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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 9/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/10/2025.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 5/10/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202041019741 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to due to the typographical error “Gluconacetobater diazotrophicus.” This recitation would appear to be referring to the nitrogen fixing bacterium “gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus” [emphasis added for clarity]. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “claim 1wherein” in line 3 of the claim lacks appropriate spacing.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “protein hydrolysates,carbohydrates . . .” lacks appropriate spacing.
It is also noted that several claims lack indefinite or definite articles before various recitations. Appropriate correction is required for these grammatical errors. Please note that this is not an exhaustive list of recitations lacking indefinite or definite articles.
Claim 3: “15-25% of total formulation” in line 4 of the claim should read “15-25% of the total formulation”
Claim 5: “20-30% by weight of total formulation” in lines 3-4 should read “20-30% by weight of the total formulation”
Claim 6: “20-30% by weight of total formulation” in line 3 should read “20-30% by weight of the total formulation”
Claim 8: “4-5% by weight of total formulation” in lines 3-4 should read “4-5% by weight of the total formulation
Claim 11: “in the form of granular form or powder form or liquid form” should read “in the form of a granular form or a powder form or a liquid form”
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 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “15 to 25% by weight combination of nitrogen fixing microorganisms, cultures” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what “combination of” is referring to. For example, it could be referring to a combination of different nitrogen fixing bacteria, or a combination of nitrogen fixing bacteria and bacterial cultures, whether or not the bacterial cultures are also nitrogen fixing. For purposes of examination, “combination of” is regarded as referring to a general mixture of nitrogen fixing bacteria and any bacterial cultures.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “20 to 30% by weight of bentonite along with nutrients, minerals and micronutrient minerals” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the phrase “along with” means that the nutrients, minerals and micronutrient minerals are included in the 20 to 30% by weight range. For example, the recitation could mean that there is a total of 20 to 30% by weight bentonite, nutrients, minerals, and micronutrient minerals, or it could mean that there is a total of 20 to 30% by weight bentonite and an unspecified additional amount of nutrients, minerals, and micronutrient minerals. For purposes of examination, in light of claim 7 which sets forth a separate percentage for the nutrients, the claim 1 is regarded as setting forth 20 to 30% by weight of bentonite and an unspecified additional amount of the nutrients, minerals, and micronutrient minerals.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “for organic and sustainable farming” renders the claim indefinite. Organic farming has many different definitions and requirements which vary widely depending on the region or country of the farming. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, this intended use recitation in the preamble only limits the claim to the extent that the prior art must be capable of performing the intended use, which is here interpreted as capable of being used in any farming.
Regarding claim 2, the recitation “wherein the nitrogen fixing microorganisms are selected from group of independently fixing the nitrogen through biological nitrogen fixer which is Azotobacter sp., associative nitrogen fixing with biological association with crop which is Azospirillum sp., symbiotic nitrogen fixing with host crop plant which is Rhizobium sp. and endophytic nitrogen fixer which is Gluconacetobater diazotrophicus” renders the claim indefinite for several reasons:
The recitation would appear to set forth a Markush grouping of alternatives. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Here, it is unclear from the language of the claim whether the group as drafted is open or closed, as the claim recites that the alternatives “are selected from group of” with no specific connecting term. While there is no particular format required for a Markush grouping, generally the claim contains phrasing such as “selected from the group consisting of X, Y, and Z.” For purposes of examination, this recitation is regarded as referring to a closed group consisting of the recited alternatives.
Several terms lack antecedent basis:
“crop” (line 5 of the claim)
“host crop plant” (line 6 of the claim)
The terms lack antecedent basis because no crop or host crop plant has been previously set forth.
The claim recites that the grouping sets forth “nitrogen fixing microorganisms” (line 3 of the claim) but then recites several functions of nitrogen fixing microorganisms rather than the microorganisms themselves, listed in different verb tenses (independently fixing the nitrogen through biological nitrogen fixer, associative nitrogen fixing with biological association with crop, symbiotic nitrogen fixing with host crop plant, and endophytic nitrogen fixer). The claim also sets forth specific bacteria which serve these functions. It is unclear whether the specific bacteria are merely examples of the claimed functions (e.g., azotobacter sp. can serve the function of independently fixing the nitrogen through biological nitrogen fixer) or whether the specific bacteria are actually required by the claim. For purposes of examination, the claim is regarded as setting forth a list of bacteria in the alternative; i.e., the claim requires at least one of Azotobacter sp., Azospirillum sp., Rhizobium sp. and Gluconacetobater diazotrophicus.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “wherein the amount of combination of nitrogen fixing microorganisms is 15-25% by weight of total formulation at the ratio of each microorganism in the range of 10 to 40% (w/w)” (lines 3-5 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear what the 15-25% by weight and the 10-40% by weight ranges are specifically referring to. Claim 1 already establishes that the nitrogen fixing microorganisms are 15-25% by weight of the total formulation, and it is unclear whether this second recitation of the range is merely referring to the same thing again or is further limiting the range to only be referring to the nitrogen fixing microorganisms (i.e., not the cultures, which as interpreted above could refer to any bacterial culture). Further, it is unclear whether the 10-40% range is setting forth an amount of each individual type of microorganism as compared to the total formulation, or an amount of each individual type of microorganism as compared to the total amount of microorganisms. For purposes of examination, the 15-25% range is being regarded as referring to the same range as set forth in claim 1 (i.e., it does not further limit anything about the range). Further, the 10-40% range is being regarded as referring to the quantity of each individual microbe/bacterium within the total amount of bacteria included in light of the Specification on Page 15 which sets forth raw materials for a fertilizer formulation wherein “all above microbe will be mixed in the range of 10 to 40% of each culture” and the total amount of bacteria is still 15 to 25% by weight (Specification line 9 of page 15).
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “wherein the nitrogen rich carrier materials selected is legume or alfalfa crop residue, amino acids and protein hydrolysates, fish meals” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation would appear to set forth a Markush grouping of alternatives. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives; i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Here, it is unclear from the language of the claim whether the group as drafted is open or closed, as the claim recites that the alternatives “selected is” with no specific connecting term. While there is no particular format required for a Markush grouping, generally the claim contains phrasing such as “selected from the group consisting of X, Y, and Z.”
Further regarding the recited list of alternatives, it is unclear which specific materials are alternatives. For example, the claim recites “legume or alfalfa crop residue” and “amino acids and protein hydrolysates.” It is unclear which specific alternatives the “or” in “Legume or alfalfa crop residue” applies to (i.e., the recitation could mean that one of the two is always required, or it could mean that all of the other components are also alternatives). Further, it is unclear whether “amino acids and protein hydrolysates” are both required together due to the inclusion of the word “and” between them, or if the “and” is merely intended as a conjunction to list the alternatives.
For purposes of examination, this recitation is regarded as referring to a closed group consisting of the recited alternatives. Each material is regarded as being an individual alternative; i.e., the inclusion of at least one of legume crop residue, alfalfa crop residue, amino acids, protein hydrolysates, or fish meals is regarded as reading on the claim.
Regarding claim 7, the recitation “wherein the nutrients are selected from amino acids, protein hydrolysates, carbohydrates and salts” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation would appear to set forth a Markush grouping of alternatives. As similarly discussed in the Markush issues above, if a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Here, it is unclear from the language of the claim whether the group as drafted is open or closed, as the claim recites that the alternatives “are selected from” with no specific connecting term. While there is no particular format required for a Markush grouping, generally the claim contains phrasing such as “selected from the group consisting of X, Y, and Z.” For purposes of examination, this recitation is regarded as referring to a closed group consisting of the recited alternatives.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “protein” (line 3 of the claim) lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear whether this is setting forth an additional element or referring back to the “protein hydrolysates” of claim 7. For purposes of examination, the recitation is regarded as referring back to the protein hydrolysates of claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “wherein the minerals are selected from Ca, P, Cl, B and Zn” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation would appear to set forth a Markush grouping of alternatives. As similarly discussed in the Markush issues above, if a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Here, it is unclear from the language of the claim whether the group as drafted is open or closed, as the claim recites that the alternatives “are selected from” with no specific connecting term. While there is no particular format required for a Markush grouping, generally the claim contains phrasing such as “selected from the group consisting of X, Y, and Z.” For purposes of examination, this recitation is regarded as referring to a closed group consisting of the recited alternatives.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “wherein the elements essential for biological nitrogen fixation are selected from Cu, Mo, Fe, Co and Ni” renders the claim indefinite for several reasons.
The recitation would appear to set forth a Markush grouping of alternatives. As similarly discussed in the Markush issues above, if a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Here, it is unclear from the language of the claim whether the group as drafted is open or closed, as the claim recites that the alternatives “are selected from” with no specific connecting term. While there is no particular format required for a Markush grouping, generally the claim contains phrasing such as “selected from the group consisting of X, Y, and Z.” For purposes of examination, this recitation is regarded as referring to a closed group consisting of the recited alternatives.
The recitation “the elements essential for biological nitrogen fixation” lacks antecedent basis, as no elements essential for biological nitrogen fixation or even any elements in general have been previously set forth. For purposes of examination, the recitation is regarded as referring back to and further limiting the specific “micronutrient minerals” in line 5 of claim 1, in light of the specification which reads “the micronutrient minerals are selected from Cu, Mo, Fe, Co, and Ni . . .” (Page 12 line 1).
Regarding claim 11, the recitation “wherein the formulation is in the form of granular form or powder form or liquid form with partially or fully soluble in water” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation “with partially or fully soluble in water” applies to all the recited forms (granular, powder, liquid) or only the closest recited form (liquid). For purposes of examination, the solubility is regarded as referring to any one of the fertilizer forms.
Note that all other claims are being included as a result of their dependency upon a rejected claim as set forth above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites that the amount of nitrogen rich carrier materials is 20-30% by weight of the total formulation. However, claim 1 already requires the exact same range of nitrogen rich carrier materials (see lines 3-4 of claim 1). As such, claim 5 fails to further limit claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites that the amount of bentonite is 20-30% by weight of the total formulation. However, claim 1 already requires the exact same range of bentonite (see lines 4 of claim 1). As such, claim 6 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (Chinese Patent No. 108424326 A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a bio-nitrogen fertilizer formulation to fix nitrogen (e.g., a fertilizer formulation containing rhizobium, a nitrogen-fixing bacteria) [Para. 0007] comprising 15 to 25 wt. % nitrogen fixing microorganisms and cultures (e.g., 10-30 parts rhizobium powder, which necessarily contains nitrogen fixing microorganisms of the Rhizobium genus and live cultures thereof) [Para. 0007], 20-30% by weight of nitrogen rich carrier materials (e.g., 5-30 parts urea and 10-20 parts active nitrogen source) [Para. 0007], 20-30 wt. % bentonite (e.g., 20-40 parts bentonite powder) [Para. 0007], and nutrients, minerals and micronutrients (e.g., 3-6 parts mineral substance and 10-15 parts humic acid, which will necessarily supply nutrients, minerals and micronutrients) [Abstract]. Calculated including all other components of the fertilizer of Zhang (20-30 parts potassium nitrate, 5-10 parts potassium carbonate, 10-40 parts potassium sulfate, 15-30 parts methane tank residue, 4-8 parts microbial agent, 10-12 parts calcium hydrogen phosphate, 8-12 parts diammonium phosphate, and 0.1-0.5 parts active carbon source) [Para. 0007], these ranges of parts necessarily overlap with the claimed ranges of percentages, creating a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
While Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the formulation is to fix nitrogen from multiple sources for organic and sustainable farming, this intended use recitation in the preamble only limits the claim to the extent that the prior art must be capable of performing the intended use. Here, the fertilizer of Zhang is nitrogen-fixing and contains the claimed ingredients, and can be implemented in farming (see the interpretation on Page 5 of this Office Action). There appear to be no structural differences imparted by the recited intended use. As such, it necessarily follows that the formulation of Zhang meets the recitation of the intended use.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the nitrogen fixing microorganisms are selected from the group consisting of Azotobacter sp., Azospirillum sp., Rhizobium sp., and gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus (e.g., rhizobium powder, which is regarded as reading on rhizobium species) [Zhang Para. 0007].
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the amount of nitrogen rich carrier materials is 20-30% by weight of the total formulation (e.g., 5-30 parts urea and 10-20 parts active nitrogen source [Para. 0007]; calculated including all other components of the fertilizer of Zhang these ranges of parts necessarily overlap with the claimed ranges of percentages).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the amount of bentonite is 20-30% by weight of the total formulation (e.g., 20-40 parts bentonite powder) [Para. 0007]; calculated including all other components of the fertilizer of Zhang these ranges of parts necessarily overlap with the claimed ranges of percentages).
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagalingam (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0131096 A1, hereinafter “Kanagalingam”).
Regarding claim 1, Kanagalingam teaches a bio-nitrogen fertilizer formulation to fix nitrogen (e.g., a biofertilizer composition containing nitrogen-fixing microorganisms) [Kanagalingam Abstract & Para. 0015] comprising a combination of nitrogen fixing microorganisms and cultures (e.g., nitrogen-fixing microorganisms [Para. 0015] such as various Rhizobium species, Azospirillum species [Para. 0035], and Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus [Para. 0010]), 20-30% by weight nitrogen rich carrier materials (e.g., a nitrogen source such as an amino acid, protein hydrolysates, alfalfa or alfalfa protein hydrolysates, in an amount less than 98% by weight of the composition) [Para. 0089-0090], 20-30% by weight of bentonite (e.g., an excipient such as a disintegrant or dispersion enhancer which can be bentonite [Para. 0116-117] in an amount less than 98% by weight of the composition [Para. 0120]) along with nutrients (e.g., amino acids, protein hydrolysates, carbohydrates [Para. 0089], and salts [Abstract]), minerals (e.g., boron, zinc, other mineral elements [Para. 0007 & 0089], and other sources of calcium, chloride and phosphorus such as calcium chloride, zinc chloride, potassium hydrogen phosphate [Para. 0093]), and micronutrient minerals (e.g., a chelated metal such as copper, molybdenum, nickel [Claim 17 & 18 & Para. 0087] or iron [Para. 0092]).
As to the weight range of the nitrogen fixing microorganisms, Kanagalingam claims a range of 50-70% by weight [Kanagalingam Claim 20], which is outside the instantly claimed range of 15 to 25% by weight. However, Kanagalingam includes in its general disclosure that the composition is made in a tank comprising the fermented starting composition (which contains the bacteria/microorganisms, also referred to as a microorganism consortium), wherein the starting composition can be included in essentially any amount less than 99.9 weight% of the total in-tank solution [Para. 0138 & 0141], and the other mixtures of additives in the final composition can also be added in essentially any amount less than 99.9 weight% of the total in-tank solution [Para. 0142-143]. No other ingredients are necessarily added subsequent to forming the in-tank solution and before affording the final product. As such, it necessarily follows that the microorganism consortium may be included in a wide variety of amounts in the final biofertilizer composition; i.e., anything less than 99.9%. In making the composition of Kanagalingam, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to the disclosed method and understand that the amounts of bacteria and additives can be widely varied accordingly. 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 composition of Kanagalingam to include the nitrogen fixing microorganisms in an amount overlapping with the claimed range.
Overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
While Kanagalingam does not explicitly disclose that the formulation is to fix nitrogen from multiple sources for organic and sustainable farming, this intended use recitation in the preamble only limits the claim to the extent that the prior art must be capable of performing the intended use. Here, the fertilizer of Kanagalingam is nitrogen-fixing and contains the claimed ingredients, and can be implemented in farming (see the interpretation on Page 5 of this Office Action). There appear to be no structural differences imparted by the recited intended use. As such, it necessarily follows that the formulation of Kanagalingam meets the recitation of the intended use.
Regarding claim 2, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the nitrogen fixing microorganisms are selected from the group consisting of Azotobacter sp., Azospirillum sp., Rhizobium sp., and gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus (e.g., nitrogen-fixing microorganisms [Para. 0015] such as various Rhizobium species, Azospirillum species [Para. 0035], and Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus [Para. 0010]).
Regarding claim 3, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the nitrogen fixing microorganisms are present in an amount between 15-25% by weight (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose that each microorganism is present within the total amount of microorganisms in a range between 10-40 % by weight (see the interpretation on Pages 7-8 of this Office Action). However, Kanagalingam teaches various mixtures of the different microorganisms, including specifically an embodiment comprising at least three bacteria selected from a group including Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus [Para. 0025]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Kanagalingam’s general disclosures of embodiments and readily appreciate that a mixture of 3 bacteria is standard. In making such a mixture of bacteria, one of ordinary skill in the art would start by including them in equivalent amounts (i.e., a ratio of 1:1:1). As such, each bacterium will be included in an amount comprising 33% of the total bacteria. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover the optimum or workable ranges of microorganisms present in the fertilizer formulation so as to include any given nitrogen fixing microorganism in an amount between 10 to 40 wt. % of the total amount of bacteria, through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 IIA.
Regarding claim 4, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the nitrogen rich carrier material is selected from the group consisting of legume crop residue, alfalfa crop residue, amino acids, protein hydrolysates, and fish meals (e.g., a nitrogen source such as an amino acid, protein hydrolysates, alfalfa or alfalfa protein hydrolysates, in an amount less than 98% by weight of the composition) [Para. 0089-0090].
Regarding claim 5, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the amount of nitrogen rich carrier materials is 20-30% by weight (e.g., a nitrogen source such as an amino acid, protein hydrolysates, alfalfa or alfalfa protein hydrolysates, in an amount less than 98% by weight of the composition) [Para. 0089-0090].
Regarding claim 6, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation containing 20-30% by weight of bentonite (e.g., an excipient such as a disintegrant or dispersion enhancer which can be bentonite [Para. 0116-117] in an amount less than 98% by weight of the composition [Para. 0120]).
Regarding claim 7, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the nutrients are selected from the group consisting of amino acids, protein hydrolysates, carbohydrates, and salts (e.g., amino acids, protein hydrolysates, carbohydrates [Para. 0089].
Regarding claim 8, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the amount of amino acids, protein hydrolysates, carbohydrates, and salts is 4-5% by weight (e.g., the amino acids, protein hydrolysates, and carbohydrates are included in an amount comprising less than 98% of the composition [Para. 0089-90] and the salt is included in an amount comprising less than 98% of the composition [Para. 0093]).
Regarding claim 9, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the minerals are selected from Ca, P, Cl, B and Zn at a concentration of 5-10% by weight of the total formulation (e.g., boron, zinc, other mineral elements [Para. 0007 & 0089]; these can be included in various forms and amounts including 1-10% zinc sulfate [Para. 0095], 0.6 wt. % boron [Para. 0096], and other sources of calcium, chloride and phosphorus such as calcium chloride, zinc chloride, potassium hydrogen phosphate in an amount comprising less than 98% of the composition [Para. 0093]; as such, the total amount of the minerals selected from the provided group necessarily overlaps with the claimed range).
Regarding claim 11, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the formulation is in granular or powder form, or liquid form, with partially or fully soluble in water (e.g., the composition may be an aqueous suspension, a wettable powder, a granule, dust, pellet, or colloidal concentrate; such dry forms may be formulated to dissolve immediately or dissolve in a controlled-release manner) [Para. 0106].
Regarding claim 12, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation in granular form (e.g., the composition may be a granule) [Para. 0106].
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagalingam as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Baker (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0059848 A1, hereinafter “Baker”).
Regarding claim 10, Kanagalingam teaches the fertilizer formulation wherein the micronutrients are selected from the group consisting of Cu, Mo, Fe, Co and Ni (see the interpretation on Pages 11-12 of this Office Action) (e.g., a chelated metal such as copper, molybdenum, nickel [Kanagalingam Claim 17 & 18 & Para. 0087] or iron [Para. 0092]. Kanagalingam does not explicitly disclose that the micronutrient is included at a concentration ranging from 5-500 ppm by weight of the total formulation. However, Baker teaches that it is standard for a granular fertilizer containing nitrogen and bentonite [Baker Abstract & Para. 0159] to comprise a micronutrient content of between 1 and 1000 ppm [Baker Para. 0156]. Baker specifically lists micronutrients such as copper and iron [Baker Para. 0154]. As such, in making the fertilizer formulation of Kanagalingam, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Baker and readily appreciate that a micronutrient content overlapping with the claimed range is standard in a similar fertilizer. 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 formulation of Kanagalingam to include the recited micronutrients within the claimed range as taught by Baker.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kendirgi (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0183131 A1) is made of record for teaching a bio-nitrogen fertilizer formulation to fix nitrogen (e.g., a microbial composition for plants, plant parts, or seeds which can be combined with liquid fertilizer or a fertilizer granule [Abstract & Para. 0075 & 0077] which contains nitrogen-fixing bacteria [Para. 0070]) comprising a combination of nitrogen fixing microorganisms and cultures (e.g., microbial species with nitrogen metabolism activity such as nitrogen fixation [Para. 0070]; specifically, for example, various Azotobacter species [Para. 0006]), 20-30% by weight of nitrogen rich carrier materials (e.g., the solid fraction contains 9-35% amino acids) [Para. 0096], bentonite as a carrier [Para. 0077], as well as various salts and micronutrients [Para. 0075], protein hydrolysates [Para. 0098], and fish skin or scales [Para. 0047].
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