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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/14/2023 has been considered by the examiner. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 4 and 5-8 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. Claim 4 recites the limitation " the inoculation weights " in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further claim 4 is illogical by reciting the weight but lacking a numerical value. Claim s 5-6 recites the limitation " the solid fermentation materials ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if the materials are intended to be the same as the “solid-state fermentation medium” previously claimed . Claim 8 recites the limitation " the Bacillus subtilis broth " in line 3 . It is not clear if the broth is the same as the “fermentation broth” because it appears to be an input to create the fermentation broth. The claims appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and contain grammatical and idiomatic errors. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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. Claim s 1-2, 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0359534) in view of Li et al. (CN 101525254 A1) and Kulcu ( Polish Journal , 2014) . In regard to claim 1, Zhang et al. discloses a preparation process of a controlled release fertilizer, [para. 0006] comprising the following steps: S1 : aerobically fermenting (e.g. composting) cow dung-based organic materials to obtain a solid-state fermentation medium (e.g. mixing manure and cow dung with crop stalks, stacking in a pile, and measuring temperature) [0018] ; S2 mixing an inoculating Bacillus subtilis (e.g. then adding a fermentation agent) [0018] (e.g. the fermentation agent contains Bacillus subtilis) [0019] into the solid-state fermentation medium obtained in S1 for solid-state fermentation (e.g. fermentation at a 50-60% moisture content in a pile) [0018] ; S3: after the fermentation is finished, extruding and granulating or directly sieving to prepare the soil-structure improving bio-organic fertilizer (e.g. drying and pulverizing) [0018] (granulating and drying) [0023]; the cow dung-based organic materials in step S1 are composed of any of the following three types in parts by weight: 50-60 parts of cow dung, 40-50 parts of tomato straw and 5-10 parts of moisture regulating auxiliary materials (e.g. 2-5 parts of cow dung, crop straw mixed with the blended manure at a weight ratio of 2:8, e.g. 1.5 -3.75 parts crop straw when calculated at the endpoints and 2-5 parts of another type of manure) [0018], wherein a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges do no overlap with the prior art but are merely close and one skilled in the art would have expected the mixture of Zhang to have the same properties as the claimed mixture. Zhang et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the Bacillus subtilis is provided in fermentation broth and silicate bacteria fermentation broth . Li et al. is directed to the use of microbial strains in developing bio- fertilizers [pg. 4, para. 5]. Organic matter is provided with a functional microbial Bacillus component including Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus megaterium, and Bacillus mucilaginosus [pg. 6, para. 2]. Bacillus mucilaginosus is a considered a “silicate bacteria” [see Applicant’s Specification, para. 0061]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Bacillus mucilaginosus in the fermentation medium of Zhang . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Bacillus mucilaginosus exhibits a potassium solubilizing effect and is suitable for liquid fermentation culture with bacillus subtilis [para. bridging pgs. 6-7]. Zhang generally teaches a crop straw [0018] but does not explicitly disclose tomato straw or corn straw . Kulcu is directed to the composition of tomato plant residues and dairy manure [abstract]. Residues and wastes of tomato production are appropriate for composting because of their high organic content [ pg . 1342, col. 1, last para.]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize tomato crop straw as described by Kulcu when Zhang teaches crop straw generally. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because tomato residues with manure is a good source of macro- and micronutrients that are required to support the composition microorganisms [pg. 1342, para. bridging col 1-2]. In regard to claim 2, Li teaches wherein in aerobic fermentation of step S1: the cow dung-based organic materials has an initial moisture content of 50-55%; and after the temperature of a pile reaches 55 °C the fermentation is continued for 7-10 days, and then the fermentation is finished (e.g. in step (1), the organic compost material is adjusted a moisture content of 50–70%. and the temperature is maintained at 50 ℃ –60 ℃ for more than 6 days to thoroughly kill pathogens and insect eggs ) [para. bridging pgs. 7-8]. In this case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [See MPEP 2144.05]. In regard to claim 4, Li et al. teaches wherein the inoculation weights of the Bacillus subtilis fermentation broth and the silicate bacteria fermentation broth to the solid-state fermentation medium in step S2 are 5-15% of the weight of the solid-state fermentation medium, respectively (e.g. liquid Bacillus compound inoculant accounts for 6.0-8.0% of the bio-compound fertilizer by mass ) [pg. 6, last full para.] In regard to claim 5, Li et al. teaches wherein in the solid-state fermentation culture of step S2: the solid fermentation materials have an initial moisture content of 40-50% (e.g. 50-70%) and the fermentation time is 5-7 days [para. bridging pgs. 7-8] and while the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the pile is turned over every 22-26 hours during fermentation, the rate of aeration is considered a result-effective variable by which aerobic bacteria are continually subjected to oxygen to break down the organic material. In regard to claims 9-10, Li et al. teaches a total content of viable bacteria up to 400-1500 million cfu/g and wherein the content of viable Bacillus subtilis is 380-1400 million cfu/g; and the content of viable silicate 18 bacteria is 20-100 million cfu/g (e.g. the content of each bacillus in the bacterial liquid is not less than 50 million CFU/ g and the total Bacillus content is between 200 and 500 million CFU/g ) [clm. 1 and claim 3]. Claim s 3 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0359534) in view of Li et al. (CN 101525254 A1) and Kulcu ( Polish Journal , 2014) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ranck et al. (US P atent Publication No. 2011/0104795). In regard to claim 3, Li et al. disclose in step S1, the manure and straw are subjected to composting, during the whole period of aerobic fermentation wherein the pile is turned over for 3-4 times (e.g. the compost is turned over every 2-3 days, for more than 6 days) and when the temperature of the pile is higher than 65 ℃ , the temperature is lowered by turning over, stirring and aeration (e.g. the temperature is maintained at 50 ℃ –60 ℃ ) [para. bridging pgs. 7-8]. The reference does not explicitly recite wherein the cow dung-based organic materials are stacked according to the length x width x height of 50 m x 5 m x 1.5 m . Ranck et al. is directed to aerated composting [0002]. Biodegradable materials can be composted on a mass production basis by arranging the biodegradable material being composted into long stacks, or windrows . Generally, the windrows of compost can have a width of ten to fifteen feet, a height of six to eight feet and a length of hundreds of feet with the top surface being generally rounded [0003]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to stack the cow dung-based organic materials of the Zhang reference in windrows having the claimed length, width and height. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because windrow compost affords the use of known and available compost turning machines [0004-0007]. In regard to claims 6-7, Ranck makes obvious the stack dimensions recited in the claim as recited in the rejection of claim 3 above. Li teaches wherein the solid fermentation materials have a C/N ratio of 28 (e.g. 20-30) , and a pH of 7 (e.g. 6.0-7.5) [pg. 7, last para.] . While the references do not explicitly disclose a fineness of 70-100 meshes or a fineness of 80 meshes, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand grinding materials to a small mesh size increases surface area to speed decomposition. In regard to claim 8, the prior art references make obvious the preparation method of claim 1, with regard to the preparation method of the Bacillus subtilis fermentation broth and the silicate bacteria fermentation broth, the prior art reference utilize the claimed fermentation microorganisms in the fermenting process. The patentability of the claimed fertilizer does not depend on the method of production of the microorganisms. The Bacillus product described in the prior art reference(s) is the same as the Bacillus product as claimed and the structure of the microorganism is not limited to the manipulations of the recited culturing method. Furthermore, Applicant’s preparation method employs standard culture techniques. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3599 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber R Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 4, 2026