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 and Species B (the granular polymeric micronutrient composition having two type G repeat units; claims 1, 3, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, 18-21, 26, 29 and 31) in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-17, 34-35 and 37 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/21/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to due to its dependence on a cancelled claim (claim 25). For purposes of examination, claim 26 is regarded as depending on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 10 is/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 the micronutrient component is released in a continuous manner in an amount ranging from about 50 to about 120 ppm over at least 24 hours” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear under what circumstances this release takes place, as no further details have been set forth in the claims. For example, a fertilizer granule sitting in storage would not be expected to continuously release its micronutrient component. On the other hand, a fertilizer dissolving in water or a fertilizer applied in soil would each have different release rates. As such, it is unclear what fertilizer under what circumstances would meet this limitation, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. For purposes of examination, this release rate in any material or circumstance is regarded as reading on this limitation.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “decreasing degradation of the micronutrient component by at least 50 percent compared to a micronutrient component that is not complexed” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear under what circumstances this degradation takes place, as no further details have been set forth in the claims. For example, a fertilizer granule sitting in storage would not be expected to degrade its micronutrient component. On the other hand, a fertilizer dissolving in water or a fertilizer applied in soil would each have different degradation rates. As such, it is unclear what fertilizer under what circumstances would meet this limitation, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. For purposes of examination, decreased degradation rate in any material or circumstance is regarded as reading on this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-8 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (Chinese Patent No. 102408283 A), with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter "Wu").
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a granular polymeric micronutrient composition (e.g., a urea and anionic polymer slow-release fertilizer [Para. 0002] in granular form [Para. 0008]) comprising:
a polyanionic polymer component (e.g., an anionic high molecular weight polymer) [Para. 0002]), and
a micronutrient component selected from Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, B, and a combination thereof (e.g., zinc sulfate and ferrous sulfate) [Para. 0019], wherein the polyanionic polymer component and the micronutrient component are homogeneous granules (e.g., the anionic polymer is dispersed in water and uniformly mixed with the urea in the fertilizer [Para. 0061-62], then the fertilizer is granulated [Para. 0063]), having a mesh size ranging from about 6 to about 100 US mesh (e.g., the fertilizer particles are obtained with a diameter of 3 mm [Para. 0083 & 0103], which converts to approximately 6 US mesh).
Wu does not explicitly state that the granules are made via compression. However, “compressed” as recited in line 6 of claim 1 appears to set forth a product-by-process step. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. The step of compression would appear to impart the structure of a granule. Wu as cited also provides a granule [Wu Para. 0063]. Because Wu would appear to teach an identical end product, it is regarded as reading on this limitation despite no specific mention of a compression step.
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition wherein the homogeneous composite granules have a mean particle size (d50) ranging from about 0.5 to about 2.5 mm (e.g., the fertilizer particles have a diameter of 3 mm, which is here regarded as reading on “about 2.5 mm”) [Wu Para. 0083 & 0103].
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition further comprising sulfur (e.g., zinc sulfate and ferrous sulfate) [Wu Para. 0019], wherein the sulfur, polyanionic polymer component are homogeneous composite granules (e.g., the sulfate is added and mixed before granulation) [Wu Para. 30 & 0075-76].
Wu does not explicitly state that the granules are made via compression. However, “compressed” as recited in line 3 of claim 7 appears to set forth a product-by-process step. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. The step of compression would appear to impart the structure of a granule. Wu as cited also provides a granule [Wu Para. 0063]. Because Wu would appear to teach an identical end product, it is regarded as reading on this limitation despite no specific mention of a compression step.
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches the granular polymeric nutrient composition being slow-release [Title & Para. 0002] wherein the micronutrient acts as a dissolution inhibitor [Para. 0018] but does not explicitly state that the micronutrient component is released in a continuous manner in an amount ranging from about 50 to about 120 ppm over at least 24 hours. However, Wu as cited is still regarded as reading on this limitation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). As such, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.02. Wu as cited appears to teach an identical composition as claimed in claims 8 and 1. Further, Applicant appears to attribute the slow-release characteristics of the micronutrient to the granular form of the fertilizer which places the polymer and the micronutrients in close proximity to each other (see the Specification at the paragraph bridging pages 9-10). Wu also places the polymer and the micronutrients within the same granule in close proximity to each other. For these reasons, Wu as cited is regarded as reading the limitation setting forth a release rate of 50 to 120 ppm over at least 24 hours.
Regarding claim 29, Wu teaches an agricultural composition comprising the granular polymeric micronutrient composition and a fertilizer (e.g., the polymeric micronutrient composition is mixed with and granulated with urea to make a slow-release fertilizer) [Wu Para. 0002 & 0008].
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, 3, 7-8, 10-11, 26, 29 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0226331 A1, hereinafter “Sanders”).
Regarding claim 1, Sanders teaches a granular polymeric micronutrient composition (e.g., a biodegradable anionic polymer composition mixed with fertilizers and/or granulated together with the fertilizers) [Sanders Abstract & Para. 0024 & Claim 15] comprising:
A polyanionic polymer component (e.g., a biodegradable anionic polymer) [Abstract] and
A micronutrient component selected from Zn, Mn, Fe, Cu, B, and a combination thereof (e.g., the polymers may be mixed with or complexed with metal ions such as Fe, Mn, Mg, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Mo, V, Cr, Si, B and Ca) [Para. 0021],
Wherein the polyanionic polymer component and the micronutrient component are homogeneous composite granules (e.g., the polymers may be co-ground with the fertilizer products or otherwise thoroughly mixed with the fertilizer products [Para. 0024], forming composite products where the polymers are in intimate contact with the fertilizer products [Para. 0023], such as a granulated mixture [Claim 15]), having a mesh size ranging from about 6 to about 100 US mesh (e.g., the granules preferably have a particle size from 0.1 cm to 2 cm, which converts to 1000 to 20,000 microns, or approximately less than or equal to 18 US mesh) [Para. 0024]. Note that overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
Sanders does not explicitly state that the granules are made via compression. However, “compressed” as recited in line 6 of claim 1 appears to set forth a product-by-process step. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. The step of compression would appear to impart the structure of a granule. Sanders as cited also provides a granule [Sanders Para. 0024]. Because Sanders would appear to teach an identical end product, it is regarded as reading on this limitation despite no specific mention of a compression step.
Regarding claim 3, Sanders teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition wherein the granules have a mean particle size (d50) ranging from about 0.5 to about 2.5 mm (e.g., the granules preferably have a particle size from 0.1 cm to 2 cm, which converts to 1 to 20 mm) [Para. 0024]. Note that overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 7, Sanders teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition further comprising sulfur in the homogeneous granule (e.g., the fertilizer can include sulfate such as ammonium sulfate or potassium sulfate, or micronutrients such as zinc sulfate [Para. 0023], sulfur or sulfate may also be bound to the polymer/metal complex [Para. 0030]).
Sanders does not explicitly state that the granules are made via compression. However, “compressed” as recited in line 3 of claim 7 appears to set forth a product-by-process step. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. The step of compression would appear to impart the structure of a granule. Sanders as cited also provides a granule. Because Sanders would appear to teach an identical end product, it is regarded as reading on this limitation despite no specific mention of a compression step.
Regarding claim 8, Sanders teaches the granular polymeric nutrient composition but does not explicitly state that the micronutrient component is released in a continuous manner in an amount ranging from about 50 to about 120 ppm over at least 24 hours. However, Sanders as cited is still regarded as reading on this limitation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). As such, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.02. Sanders as cited appears to teach an identical composition as claimed in claims 8 and 1. Further, Applicant appears to attribute the slow-release characteristics of the micronutrient to the granular form of the fertilizer which places the polymer and the micronutrients in close proximity to each other (see the Specification at the paragraph bridging pages 9-10). Sanders also places the polymer and the micronutrients within the same granule in close proximity to each other. For these reasons, Sanders as cited is regarded as reading the limitation setting forth a release rate of 50 to 120 ppm over at least 24 hours.
Regarding claim 10, Sanders teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition, wherein the micronutrient component is complexed with the polyanionic polymer component (e.g., the polymers may be complexed with the metal or non-metal ion) [Para. 0021] but does not explicitly state that the degradation of the micronutrient is deceased by at least 50 percent compared to a micronutrient component that is not complexed to the polyanionic polymer component. However, Sanders as cited is still regarded as reading on this limitation. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). As such, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. See MPEP 2112.02. Sanders as cited appears to teach an identical composition as claimed in claims 10 and 1. Further, Applicant appears to attribute the degradation of the micronutrient to fact that the micronutrient is complexed to the polymer (see the Specification at Page 39 lines 1-5). Sanders also complexes the micronutrient to the polymer. For these reasons, Sanders as cited is regarded as reading the limitation setting forth a decreased degradation of 50 percent.
Regarding claim 11, Sanders teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition wherein the polyanionic polymer component comprises a maleic and an itaconic repeat unit (e.g., the polymeric subunits preferably include maleic anhydride and/or itaconic anhydride [Abstract]; for example, a suitable polymer is a maleic acid-itaconic acid copolymer [Para. 0034]).
Regarding claim 26, Sanders teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition wherein the micronutrient component is complexed with a fraction of the anionic functional groups present in the polyanionic polymer component, thereby forming a partial salt form of the polyanionic polymer component (e.g., the polymers may be mixed with or complexed with the metal ions such as Fe, Mn, Mg, Zn, Cu, Ni, Co, Mo, V, Cr, Si, B and Ca; for example, a zinc complex) [Sanders Para. 0021 & 0030].
Regarding claim 29, Sanders teaches an agricultural composition comprising the granular polymeric micronutrient composition and a fertilizer (e.g., a biodegradable anionic polymer composition mixed with fertilizers and/or granulated together with the fertilizers) [Sanders Abstract & Para. 0024 & Claim 15].
Regarding claim 31, Sanders teaches the agricultural composition wherein the fertilizer is a solid NPK fertilizer (e.g., suitable fertilizers include any one of a number of well known NPK fertilizer products) [Sanders Para. 0023].
Claim(s) 13-14 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mazo (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0177004 A1, hereinafter “Mazo”).
Regarding claim 13, Sanders teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition having an itaconic and maleic repeat unit (e.g., the polymeric subunits preferably include maleic anhydride and/or itaconic anhydride [Sanders Abstract]; for example, a suitable polymer is a maleic acid-itaconic acid copolymer [Sanders Para. 0034]), but does not explicitly further include a sulfonate repeat unit. However, Mazo teaches similar polymers for use with fertilizers containing itaconic and maleic repeat units [Mazo Abstract & Para. 0003], wherein a micronutrient is complexed to the polymer [Mazo Para. 0049]. Mazo teaches that it is advantageous to also include sulfonate repeat units: Polymers containing sulfonate repeat units are very soluble in water and are biodegradable [Mazo Para. 0008]. Further, polymers containing each of a maleic, itaconic, and sulfonate repeat unit can reduce the evolution of atmospheric ammonia [Mazo Para. 0107] as well as improve soil conditions by inhibiting nitrification, phosphate fixation, and soil urease activity [Mazo Para. 0142]. As such, in making the composition of Sanders which contains maleic and itaconic polymers complexed to micronutrients, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Sanders and readily appreciate the advantages of further including sulfonate repeat units. 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 granular polymeric micronutrient composition of Sanders to also include sulfonate repeat units within the polymer as taught by Mazo.
Regarding claim 14, Sanders teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition wherein the polyanionic polymer component comprises at least two different moieties described as type B and C moieties, which can include polymeric subunits such as BC, CB, CC, BB or any other combination thereof [Sanders Para. 0012], which is here regarded as reading on at least four different subunits. Further, Sanders teaches the polymer wherein the type B repeat units are selected from the provided group (here, maleic acid or maleic anhydride) and the type C repeat units are selected from the provided group (here, itaconic acid or itaconic anhydride) [Mazo Para. 0003 & 0034].
Sanders does not explicitly also include a type G repeat unit selected from the provide group of sulfonated monomers. However, Mazo teaches similar polymers for use with fertilizers containing itaconic and maleic repeat units [Mazo Abstract & Para. 0003], wherein a micronutrient is complexed to the polymer [Mazo Para. 0049]. Mazo teaches that it is advantageous to also include sulfonate repeat units: Polymers containing sulfonate repeat units are very soluble in water and are biodegradable [Mazo Para. 0008]. Further, polymers containing each of a maleic, itaconic, and sulfonate repeat unit can reduce the evolution of atmospheric ammonia [Mazo Para. 0107] as well as improve soil conditions by inhibiting nitrification, phosphate fixation, and soil urease activity [Mazo Para. 0142]. Specifically, Mazo teaches that it is ideal to include at least four different repeat units distributed along the length of the chain, preferably with at least one repeat unit each of maleic, itaconic, and sulfonate repeat units [Mazo Para. 0008], and especially preferred polymers have one type B repeat unit, one type C repeat unit, and two different type G repeat units, wherein the type B repeat units are maleic acid derivatives, the type C repeat units are itaconic acid deriatives, and the type G repeat units are sulfonic acid derivatives such as methallylsulfonic acid and allylsulfonic acid [Mazo Para. 0019] which are derived from substituted or unsubstituted sulfonated monomers possessing at least one carbon-carbon double bond and at least one sulfonate group and which are substantially free of aromatic rings and amide groups [Mazo Para. 0014].
As such, in making the composition of Sanders which contains maleic and itaconic polymers complexed to micronutrients, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Sanders and readily appreciate the advantages of further including sulfonate repeat units, here described as type G repeat units. 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 granular polymeric micronutrient composition of Sanders to also include sulfonate repeat units within the polymer as taught by Mazo.
Regarding claim 18, Sanders as modified by Mazo teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition wherein the polyanionic polymer component comprises one type B repeat unit, one type Crepeat unit, and two type G repeat units (e.g., especially preferred polymers have one type B repeat unit, one type C repeat unit, and two different type G repeat units, wherein the type B repeat units are maleic acid derivatives, the type C repeat units are itaconic acid deriatives, and the type G repeat units are sulfonic acid derivatives such as methallylsulfonic acid and allylsulfonic acid [Mazo Para. 0019]).
Regarding claim 19, Sanders as modified by Mazo teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition wherein the polyanionic polymer component comprises one maleic repeat unit, one itaconic repeat unit, and two type G repeat units respectively derived from methallylsulfonic acid and allylsulfonic acid (e.g., especially preferred polymers have one type B repeat unit, one type C repeat unit, and two different type G repeat units, wherein the type B repeat units are maleic acid derivatives, the type C repeat units are itaconic acid deriatives, and the type G repeat units are sulfonic acid derivatives such as methallylsulfonic acid and allylsulfonic acid [Mazo Para. 0019]).
Regarding claim 20, Sanders as modified by Mazo teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition having type B, type C and type G repeat units which are methallylsulfonic acid and allylsulfonic acid [Mazo Para. 0019] but does not explicitly state a mole percent thereof. However, Mazo further teaches that a preferred mole percentage range is 35-55 mole percent type B repeat units, 20-55 mole percent type C repeat units, 1-25 mole percent methallylsulfonic acid, and 1-25 mole percent allylsulfonic acid [Mazo Para. 0019]. Specifically, the following mole fractions are exemplified by Mazo: 45% maleic, 35% itaconic, 15% methallylsulfonate, and 5% allylsulfonate [Mazo Example 1 Para. 0192-0195]. Another exemplified mole fraction exemplified by Mazo is: 4% maleic, 50% itaconic, 4% methallylsulfonate, and 1% allylsulfonate [Mazo Example 2 Para. 0200-0203]. As such, in looking for suitable mole fractions to implement in the polymers containing maleic, itaconic, and sulfonate repeat units, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Mazo’s further disclosure and readily appreciate that these percentages are ideal and take advantage of the disclosed benefits of these polymers. 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 Sanders to specifically implement the mole fractions as taught by Mazo.
Regarding claim 21, Sanders as modified by Mazo teaches the granular polymeric micronutrient composition having the molar composition as claimed: 45% maleic, 35% itaconic, 15% methallylsulfonate, and 5% allylsulfonate [Mazo Example 1 Para. 0192-0195], or 4% maleic, 50% itaconic, 4% methallylsulfonate, and 1% allylsulfonate [Mazo Example 2 Para. 0200-0203].
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./ /JENNIFER A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1731 Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731