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 .
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 1-2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levi et al. (US Patent No. 7,229,612).
In regard to claims 1-2, Levi et al. teach a composition, comprising a carbohydrate, wherein the carbohydrate is citric acid a phosphorus-containing compound, wherein the phosphorus-containing compound is potassium dihydrogen phosphate (e.g. monopotassium phosphate), wherein a mass ratio of carbon in the carbohydrate to phosphorus in the phosphorus-containing compound is in a range of 1-13.3 : 1 (e.g. 1.65 :1), wherein there is 4.68875 g C in 12.5 g citric acid : 2.8450625 g P in 12.5 g monopotassium phosphate [col. 3, lines 50-65; Example 1; Composition 1.1]. While Levi does not describe the mixed solution as a “fertilizer composition”, the preamble recitation is considered a statement of intended use and Levi is considered capable of performing the purpose or intended use of the composition as a fertilizer via application to plants.
Claims 1-2, 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2006/0193951).
In regard to claims 1-2, Chen et al. teach a solution composition, comprising a carbohydrate, wherein the carbohydrate is citric acid a phosphorus-containing compound, wherein the phosphorus-containing compound is phosphoric acid, wherein a mass ratio of carbon in the carbohydrate to phosphorus in the phosphorus-containing compound is in a range of 1-13.3 : 1 (e.g. 12.9 :1), wherein there is 1,227.3272 g C in 3272 g citric acid : 94.8222 g P in 400 g 75% phosphoric acid [para. 0068; Example 2; mixed acid solution]. While Chen does not describe the mixed solution as a “fertilizer composition”, the preamble recitation is considered a statement of intended use and Chen is considered capable of performing the purpose or intended use of the composition as a fertilizer via application to plants.
In regard to claims 4 and 17, Chen et al. disclose the composition of claims 1 and 2, wherein the composition further comprises water; and a mass ratio of water to the carbohydrate is in a range of 1-3: 10 (e.g. 1.2 : 10), wherein there is 300 g DI water and 100 g water in the phosphoric solution [para. 0068; Example 2; mixed acid solution].
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomko et al. (US Patent No. 4,499,110).
In regard to claims 8-9, Tomko et al. teach a composition, comprising a carbohydrate (e.g. maize starch) and a phosphorus-containing compound, wherein the phosphorus-containing compound is phosphoric acid, wherein a mass ratio of carbon in the carbohydrate to phosphorus in the phosphorus-containing compound is in a range of 1-4:1 (claim 8) or 2.45-3.66: 1 (claim 9) (e.g. 2.8 :1), wherein there is 0.88891 parts C in 2 parts maize starch : 0.316074 parts P in 1 part phosphoric acid [col. 5, lines 10-16; Example 6]. While Tomko does not describe the mixed solution as a “fertilizer composition”, the preamble recitation is considered a statement of intended use and Tomko is considered capable of performing the purpose or intended use of the composition as a fertilizer via application to plants.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imura et al. (US Patent No. 5,409,982).
In regard to claim 10, Imura et al. teach a composition (e.g. liquid material), comprising a carbohydrate (e.g. citric acid) and a phosphorus-containing compound, wherein the phosphorus-containing compound is phosphoric acid (e.g. orthophosphoric acid), wherein a mass ratio of carbon in the carbohydrate to phosphorus in the phosphorus-containing compound is in a range of 4-13.3 : 1 (e.g. 5.9 : 1) [col 18; Example 10; liquid material No. 41]. While Imura does not describe the mixed solution as a “fertilizer composition”, the preamble recitation is considered a statement of intended use and Imura is considered capable of performing the purpose or intended use of the composition as a fertilizer via application to plants.
In regard to claim 11, Imura et al. teach the composition of claim 10, wherein the mass ratio of carbon in the carbohydrate to phosphorus in the phosphorus- containing compound is 5.5:1 (e.g. wherein the aqueous solution contains, for example, 39.5% citric acid and 8.5% phosphoric acid which satisfies the relationship (g)-(j) [col 10, lines 58-64].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/05/2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims based on the Hardy and Harte references, have been considered but 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.
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 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 16, 2025
Prosecution Insights