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 1/23/2026:
Claims 1-18 and 20-21 are presently pending
Claims 15-18 and 20 are withdrawn
Claim 19 is cancelled
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims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) 1-14 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenthal (U.S. Patent No. 7267707 B2, hereinafter “Rosenthal”).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenthal teaches a moisture tolerant fertilizer granule (e.g., a polyurethane encapsulated slow-release fertilizer) [Rosenthal Abstract] consisting of:
A core comprising a hygroscopic plant nutrient (e.g., a granular fertilizer particle such as ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, ammonium nitrate, urea, potassium chloride) [Rosenthal Abstract & Col. 3 lines 25-35]; and
A polyurethane polymer coating disposed directly on the core (e.g., the granular fertilizer is coated with a water-resistant film-forming polyurethane composition) [Rosenthal Col. 3 lines 35-40], wherein the polyurethane polymer coating is from 0.5 wt. % to 1.9 wt. % of the hygroscopic plant nutrient (e.g., fertilizer particles may be coated from 0.5 wt. % up to about 6 wt. % with the coating) [Rosenthal Col. 5 lines 35-40] (the coating comprises no more than 9 wt. % of the composition) [Rosenthal Claim 1].
Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Rosenthal teaches the moisture tolerant fertilizer granule wherein the polyurethane polymer coating is from 0.6 wt. % to 1.5 wt. % of the hygroscopic plant nutrient (e.g., fertilizer particles may be coated from 0.5 wt. % up to about 6 wt. % with the coating) [Rosenthal Col. 5 lines 35-40] (the coating comprises no more than 9 wt. % of the composition) [Rosenthal Claim 1].
Regarding claim 3, Rosenthal teaches the moisture tolerant fertilizer granule wherein the polyurethane polymer coating is from 0.7 wt. % to 1.4 wt. % of the hygroscopic plant nutrient (e.g., fertilizer particles may be coated from 0.5 wt. % up to about 6 wt. % with the coating) [Rosenthal Col. 5 lines 35-40] (the coating comprises no more than 9 wt. % of the composition) [Rosenthal Claim 1].
Regarding claim 4, Rosenthal teaches the moisture tolerant fertilizer granule wherein the polyurethane polymer coating is from 0.9 wt. % to 1.3 wt. % of the hygroscopic plant nutrient (e.g., fertilizer particles may be coated from 0.5 wt. % up to about 6 wt. % with the coating) [Rosenthal Col. 5 lines 35-40] (the coating comprises no more than 9 wt. % of the composition) [Rosenthal Claim 1].
Regarding claim 5, Rosenthal teaches the moisture tolerant fertilizer granule wherein the hygroscopic plant nutrient includes an ammonium salt (e.g., a granular fertilizer particle such as ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, ammonium nitrate) [Rosenthal Abstract & Col. 3 lines 25-35].
Regarding claim 6, Rosenthal teaches the moisture tolerant fertilizer granule wherein the hygroscopic plant nutrient includes ammonium sulfate (e.g., a granular fertilizer particle such as ammonium sulfate) [Rosenthal Abstract & Col. 3 lines 25-35].
Regarding claim 7, Rosenthal teaches the moisture tolerant fertilizer granule wherein the hygroscopic plant nutrient consists essentially of ammonium sulfate (e.g., a granular fertilizer particle such as ammonium sulfate) [Rosenthal Abstract & Col. 3 lines 25-35].
Regarding claim 8, Rosenthal teaches a fertilizer composition (e.g., a coated granular fertilizer composition) [Rosenthal Abstract & Col. 1 lines 5-10] comprising:
A moisture tolerant fertilizer composition (e.g., a plurality of coated particulate fertilizers) [Rosenthal Col. 3 lines 25-35 & Col. 4 lines 28-35] comprising:
Moisture tolerant fertilizer granules (e.g., polyurethane encapsulated slow-release particulate fertilizer granules) [Rosenthal Abstract & Col. 3 lines 25-35], each of the moisture tolerant fertilizer granules consisting of:
A core comprising a hygroscopic plant nutrient (e.g., a granular fertilizer particle such as ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, ammonium nitrate, urea, potassium chloride, or composite fertilizers thereof) [Rosenthal Abstract & Col. 3 lines 25-35]; and
A polyurethane polymer coating disposed directly on the core (e.g., the granular fertilizer is coated with a water-resistant film-forming polyurethane composition) [Rosenthal Col. 3 lines 35-40], wherein the polyurethane polymer coating is from 0.5 wt. % to 1.9 wt. % of the hygroscopic plant nutrient (e.g., fertilizer particles may be coated from 0.5 wt. % up to about 6 wt. % with the coating) [Rosenthal Col. 5 lines 35-40] (the coating comprises no more than 9 wt. % of the composition) [Rosenthal Claim 1].
Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer composition wherein the polyurethane polymer coating of the moisture tolerant fertilizer granules is from 0.7 wt. % to 1.4 wt. % of the hygroscopic plant nutrient (e.g., fertilizer particles may be coated from 0.5 wt. % up to about 6 wt. % with the coating) [Rosenthal Col. 5 lines 35-40] (the coating comprises no more than 9 wt. % of the composition) [Rosenthal Claim 1].
Regarding claim 10, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer composition wherein the polyurethane polymer coating of the moisture tolerant fertilizer granules is from 0.9 wt. % to 1.3 wt. % of the hygroscopic plant nutrient (e.g., fertilizer particles may be coated from 0.5 wt. % up to about 6 wt. % with the coating) [Rosenthal Col. 5 lines 35-40] (the coating comprises no more than 9 wt. % of the composition) [Rosenthal Claim 1].
Regarding claim 11, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer composition wherein the hygroscopic plant nutrient includes an ammonium salt (e.g., a granular fertilizer particle such as ammonium sulfate, ammonium chloride, ammonium nitrate) [Rosenthal Abstract & Col. 3 lines 25-35].
Regarding claim 12, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer composition wherein the hygroscopic plant nutrient includes ammonium sulfate (e.g., a granular fertilizer particle such as ammonium sulfate) [Rosenthal Abstract & Col. 3 lines 25-35].
Regarding claim 13, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer composition further comprising a controlled release fertilizer composition mixed with the moisture tolerant fertilizer composition, wherein the controlled release fertilizer composition comprises controlled release fertilizer granules having a second polyurethane coating surrounding a second plant nutrient, the second polyurethane coating is from about 2.0 wt. % to about 4.0 wt. % of the second plant nutrient (e.g., a set of samples of the polyurethane encapsulated fertilizer particles comprising 0.5 up to about 6 wt. % coating were made by Rosenthal) [Col. 5 lines 35-40]. As drafted, the claim does not appear to require that the second plant nutrient or second polyurethane coating be different or have different components from the moisture tolerant composition as previously set forth in the rejection of claim 8. As such, a portion of the coated granules made by Rosenthal are regarded as being the moisture tolerant fertilizer composition, and the remaining portion are regarded as being the controlled release fertilizer composition as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer composition wherein the second plant nutrient includes at least one member selected from the group of urea, phosphorus pentoxide and potassium oxide (e.g., suitable granular fertilizer particles include urea) [Rosenthal Abstract & Col. 3 lines 25-35].
Regarding claim 21, Rosenthal teaches the moisture tolerant fertilizer granule, but does not explicitly state that it releases at least 80 wt. % of the hygroscopic plant nutrient after 10 days in water. However, Rosenthal establishes that the nutrient release rate is a result effective variable which depends on the thickness of the coating, and is chosen based on the stage of the target plant’s growth [Rosenthal Col. 4 lines 26-45]. Specifically, the coating can differ in porosity, and the porosity is matched to the solubility of each specific nutrient included in order to control the speed of the release of the nutrient. During manufacturing, the thickness of the coating and the specific choice of coating components create the release criteria. By matching each nutrient to a given porosity of the coating, as well as adjusting coating thickness, the process individually controls the time release of each nutrient [Rosenthal Col. 4 lines 26-45]. For example, Rosenthal includes fertilizer particles which release 17,200 ppm nitrogen at day 1, 74,000 ppm nitrogen at day 3, and 104,000 ppm nitrogen by day 7 [Rosenthal Col. 6 Table 1]. On one hand, if the coating is thin then the nutrient releases too quickly, this causes an unsafe flash release which can damage the plant [Rosenthal Col. 5 lines 17-19]. On the other hand, a coating that is too thick is needlessly expensive [Rosenthal Para. Bridging Col. 1-2]. As such, in making the granule of Rosenthal, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the nutrient release rate, and would know how to do so via Rosenthal’s further teachings about porosity and thickness. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). 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 granule of Rosenthal to optimize the release rate of the nutrient so as to arrive within the range as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 8 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
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 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.
/H.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731