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 the invention of Group I (claims 1, 3-11 and 17) in the reply filed on 04/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-16 and 18-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/03/2023, 01/16/2024, 05/21/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 5-7 and 11 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.
Claims 5 and 6 recites the limitation "salts (A)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Component (A) is defined in claim 1 as potassium sulfate. Component (B) is further directed to a salt that is different from (A). Use of the plural “salts” in the claims renders the term indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the Markush group where salt (B) is “selected from at least one of” and further lists components in combination and in alternative to one another (e.g. and/or). This format which renders the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "leonardite" in line 2 as the component salt (B). However, leonardite is not a salt. It is a soft, brown, coal-like mineraloid rich in humic acids that is formed from the oxidation of lignite coal. While it is a source of humates (the salts of humic acid), leonardite itself is not a salt. It is unclear if the claim limitation intends to define leonardite in terms of its salt content or if leonardite is interpreted as a salt.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the particles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “the granule”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lv et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0329433 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Lv et al. teach a fertilizer in granular form [para. 0011] comprising within the same granule a mixture of:
on the total of salts (e.g. a mixture of ammonium sulfate and potassium sulfate salts) [0011],
(A) from 15 to 85 wt% of potassium sulfate (e.g. 20-50 percent potassium sulfate / 30-70 percent total salt = 28.6 – 83.3% ) [0011]; and
(B) from 85 to 15 wt% of at least one salt that is different from (A) and that provides potassium and/or magnesium and/or calcium and/or sulfate (e.g. 10-20 percent ammonium sulfate / 30-70 percent total salt = 16.7 - 50%) [0011];
wherein the fertilizer in granular form has
- a potassium level, expressed as K2O, of at least 18 wt% (e.g. 20-50% potassium sulfate equates to 10.8-27.0%, when expressed as K2O) [0011]
- a chloride level of at most 10 wt% (e.g. less than 3% chloride ions) [0003]; and
- a magnesium level, expressed as MgO, of at most 9 wt% (e.g. magnesium stearate is present as a coating from 1.5 – 3.0 % [0011].
In regard to claim 3, Lv et al. disclose the fertilizer of claim 1 with a K2O/MgO ratio of at least 3 (potassium level 11-27%, when expressed as K2O) [0011] (e.g. magnesium stearate is present as a coating from 1.5 – 3.0 % [0011].
In regard to claim 5, Lv et al. disclose the fertilizer of claim 1, comprising on the total of salts, at least 20 wt%, of salts (A) (e.g. 20-50 percent potassium sulfate / 30-70 percent total salt = 28.6 – 83.3% ) [0011].
In regard to claim 9, Lv et al. disclose the fertilizer of claim 1, further comprising at least one macronutrient (e.g. urea provides primary macronutrient nitrogen) [0011].
In regard to claim 10, Lv et al. disclose the fertilizer of claim 1, provided with one or more coatings (e.g. a primary coating of stearic acid and secondary surface dusting of modified zeolite powder […] on the granules) [0011].
In regard to claim 11, Lv et al. disclose the fertilizer of claim 1, wherein at least 90 wt.% of the granules have a particle size between 1 and 6 mm (e.g. 2 – 4.75 mm) [0011].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-8, 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neitzel (DE-2316701-A1).
In regard to claims 1 and 7, Neitzel discloses a fertilizer in granular form (e.g. granulated MgO-containing fertilizers from potash salts) [pg. 1, 1st para.] comprising within the same granule a mixture of:
on the total of salts (e.g. a mixture of potassium sulfate, kieserite, and langbeinite; 37.2 t) [pg. 4, 1st para.],
(A) from 15 to 85 wt% of potassium sulfate (e.g. 19.2 t potassium sulfate / 37.2 t total salt = 51.6% ) [pg. 4, 1st para.]; and
(B) from 85 to 15 wt% of at least one salt that is different from (A) and that provides potassium and/or magnesium and/or calcium and/or sulfate, wherein the salt (B) is selected from langbeinite (e.g. 9.5 t langbeinite / 37.2 t total salt = 25.5%) [pg. 4, 1st para.];
wherein the fertilizer in granular form (e.g. granulated in a rotary drum granulator) [pg. 4, 2nd para.] has
- a potassium level, expressed as K2O, of at least 18 wt% (e.g. 29.6%) [pg. 4, Example 2; composition of the granules]
- a chloride level of at most 10 wt% (e.g. no chloride salts are recited in Example 2) [pg. 4]; and
- a magnesium level, expressed as MgO, of 9.9 wt% [pg. 4, Example 2; composition of the granules].
While Example 2 describes a fertilizer with a magnesium level slightly greater than the 9 wt%, Neitzel generally teaches that the dry, hot starting materials consist of a mixture comprising 50–85% technical-grade potassium sulfate and 15–50% kieserite, and the total mixture of the materials to be granulated consists of 5–50% hot, moist langbeinite [pg. 3, 1st para.], thus describing the magnesium-containing components are provided within a range lesser than that of Example 2. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
In regard to claim 3, Neitzel discloses the fertilizer of claim 1 with a K2O/MgO ratio of at least 3 (e.g. 29.6 % K2O / 9.9 % MgO = 3) [pg. 4, Example 2; composition of the granules].
In regard to claim 4, Neitzel discloses the fertilizer of claim 1 with a potassium content expressed as K2O of at least 25 wt% (e.g. 29.6 % K2O) [pg. 4, Example 2; composition of the granules].
In regard to claim 5, Neitzel discloses the fertilizer of claim 1, comprising on the total of salts, at least 20 wt%, of salts (A) (e.g. 19.2 t potassium sulfate / 37.2 t total salt = 28.6 – 51.6% ) [pg. 4, 1st para.].
In regard to claim 6, Neitzel discloses the fertilizer of claim 1, comprising on the total of salts, , from 20 to 80 wt% of salts (A) and from 80 to 20 wt% of salts (B). (e.g. 19.2 t potassium sulfate / 37.2 t total salt = 51.6% and 9.5 t langbeinite / 37.2 t total salt = 25.5%) [pg. 4, 1st para.].
In regard to claim 8, Neitzel discloses the fertilizer of claim 1, having an average hardness of at least 2 kg (e.g. the compressive strength of a single granule according to Example 2 is very high, at 3.8 kg per granule) [pg. 6, 2nd to last para]. Here, granule hardness and single granule crush strength are considered interchangeable terms in the art.
In regard to claim 11, Neitzel discloses the fertilizer of claim 1, wherein at least 90 wt.% of the granules have a particle size between 1 and 6 mm (e.g. 94 % of particles have a size ranging from 1 to 4 mm) [pg. 4, Example 2; composition of the granules].
In regard to claim 17, Neitzel discloses the fertilizer of claim 8, having an average wear resistance of at most 5 wt% (e.g. in Example 2, an abrasion of less than 1% was determined) [pg. 6, 2nd to last para].
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0329433 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Lv et al. disclose the fertilizer of claim 1 with a potassium level, expressed as K2O, of at least 18 wt% (e.g. 20-50% potassium sulfate equates to 10.8-27.0%, when expressed as K2O) [0011] which overlaps the claimed range of at least 25 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 [MPEP 2144.05].
In regard to claim 6, Lv et al. disclose the fertilizer of claim 1, comprising
(A) potassium sulfate (e.g. 20-50 percent potassium sulfate / 30-70 percent total salt = 28.6 – 83.3% ) [0011]; and
(B) at least one salt that is different from (A) and that provides potassium and/or magnesium and/or calcium and/or sulfate (e.g. 10-20 percent ammonium sulfate / 30-70 percent total salt = 16.7 - 50%) [0011];
which overlaps the claimed range of on the total of salts, from 20 to 80 wt% of salts (A) and from 80 to 20 wt% of salts (B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is (571)270-3599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 May 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights