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 11/6/2025:
Claims 1-25 are presently pending
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims
New grounds of rejection are presented herein, 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) 1-8, 10, 12, 14, and 17-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanuto (International Patent Pub. No. 2017/1566910 A1, hereinafter “Stefanuto”), with evidence from McCoy (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0227211 A1, hereinafter “McCoy”) as to claim 5 only and evidence from “Amino acids in the seaweeds as an alternate source of protein for animal feed,” Kumar et al, J. Mar. Biol. Ass. India, 2007, hereinafter “Kumar”) as to claim 7 only.
Regarding claim 1, Stefanuto teaches a method for the industrial manufacture of granulated fertilizers (e.g., a method for producing organic-mineral fertilizers having a spherical or circular shape) [Abstract] including the steps of granulation, drying (e.g., extruding, pelleting, drying) [Abstract & Para. 013], control of the granule temperature (e.g., the granules are made via extrusion, which necessarily uses heat/temperature control, and are also sent to a dryer which controls moisture, which necessarily also uses heat/temperature control) [Para. 013] and sifting (e.g., the granules are sent to a rotary spheroidizer which consists of a rotor with slots) [Para. 011] (particles having a diameter of 3 mm or less are separated) [Abstract],
wherein the starting material used comprises water-soluble and water-insoluble components (e.g., the organic compounds may include residues from the sugar cane industry, paper and timber industry, poultry waste, macro and micro nutrients, hormones, amino acids, bacteria, fungi [Para. 007], water, sugar, dextrose, fermentation byproducts [Para. 009], boric acid [Para. 022], alcohols [Para. 023], which will necessarily contain water-soluble and water-insoluble components) in a proportion by weight of 0.5 to 10 wt. % with respect to the weight of the product to be granulated in the granulation step (e.g., the initial organic material has a moisture content of between 10 and 40 wt. % [Para. 010] and the specific ingredients fall within the claimed range; e.g., 9.4% boric acid, 0.3% polyacrylate hardener [Para. 036], 1 to 5% zinc oxide, 1 to 5% copper oxide, 5 to 10% cane molasses, 0 to 10% micronutrients [Para. 025]), and
that the method includes, prior to the granulation step, a step of obtaining the starting material in the form of a homogenized mixture as thick aqueous suspension (e.g., the organic material is ground up, and mixed, and contains water) [Para. 009-010], wherein the humidity of the thick aqueous suspension is between 6-10% (e.g., the moisture content of the organic matter should be controlled between 10-40%, overlapping with the claimed range),
the soluble and insoluble components being selected from sugars, amino acids, organic acids, polyamines, alcohols, nucleotides, boric acid, leonardite, algae extracts and combinations thereof (e.g., the organic compounds may include residues from the sugar cane industry, paper and timber industry, poultry waste, macro and micro nutrients, hormones, amino acids, bacteria, fungi [Para. 007], water, sugar, dextrose, fermentation byproducts [Para. 009], boric acid [Para. 022], alcohols [Para. 023]), and
a step of premixing this starting material with other raw materials selected from products with high nitrogen content, products with high phosphorus content, products with high potassium content, products with high sulfur content, products with high calcium content, organic materials, micronutrients and combinations thereof (e.g., other nutrients and additives such as nitrogen, phosphate, potassium, can be added) [Para. 017-019] in a proportion between 5 and 90 wt. % with respect to the weight of the product to be granulated in the granulation step (e.g., the granular fertilizer may contain 40 to 80 wt. % organic substrate, 5 to 30 wt. % macronutrients, 1 to 10 wt. % micronutrients, 0 to 3 wt. % polymeric hardener, and 5 to 15 wt. % water) [Para. 025].
Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Stefanuto teaches the method including mixing the starting material components to form a homogeneous moisture mixture [Para. 005] in a variety of types of mixers [Para. 009] wherein the product proceeds directly to the low-pressure extrusion step [Para. 010]; this is regarded as reading on an in-line disperser because the dispersing (mixing) occurs in-line with the fertilizer granule making process (i.e., the homogeneous moisture mixture is passed directly to the extrusion step).
Regarding claim 3, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein the pre-mixing step of the starting material with the other raw materials is carried out in a paddle mixer (e.g., the stream of material selected and suitable for the mixing/additive process is mixed in a plow mixer, ribbon, nautamixer, or paddle mixer) [Para. 009].
Regarding claim 4, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein the sugars are an optional component, but does not explicitly state the types of sugars included. However, sugars are recited as being optional in claim 1, and as such Stefanuto teaching other options for the recited components (e.g., macro and micro nutrients, hormones, amino acids, bacteria, fungi [Para. 007], water, fermentation byproducts [Para. 009], boric acid [Para. 022], alcohols [Para. 023]) is regarded as reading on a further limitation of the specific types of sugars.
Regarding claim 5, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein sugars are present in a proportion of 0.1 to 15 wt. %: Stefanuto teaches that the specific sugar may be 5 to 10% molasses. Molasses is approximately 48% sugars, as evidenced by McCoy [McCoy Para. 0048]. As such, sugar is included in the granule of Stefanuto at approximately 2.5 to 5%, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein amino acids are an optional component, but does not explicitly state the types of amino acids included. However, amino acids are recited as being optional in claim 1, and as such Stefanuto teaching other options for the recited components (e.g., macro and micro nutrients, hormones, bacteria, fungi [Para. 007], water, sugar, dextrose, fermentation byproducts [Para. 009], boric acid [Para. 022], alcohols [Para. 023]) is regarded as reading on a further limitation of the specific types of amino acid.
Regarding claim 7, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein amino acids are present in a proportion of 0.01 to 30% by weight: Stefanuto teaches an embodiment comprising 0 to 20 wt. % seaweed extract. Seaweed contains amino acids in total percentages varying from approximately 5-20 wt. %, as evidenced by Kumar [Kumar Page 36, Table 1]. As such, amino acids are included in the granule of Stefano in an amount overlapping with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein organic acids are an optional component (e.g., humic or fulvic acids) [Para. 016] but does not explicitly state the types of organic acids claimed. However, organic acids are recited as being optional in claim 1, and as such Stefanuto teaching other options for the recited components (e.g., macro and micro nutrients, hormones, amino acids, bacteria, fungi [Para. 007], water, fermentation byproducts [Para. 009], boric acid [Para. 022], alcohols [Para. 023]) is regarded as reading on a further limitation of the specific types of organic acids.
Regarding claim 10, Stefanuto does not explicitly state the inclusion of polyamines, or specific polyamines selected from the group as claimed. However, polyamines are recited as being optional in claim 1, and as such Stefanuto teaching other options for the recited components (e.g., macro and micro nutrients, hormones, amino acids, bacteria, fungi [Para. 007], water, fermentation byproducts [Para. 009], boric acid [Para. 022], alcohols [Para. 023]) is regarded as reading on a further limitation of the specific polyamines.
Regarding claim 12, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein alcohols are an optional component [Para. 023] but does not explicitly state the types of alcohol included. However, alcohols are recited as being optional in claim 1, and as such Stefanuto teaching other options for the recited components (e.g., macro and micro nutrients, hormones, amino acids, bacteria, fungi [Para. 007], water, fermentation byproducts [Para. 009], boric acid [Para. 022]) is regarded as reading on a further limitation of the specific types of alcohols.
Regarding claim 14, Stefanuto teaches the method but does not explicitly state the inclusion of nucleotides, or specific nucleotides selected from the group as claimed. However, nucleotides are recited as being optional in claim 1, and as such Stefanuto teaching other options for the recited components (e.g., macro and micro nutrients, hormones, amino acids, bacteria, fungi [Para. 007], water, fermentation byproducts [Para. 009], boric acid [Para. 022], alcohols [Para. 023]) is regarded as reading on a further limitation of the specific nucleotides.
Regarding claim 17, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein algae extracts are present in a proportion of 0.01 to 15% by weight (e.g., 0 to 10 wt. % seaweed extract, overlapping with the claimed range) [Para. 025].
Regarding claim 18, Stefanuto teaches the method including products with high nitrogen content (e.g., potassium nitrate, sodium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate, urea) [Para. 019]. Further, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein macronutrients are present in an amount between 0 to 30 wt. % [Para. 025]. Nitrogen is a macronutrient, necessarily supplied by one or more of the listed nitrogen sources. It necessarily follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would select the products with high nitrogen content in an amount overlapping with the claimed range, so as to afford a macronutrient content within the suitable range taught by Stefanuto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Stefanuto to include the products with high nitrogen content in an amount within the broad range as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Stefanuto teaches the method including products with high phosphorus content (e.g., phosphate, simple superphosphate, monocalcium phosphate, double or triple superphosphate, ammonium phosphate, etc.) [Para. 019]. Further, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein macronutrients are present in an amount between 0 to 30 wt. % [Para. 025]. Phosphorus is a macronutrient, necessarily supplied by one or more of the listed phosphorus sources. It necessarily follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would select the products with high phosphorus content in an amount overlapping with the claimed range, so as to afford a macronutrient content within the suitable range taught by Stefanuto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Stefanuto to include the products with high phosphorus content in an amount within the broad range as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Stefanuto teaches the method including products with high potassium content (e.g., potassium nitrate, silvine, carnalite, potassium chloride, potassium sulfate, limestone, etc.) [Para. 019]. Further, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein macronutrients are present in an amount between 0 to 30 wt. % [Para. 025]. Potassium is a macronutrient, necessarily supplied by one or more of the listed potassium sources. It necessarily follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would select the products with high potassium content in an amount overlapping with the claimed range, so as to afford a macronutrient content within the suitable range taught by Stefanuto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Stefanuto to include the products with high potassium content in an amount within the broad range as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, Stefanuto teaches the method including products with high sulfur content (e.g., mineral components such as sulfur) [Para. 018 & 025] (seaweed, which is also high in sulfur) [Para. 016] are present in a proportion of 1 to 70 wt. % (e.g., 0 to 20 wt. % seaweed) [Para. 025].
Regarding claim 22, Stefanuto teaches the method including products with high calcium content (e.g., calcium nitrate, calcium phosphates) [Para. 019]. Further, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein macronutrients are present in an amount between 0 to 30 wt. % [Para. 025]. Calcium is a macronutrient, necessarily supplied by one or more of the listed calcium sources. It necessarily follows that one of ordinary skill in the art would select the products with high calcium content in an amount overlapping with the claimed range, so as to afford a macronutrient content within the suitable range taught by Stefanuto. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Stefanuto to include the products with high calcium content in an amount within the broad range as claimed.
Regarding claim 23, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein the organic materials are present in a proportion of 1 to 40 wt. % (e.g., 40 to 80% organic substrate) [Para. 025].
Regarding claim 24, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein the micronutrients are present in a proportion of 1 to 30 wt. % (e.g., 1 to 10% micronutrients) [Para. 025].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanuto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cherry (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0229761 A1, hereinafter “Cherry”).
Regarding claim 9, Stefanuto teaches the method wherein organic acids may be included (e.g., humic or fulvic acids) [Para. 016] but does not explicitly state a percentage range to include thereof. However, Cherry teaches in a similar organic fertilizer granule comprising macro and micronutrients [Cherry Abstract & Para. 0006] that it is standard to include humic and/or fulvic additives such as humic and/or fulvic acid in an amount between 0.01 to 5 wt. % [Cherry Para. 0006 & 0021-22]. Small amounts of humic additive such as those taught by Cherry enhance the release rate of certain nutrients from the fertilizer composition [Cherry Abstract]. As such, in performing the method of Stefanuto which includes humic or fulvic organic acids, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Cherry and readily appreciate that it is standard and advantageous to specifically implement 0.01 to 5 wt. % of the acids, which falls within 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 in performing the method of Stefanuto to include the organic acids within an amount as claimed as taught by Cherry.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanuto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krysiak (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0069032 A1, hereinafter “Krysiak”).
Regarding claim 11, Stefanuto teaches the method but does not explicitly disclose the inclusion of polyamines, or an amount thereof within the range as claimed. However, Krysiak teaches that it is standard to include in granular fertilizers [Krysiak Abstract] several different types of polyamines or polyamides because they act as soil stabilizers [Krysiak Para. 0073]. Krysiak teaches in an embodiment comprising polyacrylamide (PAM) that the soil stablilizer is included in an amount comprising up to 75% of the granule [Krysiak Para. 0065]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that polyamines, also taught by Krysiak to be soil stabilizers, would also be substituted for polyacrylamide, and would start by including them in the same range (i.e., up to 75%). As such, in making the granular fertilizer of Stefanuto, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Krysiak and readily appreciate that polyamines are standard ingredients to facilitate stabilization of soil, which are included in a wide variety of percentages which include 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 in performing the method of Stefanuto to include polyamines in an amount overlapping with the claimed range as taught by Krysiak.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanuto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chew (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0289772 A1, hereinafter “Chew”).
Regarding claim 13, Stefanuto teaches the method including alcohols as binding agents [Para. 023] but does not explicitly state that the alcohols are present in a proportion of 0.01 to 25 wt. % of the fertilizer granule. However, Chew teaches that it is standard to include in fertilizer granules [Chew Para. 0029 & 0041] a binder such as ethanol, glycerol, or other alcohols in an amount comprising 22 to 30 wt. % of the composition [Chew Para. 0030]. The binder enables blending of the granule components into a matrix composition [Chew Abstract]. As such, in making the fertilizer granule of Stefanuto which suggests the inclusion of alcohols as a binder, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Chew to identify a suitable amount. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a range overlapping with the claimed range is the standard amount to include in order to facilitate binding, as taught by Chew. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Stefanuto to include alcohols in an amount overlapping with the claimed range as taught by Chew.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanuto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feng (Chinese Patent. No. 108546204 A) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Feng”).
Regarding claim 15, Stefanuto teaches the method but does not explicitly state that nucleotides are present in a proportion of 0.01 to 5 wt. % of the fertilizer granule. However, Feng teaches that it is standard to include in fertilizer granules [Feng Abstract & Para. 0042] 1 to 5 wt. % of a nucleotide [Feng Abstract]. Nucleotides in fertilizers promote the absorption of nutrients by crops and improve crop yields, as well as promote the operation of certain protein kinases in plants to improve the absorption of calcium [Feng Para. 0006]. As such, in performing the method of Stefanuto, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that nucleotides are standard ingredients with advantageous properties such as improved yield and nutrient uptake, and that a range within the claimed range is the standard amount to include. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Stefanuto to include nucleotides in an amount within the claimed range as taught by Feng.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanuto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kajita (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0145162 A1, hereinafter “Kajita”).
Regarding claim 16, Stefanuto teaches the method including leonardite [Para. 007 & 017], but does not explicitly state that leonardite is present in a proportion of 1 to 40 wt. % of the fertilizer granule. However, Stefanuto also teaches that humic or fulvic acids may be included [Para. 016]. Further, Kajita teaches that it is standard to include in fertilizer compositions [Kajita Abstract & Para. 0083] 10 to 50 wt. % of a humate or fulvic acid source such as leonardite [Kajita Para. 0190-0191 & 0200-0202]. By supplying humic and fulvic acids, leonardite introduces strong chelating agents whose properties benefit plants and trees [Kajita Para. 0008]. The leonardite can be granulated together with a fertilizer or other ingredients [Kajita Para. 0012]. As such, in performing the method of Stefanuto which suggests the inclusion of humic and fulvic acids and leonardite, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that leonardite is a standard ingredient which advantageously supplies these same chelating agents, and that a range overlapping with the claimed range is the standard amount to include. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Stefanuto to include leonardite in an amount overlapping with the claimed range as taught by Kajita.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stefanuto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brant (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0200644 A1, hereinafter “Brant”).
Regarding claim 25, Stefanuto teaches the method further including granulation of the premix together with an aqueous microorganism [Para. 024] (the composition of Stefanuto is granulated in water/aqueous and as such the microorganism is also regarded as being aqueous) but does not explicitly state one of the recited species as claimed. However, Brant teaches it is standard to include with fertilizer granules [Brant Para. 0003 & 0011] various types of microbes, fungi, or bacteria, which work to make nutrients more available to plants and promote plant growth [Para. 0003]. Suitable species for this purpose include bacillus amyloliquefaciens [Brant Para. 0014]. Typically, the active agent (i.e. the microbe) is present in or on the fertilizer substrate in a ratio of 1:99 to 99:1, which necessarily overlaps with the claimed range [Brant Para. 0031]. As such, in performing the method of Stefanuto, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate the advantages of adding bacillus amyloliquefaciens, and would further appreciate that the standard amount in which to include the microbe overlaps with 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 in performing the method of Stefanuto to include bacillus amyloliquefaciens in an amount overlapping with the claimed range as taught by Brant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding the humidity of the thick aqueous suspension, as well as the Declaration received 11/6/2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to applicant's argument that Chew (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0289772 A1) is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Chew is in the same field of endeavor because it teaches a granule [Chew Para. 0041] containing an active agent such as a fertilizer [Para. 0029] along with a binder such as alcohol [Para. 0030].
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