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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26, 33-36 and 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment(s) to claim 26 adds the limitation a “plurality of first regions comprise a powdered mineral with a particle size less than 50 µm and a chipped mineral with a particle size greater than 50 µm”. A review of the specification as originally filed reveals no support for a composition or structure that simultaneous comprises both a powdered mineral and a chipped mineral within the first regions. The specification only describes mining and processing raw or chipped polyhalite into powder [Specification, pg. 11, line 17 – pg. 12, line 15]. While the original disclose teaches a processing sequence where raw/chipped material is converted into powder it does adequately describe a final structure or region that contains both forms simultaneously. Because the specification only describes the processing of chipped polyhalite into a powder – rather than a region comprising both a powdered and chipped mineral – the claim, as amended, fails the written description test. One of skill in the art would not recognize the newly claimed combination as having been in the possession of the inventor at the time of filing. For the purposes of examination and to promote compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as wherein the “plurality of first regions comprise powdered polyhalite obtained from a chipped mineral”.
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 26, 33-36 and 44-47 are 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.
Claim 26 recites the limitation wherein the first regions comprise "a powdered mineral" and “a chipped mineral” in lines 10-11. However, the claim also describes the first region comprising the first fertilizer composition as polyhalite. It is unclear if the “mineral” recited in the claims is the polyhalite component or an additional mineral component distinct from polyhalite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim describes the plurality of first regions “in the form of granules of the first fertiliser composition”. However, claim 26 (from which claim 34 depends) requires the first regions in the form of a “powdered mineral” and a “chipped mineral”. A powder material or a chipped mineral are generally not considered a granule in manufacturing or material science.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 26, 33-36 and 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srini (GB 1,226,646 – cited in IDS 07/25/2022) in view of Farnworth et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0129822 A1).
In regard to claims 26 and 46-47, Srini teaches a fertiliser product [pg. 1, line 12] in the form of a pellet, granule or prill (e.g. prill) [pg. 1, line 55], the fertiliser product comprising:
7 to 50 weight percent of a first fertiliser composition comprising potassium sulphate and/or magnesium sulphate [pg. 1, lines 57-58]; and
50-93 weight percent of a second fertiliser composition (e.g. an ammonium nitrate prill containing 7 to 50 percent first fertilizer), the second fertiliser composition being a nitrogen-providing fertiliser composition (e.g. ammonium nitrate) [pg. 1, line 55], and the first fertiliser composition being incorporated into the second fertiliser composition (e.g. ammonium nitrate-containing prill containing potassium magnesium sulfate) [pg. 1, lines 54-68];
wherein the fertiliser product comprises a plurality of first regions comprising the first fertiliser composition, wherein the first fertiliser composition is a mineral powder (e.g. langbeinite fines) [pg. 2, line 32], and wherein the plurality of first regions are dispersed throughout the second fertiliser composition (e.g. melt mixed 20 percent by weight of langbeinite and about 80 percent by weight of ammonium nitrate) [pg. 3, example 1].
Srini discloses a first fertiliser composition comprising potassium sulphate and/or magnesium sulphate [pg. 1, lines 57-58] such as langbeinite K2Mg2(SO4)3) [pg. 1, lines 59-60] but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first fertiliser composition is polyhalite. Farnsworth et al. is directed to compositions for use as a fertiliser [0001] containing the evaporite mineral polyhalite which is a sulphate of potassium, calcium and magnesium [0002]. Farnsworth describes their process as useful for treatment of evaporite minerals other than polyhalite which include langbeinite [0069]. 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 substation of the potassium and magnesium sulfate-based evaporite mineral disclosed by Srini (e.g. langbeinite) for the potassium and magnesium sulfate-based evaporite mineral described by Farnworth (e.g. langbeinite). 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 and to further supply the nutrient calcium [Farnworth, 0003] in the fertiliser of the prior art.
In regard to claims 33-35, Srini teaches the fertiliser product as claimed in claim 26, wherein the plurality of first regions are each in the form of granules of the first fertiliser composition, wherein the second region contacts the plurality of first regions over substantially the whole of the second region's interfaces with the plurality of first regions, wherein the second region contacts the plurality of first regions over substantially the whole of the second region's interfaces with the plurality of first regions (e.g. physical mixture of solids; solidified, particulate, co-prilled product) [pg. 3, example 1].
In regard to claim 36, Srini teaches the fertiliser product as claimed in claim 26, wherein the second region contacts the first region over substantially the whole of its interface to the first region and substantially surrounds the first region (e.g. the langbeinite and sodium nitrate are melt mixed) [pg. 2, Example 1] and wherein one of skill would understand the claimed structure is present in Srini’s composition because the prior art materials are not physically mixed [pg. 1, lines 83-85] and is instead are homogeneous blend of the first and second fertiliser compositions (e.g. melt mixed).
In regard to claim 45, Srini teaches a bulk fertiliser product comprising a plurality of the fertiliser products as claimed in claim 26 (e.g. particulated solids) [pg. 1, 1st col.] in the form of a prills [pg. 1, line 55].
Claims 26 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherr (WO-2020064036).
In regard to claims 26 and 44, Scherr discloses a fertiliser product in the form of a pellet, granule or prill (e.g. fertilizer granules) [pg. 2, line 15], the fertiliser product comprising:
20% by weight to 40% by weight of a first fertiliser composition, wherein the first fertiliser composition is polyhalite (e.g. a salt mixture from 50:50 to 95:5 of calcined polyhalite and sulfate salt, wherein the sulfate salt is in the form of un-calcined polyhalite) [pg. 13, line 27 – pg. 14, line 5] (e.g. polyhalite, calculated as magnesium in an amount of 1.0 to 3.5 wt.% which equates to approximately 18 – 47% by weight of uncalcined polyhalite in this 50:50 ratio, for example) [pg. 2, line 32]; and
60% by weight to 80% by weight of a second fertiliser composition, wherein the second fertilizer composition is urea (e.g. urea, calculated as nitrogen in an amount of 11.0 to 33.0 wt.% which equates to approximately 24 – 72% by weight of urea) [pg. 2, lines 30-31], and the first fertiliser composition being incorporated into the second fertiliser composition (e.g. the salt mixture containing calcined polyhalite and urea is subjected to build-up agglomeration) [pg. 3, lines 8-11]
wherein the fertiliser product comprises a plurality of first regions comprising the first fertiliser composition, wherein the plurality of first regions comprise polyhalite mineral exhibiting a mean grain size in the range of 50 µm to 1500 µm [pg. 11, 2nd para.] and wherein the plurality of first regions are dispersed throughout the second fertiliser composition (e.g. the salt mixture containing calcined polyhalite and urea is subjected to build-up agglomeration) [pg. 3, lines 8-11] (e.g. built-up agglomeration is carried out as a mixed agglomeration) [para. bridging pgs. 16-17].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 04/21/2026, have been fully considered but amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. 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.
Conclusion
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 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights