereinafter “Joseph”).
Regarding claim 1, Joseph teaches a method of producing a fertilizer composition (e.g., a process for making a biochar-containing composition to fertilize plants) [Joseph Para. 0072 & Claim 66], the method comprising the steps of:
Contacting (i) ash from an organic source with (ii) a source of nitric acid (e.g., organic matter and biochar are combined [Joseph Para. 0057] and optionally an acid such as nitric acid is added [Joseph Para. 0028]); (biochar is here regarded as reading on ash from an organic source in light of the instant specification which states that biochar is a suitable organic ash) (Specification Page 1 lines 35-36);
Contacting (iii) a composition comprising an amino compound with (iv) a composition comprising carbon dioxide (e.g., the organic matter may comprise amino acids [Joseph Para. 0134], and heated carbon dioxide may be at least partially incorporated into the mixture [Joseph Para. 0138]); a portion of the entire biochar mixture of step (a) is regarded as reading on the composition of step (b) as claimed, and
Admixing the composition obtained in step (a) with the composition obtained in step (b) (e.g., the entire composition is mixed before and after torrefying; this is regarded as reading on mixing the two compositions (a) and (b) together) [Joseph Para. 0078].
Regarding claim 2, Joseph teaches the method wherein component (i) comprises wood ash (e.g., biochar produced by heating organic matter such as wood) [Joseph Para. 0002]; (the biochar may be at least partially derived from wood) [Joseph Para. 0027].
Regarding claim 3, Joseph teaches the method wherein component (i) comprises incinerated waste from a wood burning station, waste from a gasification plant or waste from a pyrolysis plant (e.g., the biochar may be from industrial wastes and/or wood products, which are heated to between 290 to 800 °C; the conversion of the organic matter to biochar may provide excess energy which can be used elsewhere; this is regarded as reading on incinerated waste from a wood burning power station because it is incinerated wood which generates energy for use elsewhere) [Joseph Para. 0134].
Regarding claim 4, Joseph teaches the method wherein component (i) comprises incinerated waste from a wood burning powder station (e.g., the biochar may be from industrial wastes and/or wood products, which are heated to between 290 to 800 °C; the conversion of the organic matter to biochar may provide excess energy which can be used elsewhere; this is regarded as reading on incinerated waste from a wood burning power station because it is incinerated wood which generates energy for use elsewhere) [Joseph Para. 0134].
Regarding claim 7, Joseph teaches the method wherein component (iii) comprises ammonia (e.g., the composition may be treated with concentrated ammonia) [Joseph Para. 0134].
Regarding claim 11, Joseph teaches the method wherein component (iv) comprises neat carbon dioxide gas and/or a gaseous mixture of carbon dioxide and one or more further gases (e.g., the heated gas may comprise carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, or nitrogen containing species or combinations of these. In some instances, one or more of these substances may be at least partially incorporated into the torrefied mixture) [Joseph Para. 0138].
Regarding claim 13, Joseph teaches the method wherein component (iv) comprises the exhaust gases from the combustion of biogas, or of methane recovered from biogas (e.g., the gas may be an exhaust gas from the torrefier, or an exhaust gas from a separate process such as a combustion or pyrolysis process, and it may in particular be the exhaust gas from the production of the biochar; these are regarded as reading on exhaust gases from the combustion of biogas) [Joseph Para. 0138].
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joseph as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rehage (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0260466 A1, hereinafter “Rehage”).
Regarding claim 5, Joseph teaches the method wherein component (ii) is nitric acid used in a concentration of 15 to 35% by weight (e.g., 5 to 20% by weight) [Joseph Para. 0028], but does not explicitly state that the nitric acid is in the form of an aqueous composition. However, Joseph teaches that the nitric acid is used for the purpose of treating the included organic matter and to adjust the pH [Joseph Para. 0028]. Rehage teaches that it is standard when making plant fertilizer [Rehage Para. 0031] to implement aqueous nitric acid [Rehage Para. 0089]. The aqueous nitric acid can serve as a suitable acid for pH adjustment or treatment of the included plant material [Rehage Para. 0092-93]. As such, in implementing nitric acid in the method of Joseph, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Rehage and readily appreciate that it is standard to specifically use aqueous nitric acid for the same purpose of adjusting pH and treating plant (organic) material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Joseph to specifically implement aqueous nitric acid as taught by Rehage.
Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Joseph teaches the method wherein component (ii) is nitric acid used in a concentration of 2 to 10% by weight (e.g., 5 to 20% by weight) [Joseph Para. 0028], but does not explicitly state that the nitric acid is in the form of an aqueous composition. However, Joseph teaches that the nitric acid is used for the purpose of treating the included organic matter and to adjust the pH [Joseph Para. 0028]. Rehage teaches that it is standard when making plant fertilizer [Rehage Para. 0031] to implement aqueous nitric acid [Rehage Para. 0089]. The aqueous nitric acid can serve as a suitable acid for pH adjustment or treatment of the included plant material [Rehage Para. 0092-93]. As such, in implementing nitric acid in the method of Joseph, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Rehage and readily appreciate that it is standard to specifically use aqueous nitric acid for the same purpose of adjusting pH and treating plant (organic) material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Joseph to specifically implement aqueous nitric acid as taught by Rehage.
Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (International Patent Pub. No. 2018/127694 A1, hereinafter “Hammond”) in view of Joseph.
Regarding claim 1, Hammond teaches a method of producing a fertilizer composition [Hammond Abstract], the method comprising the steps of:
Providing (ii) a source of nitric acid (e.g., the method may further involve adding a source of nitrate ion, such as waste from the scrubbing of combustion exhausts with nitric acid) [Hammond Page 7 lines 10-14 & 31-34]
Contacting (iii) a composition comprising an amino compound with (iv) a composition comprising carbon dioxide (e.g., contacting a composition comprising an amino compound with a composition comprising carbon dioxide) [Hammond Abstract]; and
Admixing the composition obtained in step (a) with the composition obtained in step (b) (e.g., the source of nitrate may be added at any stage during the process [Hammond Page 7 lines 10-16]; the final composition is admixed [Hammond Page 10 lines 18-20].
Hammond does not explicitly state that step (a) further comprises (i) ash from an organic source which is contacted with the nitric acid. However, Joseph teaches that biochar (here regarded as reading on ash in light of the instant specification which states that biochar is a suitable organic ash) (Specification Page 1 lines 35-36) is a standard ingredient in organic matter-based fertilizer compositions for promoting plant growth [Joseph Abstract]. Fertile soils have long been produced using organic matter and ash [Joseph Para. 005]. Further, biochar from organic sources such as wood is a vehicle for sequestering carbon [Joseph Para. 0002], and it enhances the nutrient retention capacity of soil and improves crop yields [Joseph Para. 0003]. The fertilizer of Joseph is similar to the fertilizer of Hammond in that it also implements nitric acid [Joseph Para. 0028], amino acids [Joseph Para. 0134], and carbon dioxide [Joseph Para. 0138]. As such, in performing the method of Hammond, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Joseph and readily appreciate the advantages of further including ash. It is noted that Hammond teaches that the nitrate ion source may be added during any step of the process. Joseph appears to include the biochar in the first step [Joseph Para. 0058]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily envisage the method wherein the ash/biochar and nitric acid are added first, followed by the subsequent steps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Hammond to further include ash from an organic source as taught by Joseph as a part of step (a) as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method wherein component (i) comprises wood ash (e.g., biochar from an organic source such as wood) [Joseph Para. 0002].
Regarding claim 7, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method wherein component (iii) comprises ammonia (e.g., the composition comprising the amino compound, referred to by Hammond as the composition used in step (a), may further comprise ammonia) [Hammond Page 1 lines 15-30].
Regarding claim 8, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method wherein component (iii) comprises an anaerobic digestate (e.g., the composition comprising the amino compound, referred to by Hammond as the composition used in step (a), may further comprise an anaerobic digestate) [Hammond Page 2 lines 4-10].
Regarding claim 9, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method wherein component (iii) comprises an anaerobic digestate and from 20 to 50 wt% ammonia (e.g., the composition comprising the amino compound, referred to by Hammond as the composition used in step (a), may comprise an anaerobic digestate and from 10 to 60 wt% ammonia) [Hammond Page 2 lines 35-40].
Regarding claim 10, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method wherein component (iii) comprises an ammoniacal liquor from an anaerobic digestion process (e.g., gaseous ammonia pumped through an anaerobic digestate composition, or aqueous ammonia admixed with an anaerobic digestate [Hammond Page 2 lines 25-35], see specifically Example 1 demonstrating anhydrous ammonia dissolved in an anaerobic digestate liquor [Page 11 lines 16-19]).
Regarding claim 11, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method wherein component (iv) comprises neat carbon dioxide gas and/or a gaseous mixture of carbon dioxide and one or more further gases (e.g., the carbon dioxide may consist essentially of carbon dioxide, which may be in solid form, and/or it may comprise a mixture of carbon dioxide and one or more further gaseous components) [Hammond Page 3 lines 1-15].
Regarding claim 12, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method wherein component (iv) comprises at least 5 vol % carbon dioxide (e.g., the component may consist essentially of carbon dioxide; i.e., 100 vol. % carbon dioxide, and/or it may be biogas, which comprises approximately 20 to 80 vol % carbon dioxide) [Hammond Page 3 lines 1-5 & 29-35]. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method wherein component (iv) comprises the exhaust gases from the combustion of biogas, or of methane recovered from biogas (e.g., the source of carbon dioxide may be biogas, including carbon dioxide and methane) [Hammond Page 3 lines 26-34].
Regarding claim 14, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method further including a step (d) of adding a composition comprising cellulosic fibers to the composition obtained in step (c) (e.g., a composition containing cellulosic fibers is added to the mixture obtained in the previous step) [Hammond Abstract].
Regarding claim 15, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method further including a step (e) of further processing the material obtained in step (c) or step (d) (e.g., the method may involve a further step of processing the previously obtained material, including drying, pulverizing, and/or granulating the material) [Hammond Page 9 lines 8-11].
Regarding claim 16, Hammond as modified by Joseph teaches the method wherein step (e) involves drying, pulverizing, and/or granulating the material [Hammond Page 9 lines 8-11].
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./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731