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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “10 wt. % to 90 wt. % of a first particulate fertilizer composition”, and the claim also recites a) 10 wt. % to 50 wt. %, b) 30 wt. % to 70 wt. %, or c) 50 wt. % to 90 wt. % of a first particulate fertilizer composition which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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 1-2 and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde et al. (WO 2018/193358 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Hegde et al. disclose a fertilizer blend (e.g. particulate fertilizer composition blended with other fertilizer granules) [para. 0060] comprising:
a first particulate fertilizer composition comprising a core comprising a binder, a pH buffering agent (e.g. pH balancing agent), and an urease inhibitor [0036, lines 12-16], and a shell comprising urea, wherein the shell covers at least a portion of an outer surface of the core (e.g. a shell surrounding the core particle is made from a solid urea-containing composition) [0036, line 17]; and
a second particulate fertilizer composition (e.g. other fertilizer granules) comprising c) ammonium sulfate [0060, lines 9-10],
wherein the second particulate fertilizer composition is blended with the first particulate fertilizer composition (e.g. blended composition) [0060].
While Hegde does not explicitly recite wherein the fertilizer blend comprises 50 wt. % to 90 wt. % of first fertilizer and 10 wt. % to 50 wt. % of said second fertilizer (e.g. ammonium sulfate), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reach the claimed percentages/ratios by routine procedures to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mix the first particulate fertilizer with other components in amounts to form a composition useful for application to soil [0059] by the combination of a first and second component comprising primary fertilizer nutrients [0059]. Hegde describes choosing additional fertilizers based on the particular needs of certain types of soil, climate, or other growing conditions to maximize the efficacy of the fertilizer particle in enhancing plant growth and crop yield [0052], thus recognizing the mixture of differing nutrient components as a result-effective variable to achieve a desired nutrient profile. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regard to claim 2, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the second particulate fertilizer composition comprises ammonium sulfate, triple super phosphate (TSP), or single super phosphate (SSP) [0060, lines 9-10].
In regard to claim 5, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the second particulate fertilizer composition comprises ammonium sulfate [0060, lines 9-10]. While Hegde does not explicitly recite wherein the fertilizer blend comprises 50 wt. % to 90 wt. % of first fertilizer and 10 wt. % to 50 wt. % of said second fertilizer (e.g. ammonium sulfate), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reach the claimed percentages/ratios by routine procedures to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to mix the first particulate fertilizer with other components in amounts to form a composition useful for application to soil [0059] by the combination of a first and second component comprising primary fertilizer nutrients [0059]. Hegde describes choosing additional fertilizers based on the particular needs of certain types of soil, climate, or other growing conditions to maximize the efficacy of the fertilizer particle in enhancing plant growth and crop yield [0052], thus recognizing the mixture of differing nutrient components as a result-effective variable to achieve a desired nutrient profile. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regard to claim 6, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the binder comprises plaster of paris, flour, bleached wheat flour, starch, gluten, kaolin, bentonite, or colloidal silica or any combination thereof [0055].
In regard to claim 7, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the pH buffering agent comprises CaCO3, Na2CO3, MgO, KH2PO4, NaHCO3, or any combination thereof [0056].
In regard to claim 8, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the urease inhibitor comprises a thiophosphoric triamide derivative (e.g. NBTPT) [0048-0049].
In regard to claim 9, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the binder is present in the core in an amount of 10 wt. % to 95 wt. %, based on the total weight of the core [0012].
In regard to claim 10, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the pH buffering agent is present in the core in an amount of 5 wt. % to 60 wt. %, based on the total weight of the core [0014].
In regard to claim 11, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the urease inhibitor is present in the core in an amount of 1 wt. % to 5 wt. %, based on the total weight of the core [0009].
In regard to claim 12, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the shell contains a nitrogen fertilizer such as urea or a combination of urea with other nitrogen fertilizers. In the case where the outer shell contains urea without a combination of other nitrogen fertilizers, the shell is considered to comprise about 100 wt. % of urea, based on the total weight of the shell [0058].
In regard to claims 13-15, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the core further comprises a nitrification inhibitor in an amount of 10 wt. % to 30 wt. %, based on the total weight of the core [0009], wherein the nitrification inhibitor comprises 3,4-dimethylpyrazole phosphate (DMPP), thio-urea (TU), dicyandiamide (DCD), 2- Chloro-6- (trichloromethyl)-pyridine (Nitrapyrin), 5- Ethoxy-3-trichloromethyl-1, 2, 4-thiadiazol (Terrazole), 2-Amino-4-chloro-6-methyl- pyrimidine (AM), 2-Mercapto-benzothiazole (MBT), or 2-Sulfanimalamidothiazole (ST) or any combination thereof [0051].
In regard to claims 16-17, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the core further comprises a plasticizer (e.g. polymer thickener) in an amount of 0.01 wt. % to 5 wt. %, based on the total weight of the core, wherein the plasticizer comprises hydroxypropyl methylcetlulose (HPMC). carboxymethyl cellulose, polyethylene glycol (PEG), guar gum, locust bean gum, xanthan gum, a natural gum, s, or hydroxyethylcellulose or any combination thereof [0015].
In regard to claims 18-19, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, wherein the core further comprises a filler in an amount of 1 wt. % to 60 wt. %, based on the total weight of the core, wherein the filler comprises silica, dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS), or rice husk or any combination thereof [0013].
In regard to claim 20, Hegde et al. disclose a method of fertilizing, the method comprising applying a fertilizer blend of claim 1 to at least a portion of a soil (e.g. a method of enhancing plant growth by applying to soil an effective amount of a composition) [0021].
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde et al. (WO 2018/193358 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bag (WO 2018/211448 A1 – citation in PTO-892).
In regard to claims 3-4, Hegde et al. disclose the fertilizer blend of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the second particulate fertilizer composition comprises MAP and MOP, and the fertilizer blend comprises 10 wt. % to 50 wt. %, of the first particulate fertilizer composition, 30 wt. % to 70 wt. % of MAP and 5 wt. % to 50 wt. % of MOP (claim 3) or wherein the second particulate fertilizer composition comprises MAP, and the fertilizer blend comprises 30 wt. % to 70 wt. % of the first particulate fertilizer composition, and 30 wt. % to 70 wt. % of MAP (claim 4).
Bag is directed to a similar blended fertilizer. In some instances the coated fertilizer is combined with phosphate fertilizer and/or potassium based fertilizer including MAP and MOP [para. 0055, lines 7-14]. While Bag does not explicitly recite wherein the fertilizer blend comprises the weight percentages of the first and second compositions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reach the claimed percentages/ratios by routine procedures to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to form a blend comprising the three primary nutrients (e.g. nitrogen from the urea first fertilizer and potassium and phosphorus from MOP and MAP). Bag notes the blend can be prepared having a desired NPK grade for a desired fertilizer application [0055, lines 29-31], thus recognizing the mixture of nutrient components as a result-effective variable. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg. 3, 3rd para.) the Hegde reference fails to teach or suggest the weight percentages of monoammonium phosphate, muriate of potash and/or ammonium sulfate. In response to the amendments to the claims limiting the invention to one comprising the recited second fertilizer, a new ground of rejection is presented above. Hegde describes choosing additional fertilizers based on the particular needs of certain types of soil, climate, or other growing conditions to maximize the efficacy of the fertilizer particle in enhancing plant growth and crop yield [0052], thus recognizing the mixture of differing nutrient components as a result-effective variable to achieve a desired nutrient profile.
Applicant argues (pgs. 6-7, section 2.) Applicant has shown in Examples 1 and 2 that degradation of urease inhibitor when exposed to MAP, MOP and/or ammonium sulfate. Applicant points to the results in Table 3 and Table 4 showing the inhibitor stability monitored in blended samples at different storage conditions. The results in the specification have been fully considered, however, due to the absence of tests comparing Applicant’s particulate fertilizer blends with those of the closest prior art, the assertions of unexpected results constitute mere argument. The results demonstrate improved NBPT recovery in blended samples of a core comprising a urease inhibitor and a shell comprising urea compared to blended samples of a core comprising urea and a coating containing urease inhibitor [Specification, pgs. 22-24]. The Hegde reference is cited as teaching a fertilizer blend (e.g. particulate fertilizer composition blended with other fertilizer granules) [para. 0060] comprising a first particulate fertilizer composition comprising a core comprising a binder, a pH buffering agent (e.g. pH balancing agent), and an urease inhibitor [0036, lines 12-16], and a shell comprising urea, wherein the shell covers at least a portion of an outer surface of the core (e.g. a shell surrounding the core particle is made from a solid urea-containing composition) [0036, line 17]. Thus, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art (e.g. fertilizer blend comprising a urea inhibitor core/urea shell fertilizer) 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).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 September 1, 2025