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/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I (claims 1-5 and 11-16) in the reply filed on 01/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2023 and 12/05/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
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 2-3 and 11-15 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.
In regard to claims 2, 12 and 14, the mass ratio of (1-4):1 or (4-15):1 splits the range set forth in claim 1 (e.g. (1-15):1) into two segments which implies that the value of exactly 4:1 might be excluded or included in both or that there is a distinction between the two ranges that is not defined and creates confusion as to why the middle point (4) is highlighted.
In regard to claims 3, 11, 13 and 15 the term “specifically” 85% in the last line renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the exemplary value is required by the claim/part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wickstrom et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0262390).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claims 1-4 and 11-13, Wickstrom et al. teach a sugar- and phosphorus-containing fertilizer (e.g. sugar in combination with conventional fertilizer for application to crop) [abstract], comprising a water-soluble carbon-containing compound selected from sucrose (e.g. liquid sugar “LIQSUC” essentially comprised of sucrose) [0071] and a phosphorus-containing compound selected from monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, and short chain ammonium polyphosphate (e.g. 10-34-0 liquid ammonium phosphate) [0071]; wherein the liquid sugar and ammonium phosphate are provided in a ratio of 1:1 [Table 16; replication 3] which equates to a mass ratio of carbon element in the water-soluble carbon-containing compound and a phosphorus element in the phosphorus-containing compound of about 1.8:1 (e.g. there are approximately 4,299 grams of carbon in 3 gallons of standard liquid sugar, where liquid sugar (sucrose) is industrially standardized at 67.5° Brix, meaning 67.5% of the solution's weight is pure sucrose; there are approximately 2,335.5 grams of phosphorus element in 3 gallons of liquid ammonium phosphate 10-34-0) which lies within the claimed range.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wickstrom et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0262390).
In regard to claim 5, Wickstrom et al. disclose the fertilizer according to claim 1, wherein the sugar- and phosphorus-containing fertilizer is prepared from the water-soluble carbon-containing compound, the phosphorus-containing compound, and water (e.g. liquid sugar and 10-34-0 were all mixed and diluted with water in a tank) [0071]. The reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the water and the water-soluble carbon-containing compound are at a mass ratio of (1-3):10. However, the amount of water diluent is taught to be an art recognized result effective variable depending on the amount of equivalent sugar desired to be applied for the sugar in liquid form (e.g. sugar applied in a solid form […] field application was conducted via conventional broadcast spreading; for the sugar applied in a liquid form, a liquid concentrate was mixed and diluted with water in a tank and a conventional sprayer was configured such that the liquid was sprayed so as to have the same sugar equivalent as the sugar in solid form) [0059]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of sugar and water in the diluted liquid form through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. [MPEP 2144.05].
In regard to claims 14-16, Wickstrom et al. teach a sugar- and phosphorus-containing fertilizer (e.g. sugar in combination with conventional fertilizer for application to crop) [abstract], comprising a water-soluble carbon-containing compound selected from sucrose (e.g. liquid sugar “LIQSUC” essentially comprised of sucrose) [0071] and a phosphorus-containing compound selected from monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, and short chain ammonium polyphosphate (e.g. 10-34-0 liquid ammonium phosphate) [0071]; wherein the liquid sugar and ammonium phosphate are provided in a ratio of 1:1 [Table 16; replication 3] which equates to a mass ratio of carbon element in the water-soluble carbon-containing compound and a phosphorus element in the phosphorus-containing compound of about 1.8:1 (e.g. there are approximately 4,299 grams of carbon in 3 gallons of standard liquid sugar, where liquid sugar (sucrose) is industrially standardized at 67.5° Brix, meaning 67.5% of the solution's weight is pure sucrose; there are approximately 2,335.5 grams of phosphorus element in 3 gallons of liquid ammonium phosphate 10-34-0) which lies within the claimed range.
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 February 4, 2026