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 1-13) in the reply filed on 9/16/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 9/16/2025.
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 8-9 and 12-13 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 8, the recitation “wherein said extended-release coating a at least one of: . . .” [emphasis added] renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because no connecting term is included and as such it is unclear whether the coating comprises at least one of the recited polymers or consists of at least one of the recited polymers. For purposes of examination, the claim is regarded as reciting that the coating comprises at least one of the listed polymers.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “wherein said extended-release coating a at least one of: . . .” [emphasis added] renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because no connecting term is included and as such it is unclear whether the coating comprises at least one of the recited ingredients or consists of at least one of the recited ingredients. For purposes of examination, the claim is regarded as reciting that the coating comprises at least one of the listed ingredients.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “wherein said plurality of soluble fertilizer particles are admixed with said plurality of soluble fertilizer particles without a binder” [emphasis added] renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it refers back to “soluble fertilizer particles” twice, and it is unclear if this is Applicant’s intention (i.e., the fertilizer itself is mixed together without a binder) or if the claim should instead refer back to the fertilizer particles and the humic particles (i.e., the fertilizer and the humic particles are mixed without a binder). Applicant’s specification says that no binder is present between the humics and the soluble fertilizer in the inventive granule [Specification Para. 0031]. As such, for purposes of examination, the claim is regarded as reciting that no binder is present between the humic particles and the fertilizer particles.
Regarding claim 13, the recitation “wherein said plurality of soluble fertilizer particles form at least one soluble fertilizer-rich domain and said plurality of soluble fertilizer particles form at least one humic-rich domain” [emphasis added] renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it refers twice to a plurality of soluble fertilizer particles, and appears to state that the plurality of soluble fertilizer particles itself forms a humic-rich domain, which does not appear to be possible. It is unclear if Applicant instead intended to recite that the plurality of humic particles forms the humic-rich domain. The claim is being interpreted as reciting that a plurality of soluble fertilizer particles forms a fertilizer-rich domain and a plurality of humic particles form a humic-rich domain.
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, 4-7, and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirsat (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0206700 A1, hereinafter “Shirsat).
Regarding claim 1, Shirsat teaches a granule defined by a shape and size (e.g., a granule, pellet, or prill) [Shirsat Para. 0075] comprising:
A mass formed of a plurality of soluble fertilizer particles (e.g., fertilizer particles such as urea, potash, phosphate fertilizers, etc., which are soluble) [Para. 0031-33] and a plurality of humic particles (e.g., additional fertilizers may be added such as humic acid [Para. 0070]; Shirsat does not explicitly state that the humic acid is in the form of particles but generally teaches that the fertilizers included are included in the form of particles [Abstract] and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the humic acid, being an additional potential fertilizer, would also be particulate); and
An extended-release polymer coating surrounding an exterior surface of said mass (e.g., the particles are coated with at least two layers of superabsorbent polymers which decrease nitrogen leachate and promote steady nitrogen release, here regarded as reading on extended-release) [Abstract & Para. 0036]).
Regarding claim 4, Shirsat teaches the granule wherein said plurality of soluble fertilizer particles are urea [Para. 0033].
Regarding claim 5, Shirsat teaches the granule wherein the extended-release coating is a water insoluble polymer (e.g., the extended-release coating can include a variety of superabsorbent polymers such as crosslinked polyacrylates, which are not water soluble) [Para. 0038].
Regarding claim 6, Shirsat teaches the granule wherein the extended-release coating is biodegradable (e.g., the extended-release coating can be a variety of superabsorbent polymers including, for example, carrageenan, cassava, and guar gum, all of which are biodegradable) [Para. 0038].
Regarding claim 7, Shirsat teaches the granule wherein the extended-release coating is present from 0.5 to 18 total weight percent (e.g., the first coating may contain about 0.1 to about 10% of superabsorbent polymer per at least 85-98 kg of nitrogen fertilizer to be coated) [Para. 0041].
Regarding claim 9, Shirsat teaches the granule comprising at least one of the provided group (e.g., various forms of starch, agar, alginic acid, acrylic acid polymers, cellulose cross linked polymers) [Para. 0038 & 0056].
Regarding claim 10, Shirsat teaches the granule comprising a particulate additive within said mass (e.g., other plant advantageous additives such as fertilizers, micronutrients, etc., [Para. 0069], Shirsat does not explicitly state that the additives are in the form of particles but generally teaches that the fertilizers included are in the form of particles [Abstract] and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the fertilizer and micronutrient additives, being an additional potential fertilizer, would also be particulate).
Regarding claim 11, Shirsat teaches the granule further comprising an anti-dusting agent positioned between said mass and said extended-release coating (e.g., the coating of Shirsat comprises at least two polymer-based layers [Abstract]. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that polymer-based coatings further serve to prevent dust in fertilizers. Here, the first layer is regarded as being the anti-dusting agent, and the second layer is regarded as being the extended-release coating).
Regarding claim 12, Shirsat teaches the granule wherein said plurality of soluble fertilizer particles are admixed with said plurality of humic particles without a binder (Shirsat does not appear to include a binder).
Regarding claim 13, Shirsat teaches the granule but does not explicitly state that said plurality of soluble fertilizer particles form at least one soluble fertilizer-rich domain and said plurality of soluble fertilizer particles form at least one humic-rich domain fused to said at least one soluble fertilizer-rich domain as a surface coating around said at least one soluble fertilizer-rich domain. However, Applicant does not appear to provide an explicit definition of what it means to be fertilizer-rich or humic-rich. The Specification states that “the domains . . . can be mutually exclusive of urea and humics . . . or have a minority by weight of a domain being the other component relative to the component in which a portion is enriched” [Specification Para. 0036], however, these do not appear to be written in such as a way as to limit Applicant to these examples of the meaning of enriched. As such, any amount of either component is regarded as the region being “rich” in that respective component. Here, the granule of Shirsat is regarded as being arbitrarily divided into two regions, an inner region and an outer region. The inner region, having any amount of soluble fertilizer, is regarded as being enriched in fertilizer, and the outer region, having any amount of humic acid, is regarded as being enriched in humic particles. Therefore, Shirsat’s granule is regarded as reading on these limitations absent any further definition of what it means for the region to be enriched.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirsat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schumski (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0222810 A1, hereinafter “Schusmki”).
Regarding claim 2, Shirsat teaches the granule but does not explicitly state a granule size being between 0.1 and 10 mm. However, Schumski teaches that it is standard for urea-containing granular fertilizers to be manufactured in sizes between 0.5 to 15 millimeters. These granule sizes allow an operator to use a spreader to uniformly distribute the granules, without the operator having to traverse too much ground on the spreader itself [Schumski Para. 0004]. As such, in making the granules of Shirsat, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Schumski and readily appreciate that a range of granule sizes overlapping with the claimed range is standard and even advantageous for urea-based granular fertilizers. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the granules of Shirsat in a size within the claimed range as taught by Schumski.
Regarding claim 3, Shirsat teaches the granule comprising humic acid [Shirsat Para. 0070] and does not explicitly state that the humic acid is in the form of potassium humate. However, Schumski teaches that humic compounds in fertilizer granules can include humic acid, fulvic acid, and salts thereof such as sodium, potassium, and calcium salts [Schumski Para. 0019]. However, the humic acid form can present dusting, dissolution, and clogging problems [Schusmki Para. 0005]. As such, Schumski implements the form potassium humate [Schusmki Para. 0022]. As such, in making the fertilizer granule of Shirsat, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily identify other forms of humic components with which to replace the humic acid, which poses dusting and dissolution problems, and would readily identify potassium humate from the teachings of Schumski as an advantageous replacement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in making the granule of Shirsat to replace the humic acid with potassium humate as taught by Schusmki.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirsat as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghalil (International Patent Pub. No. 2016/025580 A1, hereinafter “Ghalil”).
Regarding claim 8, Shirsat teaches the granule having a polymeric extended-release coating, but does not appear to explicitly teach any of the recited options further included within the polymer coating. However, Shirsat teaches that any superabsorbent polymers can be used, not limited to the included list [Shirsat Para. 0038]. Additionally, Ghalil teaches that additional superabsorbent polymers used in fertilizers [Ghalil Abstract] include polylactic acid [Ghalil Page 2 Para. 3]. As such, in making the fertilizer granule of Shirsat comprising any superabsorbent polymer, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Ghalil and readily appreciate that polylactic acid is another standard option. This amounts to no more than simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., here, another type of superabsorbent polymer used in fertilizer) to obtain predictable results. 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 granule of Shirsat to include polylactic acid as taught by Ghalil.
Conclusion
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