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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 2/26/2026:
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-14, 16-17, and 20-22 are presently pending
Claims 20-22 are withdrawn
Claims 5, 8-10, 15, and 18-19 are cancelled
The claim objections are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims
New grounds of rejection are presented herein, as necessitated by amendment
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) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0329435 A1, hereinafter “Hardy”).
Regarding claim 1, Hardy teaches a fertilizer coating (e.g., a coating for carrier granules wherein the coating comprises a fertilizer; a broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 would appear to allow the fertilizer to be within the coating) [Hardy Para. 0020-21] comprising:
Highly saturated triglycerides (e.g., lard, and an oil such as palm oil) [Hardy Para. 0020] (described as suitable highly saturated triglycerides in the Specification at Paragraph 0009), wherein the highly saturated triglycerides comprise at least 35% by weight of the fertilizer coating (e.g., lard in an amount between 0.01-20% and the oil such as palm oil in an amount between 0.05-97%) [Hardy Para. 0020],
Plant-based oil and/or lecithin (e.g., one or more oils having binding properties such as the palm oil as well as rapeseed oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, linseed oil, etc.) [Hardy Para. 0020], wherein the plant-based oil and/or lecithin comprises at least 50% by weight of the fertilizer coating (e.g., the oil is present in an amount between 0.05-97%) [Hardy Para. 0020]; and
At least one gum selected from the group consisting of fenugreek gum, tragacanth gum, gum ghatti, mucilage gums, dextran, welan gum, gellan gum, diutan gum, pullulan, and mixtures thereof (e.g., gums such as gellan and tragacanth in an amount between 0.01-4%) [Hardy Para. 0020].
For purposes of clarity, note that the lard and the oil such as a palm oil are together regarded as being mapped onto the highly saturated triglycerides, while the remaining oil included in the coating composition is regarded as being mapped onto the plant-based oil. Taken together, the lard and oil sources overlap with each of the respectively claimed ranges. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Hardy teaches the fertilizer coating wherein the at least one gum is derived from plants (e.g., tragacanth gum) [Hardy Para. 0020].
Regarding claim 4, Hardy teaches the fertilizer coating wherein the plant-based oil and/or lecithin comprises plant oil, lecithin, or a combination thereof (e.g., plant oils such as soybean, palm, cottonseed, rapeseed, wintergreen, etc.) [Hardy Para. 0020].
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 11-12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright (International Pub. No. WO 2012/054479 A1, hereinafter "Wright") in view of Fukumoto (Japanese Patent No. 2004002158 A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Fukumoto”) and Ryasa (Russian Patent No. 2606785 C2) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Ryasa”).
Regarding claim 1, Wright teaches a fertilizer coating (e.g., coating materials for a core containing the fertilizer substance) [Wright Para. 0026] comprising:
Highly saturated triglycerides (e.g., aliphatic monocarboxylic acids which may be saturated and include mono-, di-, or triglycerides, such as vegetable oil, animal fat, and waxes) [Wright Para. 0026-27] (the instant specification does not define a requisite degree of saturation; thus, saturated is here interpreted to include highly saturated), wherein the highly saturated triglycerides comprise at least 35% by weight of the fertilizer coating (e.g., the coating may comprise about 60 to 100 wt. % of the saturated aliphatic monocarboxylic acids) [Wright Para. 0030]; and
Plant-based oil and/or lecithin (“supplemental compounds that may be added to the coating include lecithin, palm oil, castor oil, and combinations thereof”) [Wright Para. 0029].
Wright does not explicitly disclose that (1) the plant-based oil and/or lecithin comprises at least 50% by weight of the fertilizer coating, or (2) the coating comprises at least one gum selected from the group consisting of a fenugreek gum, tragacanth gum, gum ghatti, mucilage gums, dextran, welan gum, gellan gum, diutan gum, pulluan, and mixtures thereof.
