DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 3/10/2026:
Claims 1-6, 8-17 and 19-22 are presently pending
Claims 13-17 are withdrawn
Claims 7 and 18 are cancelled
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 10, 12, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omilinsky (U.S. Patent No. 5698003 A, hereinafter "Omilinsky") in view of Immelman (International Patent Pub. No. 2015/145221 A1, hereinafter "Immelman").
Regarding claim 1, Omilinsky teaches a fertilizer particle comprising a core and an outside layer of a conditioning agent (e.g., a fertilizer additive which is impregnated onto a granular fertilizer and increases the nitrogen uptake efficiency of plants) [Omilinsky Col. 1 lines 5-30] comprising a solvent, wherein the solvent is selected from the group of glycols, glycol ethers and mixtures thereof (e.g., glycol or a glycol derivative or a mixed solvent) [Omilinsky Col. 1 lines 24-27], and the solvent represents from about 30 to about 90 wt. % of the conditioning agent (the glycol or glycol derivative content of the composition is between 99 wt. % and 50 wt. %) [Omilinsky Col. 5 lines 55-57].
Omilinsky discloses that the composition may also comprise micronutrients [Omilinsky Col. 4 lines 22-24] but does not explicitly disclose that the micronutrient is an iron chelate component completely dissolved in the solvent. However, Immelman teaches that it is known in the fertilizer art when making coatings for granules comprising micronutrients [Immelman Abstract] to use metal chelates, specifically the iron chelates FeEDTA, FeDTPA and FeDDHA [Immelman Page 4 lines 24-27], in an amount comprising 50 wt. % and 85 wt. % of the coating [Immelman Page 5 lines 17-19]. Water-soluble micronutrients such as these chelates are in the optimal form for correcting micronutrient deficiencies in plants [Immelman Page 1 lines 15-18]. Further, “coating these micronutrients onto fertilizer granules would provide the most efficient method of applying micronutrients to the root zone of germinating seeds or sprouting plant material” [Immelman Page 1 lines 18-20]. As such, in looking to include a micronutrient in the conditioning agent as taught by Omilinsky, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that an iron chelate component is known and even advantageous because it provides the micronutrient in the best form for correcting plant deficiencies. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specifically include an iron chelate component as taught by Immelman in the conditioning agent comprising a micronutrient disclosed by Omilinsky.
Further, the iron chelate component will necessarily completely dissolve in the solvent as claimed, as evidenced by Applicant’s Specification on Page 6 lines 23-26 and Example 1 on Page 13, demonstrating that the specific iron chelates of the prior art Immelman (FeEDTA, FeDTPA, and FeEDDHA) are necessarily and inherently soluble in glycol (“they have a high solubility in a wide range of organic solvents, including glycol and glycol ether solvents”) (Specification Page 6 lines 24-25) (FeEDDHA is completely dissolved in monoethylene glycol in Example 1 on Page 13 of the Specification). As such, the combination of the prior art would necessarily and inherently result in the iron chelate component being completely dissolved in the solvent.
Omilinsky as modified by Immelman does not explicitly describe an amount of iron being at least 30 g/L. However, as discussed above, Immelman provides that the coating should comprise between 50 wt. % and 85 wt. % of the micronutrient component [Immelman Page 5 lines 17-19]. This range provided by Immelman necessarily overlaps with the claimed range of iron. Overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05
Note the following illustrative example, included only for the purposes of demonstrating that the prior art as cited meets the claimed range: 1L of ethylene glycol, which weighs 1,100 g, containing, at minimum 50 wt. % of the iron chelate component, or 550 g of the iron chelate component. The iron chelate component FeEDDHA contains 6 wt. % elemental iron (Specification Page 13 line 6). 6% of 550 g is 33 g iron; as such, the composition of the prior art contains at least 33 g/L of iron. As such, even assuming the lowest wight percent of the range taught by Immelman, the prior art range overlaps with the claimed range of at least 30 g/L iron. On the high end of the range of the prior art, 85 wt. % of the iron chelate component FeEDDHA converts to 935 g FeEDDHA or approximately 56 g iron.
Regarding claim 5, Omilinsky as modified by Immelman teaches the fertilizer particle wherein the conditioning agent is essentially water-free (See Omilinsky Example 1 comprising solvent systems A, B, C and D, wherein no water is added, and the glycols provide the balance of each composition) [Omilinsky Col. 8 lines 40-57].
Regarding claim 6, Omilinsky as modified by Immelman teaches the fertilizer particle wherein the solvent is selected from the group of monoethylene glycol, monopropylene glycol, diethylene glycol, 2-(2-ethoxyethoxy)ethan-1-ol, also known as diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, and mixtures thereof (e.g., ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, and other glycols) [Omilinsky Col. 5 lines 5-10].
Regarding claim 8, Omilinsky as modified by Immelman teaches the fertilizer particle wherein the iron chelate component is a ferric chelate complex of a chelating agent, wherein the chelating agent is an amino-alcohol or an aminopolycarboxylic acid (e.g., FeEDTA, FeDTPA and FeEDDHA [Immelman Page 4 lines 24-27], FeEDDHA being the commercially available product which contains mixtures of the aforementioned chelate components (See the Specification at Page 1 Lines 21-22)).
Regarding claim 10, Omilinsky as modified by Immelman teaches the fertilizer particle wherein the mass ratio of iron chelate component to solvent in the conditioning agent is in the range of from 1:9 to 3:1 (the glycol or glycol derivative content of the composition is between 50 wt. % and 99 wt. % [Omilinsky Col. 5 lines 55-57] and the micronutrient, specifically iron chelate, content of the composition is between 50 wt. % and 85 wt. % [Immelman Page 5 lines 17-19]; these percentages necessarily overlap with the claimed range of ratios of 1:9 to 3:1; overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 12, Omilinsky as modified by Immelman teaches the fertilizer particle, wherein the fertilizer core comprises at least one component selected from the group of urea, ammonium salts, nitrate salts, phosphate salts, potassium salts, calcium nitrate and mixtures thereof (e.g., urea-containing fertilizer granules) [Omilinsky Abstract].
Regarding claim 19, Omilinsky as modified by Immelman teaches the fertilizer particle wherein the conditioning agent comprises at least 35 g/L of iron: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the combination of the prior art teaches a range of micronutrient component that necessarily overlaps with the claimed range: Immelman provides that the coating can comprise between 50 wt. % and 85 wt. % of the micronutrient [Immelman Page 5 lines 17-19] which, using FeEDDHA, converts to 33-56 g of iron per liter. Overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 20, Omilinsky as modified by Immelman teaches the fertilizer particle wherein the conditioning agent comprises at least 40 g/L of iron: As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the combination of the prior art teaches a range of micronutrient component that necessarily overlaps with the claimed range: Immelman provides that the coating can comprise between 50 wt. % and 85 wt. % of the micronutrient [Immelman Page 5 lines 17-19] which, using FeEDDHA, converts to 33-56 g of iron per liter. Overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 22, Omilinsky as modified by Immelman teaches the fertilizer particle wherein the chelating agent is selected from the group of ethylenediamine-N, N'-di[(ortho-hydroxyphenyl) acetic acid], ethylenediamine-N-[(ortho-hydroxyphenyl)acetic acid]-N'-[(para-hydroxyphenyl)acetic acid], ethylenediamine-N,N'-di[ortho-hydroxy-methylphenyl]acetic acid], ethylenediamine-N-[ortho-hydroxy-methylphenyl]acetic acid]-N'-[(para-hydroxy- methylphenyl)acetic acid] or N,N'-di(2-hydroxybenzyl)ethylenediamine-N,N'-diacetic acid, and mixtures thereof (e.g., FeEDDHA [Immelman Page 4 lines 24-27], FeEDDHA being the commercially available product which contains mixtures of the aforementioned chelate components including ethylenediamine-N-[(ortho-hydroxyphenyl)acetic acid]-N'-[(para-hydroxyphenyl)acetic acid (See instant specification at Page 1 Lines 21-22)).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omilinsky and Immelman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kust (U.S. Patent No. 5917110, hereinafter “Kust”).
Regarding claim 2, Omilinsky as modified by Immelman teaches the fertilizer particle and the conditioning agent, and further discloses that the conditioning agent has good miscibility when applied with liquid urea [Omilinsky Abstract], but does not specifically disclose that the conditioning agent further comprises urea. However, Kust teaches that it is known in the fertilizer art to coat granules with additional plant nutrients [Kust Abstract], specifically with a soluble nitrogen-containing coating such as urea [Kust Col. 3 lines 14-15]. A fertilizer core coated with urea is useful as both a soil conditioner and a fertilizer [Kust Col. 5 lines 20-23]. Further, “a soluble nitrogen fertilizer coating such as urea can be stored, shipped and applied as a free-flowing solid with better resistance to moisture” [Kust Col. 3 lines 14-17]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include urea in the conditioning agent so as to provide additional plant nutrients and to improve these physical properties of the coating layer, resulting in improved storage, shipping, and moisture resistance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include urea as taught by Kust in the conditioning agent of Omilinsky as modified by Immelman.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omilinsky and Immelman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burnham (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0355443 A1, hereinafter “Burnham”).
Regarding claim 3, Omilinsky teaches the fertilizer particle and the conditioning agent, but does not specifically disclose that the conditioning agent comprises an acid selected from the group of citric acid, malic acid and mixtures thereof. However, Burnham teaches that it is known in the fertilizer art when making a liquid fertilizer which can be coated onto granules [Burnham Para. 0025 and Claim 16] to include citric acid [Burnham Para. 0049]. Citric acid can alter the electrostatic state of the fertilizer, thereby controlling the release profile [Burnham Para. 0049]. Controlling the release profile allows fertilizers to be manufactured for all parts of a growing season for any particular crop, eliminating the need to apply the fertilizer multiple times [Burnham Para. 0050], As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include citric acid in the conditioning agent so as to control the rate of nutrient release from the fertilizer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include citric acid as taught by Burnham in the conditioning agent of Omilinsky as modified by Immelman.
Claim(s) 4 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omilinsky and Immelman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lambie (European Patent Application No. 0184869 A1, hereinafter “Lambie”).
Regarding claim 4, Omilinsky teaches the fertilizer particle and the conditioning agent, but does not specifically disclose that the pH of the conditioning agent is between 5.0 and 9.0. However, Lambie, directed to granular fertilizers with an organic coating comprising a pH between 4.5 and 9.0 [Lambie Abstract], teaches that fertilizer coating pH is a result effective variable chosen depending on the desired release profile of the coating [Lambie Page 4 lines 22-35]. At a higher coating pH, the deterioration of the coating will occur sooner, while at a lower pH, the coating will deteriorate more slowly [Lambie Page 4 lines 35-37]. Specifically, a pH value above 9 should be avoided because a larger portion of the fertilizer composition will be released shortly after application [Page 5 lines 9-18]. A pH regulating agent can be used to achieve the desired pH [Lambie Page 3 line 9], specifically magnesium oxide or other trace elements [Lambie Page 4 lines 1-3]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to optimize the fertilizer coating to within the range of 5.0 to 9 so as to achieve a desired release profile, and would have readily known how to do so by adding pH regulating agents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the conditioning agent of Omilinsky as modified by Immelman to optimize the pH as taught by Lambie to within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, Omilinsky teaches the fertilizer particle and the conditioning agent, but does not specifically disclose that the pH of the conditioning agent is between 5.0 and 7.0. However, Lambie, directed to granular fertilizers with an organic coating comprising a pH between 4.5 and 9.0 [Lambie Abstract], teaches that fertilizer coating pH is a result effective variable chosen depending on the desired release profile of the coating [Lambie Page 4 lines 22-35]. At a higher coating pH, the deterioration of the coating will occur sooner, while at a lower pH, the coating will deteriorate more slowly [Lambie Page 4 lines 35-37]. A pH regulating agent can be used to achieve the desired pH [Lambie Page 3 line 9], specifically magnesium oxide or other trace elements [Lambie Page 4 lines 1-3]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would know to optimize the fertilizer coating to within the range of 5.0 to 7.0 so as to achieve a desired release profile, and would have readily known how to do so by adding pH regulating agents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the conditioning agent of Omilinsky as modified by Immelman to optimize the pH as taught by Lambie to within the claimed range.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omilinsky and Immelman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hazen (Canadian Patent Application No. 2211996, hereinafter “Hazen”).
Regarding claim 9, Omilinsky teaches the fertilizer particle and the conditioning agent, but does not specifically disclose that the conditioning agent comprises an anti-foam agent. However, Hazen teaches that excessive foaming is a known problem in the fertilizer art [Hazen Page 4 lines 15-16]. Further, it is known to include anti-foaming agents specifically when coating fertilizer granules [Hazen at the paragraph bridging pages 16-17] using glycols [Page 10 lines 25-30]. See also Table I on Page 21 indicating suitable antifoam agents and amounts when coating granules. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that excessive foaming, a known problem in the fertilizer art, can be solved be adding an anti-foam agent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the conditioning agent of Omilinsky as modified by Immelmen the anti-foam agent of Hazen.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Omilinsky and Immelman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peacock (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0137616 A1), hereinafter “Peacock”).
Regarding claim 11, Omilinsky teaches the fertilizer particle and the conditioning agent, but does not specifically disclose that the conditioning agent represents 0.1 to 2.0 wt. % of the fertilizer particle. However, Peacock teaches that it is known in the fertilizer art when coating granules with organic, non-aqueous additives [Peacock Abstract] to do so in an amount comprising 0.01 to 5 wt. % of the entire fertilizer granule [Peacock Para. 0010]. This provides a relatively thin coating which does not excessively inhibit nutrient release [Peacock Para. 0010]. As such, in looking for a suitable amount of conditioning agent to apply to a fertilizer particle, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that 0.01 to 5 wt. % is acceptable and even advantageous in order to permit appropriate nutrient release. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the fertilizer particle and conditioning agent of Omilinsky as modified by Immelmen to apply the conditioning agent in an amount within the range taught by Peacock. Overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Immelman does not teach the claimed range of grams per liter of elemental iron. This is not found persuasive because, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, Immelman teaches a micronutrient component amount which necessarily overlaps with the claimed range of elemental iron. Note the following illustrative example, included only for the purposes of demonstrating that the prior art as cited meets the claimed range: 1L of ethylene glycol, which weighs 1,100 g, containing, at minimum 50 wt. % of the iron chelate component, or 550 g of the iron chelate component. The iron chelate component FeEDDHA contains 6 wt. % elemental iron (Specification Page 13 line 6). 6% of 550 g is 33 g iron; as such, the composition of the prior art contains at least 33 g/L of iron. As such, even assuming the lowest wight percent of the range taught by Immelman, the prior art range overlaps with the claimed range of at least 30 g/L iron. On the high end of the range of the prior art, 85 wt. % of the iron chelate component FeEDDHA converts to 935 g FeEDDHA or approximately 56 g iron.
Applicant also argues that Omilinsky is silent as to any required micronutrient amount. However, it is Omilinsky’s suggestion of the inclusion of micronutrients, but silence as to the required micronutrient amount, which would prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to look to additional references to determine appropriate micronutrient components and amounts (here, Immelman).
Applicant also argues that Omilinsky’s formulation would discourage a person of ordinary skill in the art from introducing a new solute in a high concentration. This is not found persuasive because Omilinsky uses the open terms “comprised”, and even suggests additives, which do not limit the composition of Omilinsky. Further, in combining Omilinsky with additional teachings, only reasonable expectation of success is required, not absolute certainty of success. See MPEP 2143.02.
Applicant also argues that Immelman teaches a dry, solid powder composition in which the micronutrient components are micronized, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Immelman to provide a micronutrient which would be dissolved in a solvent (Remarks Page 8). However, Omilinsky teaches that the fertilizer coating composition/additive may also comprise micronutrients [Omilinsky Col. 4 lines 22-24], without specifying what type or what form of micronutrients should be implemented. As such, in making the fertilizer particle of Omilinsky, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to additional references in order to identify suitable types and forms of micronutrients. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Immelman because it teaches that it is standard in the fertilizer art when making coatings for granules comprising micronutrients [Immelman Abstract] to use metal chelates, specifically the iron chelates FeEDTA, FeDTPA and FeDDHA [Immelman Page 4 lines 24-27], in an amount comprising 50 wt. % and 85 wt. % of the coating [Immelman Page 5 lines 17-19]. Water-soluble micronutrients such as these chelates are in the optimal form for correcting micronutrient deficiencies in plants [Immelman Page 1 lines 15-18]. Further, “coating these micronutrients onto fertilizer granules would provide the most efficient method of applying micronutrients to the root zone of germinating seeds or sprouting plant material” [Immelman Page 1 lines 18-20]. While Immelman does not appear to dissolve the micronutrients or chelates in a solvent, the advantages of these additives are still readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art seeking suitable micronutrient forms because they are optimal for plants and provide the nutrients directly to the root zone. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would still be prompted to try implementing them in the coating of Omilinsky, and would have reasonable expectation of success because these are standard ingredients and nutrients in fertilizer coatings. Further, in making the combination, the chelated additives will necessarily and inherently dissolve, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 1.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the challenged grounds of rejection are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER E RAINBOW whose telephone number is (571)272-0185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM PST.
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 Orlando can be reached on 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.
/H.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights