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 § 102/103
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.
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 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Meng (CN-106278402-A).
In regard to claim 1, Meng discloses a method for preparing a composition (e.g. liquid product) [Example 3], comprising a step of treating a liquid composition of humic substances (e.g. 1 ton weathered coal with a humic acid content ≥ 55% and 1 ton water) [para. 0015] comprising particles (e.g. weathered coal is a granular material or pulverized to more than 20 mesh) [0008] with an oxidizing agent, wherein the oxidizing agent is ozone and the ratio ozone weight / humic substance weight is less than 8 (e.g. O3 fed at a rate of 2 kg/h for 48 hours : 1,000 kg weathered coal = 0.096) [0015]. While Meng does not explicitly disclose the weight-average hydrodynamic ratios, the prior art’s disclosure of oxidation treatment of the humic substance solution will necessarily result in a hydrodynamic radius value greater than the hydrodynamic radius before treatment by changing the humic acid surface layer’s interaction with the aqueous solvent thus improving solubility and stability in aqueous environments. “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property (e.g. weight-average hydrodynamic radius) which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the step of treating a coal suspension with an oxidizing agent results in the formation of carboxyl groups within coal’s carbon structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce polar carboxyl groups to the liquid coal of Meng because carboxyl groups are more hydrophilic and thus more soluble in water.
In regard to claim 2, Meng discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the liquid composition having humic substances is obtained from peat, leonardite, lignite, coal or anthracite (e.g. weathered coal) [0015].
In regard to claim 3, Meng discloses the method according claim 1, wherein the liquid composition having humic substances comprises at least 50% by dry weight of humic substances (e.g. 1 ton of weathered coal is mixed with 1 ton of water) [0015].
In regard to claim 5, Meng discloses the method according to claim 1 but does not explicitly recite wherein the Hr average post-treatment is at least 5 times higher than the Hr average pre-treatment. However, the prior art’s disclosure of oxidation treatment of the humic substance solution will necessarily result in a hydrodynamic radius value 5 times greater than the hydrodynamic radius before treatment by changing the humic acid surface layer’s interaction with the solvent thus improving solubility and stability in aqueous environments. “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property (e.g. weight-average hydrodynamic radius) which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the step of treating a coal suspension with an oxidizing agent results in the formation of carboxyl groups within coal’s carbon structure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to introduce polar carboxyl groups to the activated of Meng because carboxyl groups are more hydrophilic and thus more soluble in water to achieve a hydrodynamic radius at least 5 times higher than pre-treatment.
In regard to claim 6, Meng discloses the method according to claim 1 but does not explicitly recite the claimed comparison of weight proportion of particle size before and after oxidation. However, the prior art’s disclosure of oxidation treatment of the humic substance solution will necessarily result in particles having a smaller hydrodynamic radius because the oxidation process will increase particle solubility in water thus decreasing hydrodynamic diameter [see discussion in claim 1].
Response to Arguments
The objection to claims 2-5 and the rejection of claims 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicants amendments (03/10/2026) to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/10/2026, with respect to rejection of the claim(s) based on the teachings of Fertinagro 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dyachkov et al. (SU-763309-B) is directed to a plant growth stimulating composition obtained by treating peat mass containing humates with ozonized air [abstract].
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 March 26, 2026