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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/7/2025 has been entered.
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) 19 and 32-33 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sequi (International Patent Pub. No. 2007/132497 A2, hereinafter “Sequi”) in view of Riddle (U.S. Patent No. 2280451, hereinafter “Riddle”) and Hansen (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0339485 A1, hereinafter “Hansen”).
Regarding claim 19, Sequi teaches an aluminosilicate glass powder (e.g., a glass matrix fertilizer containing aluminum and silicates; the fertilizer is dried and ground up to particle sizes suitable for agriculture) [Sequi Page 5 lines 13-25 & Page 9 lines 8-9] comprising:
SiO2 (e.g., 0.5-30% SiO2) [Sequi Page 5 lines 19-20]
Al2O3 10-26% (e.g., 0-20% Al2O3) [Sequi Page 5 line 20]
CaO+MgO+Na2O+K2O 15-45% (e.g., 3-37.4% CaO, 0.5-22.9% MgO, 0-10.45% Na2O, 2-45% K2O) [Sequi Page 5 lines 18-24]; and
Less than or equal to 4% P2O5 (e.g., 2-45% P2O5) [Sequi Page 5 lines 22-23].
Sequi teaches that the fertilizer is dried and ground up to particle sizes suitable for agriculture [Sequi Page 9 lines 8-9] but does not explicitly disclose a specific particle size or particle size distribution. However, Riddle teaches that it is advantageous in macro- and micronutrient-containing fertilizers [Riddle Page 1, left hand Col. Lines 5-10 & Page 6, left hand Col. Lines 65-67] to implement a particle size within a range of minus 200 mesh to one micron (which converts to a range of 1-75 microns) [Riddle Page 5, left hand Col. Lines 6-12]. This particle size range avoids erratic variations in ions supplied by the fertilizer [Riddle Page 5, left hand Col. Lines 17-20]. Within this range, the particles are small enough to be sufficiently soluble so that they can be assimilated by the plant [Riddle Page 5, left hand Col. Lines 14-25]. If the particles are too small, on the other hand, they are too water-soluble due to their enormous surface area, which can cause too much of the element to be quickly released, thereby resulting in toxicity to the plant [Riddle Page 5, left hand Col. Lines 25-40]. Further, the average particle size diameter can be 60 microns, and the average particle size diameter depends on the pH of the soil of use [Riddle Page 5, paragraph bridging left and right columns]. As such, in looking for a suitable particle size for agriculture as suggested by Sequi, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Riddle and readily appreciate that a range of particle sizes overlapping with the claimed range is standard and even advantageous due to the ideal solubilities achieved. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to grind up the fertilizer as taught by Sequi to a particle size within the claimed range as taught by Riddle.
Further, Sequi teaches the inclusion of 0.5-30% SiO2 [Sequi Page 5 lines 19-20], but not explicitly 35-60% SiO2 as claimed. However, Hansen teaches that fertilizer silicon concentration is a result-effective variable which is chosen depending on the nutrient requirements of the plants [Hansen Para. 0099]. Specifically, too much silicon (i.e. more than 90% complexed Si by weight) means that the other nutrients in the fertilizer will not be included in high enough concentrations to provide for the plant. On the other hand, too little silicon (i.e. less than about 10%) usually will not cover the silicon demands of the plant [Hansen Para. 0099]. The optimal combination of silicon with other nutrients creates a synergistic effect with good, balanced results [Hansen Para. 0099]. As such, in making the fertilizer of Sequi, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the silicon concentration to suit the needs of the target plant as taught by Hansen, thereby arriving within the claimed range. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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 of Sequi to optimize the SiO2 content to within the claimed range as taught by Hansen.
Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 32, Sequi as modified by Riddle and Hansen teaches the aluminosilicate glass powder, wherein said glass powder has a particle size between 75 and 180 microns (e.g., the particle size is between a range of 1-75 microns) [Riddle Page 5, left hand Col. Lines 6-12], but does not explicitly state that the distribution is such that the volume median of these particles “D50” is comprised between 75 and 180 microns. Riddle teaches two specific examples of mean particle size, one being 60 microns [Riddle Page 5, right hand Col. line 10] and one being 3 microns [Riddle Page 5, right hand Col. line 30]. However, Riddle further teaches that the ideal average particle size depends on the pH of the soil to which the fertilizer will be applied. If the pH of the soil is low, then a larger size is suitable, and if the pH of the soil is high, then a smaller size is ideal [Riddle Page 5, paragraph bridging left and right columns & right hand Col. Lines 18-25]. Further, if the particles are ground up too small, then they are too water-soluble due to their enormous surface area, which can cause too much of the element to be quickly released, thereby resulting in toxicity to the plant [Riddle Page 5, left hand Col. Lines 25-40]. As such, Riddle establishes that average particle size is a result effective variable which depends on the pH of the soil, and alters the solubility of the elements in the fertilizer. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the average or median particle size to within the claimed range so as to optimize the solubility of the fertilizer depending on the soil of use, and would use the range of 1-75 microns as a starting point to accomplish this. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a median particle size within the claimed range through optimization as taught by Riddle when grinding up the fertilizer as taught by Sequi.
Regarding claim 33, Sequi as modified by Riddle and Hansen teaches the aluminosilicate glass powder wherein the P2O5 content is less than 2% (e.g., 2-45% P2O5) [Sequi Page 5 lines 22-23] (Similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; further, where the prior art and the claimed range do not overlap but are merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05; here, 2% is regarded as being close to less than 2%).
Claim(s) 20 and 34 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sequi (International Patent Pub. No. 2007/132497 A2, hereinafter “Sequi”) in view of Drake (U.S. Patent No. 4123248, hereinafter “Drake”) and Hansen (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0339485 A1, hereinafter “Hansen”).
Regarding claim 20, Sequi teaches a fertilizer composition comprising at least one aluminosilicate glass (e.g., a glass matrix fertilizer containing aluminum and silicates) [Sequi Page 5 lines 13-25] comprising the following constituents in a weight content varying within the claimed ranges:
SiO2 (e.g., 0.5-30% SiO2) [Sequi Page 5 lines 19-20]
Al2O3 10-26% (e.g., 0-20% Al2O3) [Sequi Page 5 line 20]
CaO+MgO+Na2O+K2O 15-45% (e.g., 3-37.4% CaO, 0.5-22.9% MgO, 0-10.45% Na2O, 2-45% K2O) [Sequi Page 5 lines 18-24]; and
Less than or equal to 4% P2O5 (e.g., 2-45% P2O5) [Sequi Page 5 lines 22-23].
Sequi teaches that the fertilizer can contain organic soil amendments or biostimulating substances that promote plant growth [Sequi Page 6 lines 29-33 & Page 7 lines 1-2] but does not explicitly state that the fertilizer contains at least one nitrogen source in admixture with the aluminosilicate glass. However, Drake teaches in a similar glass matrix fertilizer that it is standard to also include a source of nitrogen [Drake Abstract & Col. 1 lines 55-65]. The nutrients, including nitrogen, are thus all included in slow-release form, which prevents leaching and decreases application costs [Drake Col. 1 lines 37-55]. Drake further details how to include nitrogen in a suitable form within the glass so as to afford such a slow-release formulation [Drake Col. 3 lines 10-20]. As such, in making the fertilizer of Sequi containing biostimulating substances for plant growth, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to additional references to identify suitable such substances, and thus would look to Drake and readily identify the advantages of including nitrogen in a slow-release glass matrix fertilizer. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would know how and what forms to include nitrogen in based on the teachings of Drake. 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 fertilizer of Sequi at least one nitrogen source in admixture with the glass as taught by Drake.
Further, Sequi teaches the inclusion of 0.5-30% SiO2 [Sequi Page 5 lines 19-20], but not explicitly 35-60% SiO2 as claimed. However, Hansen teaches that fertilizer silicon concentration is a result-effective variable which is chosen depending on the nutrient requirements of the plants [Hansen Para. 0099]. Specifically, too much silicon (i.e. more than 90% complexed Si by weight) means that the other nutrients in the fertilizer will not be included in high enough concentrations to provide for the plant. On the other hand, too little silicon (i.e. less than about 10%) usually will not cover the silicon demands of the plant [Hansen Para. 0099]. The combination of silicon with other nutrients creates a synergistic effect with good, balanced results [Hansen Para. 0099]. As such, in making the fertilizer of Sequi, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the silicon concentration to suit the needs of the target plant as taught by Hansen, thereby arriving within the claimed range. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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 of Sequi to optimize the SiO2 content to within the claimed range as taught by Hansen.
Regarding claim 34, Sequi as modified by Drake and Hansen teaches the fertilizer composition wherein the P2O5 content is less than 2% (e.g., 2-45% P2O5) [Sequi Page 5 lines 22-23] (Similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; further, where the prior art and the claimed range do not overlap but are merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists; see MPEP 2144.05; here, 2% is regarded as being close to less than 2%).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19-20 and new claims 33-34 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.
It is noted that Applicant points out that Sequi has a P2O5 content of between 2-45%, while the instant specification discloses that P2O5 is an impurity to be avoided, and is included in an amount less than 2% (Remarks Page 8). However, the asserted reasons or rationale behind including or not including the P2O5 do not form a distinction between the invention as claimed and the prior art as cited, nor do they serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by virtue of the very close ranges.
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 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./ /JENNIFER A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1731 Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731