Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/041,468

FERTILIZER COMPOSITION CONTAINING CARBOHYDRATE AND PHOSPHORUS, PREPARATION METHOD AND USE THEREOF

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Feb 13, 2023
Examiner
SMITH, JENNIFER A
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
China Agricultural University
OA Round
2 (Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
530 granted / 863 resolved
-3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
916
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.8%
-17.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 863 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 13, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 10, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 05, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 16, 2025
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12590042
LIQUID HUMIC ACID EXTRACT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12570586
DUAL FERTILIZER COMPOSITION INCLUDING AMMONIUM ACETATE AND USES THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12570584
CALCIUM CYANAMIDE FERTILIZER WITH TRIAZONE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12552725
USE OF A LIQUID COMPOSITION FOR COATING PARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12552726
INCORPORATION OF BIOLOGICAL AGENTS IN FERTILIZERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+26.3%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 863 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month