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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 CFR 1.98. 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 CFR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97, including all timing statement requirements of 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The unit measurement for the claimed “electrical conductivity” should read “dS/m” (deciSiemens per meter). Appropriate correction is required to correct capitalization.
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 1-20 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 claim 1, the recitation “a method for […] enhancing carbon capture” in line 1 is unclear. The claim omits the required steps of “carbon capture” as would be understood by one of skill in the art. Although claim 10 recites an organic carbon content of the alkaline soil it is unclear if the carbon capture recited in claim 1 is achieved by the method set forth in the independent claim.
In regard to claims 1 and 11, the recitation, “(3) subjecting a residue obtained during the extraction” is unclear because in step (2) humus B and mixture C are obtained via the extraction step, with evaporation to dryness. There does not appear to be a physical “residue” described as remaining from the extraction phase. It is unclear if the residue originates solely from humus B extraction or a blend of both steps. Additionally, the limitation “the extraction of the humus B” in step (3) lacks antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 1, in step (5), the recitation “a field capacity of 40% to 50% by weight per weight (w/w)” is unclear. Field capacity would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as corresponding to the superior limit of available water and represents the moisture of the soil after drainage of the water by gravity action. It is unclear what the claimed “field capacity” is intended to represent. The recited units are similarly unclear.
In regard to claims 1 and 11, in step (5) the recitation “and then cultivating a plant” is unclear. Is the plant cultivation part of the soil improvement or carbon capture or something else?
In regard to claims 2 and 12, the basis by which the iron content, aluminum content and magnesium content is not recited. It is unclear what the measurement mg/g is directed to.
In regard to claims 3, 13 and 20, the recitation “for 20 d to 30 d” is unclear. The unit is not clearly defined or if the unit “d” is intended to be read as “days”.
In regard to claims 5 and 15, the recitation “a process of extracting the humus B comprises […]” in lines 1-2 appears to be referring to the extraction of stabilized product A to obtain humus B as recited in claim 1, step (2). It is unclear if there is an additional step of humus B extraction in addition to the extraction recited in claim 1/11.
In regard to claims 5 and 15, the recitation “cation exchange rate” is unclear. This appears to be referring to “cation exchange capacity” which is a measure of the amount of positively charged cations a material can hold. Cation exchange capacity is a static capacity metric typically measured in units cmolc/kg (centimoles of charge per kilogram), not a kinetic “rate”.
In regard to claims 6 and 16, the recitation “a process of extracting the mixture C comprises […]” in lines 1-2 appears to be referring to the hydrothermal extraction of a part of stabilized product A to obtain the mixture C as recited in claim 1/11, step (2). It is unclear if there is an additional extraction step in addition to the extraction recited in claim 1/11.
In regard to claims 7 and 17, the recitation “a pyrolysis program” is unclear. It is unclear if the pyrolysis program is describing the claimed pyrolysis conducted at the recited temperatures.
In regard to claims 7 and 17, the basis by which the iron content, aluminum content and magnesium content is not recited. It is unclear what the measurement mg/g is directed to.
Claims 9 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush “group consisting of Populus, Tamarix chinensis, and Elaeagnus angustifolia” is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping not considered to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. The alternatives include a genus of deciduous trees, a species of flowering plants, and a species of olive tree.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
In regard to claim 10, the invention is defined by its downstream agronomic result rather than definite, structural steps. The absolute change in soil carbon is highly dependent on environmental variables and because these factors are not standardized in the claim, the precise boundaries of the claim cannot be evaluated.
As the instant claims are replete with informalities and indefiniteness, Applicant is encouraged to thoroughly review each claim to ensure no grammatical errors exist.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dong et al. (US 20230036097): directed to wastewater nitrogen recovery by microbial conversion to a fertilizer product.
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 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights