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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5, 7-8, 10-11 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (DE 102004054790 – cite no. 1 in 04/10/20223 IDS) and Kalpana et al. (J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem, 2020).
In regard to claims 1 and 5, Schneider teaches a solid (e.g. extruded granule) [para. 0033], disintegrable agricultural product (e.g. dissolvable fertilizer) [0030] comprising
at least one agricultural active ingredient (e.g. plant nutrient, particularly, nitrogen-containing compounds) [0026] and
a matrix (e.g. homogenous mixing of organic material with mineral salt) [0022] based on a plant-origin material (e.g. renewable natural raw material; sunflower press cake) [0025; 0027],
said matrix having a plant protein content of at least 30% by weight relative to the dry weight of said plant-origin material (the protein content of sunflower oil press cake and extraction residues ranges from 30 to 50%) [Kalpana, pg. 23, introduction, 1st para.] and a lipid content of at most 10% by weight relative to the dry weight of said plant-origin material (e.g. the plant material is previously de-oiled and has a residual oil content of 1 to 30% by weight) [0027], and in the case he 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) [MPEP 2144.05], and said agricultural active ingredient being dispersed, in a homogeneous way, in said matrix (e.g. complete homogenous penetration of the organic material with the salt ions) [0030].
Schneider does not explicitly disclose wherein the matrix is present in a proportion of at least 75% by weight relative to the weight of the product and wherein said product has a density of 1300 to 1500 kg/m3. However, these characteristics are described by Schneider as result-effective variables, depending on the desired characteristics of the agricultural product. Schneider describes the amount of the plant material used influences the hydrophobicity of the fertilizer and thus the release kinetics of the mineral salts and can be adapted to the special requirements of the soil quality or the crops [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Schneider’s plant-origin material in a proportion of at least 75% by weight or at least 80% by weight (claim 5) to achieve the desired release kinetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated 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 the claimed density, Schneider describes carrying out mixing in the extruder under defined pressure and temperature. The pressure can be used to control the strength of the fertilizer and thus its dissolution rate in the soil [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform extrusion at a pressure sufficient to achieve the claimed density. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a sufficient extruder pressure to increase the strength of the fertilizer and control the dissolution rate.
In regard to claim 2, Schneider teaches the product according to claim 1, wherein the matrix has a plant protein content of at least 35% by weight relative to the dry weight of said plant-origin material (the protein content of sunflower oil press cake and extraction residues ranges from 30 to 50%) [Kalpana, pg. 23, introduction, 1st para.] and in the case he 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) [MPEP 2144.05].
In regard to claim 3, Schneider teaches the product according to claim 1 wherein the matrix is obtained from sunflower cake (e.g. renewable natural raw material; sunflower press cake) [0025; 0027].
In regard to claim 4, the plant-origin material resulting from transition into the molten state is considered a product-by-process limitation and the claimed product is not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps [MPEP 2113]. In this case Schneider teaches the product according to claim 1, wherein the plant-origin material is turned into a plastic mass (e.g. flowable) [0030] and is considered to meet the claimed limitation as it relates to the structure implied.
In regard to claim 7, Schneider teaches the agricultural product according to claim 1, wherein it comprises at least one additive, said additive being able to be chosen from lubricating agents, matrix plasticizing agents and cohesive agents (e.g. further components, in particular biodegradable solvents, binders, or additives, are introduced into the extruder) [0034].
In regard to claim 8, Schneider teaches the agricultural product according to claim 1, wherein the agricultural active ingredient is chosen from fertilizers, natural defense stimulators, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, parasiticides, repellents (e.g. NPK fertilizers, herbicide and pesticide) [0041], and are chosen from or resulting from natural substances of plant, animal, microbial or mineral origin (e.g. rock phosphate) [0042].
In regard to claim 10, Schneider teaches the agricultural product according to claim 1, wherein it is in the form of granules, tablets or pellets (e.g. extruded and cut into granules) [0033].
In regard to claim 11, Schneider teaches the agricultural product according to claim 1. The reference does not explicitly disclose the claimed properties. However, the product of Schneider has been shown to be substantially similar to the claimed product and the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties are presumed to be inherent [MPEP 2112.01].
In regard to claim 25, Schneider teaches the product according to claim 1 wherein the matrix is obtained from pressed material which is a byproduct of oil extraction (e.g. cake) [0027] wherein the oilseed includes soybean [0025].
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider (DE 102004054790 – cite no. 1 in 04/10/20223 IDS) and Kalpana et al. (J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem, 2020) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Risso (Industry News, 2018).
In regard to claims 6 and 9, Schneider teaches the agricultural product according to claim 1 wherein it comprises urea [0041]. The reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the agricultural active ingredient (e.g. urea) is in a proportion of 5% to 25% by weight relative to the weight of the product.
Risso describes the nutrients in fertilizers and their effect on growth, flowering and fruiting of plants [pg. 2, 1st para.]. Nitrogen content in balanced fertilizers ranges from 5-21% and 20-30% in high nitrogen fertilizers [pg. 4, last para.]. Risso teaches fertilizer nitrogen content to be an art recognized result effective variable depending on the specific needs of the plants [pg. 4]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a nitrogen fertilizer (e.g. urea) as described by Schneider in amounts ranging from 5% to 25% by weight relative to the weight of the product 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.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments (04/20/2026) to the claims.
In response to applicant's argument (pg. 8, last 2 full paras.) that the present invention achieves controlled dispersibility of the active ingredient and the matrix leaves no pollutants behind to act as a non-polluting agricultural product, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues (pg. 9, 1st para.) Schneider does not disclose a product having a density of 1300 to 1500 kg/m3. In regard to the claimed density, Schneider describes carrying out mixing in the extruder under defined pressure and temperature. The pressure can be used to control the strength of the fertilizer and thus its dissolution rate in the soil [0030]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform extrusion at a pressure sufficient to achieve the claimed density. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize a sufficient extruder pressure to increase the strength of the fertilizer and control the dissolution rate. The extrusion process of Schneider is described as using the necessary mechanical compressive force provided for a pressing through a mold [0033].
Applicant argues (para bridging pgs. 9-10) the high density of the claimed product (1300 – 1500 kg/m3) confers several technical advantages, including:
limiting rapid water penetration and slowing disintegration as shown in Example 1.2 and Figure 1. Example 1.2 and Figure 1. In response to this evidence, the examples and data demonstrate the effectiveness of the encapsulated urea compared to non-encapsulated urea which is not effective to demonstrate advantages related to density
increased mechanical strength. In response to this showing in Table 2, Abrasion resistance is considered a combination of factors such as hardness, packing density, elasticity, adhesion and others. The results are not considered unexpected because increased abrasion resistance is an expected property of increased density and is considered a predictable improvement.
controlled disintegration. Disintegration of a denser solid particle product in water is expected to occur slower than a less dense product. The results are not considered unexpected.
Applicant argues (pg. 10, 2nd para.; pg. 11, 1st para.) a person skilled in the art would have found no incentive in Schneider to densify the product in order to obtain a density of (1300 – 1500 kg/m3). This argument is not persuasive. Schneider describes how “the desired consistency, density, flowability, interfacial properties, and other physicochemical characteristics can be precisely controlled to obtain—during the extrusion process—a deformable plastic mass that nevertheless possesses sufficient form stability at the extruder outlet to be cut into granules by a cutting tool.”. Thus, the prior art recognizes density as a result-effective variable and the determination of the optimum or workable range of density of said variable can be characterized as routine experimentation [MPEP 2144.05].
Applicant argues (pg. 10, last para.) those skilled in the art know that increasing or decreasing density can make the product difficult to break down in soil. Here Applicants appear to be confirming one of skill in the art would understand the role of density on the dissolution rate as also identified in Schneider (“ By means of the pressure, the strength of the fertilizer—and thereby its dissolution rate in the soil—can be controlled.”) [0030]. Controlling the product density, as described by Schneider, is considered to produce a predictable result with regard to the known properties of extruded granules action in soil.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Kalpana and Risso references individually for not teaching the claimed density range, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 April 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights