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 .
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.
Claims 14, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumski in view of EP 2,542,514 B1, further in view of Teerlink ‘326, even further in view of Siegel et al, for the reasons given in the last Office Action.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schumski in view of EP 2,542,514 B1, further in view of Teerlink ‘326, even further in view of Siegel et al, as applied to claim 14 above, still further in view of GB 2586121, for the reasons given in the last Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, that Paragraph [0005] of Teerlink et al ‘326 actually describes an aqueous solution that is made by dissolving various ingredients in water, and that the amounts of nitrogen, phosphate and potassium in the aqueous solution do not fall within the ranges recited in claim 14, is not convincing, since Teerlink et al ‘326 also discloses a solid anti-fungal composition in Paragraph [0030] that has a 25 to30 wt% of the nitrogen source material, 5-10 wt % of the phosphate source material, and 5-15 wt % of the potassium source material, which ranges fall within the ranges recited in claim 14. Applicant’s argument, that the combination of high N-P-K values within the claimed ranges and the coating of minerals from the claimed types of minerals would usually be expected to burn grass or other plants, is not convincing, since there is no evidence on record showing that the claimed pelleted blend would be any less likely to burn grass or other plants than the solid composition disclosed in Paragraph [0030] of Teerlink et al ‘326. Applicant’s argument, that the cited references do not teach or suggest that the coated pellets are from 90 wt% to 100 wt % dissolvable in water at 20 C within three minutes, is not convincing, since there is no evidence on record showing that the solid composition disclosed in Paragraph [0030] of Teerlink et al ‘326 would not be from 90 wt% to 100 wt % dissolvable in water at 20 C within three minutes. Applicant’s argument, as to what Schumski shows or does not show, is not convincing, since Schumski is relied upon merely for its disclosure of a soluble fertilizer including at least one type of N-P-K element, and that fertilizers typically include micronutrients.
This action is a final rejection and closes the prosecution of this application. Applicant’s reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to this action is limited to an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, an amendment complying with the requirements set forth below, or a request for continued examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution where permitted. Please note that the Office also offers initiatives that are available to applicants after the close of prosecution. See https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/uspto-patent-applications-iniatives-timeline for more information.
General information on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board is available at: www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab. The information at this page includes guidance on time limited options that may assist the applicant contemplating appealing an examiner’s rejection. It also includes information on pro bono (free) legal services and advice available for those who are under-resourced and considering an appeal at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/ptab/free-legal-assistance. The page is best reviewed promptly after applicant has received a final rejection or the claims have been twice rejected because some of the noted assistance must be requested within one month from the date of the latest rejection. See MPEP § 1204 for more information on filing a notice of appeal.
If applicant should desire to appeal any rejection made by the examiner, a Notice of Appeal must be filed within the period for reply. The Notice of Appeal must be accompanied by the fee required by 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1). The current fee amount is available at: www.uspto.gov/Fees.
If applicant should desire to file an after-final amendment, entry of the proposed amendment cannot be made as a matter of right unless it merely cancels claims or complies with a formal requirement made in a previous Office action. Amendments touching the merits of the application which otherwise might not be proper may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why they are necessary and why they were not presented earlier.
A reply under 37 CFR 1.113 to a final rejection must include cancellation of or appeal from the rejection of, each rejected claim. The filing of an amendment after final rejection, whether or not it is entered, does not stop the running of the statutory period for reply to the final rejection unless the examiner holds all of the claims to be in condition for allowance.
If applicant should desire to continue prosecution in a utility or plant application filed on or after May 29, 2000 and have the finality of this Office action withdrawn, an RCE under 37 CFR 1.114 may be filed within the period for reply. See MPEP § 706.07(h) for more information on the requirements for filing an RCE.
The application will become abandoned unless a Notice of Appeal, an after final reply that places the application in condition for allowance, or an RCE has been filed properly within the period for reply, or any extension of this period obtained under either 37 CFR 1.136(a) or (b).
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736