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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0380272 A1, hereinafter “Lewis”).
Regarding claim 1, Lewis teaches a granule (e.g., a fertilizer pellet or granule) [Lewis Abstract] comprising:
solid polyhalite in a concentration of between 20 to 80 wt. % (e.g., the granule comprises a first fertilizer composition, which is preferably polyhalite, in an amount comprising more than 20 wt. % of the total granule; [Lewis Para. 0037-38] the fertilizer product is in a solid form such as a pellet or granule and as such the polyhalite in the fertilizer product is necessarily a solid [Lewis Para. 0028]), and
solid urea in a concentration of between 20 to 50 wt. % (e.g., the granule comprises a second fertilizer composition, which is preferably urea, in an amount comprising more than 20 wt. % of the total granule; [Lewis Para. 0036 & 38]; the fertilizer product is in a solid form such as a pellet or granule and as such the urea in the fertilizer product is necessarily a solid [Lewis Para. 0028]), and
a binder (e.g., the granule may contain a binder and/or other constituents such as PVA, flour, or starch) [Lewis Para. 0037-38 & 0055],
wherein the polyhalite and urea are adhered to one another in a single homogeneous matrix such that said polyhalite and urea are uniformly distributed throughout the granule (e.g., the polyhalite and urea may form a homogeneous blend [Lewis Para. 0016 & 0056], Lewis teaches that the polyhalite and urea are subject to mixing followed by pelletizing/granulating; one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the polyhalite and urea must necessarily adhere to one another during this process or the granule/pellet would not form and would crumble apart [Lewis Para. 0057], the granule both forms and has a significant crush strength, and so it necessarily follows that the polyhalite and urea adhered to one another [Lewis Para. 0060]),
wherein said granule comprises a granule strength of at least 1.1 Kg/granule (e.g., the fertilizer comprising polyhalite and urea has a crush strength in excess of 1.0 KgF and/or in excess of 3.0 KgF) [Lewis Para. 0060],
Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Lewis does not explicitly state that the granule is produced via compaction. However, the recitation “compacted” would appear to set forth a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. Noting the Specification, Applicant would not appear to specifically attribute any structural feature to the compaction step. Lewis would appear to teach a substantially identical product comprising the same ingredients and the same granule strength. Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing a nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Therefore, Lewis as cited is regarded as reading on the granule despite no specific mention of a compaction step.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis in view of Socolovsy (International Patent Pub. No. 2018/229757 A1, hereinafter “Socolovsky”).
Regarding claim 2, Lewis teaches the granule comprising a binder [Lewis Para. 0037-38] but does not explicitly state that the concentration of the binder is between 1 to 5 wt. %. However, Socolovsky teaches that is standard to include in polyhalite-based fertilizer granules [Socolovsky Abstract] a binder in an amount comprising 0.5 to 20 wt. % of the composition [Socolovsky Page 6 lines 5-7] in order to mechanically and/or chemically hold or draw the materials together to form a cohesive whole, enhancing the strength and decreasing abrasion of the resulting granules [Socolovsky Page 5 lines 18-21 & Page 6 lines 8-13]. As such, in looking for a suitable binder concentration to include in the polyhalite-based granule of Lewis, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Socolovsky and readily appreciate that the standard range is 0.5 to 20 wt. %. 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 the binder in the fertilizer of Lewis in an amount overlapping with the claimed range as taught by Socolovsky. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Lewis as modified by Socolovsky teaches the granule wherein said concentration is between 1 to 2 wt. % (e.g., 0.5 to 20 wt. % of the composition [Socolovsky Page 6 lines 5-7]). Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Lewis as modified by Socolovsky teaches the granule comprising the binder, but does not explicitly state that the binder is a lignosulfonate. However, Socolovsky further teaches several suitable binders for polyhalite-based fertilizer granules including starch, bentonite, sodium silicate, lignosulfonates, molasses, hydrated lime, bitumen, etc. [Socolovsky at the Paragraph bridging Pages 5-6]. As such, selecting a lignosulfonate as the binder for the polyhalite-based granule of Lewis amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. 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 polyhalite-based granule of Lewis to select a lignosulfonate as said binder as taught by Socolovsky.
Regarding claim 5, Lewis as modified by Socolovsky teaches the granule wherein said binder is starch (e.g., the binder can be starch) [Lewis Para. 0055].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lewis does not teach that the polyhalite and urea are adhered together within a single homogeneous matrix, such that the two materials form a single integrated and uniformly distributed granule rather than separate regions or phases within the granule (Remarks Pages 3-4).
As to the uniform distribution, Lewis describes its granule as homogeneous [Lewis Para. 0056-57]. “Uniform Mixture” is another term for “homogeneous mixture” (See “Mixture”, Wikipedia, retrieved in 2025). Therefore, Lewis discloses the granule having a uniform distribution of polyhalite and urea.
As to the integrated granule rather than separate regions or phases, Lewis discloses the fertilizer prepared using a urea melt or urea solution with polyhalite powder, rather than combining both materials as solids, as described by Applicant (Remarks Page 4). However, the resulting granule is necessarily a solid, and further is homogeneous as described by Lewis. The fact that Lewis implements a different method of making the granule is not dispositive. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. See MPEP 2113. Lewis appears to identically result in a granule having solid polyhalite and urea (the final product of Lewis is a dried granule, which necessarily contains solid constituents), a homogeneous matrix of the polyhalite and urea (e.g., the polyhalite and urea may form a homogeneous blend [Lewis Para. 0016 & 0056], and the requisite crush strength (e.g., the fertilizer comprising polyhalite and urea has a crush strength in excess of 1.0 KgF and/or in excess of 3.0 KgF) [Lewis Para. 0060]. Further, the polyhalite and urea necessarily adhere to one another as required by claim 1, otherwise the granule or pellet would not form or would crumble apart. Therefore, while Lewis does not make the granule by an identical process of compaction, Applicant does not appear to assert a distinction resulting from compaction which creates a structural difference between the homogenous granule of Lewis and the granule claimed.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
“Mixture,” Wikipedia, retrieved in 2025, for teaching that “Uniform Mixture” is another term for “homogeneous mixture.”
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
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
