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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 11/14/2025:
Claims 1-9, 11, 14, 18-22 and 24 are presently pending
Claims 15, 18-22 and 24 are withdrawn
Claims 10, 12-13, 16-17, 23, and 25-26 are cancelled
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Here, the abstract is objected to because it contains 177 words.
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 1-9, 11 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “wherein said polymers derived from plants comprise maize, wheat or sugar beet, starches and combinations thereof” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what specific alternatives are encompassed by the words “or” and “and.” Specifically, it is unclear whether each of the included types of polymers are alternatives, or only wheat or sugar beet are alternatives. The further inclusion of the word “and” also adds confusion because it is unclear if it allows for the alternative of the combination of all the recited elements or only sugar beet and starches or only starches. For purposes of examination, the claim is regarded as referring to polymers derived at least in part from any one of the recited plant sources (maize, wheat, sugar beet, starches) as well as any combination thereof.
Note that all other claims are being included as a result of their dependency upon a rejected claim as set forth above.
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) 1-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sequi (International Patent Pub. No. 2007/132497 A2, hereinafter referred to as “Sequi”) in view of Ambri (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0250582 A1, hereinafter “Ambri”) and Schmitt (U.S. Patent No. 6071325, hereinafter “Schmitt”).
Regarding claim 1, Sequi discloses an aggregate comprising a fertilizing composition (e.g., a fertilizer material formed into granules [Sequi Page 8 lines 16-19], described as a suitable aggregate in the instant specification at Page 21 lines 20-21), wherein the fertilizing composition comprises a glass matrix [Sequi Page 1 lines 1-3], said glass matrix comprising at least three forming oxides, wherein said at least three forming oxides are SiO2, P2O5, and B2O3 [Sequi Page 5 lines 18-24], wherein said glass matrix comprises at least one microelement selected from among: iron, zinc, copper, manganese, cobalt, molybdenum and mixtures thereof, said at least one microelement being present within glass matrix in oxide form (e.g., ZnO, Fe2O3, MnO, CuO, and MoO3) [Sequi Page 5 lines 15-17]. Sequi does not explicitly disclose a weight ratio of SiO2/P2O5 comprised from 1 to 5 or a weight ratio of SiO2/B2O3 comprised from 15 to 25. However, Sequi discloses a weight percentage range for each of these three oxides: 0.5-30% SiO2, 2-45% P2O5, and 0-18% B2O3 [Sequi Page 5 lines 16 and 20-23]. The ranges disclosed by Sequi of the three forming oxides would reasonably suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art any combination of the three components within those ranges. As an illustrative example, if the glass matrix of Sequi were to comprise 30 wt. % SiO2, 10 wt. % P2O5, and 1.5 wt. % B2O3, the ratios by weight would be equal to: SiO2/P2O5: 3, SiO2/B2O3: 20 which lies within the claimed range. As such, the ranges of weight percentages disclosed by Sequi necessarily overlap with the claimed ranges of weight ratios. Overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Sequi states that plants release citric acid to assist in solubilizing nutrients [Sequi Page 3 lines 10-18] but not explicitly state that the composition further comprises citric acid. However, Ambri teaches that it is standard in microelement-containing glass matrix fertilizers to include a small amount of citric acid [Ambri Abstract & Para. 0014]. Citric acid serves many purposes, including lowering pH of soil to facilitate dissolution of microelements [Ambri Para. 0004], as well as acting as a complexing or binding agent for the microelements contained in the glassy matrix fertilizer [Ambri Para. 0029], thereby facilitating dissolution and distribution to plants. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that it is standard and even advantageous to include citric acid along with a glass matrix fertilizer so as to take advantage of the complexing characteristics and the facilitation of dissolution of the microelements. 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 fertilizing composition of Sequi to include citric acid as taught by Ambri.
Sequi as modified by Ambri does not explicitly state that the aggregate further comprises a thickening agent selected from the group consisting of sodium silicate, CMC, biocompatible polymers of the PLA, PLGA type, and polymers derived from plants, wherein said polymers derived from plants comprise maize, wheat or sugar beet, starches and combinations thereof. However, Schmitt teaches that starch derivatives, cellulose derivatives including CMC, and plant-based polymers such as those from sugar beet or rice hulls or bran are all standard binders [Schmitt Col. 3 lines 55-67 & Col. 4 lines 15-20 to include in a fertilizer agglomerate such as a granule [Schmitt Col. 3 lines 17-21 & lines 41-50]. Including one or more of these binders in a granule serves to hold or bind the included minerals together [Schmitt Col. 2 lines 33-37]. The particular binders implemented by Schmitt impart adequate dry strength to the pellets at economical use levels [Col. 2 lines 40-45], and their amounts can be adjusted to achieve a desired particle size, crush strength, and smoothness [Col. 4 lines 41-50]. As such, in making the aggregate of Sequi as modified by Ambri, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate the advantages of further including a thickening agent so as to bind the materials together. 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 aggregate of Sequi and Ambri to further included one or more of the recited thickening agents as taught by Schmitt.
Regarding claim 2, Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt discloses the aggregate wherein the ratio by weight between SiO2/P2O5 is comprised from 2.5 to 3.5 and the ratio by weight between SiO2/B2O3 is comprised from 20 to 23 (See illustrative example of Sequi’s glass matrix fertilizer presented in the rejection of claim 1 above, providing SiO2/P2O5: 3 and SiO2/B2O3: 20).
Regarding claim 3, Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt discloses the aggregate wherein the SiO2 is present in the glass matrix in an amount comprised from 10 to 30 wt. % relative to the total weight of the glass matrix (e.g., 0.5-30% SiO2) [Sequi Page 5 lines 19-20]. Similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt discloses the aggregate wherein the P2O5 is present in the glass matrix in an amount comprised from 5 to 20 wt. % relative to the total weight of the glass matrix (e.g., 2-45% P2O5) [Sequi Page 5 lines 22-23]. Similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt discloses the aggregate wherein the B2O3 is present in the glass matrix in an amount comprised from 0.5 to 5 wt. % relative to the total weight of the glass matrix (e.g., 0-18% B2O3) [Sequi Page 5 line 22]. Similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 6, Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt discloses the aggregate wherein said at least one microelement is present in the glass matrix in an amount greater than 1 wt. % relative to the total weight of the glass matrix (the trace elements of Sequi presented in the rejection of claim 1 above are present as a whole in a percentage range between 1 wt. % and 65 wt. % relative to the total weight of the glass matrix [Sequi Page 5 lines 27-30]; for example, ZnO may be present in a percentage comprised between 0-22 wt. % [Sequi Page 5 line 15]). Similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt discloses the aggregate wherein said glass matrix further comprises at least one modifying oxide selected from among Na2O, K2O, Li2O and combinations thereof (e.g., 0-10.45 wt. % Na2O and 2-45 wt. % K2O) [Sequi Page 5 line 21].
Regarding claim 8, Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt discloses aggregate wherein said glass matrix further comprises at least one intermediary oxide selected from among Al2O3, TiO2, ZrO2 and combinations thereof (e.g., 0-20 wt. % Al2O3, 0.001-4 wt. % TiO2, and 0.030-4 wt. % ZrO2) [Sequi Page 5 lines 20-22].
Regarding claim 9, Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt discloses the aggregate wherein said glass matrix further comprises at least one stabilizing oxide selected from among BaO, CaO, MgO, TiO2, ZrO2, ZnO and combinations thereof (e.g., 3-37.4 wt. % CaO, 0.5-22.9 wt. % MgO, 0.001-4 wt. % TiO2, 0.030-4 wt. % ZrO2, and 0-22 wt. % ZnO) [Sequi Page 5 lines 15-22].
Regarding claim 14, Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt discloses the aggregate further comprising at least one microelement, said at least one microelement being identical to or different from the at least one microelement present within the glass matrix of the fertilizing composition according to claim 1 (the fertilizing composition of Sequi comprises multiple microelements including ZnO, Fe2O3, MnO, CuO, and MoO3 [Sequi Page 5 lines 15-17]; these microelements are present within the glass matrix and thus necessarily also comprised in the aggregate).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sequi, Ambri and Schmitt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hiroshi (Japanese Patent No. 2003137704 A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Hiroshi”).
Regarding claim 11, Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt discloses aggregate comprising citric acid, but does not explicitly state that the citric acid is present in an amount comprised from 0.5 to 5 wt. % relative to the total weight of the composition. However, Hiroshi teaches that it is standard when including citric acid as an auxiliary ingredient or adjuvant in fertilizer granules [Hiroshi Abstract & Para. 0023 & Para. 0045] to do so in an amount within the range of 0.01 to 20 wt. % based on the total weight of the composition [Hiroshi Para. 0045]. As such, in looking for a suitable amount of citric acid to include in the fertilizer composition of Sequi as modified by Ambri and Schmitt, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hiroshi and readily appreciate that a range overlapping with the claimed range is standard. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731