As to (1), Ryasa teaches that it is known when making fertilizer coatings [Ryasa Abstract] to include vegetable oils [Ryasa Page 14 Para. 13] such as soybean oil or sunflower oil [Ryasa Page 9 Para. 7] in an amount comprising 40-95% of the coating composition [Ryasa Page 13, last line]. The plant oil included in this amount acts as a natural solvent with good biodegradability and ecotoxicity [Ryasa Page 10 Para. 5]. As such, in looking for a suitable amount of plant oil to include in the fertilizer coating as taught by the modified Wright, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Ryasa and recognize that 40-95% by weight is standard and advantageous [Ryasa Page 13, last line]. 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 the plant oil in the coating of Wright in an amount comprising 40-95% by weight of the coating as taught by Ryasa. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to (2), Fukumoto teaches that it is standard when making slow-release coated fertilizer granules [Fukumoto Abstract & Para. 0031] to include a biodegradable material such as pullulan or dextran in order to further influence the degradability of the coating [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. Microorganisms in soil can degrade these materials, so they promote overall degradability of the coating [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. Further, Fukumoto teaches that the amount of gum added to the coating depends on the desired dissolution controllability, decomposability, and storage stability – more of the pullulan or dextran increases the degradability of the coating, and less allows the fertilizer to release more slowly [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. As such, in making the fertilizer coating of Wright, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Fukumoto and readily appreciate that pullulan and dextran are standard ingredients and are advantageous because they affect the release rate of the fertilizer depending on the amount included [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when making the fertilizer coating of Wright to include pullulan and/or dextran as taught by Fukumoto.
Regarding claim 2, Wright as modified by Fukumoto and Ryasa discloses the fertilizer coating wherein the at least one gum is derived from plants (e.g., pullulan or dextran) [Fukumoto Para. 0037].
Regarding claim 4, Wright as modified by Fukumoto and Ryasa discloses the fertilizer coating wherein the plant-based oil and/or lecithin comprises plant oil, lecithin, or a combination thereof (“supplemental compounds that may be added to the coating include lecithin, palm oil, castor oil, and combinations thereof”) [Wright Para. 0029].
Regarding claim 11, Wright teaches a coated fertilizer (e.g., a composition with a core of at least one fertilizer substance and at least one layer of a coating material) [Wright Abstract] comprising:
Fertilizer (e.g., a composition with a core of at least one fertilizer substance) [Wright Abstract]; and
A fertilizer coating (coating materials for a core containing the fertilizer substance) [Wright Abstract] comprising:
Highly saturated triglycerides (i.e., aliphatic monocarboxylic acids which may be saturated and include mono-, di-, or triglycerides) [Wright Para. 0026] (the instant specification does not define a requisite degree of saturation; thus, saturated is here interpreted to include highly saturated), wherein the highly saturated triglycerides comprise at least 35% by weight of the fertilizer coating (e.g., the coating may comprise about 60 to 100 wt. % of the saturated aliphatic monocarboxylic acids) [Wright Para. 0030]; and
Plant-based oil and/or lecithin (“supplemental compounds that may be added to the coating include lecithin, palm oil, castor oil, and combinations thereof”) [Wright Para. 0029].
Wright does not explicitly disclose that (1) the plant-based oil and/or lecithin comprises at least 50% by weight of the fertilizer coating, or (2) the coating comprises at least one gum selected from the group consisting of a fenugreek gum, tragacanth gum, gum ghatti, mucilage gums, dextran, welan gum, gellan gum, diutan gum, pulluan, and mixtures thereof.
As to (1), Ryasa teaches that it is known when making fertilizer coatings [Ryasa Abstract] to include vegetable oils [Ryasa Page 14 Para. 13] such as soybean oil or sunflower oil [Ryasa Page 9 Para. 7] in an amount comprising 40-95% of the coating composition [Ryasa Page 13, last line]. The plant oil included in this amount acts as a natural solvent with good biodegradability and ecotoxicity [Ryasa Page 10 Para. 5]. As such, in looking for a suitable amount of plant oil to include in the fertilizer coating as taught by the modified Wright, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Ryasa and recognize that 40-95% by weight is standard and advantageous [Ryasa Page 13, last line]. 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 the plant oil in the coating of Wright in an amount comprising 40-95% by weight of the coating as taught by Ryasa. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
As to (2), Fukumoto teaches that it is standard when making slow-release coated fertilizer granules [Fukumoto Abstract & Para. 0031] to include a biodegradable material such as pullulan or dextran in order to further influence the degradability of the coating [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. Microorganisms in soil can degrade these materials, so they promote overall degradability of the coating [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. Further, Fukumoto teaches that the amount added to the coating depends on the desired dissolution controllability, decomposability, and storage stability – more of the pullulan or dextran increases the degradability of the coating, and less allows the fertilizer to release more slowly [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. As such, in making the fertilizer coating of Wright, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Fukumoto and readily appreciate that pullulan and dextran are standard ingredients and are advantageous because they affect the release rate of the fertilizer depending on the amount included [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when making the fertilizer coating of Wright to include pullulan and/or dextran as taught by Fukumoto.
Regarding claim 12, Wright as modified by Fukumoto and Ryasa discloses the fertilizer coating wherein the at least one gum is derived from plants (e.g., pullulan or dextran) [Fukumoto Para. 0037].
Regarding claim 14, Wright as modified by Fukumoto discloses the coated fertilizer wherein the plant-based oil and/or lecithin comprises plant oil, lecithin, or a combination thereof (“supplemental compounds that may be added to the coating include lecithin, palm oil, castor oil, and combinations thereof”) [Wright Para. 0029].
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Fukumoto and Ryasa as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chan (UK patent Application No. 2164640 A, hereinafter “Chan”).
Regarding claim 3, Wright as modified by Fukumoto and Ryasa discloses the fertilizer coating comprising highly saturated triglycerides (e.g., aliphatic monocarboxylic acids which may be saturated and include mono-, di-, or triglycerides) [Wright Para. 0026] but does not specifically disclose that the highly saturated triglycerides comprise palm stearin. However, Chan teaches that it is known when making plant-oil-based coatings for fertilizer granules to include palm oil and derivatives and byproducts of palm oil such as stearin [Chan Abstract & Claim 1]. Stearin and related palm derivatives are advantageous because they have low melting points compared to fertilizers such as urea, permitting coating a granule without having to heat the mixture to a high temperature, thus avoiding potentially chemically altering the composition [Chan Page 1 lines 15-17]. Further, stearin and other palm derivatives reduce the hygroscopicity of fertilizer particles by acting as a sealant and preventing moisture absorption [Chan Page 1 lines 13-15], thereby reducing solubility and leaching losses of the fertilizer [Chan Page 3 lines 29-30]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include palm stearin in the triglycerides in the coating so as to take advantage of its low melting point and also provide a sealant which decreases leaching losses. 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 modified fertilizer coating of Wright comprising highly saturated triglycerides to specifically include palm stearin as taught by Chan.
Regarding claim 13, Wright as modified by Fukumoto and Ryasa discloses the coated fertilizer comprising highly saturated triglycerides (e.g., aliphatic monocarboxylic acids which may be saturated and include mono-, di-, or triglycerides) [Wright Para. 0026] but does not explicitly disclose that the highly saturated triglycerides comprise palm stearin. However, Chan teaches that it is known when making plant-oil-based coatings for fertilizer granules to include palm oil and derivatives and byproducts of palm oil such as stearin [Chan Abstract & Claim 1]. Stearin and related palm derivatives are advantageous because they have low melting points compared to fertilizers such as urea, permitting coating a granule without having to heat the mixture to a high temperature, thus avoiding potentially chemically altering the composition [Chan Page 1 lines 15-17]. Further, stearin and other palm derivatives reduce the hygroscopicity of fertilizer particles by acting as a sealant and preventing moisture absorption [Chan Page 2 lines 13-15], thereby reducing solubility and leaching losses of the fertilizer [Chan Page 3 lines 29-30]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include palm stearin in the triglycerides in the coating of the granule so as to take advantage of its low melting point and also provide a sealant which decreases leaching losses. 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 coated fertilizer comprising triglycerides of the modified Wright to specifically include palm stearin as taught by Chan.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright, Fukumoto and Ryasa as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Chan and Wang (Chinese Patent No. 112142540 A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 7, Wright as modified by Fukumoto and Ryasa teaches the fertilizer coating comprising highly saturated triglycerides (e.g., aliphatic monocarboxylic acids which may be saturated and include mono-, di-, or triglycerides) [Wright Para. 0026] and the gum (e.g., pullulan or dextran) [Fukumoto Para. 0037] wherein:
The plant-based oil and/or lecithin is lecithin is soy bean oil, sunflower oil, palm oil, or any other oil naturally derived from plants (“supplemental compounds that may be added to the coating include lecithin, palm oil, castor oil, and combinations thereof”) [Wright Para. 0029].
Wright as modified by Fukumoto does not explicitly disclose that (1) the highly saturated triglycerides comprise palm stearin, (2) the palm stearin comprises 35% by weight of the fertilizer coating, (3) the plant oil comprises 60% by weight of the fertilizer coating, or (4) the gum comprises 5% by weight of the fertilizer coating.
As to (1), Chan teaches that it is known when making plant-oil-based coatings for fertilizer granules to include palm oil and derivatives and byproducts of palm oil such as stearin [Chan Abstract & Claim 1]. Stearin and related palm derivatives are advantageous because they have low melting points compared to fertilizers such as urea, permitting coating without having to heat the mixture to a high temperature, thus avoiding potentially chemically altering the composition [Chan Page 1 lines 15-17]. Further, stearin and other palm derivatives reduce the hygroscopicity of fertilizer particles by acting as a sealant and preventing moisture absorption [Chan Page 1 lines 13-15], thereby reducing solubility and leaching losses of the fertilizer [Chan Page 3 lines 29-30]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include palm stearin in triglycerides in the coating so as to take advantage of its low melting point and also provide a sealant which decreases leaching losses. 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 coating of Wright as modified by Fukumoto comprising highly saturated triglycerides to specifically include palm stearin as taught by Chan.
As to (2), Wang teaches that it is known to include palm stearin [Wang Para. 0014] in a coating or film for granular fertilizers [Wang Abstract] in an amount comprising 10-40% of the coating [Wang Abstract]. As such, in looking to implement palm stearin in the fertilizer coating as taught by the modified Wright, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Wang and recognize that 10-40% by weight is standard in order to take advantage of the slow-release effect [Wang Para. 0023]. 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 the palm stearin in the modified coating of Wright in an amount comprising 10-40% by weight of the coating as taught by Wang, which encompasses the claimed amount. Where the prior art encompasses the claimed amount, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to (3), Ryasa teaches that it is known when making fertilizer coatings [Ryasa Abstract] to include vegetable oils [Ryasa Page 14 Para. 13] such as soybean oil or sunflower oil [Ryasa Page 9 Para. 7] in an amount comprising 40-95% of the coating composition [Ryasa Page 13, last line]. The plant oil included in this amount acts as a natural solvent with good biodegradability and ecotoxicity [Ryasa Page 10 Para. 5]. As such, in looking for a suitable amount of plant oil to include in the fertilizer coating as taught by the modified Wright, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Ryasa and recognize that 40-95% by weight is standard and advantageous [Ryasa Page 13, last line]. 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 the plant oil in the coating of Wright in an amount comprising 40-95% by weight of the coating as taught by Ryasa. Note that where the prior art encompasses the claimed amount, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to (4), Fukumoto establishes that the amount of gum included in the fertilizer coating is a result effective variable chosen depending on the desired dissolution controllability, decomposability, and storage stability – more of the pullulan or dextran increases the degradability of the coating, and less allows the fertilizer to release more slowly [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. As such, in adding the gum of Fukumoto, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the amount thereof in order to customize the dissolution controllability, decomposability, and storage ability of 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 choose the instantly claimed amount through routine optimization, since it has been held that there 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. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 17, Wright as modified by Fukumoto and Ryasa teaches the coated fertilizer comprising highly saturated triglycerides (e.g., aliphatic monocarboxylic acids which may be saturated and include mono-, di-, or triglycerides) [Wright Para. 0026] and the gum (e.g., pullulan or dextran) [Fukumoto Para. 0037] wherein:
The plant-based oil and/or lecithin is lecithin is soy bean oil, sunflower oil, palm oil, or any other oil naturally derived from plants (“supplemental compounds that may be added to the coating include lecithin, palm oil, castor oil, and combinations thereof”) [Wright Para. 0029].
Wright as modified by Fukumoto does not explicitly disclose that (1) the highly saturated triglycerides comprise palm stearin, (2) the palm stearin comprises 35% by weight of the fertilizer coating, (3) the plant oil comprises 60% by weight of the fertilizer coating, or (4) the gum comprises 5% by weight of the fertilizer coating.
As to (1), Chan teaches that it is known when making plant-oil-based coatings for fertilizer granules to include palm oil and derivatives and byproducts of palm oil such as stearin [Chan Abstract & Claim 1]. Stearin and related palm derivatives are advantageous because they have low melting points compared to fertilizers such as urea, permitting coating without having to heat the mixture to a high temperature, thus avoiding potentially chemically altering the composition [Chan Page 1 lines 15-17]. Further, stearin and other palm derivatives reduce the hygroscopicity of fertilizer particles by acting as a sealant and preventing moisture absorption [Chan Page 1 lines 13-15], thereby reducing solubility and leaching losses of the fertilizer [Chan Page 3 lines 29-30]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include palm stearin in triglycerides in the coating so as to take advantage of its low melting point and also provide a sealant which decreases leaching losses. 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 coating of Wright as modified by Fukumoto comprising highly saturated triglycerides to specifically include palm stearin as taught by Chan.
As to (2), Wang teaches that it is known to include palm stearin [Wang Para. 0014] in a coating or film for granular fertilizers [Wang Abstract] in an amount comprising 10-40% of the coating [Wang Abstract]. As such, in looking to implement palm stearin in the fertilizer coating as taught by the modified Wright, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Wang and recognize that 10-40% by weight is standard in order to take advantage of the slow-release effect [Wang Para. 0023]. 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 the palm stearin in the modified coated fertilizer of Wright in an amount comprising 10-40% by weight of the coating as taught by Wang, which encompasses the claimed amount. Where the prior art encompasses the claimed amount, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to (3), Ryasa teaches that it is known when making fertilizer coatings [Ryasa Abstract] to include vegetable oils [Ryasa Page 14 Para. 13] such as soybean oil or sunflower oil [Ryasa Page 9 Para. 7] in an amount comprising 40-95% of the coating composition [Ryasa Page 13, last line]. As such, in looking for a suitable amount of plant oil to include in the fertilizer coating as taught by the modified Wright, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Ryasa and recognize that 40-95% by weight is standard [Ryasa Page 13, last line]. 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 the plant oil in the modified coated fertilizer of Wright in an amount comprising 40-95% by weight of the coating as taught by Ryasa, which encompasses the claimed amount. Where the prior art encompasses the claimed amount, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
As to (4), Fukumoto establishes that the amount of gum included in the fertilizer coating is a result effective variable chosen depending on the desired dissolution controllability, decomposability, and storage stability – more of the pullulan or dextran increases the degradability of the coating, and less allows the fertilizer to release more slowly [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. As such, in adding the gum of Fukumoto, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the amount thereof in order to customize the dissolution controllability, decomposability, and storage ability of 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 choose the instantly claimed amount through routine optimization, since it has been held that there 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. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art references do not teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of dependent claims 6 and 16, with particular attention to the inclusion of lecithin within the coating in an amount between 50% to 95% by weight.
Wright, the closest prior art of record, teaches the fertilizer coating and the coated fertilizer (e.g., coating materials for a core containing the fertilizer substance) [Wright Para. 0026] comprising:
Highly saturated triglycerides (e.g., aliphatic monocarboxylic acids which may be saturated and include mono-, di-, or triglycerides, such as vegetable oil, animal fat, and waxes) [Wright Para. 0026-27] (the instant specification does not define a requisite degree of saturation; thus, saturated is here interpreted to include highly saturated); and
Plant-based oil and/or lecithin (“supplemental compounds that may be added to the coating include lecithin, palm oil, castor oil, and combinations thereof”) [Wright Para. 0029].
Wright does not explicitly disclose that the highly saturated triglycerides are specifically palm stearin in an amount between 35% to 50% by weight of the fertilizer coating, or that the lecithin comprises 50% to 95% by weight of the fertilizer coating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Applicant argues that the amount of the gum (i.e., the pullulan, dextran) taught by Fukumoto is not a result effective variable, and that there is no teaching or suggestion that it would be a result effective variable with respect to a non-polymeric formulation (Remarks Pages 9-10). This is not found persuasive. Fukumoto teaches that it is standard when making slow-release coated fertilizer granules [Fukumoto Abstract & Para. 0031] to include a biodegradable material such as pullulan or dextran in order to further influence the degradability of the coating [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. Microorganisms in soil can degrade these materials, so they promote overall degradability of the coating [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. Further, Fukumoto teaches that the amount of gum added to the coating depends on the desired dissolution controllability, decomposability, and storage stability – more of the pullulan or dextran increases the degradability of the coating, and less allows the fertilizer to release more slowly [Fukumoto Para. 0037]. Fukumoto does not state that this logic only applies to polymeric compositions. Further, "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle."Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the cited advantages of including a gum in the formulation of Wright, and thus find it obvious to try implementing the gum in order to take advantage of these effects.
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Ryasa to include oil as a solvent, or the range disclosed therein (Remarks Pages 11-12). This is not found persuasive. Wright, the base reference, already suggests the inclusion of oils, both as part of the aliphatic monocarboxylic acids [Wright Para. 0027] and as a supplemental compound [Wright Para. 0033 & Claim 15]. Ryasa teaches that it is known when making fertilizer coatings [Ryasa Abstract] to include such vegetable oils [Ryasa Page 14 Para. 13] such as soybean oil or sunflower oil [Ryasa Page 9 Para. 7] in an amount comprising 40-95% of the coating composition [Ryasa Page 13, last line]. The plant oil included in this amount acts as a natural solvent with good biodegradability and ecotoxicity [Ryasa Page 10 Para. 5]. As such, in looking for a suitable amount of plant oil to include in the fertilizer coating as taught by the modified Wright, which already suggests the inclusion thereof, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Ryasa and recognize that 40-95% by weight is standard and advantageous to take advantage of its properties [Ryasa Page 13, last line].
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the challenged rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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