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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/25/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 108029280-A) in view of Liu (CN-106831137).
In regard to claim 1, Zhou discloses a coating comprising:
a carrier, wherein the carries is an aqueous-based carrier comprising between 10% to 90% by weight of glycol or polyglycol and between 10% to 90% by weight of water and constitutes between 16% to 75% by weight of the coating (e.g. 4 parts ethylene glycol, 5 parts water, out of 32.4 parts total = 44% by weight glycol, 55% by weight water, 28% by weight of the coating) [para. 0014, step (6)];
one or more micronutrient dispersants and/or micronutrient surfactants (e.g. carboxymethyl cellulose, diatomaceous earth) [0014]; and
one or more micronutrients selected from zinc, copper, boron, and magnesium (e.g. 1 part of ferrous sulfate, 1 part of ammonium molybdate, 1 part of zinc sulfate, 0.4 parts of manganese sulfate) [0014].
Although Zhou does not explicitly describe the intended use as fertilizer coating, the preamble statement and the intended use of the emulsion composition does not limit the body of the claim(s) which fully and intrinsically set forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention. The preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention [MPEP 2111.02 II.]. Furthermore, Zhou’s seed coating composition is capable of use as a fertilizer coating [To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431].
Zhou does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more micronutrient dispersants and/or micronutrient surfactants are those listed in the claim.
Liu is directed to a liquid fertilizer [abstract; claims]. Liu’s composition comprises a surfactant which can be one or more of one or more of sodium dodecylbenzenesulfonate, calcium lignosulfonate, sodium dodecyl sulfate, sodium butylnaphthalenesulfonate, naphthalene sulfonate-formaldehyde condensate, fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether, sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate, methylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, and carboxyethylcellulose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an art recognized equivalent (e.g. sodium dodecyl sulfate) for the equivalent set forth in Zhou (e.g. carboxymethylcellulose) for the same purpose (e.g. as a surfactant to reduce surface tension). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claims 1, 3 6-8 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 104402580) in view of Gryzik et al. (US Patent No. 6,364,926 B1) and Thompson (CA-3058803-A1).
In regard to claims 1, 3 and 6-7, Yang teaches a fertilizer coating (e.g. organic fertilizer coating) [para. 0007] comprising:
an aqueous-based/oil-based carrier (e.g. mixed ethanol, turpentine, water) [0007];
one or more micronutrient dispersants and/or micronutrient surfactants (e.g. dodecyl dimethyl amine oxide) [0007]; and
one or more micronutrients (e.g. cow dung and duck manure with inherently contain zinc, copper, boron and/or magnesium) [0007],
wherein the dispersant, micronutrient, oil and water are emulsified (e.g. stirred into an emulsion) [0007],
further comprising a rheological modifier (e.g. calcium stearate) [0007].
Yang recites an appropriate amount of water [0007] but Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the coating comprises between 10% to 90% by weight of glycol or polyglycol and between 10% to 90% by weight of water and constitutes between 16% to 75% by weight of the coating.
Gryzik et al. is directed to a liquid fertilizer composition wherein the composition is dispersed in a carrier, typically water with a water miscible organic solvent. Examples of water-miscible organic solvents include ethanol and glycol [col. 6, lines 45-55]. Gryzik’s solvent comprises 0% to about 10% of the aqueous composition [col. 6, lines 58-60]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform simple substitution of Yang’s organic solvent (e.g. ethanol) with another suitable organic solvent (e.g. glycol) to yield predictable results. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the amount of coating and coating solvent components to help dissolve or disperse composition ingredients or to adjust composition viscosity [Gryzik, col. 6, lines 60-61].
Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more micronutrient dispersants and/or micronutrient surfactants are those listed in the claim.
Thompson is directed to an agricultural compositions [para. 0001]. Thompson’s composition comprises a surfactant which can include dodecyldimethylamine oxide and sodium lauryl sulfate (e.g. sodium dodecyl sulfate) [0304]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an art recognized equivalent (e.g. sodium dodecyl sulfate) for the equivalent set forth in Yang (e.g. dodecyl dimethyl amine oxide) for the same purpose (e.g. as a surfactant to reduce surface tension). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
In regard to claims 8 and 11-14, Yang teaches a method of providing micronutrients to fertilizer while reducing dust production and reducing caking tendencies (e.g. providing an oil based coating) [0007], the method comprising:
applying a coating to a fertilizer substrate (e.g. spraying the coating agent on the surface of fertilizer granules) [0008], the coating comprising
an aqueous-based/oil-based carrier (e.g. mixed ethanol, turpentine, water) [0007];
one or more micronutrient dispersants (e.g. dodecyl dimethyl amine oxide) [0007]; and
one or more micronutrients (e.g. iron) [0007],
wherein the dispersant, micronutrient, oil and water are emulsified (e.g. stirred into an emulsion) [0007],
further comprising a rheological modifier (e.g. calcium stearate) [0007].
Yang recites an appropriate amount of water [0007] but Yang does not explicitly teach wherein the coating comprises between 10% to 90% by weight of glycol or polyglycol and between 10% to 90% by weight of water and constitutes between 16% to 75% by weight of the coating.
Gryzik et al. is directed to a liquid fertilizer composition wherein the composition is dispersed in a carrier, typically water with a water miscible organic solvent. Examples of water-miscible organic solvents include ethanol and glycol [col. 6, lines 45-55]. Gryzik’s solvent comprises 0% to about 10% of the aqueous composition [col. 6, lines 58-60]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform simple substitution of Yang’s organic solvent (e.g. ethanol) with another suitable organic solvent (e.g. glycol) to yield predictable results. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the amount of coating and coating solvent components to help dissolve or disperse composition ingredients or to adjust composition viscosity [Gryzik, col. 6, lines 60-61].
Yang does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more micronutrient dispersants and/or micronutrient surfactants are those listed in the claim.
Thompson is directed to an agricultural compositions [para. 0001]. Thompson’s composition comprises a surfactant which can include dodecyldimethylamine oxide and sodium lauryl sulfate (e.g. sodium dodecyl sulfate) [0304]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an art recognized equivalent (e.g. sodium dodecyl sulfate) for the equivalent set forth in Yang (e.g. dodecyl dimethyl amine oxide) for the same purpose (e.g. as a surfactant to reduce surface tension). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 104402580) in view of Gryzik et al. (US Patent No. 6,364,926 B1) and Thompson (CA-3058803-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogzewalla et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0204019 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Yang teaches the fertilizer coating of Claim 1 wherein the dispersant, micronutrient, oil and water are emulsified (e.g. stirred into an emulsion) [0007]. The reference does not explicitly disclose further stabilization vi a pickering emulsion.
Ogzewalla et al. is directed to a method for reducing dust formation and caking in fertilizer comprising coating the fertilizer with an emulsion [abstract]. Surfactants, emulsifiers or pickering emulsions can be used to create the emulsions used for coating [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further stabilize the aqueous-based carrier via a pickering emulsion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply a known emulsion technique by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zander (WO2015034375 A1) in view of Alis et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0022119 A1).
In regard to claim 8, 11 and 14, Zander discloses a method of providing micronutrients to fertilizer while reducing dust production and reducing caking tendencies (e.g. to address the problem of granules producing dust, to provide additional nutrients and/or trace elements) [pg. 1, last para. – pg. 2, 3rd para.] the method comprising:
applying a coating to a fertilizer substrate (e.g. the fertilizer core is coated with a first layer) [para. bridging pgs. 5-6], the coating comprising:
a carrier, wherein
the carrier is an aqueous-based carrier, wherein the aqueous-based carrier is emulsified with an oil-based media (e.g. a mixture of clay and an oil/water emulsion) [pg. 5, 3rd para.];
one or more micronutrient dispersants (an acrylic emulsion polymer to aid drying of the mixture; the acrylic emulsion may be Primal™ or other acrylic emulsions which have similar characteristics) [para. 0008; pg. 21, 2nd to last para.] [pg. 4, 8th para.] wherein the acrylic emulsion component is considered to meet the claim limitation acrylic acid where the acrylic emulsion is comprised of acrylic monomers and
one or more micronutrients (e.g. MgO) [pg. 5, para. 8]
Zander recites an embodiment in which glycol is added to water in the coating carrier [pg. 10, example 3] but does not explicitly teach between 10% to 90% by weight of glycol and between 10% to 90% by weight of water and wherein the carrier constitutes between 16% to 75% by weight of the coating, however, Alis et al., directed to a coated fertilizer [abstract], describes using a resin for coating fertilizer preferably in the form of an aqueous dispersion containing for example between 20% and 40% by weight of water, and optionally another solvent such as a glycol [0018]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of fertilizer carrier, coating, and glycol within the aqueous-based coating. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to adjust the fertilizer release control or delay effect, as a function of the environmental conditions, and in particular the rainfall [Alis, 0017].
In regard to claim 13, Zander discloses the method of claim 8 where the coating further comprises an oil phase stabilized through a rheological modifier (e.g. a mixture of clay and an oil/water emulsion) [pg. 5, 3rd para.].
In regard to claim 15, Zander discloses the method of claim 8 where the coating is applied to the fertilizer substrate by dosing a controlled amount of the coating onto a bed of the fertilizer substrate and tumbling or mixing (e.g. weighing and coating in a rotating coating drum) [all examples, pgs. 9-15].
In regard to claim 16, Zander discloses the method of claim 8 where the coating is applied to the fertilizer substrate by applying the coating onto the fertilizer substrate as a top coat, without mixing (e.g. urea granules are coated, then the magnesium oxide is added to start coating again) [all examples, pgs. 9-15].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zander (WO2015034375 A1) in view of Alis et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0022119 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Ogzewalla et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0204019 A1).
In regard to claim 10, Zander teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the aqueous-based carrier is emulsified with an oil-based media (e.g. a mixture of clay and an oil/water emulsion) [pg. 5, 3rd para.].
The reference does not explicitly disclose further stabilization vi a pickering emulsion.
Ogzewalla et al. is directed to a method for reducing dust formation and caking in fertilizer comprising coating the fertilizer with an emulsion [abstract]. Surfactants, emulsifiers or pickering emulsions can be used to create the emulsions used for coating [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further stabilize the aqueous-based carrier via a pickering emulsion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply a known emulsion technique by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tapley et al. (US Patent No. 5,914,101) in view of Chaussee (US Patent No. 4,478,853).
In regard to claims 17-18, Tapley et al. is directed to a method of producing a stabilized aqueous dispersion, the method comprising:
adding micronutrients (e.g. zinc oxide) to an aqueous carrier (e.g. a stabilized aqueous dispersion of particulate zinc oxide comprises water) [col. 1, lines 18-20], wherein the aqueous-based carrier comprises glycol or polyglycol and water (e.g. when polyethylene glycol is used to stabilize the emulsion it is normally necessary to hydrate solid polyethylene glycol by stirring with water) [col. 3, lines 35-39] and constitutes between 16% to 75% by weight of the composition (e.g. aqueous phase B is ~ 69.6%) [col. 7, example 6];
dispersing the zinc oxide in the aqueous-based carrier (e.g. dispersion of zinc oxide) [col. 7, example 6];
adding an oil-based media (e.g. phase A-oil phase was added to phase B-aqueous phase) [col. 8, line 10]; and
emulsifying the oil-based media and the aqueous-based carrier with dispersed micronutrients to produce the composition (e.g. mixed using a rotor/stator mixer for 2 minutes) [col. 8, lines 10-11].
Although Tapley et al. does not describe the method as producing a “fertilizer coating”, the body of the present claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention (e.g. as a fertilizer coating), rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Therefore, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction [MPEP 2111.02].
Tapley et al. disclose a content of micronutrients (e.g. zinc oxide) between 40% -75%. Tapley et al. disclose a glycol present in an amount in the range of 1.5 to 7.0 % by weight with respect to the weight of zinc oxide. Tapley disclose the amount of zinc oxide and glycol to be an art recognized result effective variable depending on the intended storage stability (e.g. the stabilizing agent is a polyalkylene glycol and the amount of glycol can be varied according to the intended end use) [col. 3, lines 22-34] (e.g. the dispersions of the invention are particularly useful when they contain a relatively high proportion of zinc oxide since this allows a user to have flexibility in producing the formulations in which the dispersions are used. Useful stabilized dispersions contain at least 40 per cent zinc oxide by weight and preferably the amount of zinc oxide is at least 50 per cent by weight. Particularly useful stabilized dispersions contain at least 60 per cent zinc oxide by weight. Normally, it is impractical to prepare a dispersion containing more than 75 per cent zinc oxide by weight) [col. 1, lines 42-51]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to formulate a composition with glycol stabilizer and zinc oxide within the claimed amounts through routine experimentation Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process 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).
Tapley does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more micronutrient dispersants and/or micronutrient surfactants are those listed in the claim.
Chaussee is directed to an oil-in water emulsion stabilized by a neutralized thickening agent [col. 7, lines 43-46]. The thickeners can be chose from crosslinked acrylic acid, polyethylene glycols and bentonite clays [col. 7, lines 50-53]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute an art recognized equivalent thickener (e.g. acrylic acid) for the equivalent set forth in Tapley (e.g. polyethylene glycol) [Tapley, col. 3, lines 43-47] for the same purpose (e.g. as a thickener). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments (05/06/2026) to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections set forth in the prior Office action (11/06/2025).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/06/2026, have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground(s) 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. Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
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 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 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights