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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group (claims 39-50 and 54-58 in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
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 39-50 and 54-59 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 claims 39 and 54, the recitation of “a composite comprising a sorbent enriched with organic material comprising a phosphorus specie” is indefinite, since it is not clear whether the phosphorus specie is required to part of the sorbent, or only part of the composite. It is also indefinite as to whether the sorbent is a component of the composite, or whether the sorbent and composite are separate compositions.
Claims 40-50 and 55-59 are also rejected, since they depend on claims 39 and 54 but fail to overcome the objection to claims 39 and 54.
Claim 44 is indefinite in being tantamount to a method claim. Since “a hectare oil” is not an element of the composite.
In claim 4, line 2 “of claim” is indefinite.
Claims 55-58 are also rejected, since they depend on claim 54 but fail to remedy the objection to claim 54.
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.
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.
Claims 39, 41-50 and 54-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farmer et al (US 2021/0161981). Farmer et al disclose a composition comprising organic matter, and teach in Paragraph [0032] a composition comprising a source of organic phosphorus and organic matter, and teach that microbial-produced phytase in the composition can react with the phytic acid in the organic matter, catalyzing hydrolysis of the phytic acid and causing a release of usable phosphorus by-products, for example in the form of inorganic phosphates, over time. (See Paragraphs [0022], [0032], [0033] and [0034].) Farmer et al also disclose in Paragraphs [0083] and [0089] that the composition can include calcium and iron. The differences between the composition disclosed by Farmer et al, and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that Farmer et al do not disclose that the composition should comprise between 5 and 40% organic material, and between 1 and 10% of phosphorus. It would have been obvious to provide between 5 and 40% organic matter and between 1 and 10% of phosphorus as the composition of Farmer et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine suitable amounts of the organic material and phosphorus, and there is no evidence on record of unexpected results which would emanate from the recited amounts of organic material and phosphorus. It would have been expected that at least 10% w/w in the composition would be phytoavailable, since Farmer et al teach in Paragraph [0032] that the released phosphorus byproducts are usable. Although applicant’s claim 19 recite a sorbent comprising between 5 and 40% of an iron specie and between 5 and 50% of a calcium specie, the claim does not recite how much of the composite comprises the sorbent. Accordingly the claims embrace an embodiment in which the composite contains only a small amount of the sorbent (1%, for example, and would therefore contain only trace amounts of the calcium and iron, since a composite which includes a sorbent containing iron and calcium would not be distinguishable form a composite containing iron and calcium, wherein the iron and calcium is not included in a sorbent.
Regarding claims 41 and 42, Farmer et al disclose in Paragraphs [0083] and [0089] that the composition can include magnesium. Such nutrients are typically in the form of salts.
Regarding claim 43, Farmer et al disclose in Paragraph [0151] that the composition can be in the form of granules.
Regarding claim 44, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable application rate of the composite of Farmer et al to the soil.
Regarding claim 45, Farmer et al disclose in Paragraph [0022] that the composition includes a source of organic and/or inorganic phosphorus.
Regarding claim 46, it would have been obvious to include 0.1 and 10% water in the composition of Farmer et al, since Farmer et al teach in Paragraph [0023] that the composition can be formulated as a liquid suspension.
Regarding claim 48, Farmer et al disclose in Paragraph [0083] that the composition can include nitrogen or potassium.
Regarding claims 49, Farmer et al disclose in Paragraph [0089] that the composition can include various microelements such as copper or zinc.
Regarding claims 49, 50 and 55-57, enhanced release of the phosphorus in the composition of Farmer et al would occur to no less extent than in the composition recited in applicant’s claims, since Farmer et al disclose in Paragraph [0032] that reaction with phytic acid causes a release of valuable phosphorus byproducts.
Regarding claim 58, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable application rate for the composition of Farmer et al.
Burnham (US 8,864,868) is made of record for disclosing a process for converting organic-containing sluidges to microbially safe fertilizers.
Callendrello et al (US 2014/0144195) is made of record for disclosing the production of fertilizer from organic waste.
Defez (US 2012/0040828) is made of record for disclosing a method to improve phosphate solubilization in plants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:45 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights