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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/14/2026 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) 1, 4-5, 9-15, and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagalingam (International Patent Pub. No. 2017/013572 A1, hereinafter “Kanagalingam”).
Regarding claim 1, Kanagalingam teaches a core-shell fertilizer particle (e.g., a fertilizer core particle with an outer coating) [Abstract & Para. 0082] comprising:
A core comprising, based on the total weight of the core, 45 wt. % to 60 wt. % or 65 wt. % to 75 wt. % of urea (e.g., the fertilizer core particle comprises 10 wt. % to 80 wt. % of the primary nutrient [Para. 00183] and the primary nutrient can be urea [Para. 00181]),
25 wt. % to 40 wt. % chalk powder (e.g., the fertilizer core particle can comprise from 20 to 60 wt. % of a pH buffering agent such as chalk powder) [Para. 00158 & 00161],
2 to 2.5 wt. % of NBPT (e.g., greater than 0 wt. % to about 20 wt. % NBTPT (another standard acronym for NBPT)) [Para. 00148 & 49],
wt. % to 3 wt. % of water (e.g., less than 4% water) [Para. 00126]; and
None of HPMC to 2 wt. % HPMC (e.g., 0.2 wt. % to 5 wt. % of a viscoelasticity agent such as HPMC) [Para. 00164 & 00263]; and
A shell comprising 85 to 100 wt. % urea based on the total weight of the shell, wherein the shell covers at least a portion of an outer surface of the core (e.g., the core particle is provided with an outer coating of urea [Para. 0082] in the form of a shell which substantially surrounds at least a portion of the outer surface of the fertilizer core particles [Para. 0062]; the shell can comprise from 80 wt. % to 99 wt. % urea [Para. 00203]).
Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the core comprises 25 wt. % to 35 wt. % of the chalk powder (e.g., the fertilizer core particle can comprise from 20 to 60 wt. % of a pH buffering agent such as chalk powder) [Para. 00158 & 00161].
Regarding claim 5, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle further comprising Na2CO3, K2CO3, MgO, KH2PO4, or MgCO3 or any combination thereof (e.g., the one or more pH buffering agents can further comprise MgO, KH2PO4, or a combination) [Para. 00160].
Regarding claim 9, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the core further comprises an additional polymer thickener and/or a filler (e.g., the core comprises at least one extrusion ingredient such as guar gum, cellulose, cellulose derivatives [Para. 00263], and/or a filler such as silica, kaolin, bentonite, DDGS, etc., including combinations thereof [Para. 00196-197]).
Regarding claim 10, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the polymer thickener comprises carboxymethyl cellulose, PEG, guar gum, locust bean gum, xanthan gum, a natural gum, lignosulfonate, or hydroxyethyl cellulose or any combination thereof (e.g., guar gum, cellulose derivatives, polyethylene-based waxes) [Para. 00263 & 00137].
Regarding claim 11, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the core comprises 0.1 wt. % to 5 wt. % of the additional polymer thickener, based on the total weight of the core (e.g., 0.2 wt. % to 5 wt. % of the at least one viscoelastic material) [Para. 00263] (specifically, Kanagalingam discloses an embodiment having about 0.8% of the one or more viscoelasticity agents) [Para. 00164].
Regarding claim 12, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the core further comprises a nitrification inhibitor (e.g., the fertilizer core can comprise a nitrification inhibitor) [Para. 00150].
Regarding claim 13, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the nitrification inhibitor comprises DCD (e.g., the fertilizer core can comprise DCD) [Para. 00151].
Regarding claim 14, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the core comprises 5 wt. % to 35 wt. % of the nitrification inhibitor, based on the total weight of the core (e.g., 10 wt. % to 50 wt. % of the nitrification inhibitor) [Para. 00150].
Regarding claim 15, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle of claim 1, wherein 98 wt. % or higher, based on the total weight of the core, is comprised in a combination of urea, CaCO3, NBPT, water, and optionally a nitrification inhibitor and/or a polymer thickener (e.g., the core comprises 10 wt. % to 80 wt. % urea [Para. 00183 & 81], 20 to 60 wt. % CaCO3 [Para. 00158 & 60], greater than 0 wt. % to about 20 wt. % NBTPT (another standard acronym for NBPT)) [Para. 00148 & 49], below 4% water [Para. 00126], and 10 wt. % to 50 wt. % nitrification inhibitor [Para. 00150]). Kanagalingam requires the presence of a binder at least in the amount of 10% of the core particle [Para. 00126]; however, Kanagalingam teaches that the binder can be polyacrylamide [Para. 00137]. Polyacrylamide is also described as an appropriate polymer thickener in the instant specification at [Para. 0076]. As such, considering the binder required by Kanagalingam to comprise polyacrylamide, which also serves as the optional polymer thickener, these components of Kanagalingam readily add up to at least 98 wt. % of the core.
Regarding claim 17, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the core comprises 0.5 wt. % to 2 wt. % of HPMC based on the total weight of the core (e.g., 0.2 wt. % to 5 wt. % HPMC) [Para. 00263].
Regarding claim 18, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the core further comprises 20 wt. % to 25 wt. % of DCD based on the total weight of the core (e.g., 10 wt. % to 50 wt. % DCD) [Para. 00151].
Regarding claim 19, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the shell does not include CaCO3, a urease inhibitor, or both (e.g., in one aspect, the shell only contains urea) [Para. 0074].
Regarding claim 20, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle comprised in a fertilizer blend or a compounded fertilizer (e.g., the particles can be mixed with a nitrogen containing fertilizer composition, either granules or powder, and applied to soil) [Para. 0068].
Regarding claim 21, Kanagalingam teaches the core-shell fertilizer particle wherein the filler comprises one or more of silica, dried distillers grains with solubles, MgO, CaO, bone mill powder, or risk husk, or mixtures thereof (e.g., the composition can contain a filler [Para. 00114] such as silica, colloidal silica, dried distillers grains with solubles, rice husk, or other biomaterial [Para. 00197]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the weight percentages of urea, chalk powder, NBPT, water, and HPMC are not known or made obvious by Kanagalingam (Remarks Page 6). Kanagalingam teaches weight percentages of these respective components in amounts overlapping with the claimed range (see the rejection of claim 1 above), establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Applicant seeks to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness with a showing of unexpected results (Remarks page 6).
First, Applicant points to the presence of urea in the core, which helps keep the core from breaking or crumbling during the manufacturing process and/or during storage (Remarks Pages 6-7). However, Kanagalingam also teaches urea in the core (e.g., the fertilizer core particle comprises 10 wt. % to 80 wt. % of the primary nutrient [Para. 00183] and the primary nutrient can be urea [Para. 00181]). The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Here, the prior art suggests the inclusion of urea in the core. As such, the fact that Applicant has identified another advantage which naturally flows from including urea cannot be the basis for patentability.
Second, Applicant points to the disclosed composition providing stability of NBPT as compared to a fertilizer with a core that does not contain chalk powder (Remarks Page 7). Example 2 in Table 4 compares % NBPT recovery for a core particle with mostly urea (sample 1) with a core particle with chalk powder with urea (samples 2, 3, 4). However, whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Here, Applicant only includes 2 data points for the quantity of chalk powder: Samples 2 and 3 each comprise 25 wt. % chalk powder, and sample 4 comprises 40 wt. % chalk power (Specification Example 1, Table 1 on Page 25). On the other hand, the entire range of 25 wt. % to 40 wt. % chalk powder is claimed in claim 1. As such, Applicant has not demonstrated that the unexpected results occur over the entire claimed range. Similarly, Applicant only includes 2 data points for the quantity of HPMC (Sample 2 comprises 0 wt. % HPMC and samples 3 and 4 comprise 1.5 wt. % HPMC) and only 1 data point for the quantity of NBPT (samples 2-4 each comprise 2.2 wt. % NBPT). Therefore, the evidence of unexpected results is not commensurate in scope with the claims.
It is also noted that evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) and MPEP § 716.02(d) - § 716.02(e). Here, Applicant compares the claimed composition with a Comparative Sample (see the Specification at Table 1) which is not representative of the composition disclosed in the closest prior art (here regarded as being Kanagalingam as cited).
For at least the foregoing reasons, these arguments are not found persuasive.
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./ Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731