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 .
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group III (claim 9) in the reply filed on 09/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/18/2024, 12/13/2024, 01/12/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The disclosure of the foreign-language application fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application:
Here the Korean language term “약초” recited in the priority documents most closely translates to “medicinal herb”. Medicinal herb (약초) refers to plants that can be used as medicine or have medicinal properties when processed. In addition to herbaceous plants, fungi and fungi such as woody plants and mushrooms are also broadly included in the category of medicinal herbs. The English word 'herb' refers to all ingredients such as herbs, spices, and tea leaves.
The Korean language term “쇠비름” recited in the priority documents most closely translates to “Portulaca oleracea” but is recited in the claim as “purslane”.
The Korean language term “톳” recited in the priority documents and most closely translates to “Sargassum fusiforme” but is recited in the claims as “Hizikia fusiforme”.
The English-language claims do not appear to be an accurate translation of the Korean-language priority document. Applicant is given the opportunity to obtain a high-quality accurate English translation of the priority patent application and correct any deficiencies by amendment.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims do not use standard scientific nomenclature. Italics are used for biological taxa at the level of family and below. In particular:
In particular:
A genus (or genus group) is always italicized and capitalized, even when not paired with a species or subspecies name, and whether given in full or abbreviated: Allosaurus, Falco, Anas, and the "E." in E. coli. Supergenus and subgenus, when applicable, are treated the same way. A genus section is only capitalized.
Any lower (infrageneric) taxa are italicized, i.e. species and (when applicable) subspecies and other formal infraspecific names. They are never capitalized, even where based on a proper name (except for viruses). Examples: the tulip tree is Liriodendron chinense; all modern humans are Homo sapiens; the peninsula newt is Notophthalmus viridescens piaropicola. Except in viruses, a species (or subspecies) name is always preceded by the genus name, or a capitalized abbreviation of it when the meaning of the abbreviation is clear in context. Viruses are so narrowly named at the species level (e.g. Human herpesvirus-5) that including the genus would usually be superfluous, and they are capitalized like a genus. The word "virus" at the end of a viral species or genus name is not capitalized.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites a liquid fertilizer comprising “herbs” and “purslane, Ecklonia cava, and Hizikia fusiforme” with the later components falling within the former broader limitation “herbs” in the same claim. The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam et al. (KR 10-1922442 B, cite no. 13 in 01/18/2024 IDS) in view of Kim (KR 10-2233711 B1) and Flores (Flores et al. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 2021).
In regard to claim 9, Nam et al. disclose a method of treating agricultural produce using a functional agricultural product [para. 0005]. The functional agricultural product is a liquid fertilizer composition comprising plant by-products, wild plants, medicinal herbs, and seaweed as active ingredients [0025]. Tomato plants are grown using the liquid fertilizer and exhibit increase contents of beta-carotene, flavonoids, and polyphenols [0025]. Representative seaweed disclosed by Nam includes Ecklonia cava [table 1, T5], and Hizikia fusiforme [pg. 3, clm. 9]. While Nam discloses wild plants, the reference does not explicitly disclose the composition comprising the wild plant purslane. Kim describes the preparation of wild plant enzyme by mixing wild plants with sugar [para. 0036], the wild plant includes purslane (Portulaca oleracea). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize purslane as the ‘wild plant’ recited in Nam. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform simples substitution of one known element (e.g. wild plant) for another (e.g. wild grass like purslane) to obtain predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in treating broccoli with the composition of Nam/Kim because the evidence supporting the health-promoting properties of seaweed compounds would justify the interest of using seaweed extracts as part of the liquid composition of Nam as a strategy to improve the concentration of bioactive compounds in crops including tomato, pepper and broccoli [Flores, para. bridging pgs. 4-5].
Conclusion
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 September 29, 2026
