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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 12/18/2025:
Claims 1 and 4-21 are presently pending
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn
Claims 2-3 are cancelled
All prior art grounds of rejection are maintained, with new grounds as necessitated by amendment
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, 4-12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennart (U.S. Patent No. 4015970, hereinafter “Hennart”) in view of Miller (U.S. Patent No. 3961932, hereinafter “Miller”).
Regarding claim 1, Hennart teaches a fertilizer granule [Hennart Abstract] comprising:
a core comprising urea (e.g., the nucleus can contain urea) [Hennart Col. 3 lines 52-59] and
a coat (e.g., a coating consisting of solid materials) [Hennart Abstract] comprising an organic zinc complex (e.g., among the active materials soluble in water which can be incorporated in the coating, there are the soluble complex compounds formed between agriculturally acceptable acids and micronutrients such as zinc; here regarded as reading on an organic zinc complex) [Hennart Col. 5 lines 49-55] and an inorganic zinc compound (e.g., the inert powders used in the coating layer include zinc oxide) [Hennart Col. 5 lines 29-33 & Col. 10 lines 46-54], the coat forming a coating on an outer surface of the core (e.g., the coating is spread evenly over the whole of the surface of the urea granules) [Hennart Col. 13 lines 10-12].
Hennart does not explicitly state that the organic zinc complex is selected from the provided group. However, Miller teaches that conventional acid chelating agents/complexing agents for zinc in fertilizer coatings [Miller Abstract & Col. 4 lines 3-8] include EDTA (specifically, disodium zinc EDTA), NTA, HOEDTA, DTPA, DCTA, EDDHA, and DHEG [Miller Col. 4 lines 8-21]. As such, in looking for a suitable type of soluble complex compound formed between agriculturally acceptable acids and micronutrients such as zinc as taught by Hennart, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Miller and readily appreciate that EDTA, NTA, DTPA, and DHEG are standard options for this purpose. Selecting these zinc complexes amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with 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 to include EDTA and/or HEDTA as the specific zinc complexes as taught by Miller in the fertilizer of Hennart.
Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the coating comprises a separate first coating layer and separate second coating layer (e.g., consisting of one or several layers of particles of solid material and solid polymeric resin [Hennart Col. 3 lines 5-10]; see also Fig. 3 showing a sector of a section of a granular product having two successive different layers of coated particles [Hennart Col. 7 lines 65-68]). Hennart further teaches that the layers can differ in the powder which they contain and/or in the nature of the resins in the layers [Hennart Col. 9 lines 23-33], but does not explicitly state that (1) the first coating layer comprises the organic Zn complex or (2) the second layer comprises the inorganic Zn compound. However, Hennart demonstrates in Examples 64-73 [See Table XII] that the first layer comprises a chelated micronutrient (specifically, ferric chelate EDTPA, EDDHA, or EDDHMA) and the second layer comprises an inert insoluble powder (specifically, kaolin or dried clay) [Hennart Table XII, Col. 27 & 28].
As to (1), Hennart’s general disclosure provides for the list of micronutrients incorporable in acid complexes in the coating including magnesium, copper, zinc, calcium, manganese, iron and nickel [Hennart Col. 5 lines 48-55]. As such, in making the Examples 64-73 comprising the chelated micronutrient in the first layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hennart’s general disclosure and readily appreciate that a zinc complex is another standard option. Substituting the zinc complex (specifically, Zn EDTA and/or NTA, HOEDTA, DTPA, DCTA, EDDHA, and DHEG discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above) for the ferric complex thus 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 to include the organic Zn complex in the first layer as taught by Hennart.
As to (2), Hennart’s general disclosure provides for the list of inert non-combustible powders incorporable in the coating layer including kaolin, talcum, dried clay, brick, pumice-stone, magnesia, mica, pyrophyllite, dolomite, plaster, iron oxide, zinc oxide, titanium oxide, antimony oxide, and cryolite [Hennart Col. 10 lines 46-54]. As such, in making the Examples 64-73 comprising the inert powder (specifically, kaolin or dried clay) in the second layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Hennart’s general disclosure and readily appreciate that zinc oxide is another standard option. Substituting the zinc oxide (ZnO) for the kaolin thus 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 to include the inorganic Zn compound in the second layer as taught by Hennart.
Regarding claim 4, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the inorganic Zn compound comprises ZnO, also referred to as zinc oxide (e.g., the inert powders used in the coating layer include zinc oxide) [Hennart Col. 5 lines 29-33].
Regarding claim 5, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule having separate coating layers, the first layer comprising the organic Zn complex and the second layer comprising the inorganic Zn complex, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 6, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule wherein at least a portion of the first coating layer is arranged between the core and the second coating layer (see, e.g., Fig. 3 demonstrating a first layer between the core and the second layer) [Hennart Col. 7 lines 65-68].
Regarding claim 7, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the inorganic Zn compound is comprised in micronized particles (e.g., the average value of the major diameter of the particles of the powders in the coating of Hennart (which include zinc oxide [Hennart Col. 5 lines 29-33]), is between 0.001 and 0.1 mm, here regarded as reading on micronized particles because the particle size is on the micron scale) [Hennart Col. 5 lines 6-10].
Regarding claim 8, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the micronized particles have an average diameter of 0.1 microns to 100 microns (e.g., 0.001 mm to 0.1 mm, or 1 micron to 100 microns) [Hennart Col. 5 lines 6-10].
Regarding claim 9, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the core has a diameter of 1 mm to 5 mm (e.g., the average value of the major diameter of the nuclei of the granules is preferably between 0.6 and 16 mm) [Hennart Col. 4 lines 45-55].
Regarding claim 10, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule comprising 98.6 wt. % to 99.9 wt. % of urea (e.g., the central solid nucleus constitutes from about 65 to 99 wt. % of the entire granule, and the nucleus itself consists of between 40 to 100 wt. % of the fertilizer material [Hennart claim 1], and said fertilizer material can be urea [Hennart Col. 3 lines 52-59]; as such, the total amount of urea in the fertilizer granule necessarily overlaps with the claimed range, creating a prima facie case of obviousness).
Regarding claim 11, Hennart teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the coating constitutes from 1 to 35 wt. % of the granule [Hennart Claim 1] but does not explicitly provide for an amount of zinc specifically between 0.01 wt. % and 0.2 wt. %. However, Miller teaches that it is standard for a coated granular fertilizer comprising a micronutrient such as zinc within the coating to contain 0.05 to 0.5 wt. % of said micronutrient, as compared to the total weight of the finished fertilizer formulation [Miller Abstract]. As such, in looking for how much total zinc to include in the fertilizer formulation of Hennart, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Miller and readily appreciate that 0.05 to 0.5 wt. % is standard, which encompasses the claimed range. 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 total amount of zinc in the coated fertilizer formulation of Hennart in an amount within the claimed range as taught by Miller.
Regarding claim 12, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the organic zinc complex is (Na)2ZnEDTA (disodium zinc EDTA) [Miller Col. 4 lines 8-9].
Regarding claim 17, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule comprised in a fertilizer blend or a compounded fertilizer (e.g., the fertilizer granule nucleus can comprise one or more of several fertilizers including urea, ammonium sulphate, ammonium chloride, ammonium nitrate, ammonium phosphates, et cetera [Hennart Col. 3 lines 52-59], here regarded as reading on a compounded fertilizer).
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennart and Miller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zander (International Patent Pub. No. 2021/075984 A1, hereinafter “Zander”).
Regarding claim 13, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule comprising 99 to 99.9 wt. % of urea (e.g., the central solid nucleus constitutes from about 65 to 99 wt. % of the granule, and the nucleus itself consists of between 40 to 100 wt. % of the fertilizer material [Hennart claim 1] and said fertilizer material can be urea [Hennart Col. 3 lines 52-59]; as such, the total amount of urea in the fertilizer granule necessarily overlaps with the claimed range) and ZnO (zinc oxide) [Hennart Col. 5 lines 29-33], but does not explicitly state (1) the amount of ZnEDTA being between 0.01 to 0.6 wt. % or (2) the amount of ZnO and/or ZnSO4 being between 0.01 to 0.2 wt. %.
As to (1), Miller teaches that it is standard when coating a granular fertilizer with a chelated micronutrient coating such as zinc or specifically ZnEDTA [Miller Abstract] to include the chelated micronutrient complex at a rate between “about 1 to 5% by weight” [Miller Col. 4 lines 23-30]. “About 1” is here regarded as reading on 0.6 wt. % as claimed. As such, in looking for how much ZnEDTA to include in the fertilizer formulation of Hennart, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Miller and readily appreciate that about 1 to 5 wt. % is standard, which overlaps the claimed range. 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 ZnEDTA in the coated fertilizer formulation of Hennart in an amount within the claimed range as taught by Miller.
As to (2), Zander teaches that it is standard when coating urea-based fertilizers with zinc oxide [Zander Abstract] to include the zinc oxide in the amount of 0.03 wt. % of the total weight of the coated granule [Zander Page 5 lines 4-5 & Claims 1 and 5]. As such, in looking for how much zinc oxide is standard when included in the coating for a urea fertilizer granule, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Zander and readily appreciate that an amount within the claimed range is standard. 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 zinc oxide in the coating of Hennart as modified by Miller in an amount within the claimed range as taught by Zander.
Regarding claim 14, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule, but does not explicitly teach that the core further comprises a urease inhibitor and/or nitrification inhibitor. However, Zander teaches that it is advantageous for urea-based and zinc-coated fertilizer granules [Zander Abstract] to further comprise a urease inhibitor and/or a nitrification inhibitor such as NBPT and DMPP [Zander Page 1 lines 17-18] mixed within the urea core [Zander Page 2 lines 28-30 & Page 3 lines 1-2]. The urease and nitrification inhibitors serve to combat nitrous oxide emissions and leaching of ammonia into waterways, which are common problems in nitrogen-based fertilizers [Zander Page 1 lines 13-22]. As such, in making the urea-based fertilizer of Hennart as modified by Miller, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Zander and readily appreciate the advantages of including a urease and/or nitrification inhibitor within the granule. 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 within the fertilizer of the modified Hennart a urease and/or nitrification inhibitor as taught by Zander.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Hennart teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the urease inhibitor comprises NBPT [Zander Page 2 lines 28-30 & Page 3 lines 1-2]. DCD is recited in the alternative and as such the inclusion of NBPT reads on the claim.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennart, Miller and Zander as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Gabrielson (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0044254 A1, hereinafter “Gabrielson”).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Hennart teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the core comprises a urease inhibitor (e.g., NBPT within the urea core) [Zander Page 2 lines 28-30 & Page 3 lines 1-2], but does not explicitly provide an amount of the urease inhibitor. However, Gabrielson teaches that it is standard when including a urease inhibitor such as NBPT within a urea granule [Gabrielson Abstract] to do so in an amount such that the urease inhibitor comprises 0.02 to 0.1 wt. % of the composition [Gabrielson Para. 0028]. As such, in looking for how much urease inhibitor, specifically NBPT, is standard when included within a urea fertilizer granule, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Gabrielson and readily appreciate that an amount within the claimed range is standard. 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 urease inhibitor in the granule of the modified Hennart in an amount within the claimed range as taught by Gabrielson.
The nitrification inhibitor is recited in the alternative, and as such the inclusion of the urease inhibitor reads on the claim.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennart and Miller as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Phillip (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2014/0326030 A1, hereinafter “Phillip”).
Regarding claim 21, Hennart as modified by Miller teaches the fertilizer granule, but does not explicitly state a crush strength and/or moisture content. Hennart teaches a urea granule (e.g., the central solid nucleus constitutes from about 65 to 99 wt. % of the granule, and the nucleus itself consists of between 40 to 100 wt. % of the fertilizer material [Hennart claim 1] and said fertilizer material can be urea [Hennart Col. 3 lines 52-59]). Phillip teaches that a fresh sample of a standard control urea granule has an average crush strength of 3.21 Kgf, or 3.02 when measured after 8 weeks at 40 °C [Phillip Para. 0084 & Table 6]. As such, in identifying a suitable crush strength for a urea fertilizer granule, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Phillip and readily appreciate that values within the claimed range are standard for urea granules. 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 fertilizer granule of Hennart to implement a crush strength of 2.5 KgF or greater as taught by Phillip. The moisture content is recited in the alternative, and as such the crush strength as taught by Hennart and Phillip is regarded as reading on the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant appears to argue that Hennart and Miller do not teach all the elements of limitations (i), (ii), and (iii) (Remarks Pages 5-6). However, limitations (i), (ii), and (iii) are recited in the alternative, and as such not all the limitations are required. Hennart and Miller teach limitation (i) (previously addressed as claim 5 in the Non Final Rejection dated 9/29/2025, and as part of claim 1 in this Office Action). As such, Hennart and Miller meet claim 1 as now amended.
Applicant also argues unexpected results regarding higher crushing strength and reduced stickiness as a result of the inorganic Zn particulate coating (Remarks Page 6). However, the allegations of unexpected results are not found persuasive because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. 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 re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 716.02(d). Specifically, Applicant points to micronized organic Zn particles significantly reducing the stickiness of the coated granules. However, claim 1 does not require the particles to be micronized. Further, Applicant points to Paragraph [0091] and Example 1 in the Specification. These granules in example 1 contain particulars not claimed: They specifically implement (NH4)2ZnEDTA and ZnO and ZnSO4, and particular amounts thereof (e.g., 2.8-3.0 kg (NH4)2ZnEDTA). Further, they implement a specific urea particle size between 1.00 mm and 4.0 mm. As such, the granules which exhibit the alleged unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claims that the evidence is offered to support.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
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 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