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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 2-5 in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 6-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/20/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 is a method claim however does not recite active method steps. The Office suggests language such as:
– A method of growing agricultural products comprising the steps of:
immersing a power and granular material in water;
treating the water at high pressure at a level of 147 megapascal to form a treated media;
providing the treated media to crops growing in a field;
mixing the treated media into the vegetation soil of the field.—
Applicant should correct the limitations as appropriate in order to arrive at clearer language.
Claim 3 is dependent on “Claim 2”, which should read -claim 2-.
Claim 4 is dependent on “Claims 2”, which should read -claim 2-.
Claim 5 is dependent on “Claim 5”, which should read -claim 2-.
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.
Claims 2-5 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 2 recites: “the powder and granular material provided with reducible activity”, it is unclear whether this means the powder itself is being reduced, or the water is reduced as defined by para [0026] of applicant’s specification. Examination has proceeded with the lateral interpretation.
Claim 2 is unclear as to whether the water is being treated at 147 megapascal with the water then being added to the powder afterwards, or if the water is applied to the powder/granular material and then both are subjected to 147 megapascal.
Claim 2 recites “in water comprising the presumed particles generated by means of applying high pressure to the water at a level of 147 megapascal”. It is unclear by the claim whether the language is meant to recite there is an active step in which the water was placed in 147 megapascal conditions, or if the invention’s active step is merely providing water which were subjected to the pressure conditions.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (KR 102636621 B1) in view of Sugihara NPL (See attached) and Sugihara (JP 2022097914 A).
Regarding claim 2: Yu discloses a production method of agricultural products, characterized in that the powder and granular material provided with reducible activity is prepared by immersing the powder and granular material (bag 20 contains separated rice husk charcoal), which functions as the treated media for production of agricultural products (rice husk charcoal is mixed for the purpose of plant growth), in water (Fig. 2.2 illustrate water being introduced in bag 20) and that agricultural products are produced by cultivating the agricultural crops in the fields where the powder and granular material provided with reducible activity is mixed with the vegetation soil in those fields (top soil and rice husk charcoal in bag (20) are immersed in water and mixed in order to create a field in which plant seeds (30) are positioned in, see Figs. 2-3, 6).
Yu fails to teach water comprising the presumed particles generated by means of applying high pressure to the water at a level of 147 megapascal.
However, Sugihara NPL discusses water comprising the presumed particles generated by means of applying high pressure to the water (abstract discusses the use of pico-sized water in agriculture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the rice charcoal husk as disclosed by Yu with the activated pico-sized water as taught by Sugihara NPL with a reasonable expectation of success because immersing the biochar in the activated water would provide known detailed benefits to the crops by providing deoxidation (as discussed by Sugihara NPL in the abstract).
Sugihara teaches water being treated at a high pressure of 147 megapascal (disclosure discusses pressurizing the water to 147 megapascal in order to transfer the virtual particles to the medium).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the activated water as disclosed by modified Yu with the 147 megapascal pressure as taught by Sugihara with a reasonable expectation of success because providing such high pressure is known to allow for the transfer of virtual particles to the medium, as detailed by Sugihara.
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, and further teaches the powder and granular material provided with reducible activity is prepared by means of immersing untreated powder and granular material enclosed in a bag in the water wherein the presumed particles are generated (Yu as modified would allow for activated water to be introduced into bag (20) containing the rice charcoal husk, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, and further teaches the powder and granular material is either crushed coal or rice husk charcoal prepared by carbonizing rice husks (Yu bag 20 contains rice husk charcoal, which is described in the disclosure of Yu to be carbonized material made by carbonizing rice husk at high temperatures).
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Yu as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the amount of the powder and granular material provided with reducible activity to be applied to vegetation fields is fixed to a range of from 2.5 to 4.0 kg per square meter of paddy field. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the powder and granular material at a range of 2.5 to 4.0 kg per square meter of paddy field, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Such optimization of the range of material to be provided to the field would be done in order to provide the crops with the greatest amount of benefit while at the same time taking into account the law of diminishing returns, insuring that excess material is not wasted by providing no virtual benefit to the crops.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are either within applicant’s related field of powder/granular material or activation of water by applying pressure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642