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 Objections
Claims 2-3 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 2-4 recites “wherein the coat comprising,” which appears to contain a grammatical or typographical error. It appears that the claim is intended to recite “wherein the coat comprises.” 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) 15 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 15, the recitation “65 wt. % to 90 wt. % of PBSA, 10 wt. % to 35 wt. % of PLA and/or PBS” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear which specific options are encompassed by the alternative “or.” For example, as drafted, it appears that a composition containing 65 wt. % to 90 wt. % of PBSA OR any amount of PBS reads on the claim (e.g., the 10 to 35 wt. % range only applies to the PLA alternative, and the “or” applies to each of the 3 potential components). Alternatively, the claim could be construed to mean that PBS, if present, must be between 10 to 35 wt. %. For purposes of examination, the claim is being regarded as requiring (alternative 1): 65 to 90 wt. % PBSA or (alternative 2): 10 wt. % to 35 wt. % of PLA or PBS.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kannan (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0088480 A1, hereinafter “Kannan”) in view of Van Trump (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0367490 A1, hereinafter “Van Trump”).
Regarding claim 1, Kannan teaches a fertilizer granule (a coated fertilizer comprising a fertilizer granule) [Kannan Abstract] comprising:
A core comprising a plant nutrient (e.g., a coated fertilizer granule) [Kannan Abstract] and
A coat (e.g., a coating disposed on a surface of the fertilizer granule) [Kannan Abstract] comprising 55 wt. % to 90 wt. % of a first polymer and 10 wt. % to 45 wt. % of a second polymer selected from PLA, PBS, or a combination or blend of PLA and PBS (e.g., a coating comprising polylactic acid and a second polymer comprising a polybutylene succinate; the polybutylene succinate/PBS is regarded as being mapped onto a first polymer and the polylactic acid is regarded as being mapped onto the second polymer as claimed) [Kannan Para. 0072-73] (the weight ratio of the polylactic acid to the second polymer is 10:1 to 1:10, which necessarily encompasses the claimed weight percent ranges) [Kannan Para. 0079] and 0 wt. % to 30 wt. % of a wax based on the total weight of the coat (e.g., a sealant such as a wax) [Kannan Para. 0075-76] (the sealant is varied between 0 to 1.5%, based on the total weight of the fertilizer granule including the coating) [Para. 0131].
Kannan as cited teaches that the first polymer is polybutylene succinate (PBS), not explicitly PBSA as claimed. However, Van Trump teaches in a similar biodegradable polymeric coating for fertilizer granules [Van Trump Abstract] that it is standard to include either or both of PBSA and/or PBS [Van Trump Para. 0043 & 0046], which both contribute to a controlled release fertilizer coating and can be mixed or applied in layers [Para. 0018 & 0045]. As such, Van Trump teaches an art recognized equivalence of these polymers, which are known for the same purpose in fertilizer granule coatings. Thus, substituting PBS for PBSA amounts to no more than substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06(II). 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 fertilizer granule of Kannan to substitute the PBS for PBSA as taught by Van Trump. Note that the weight ratio of Kannan cited above necessarily encompasses the claimed ranges of PBSA and PLA (the weight ratio of the polylactic acid to the second polymer is 10:1 to 1:10) [Kannan Para. 0079].
Regarding claim 2, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the coat comprises 65 to 90 wt. % of PBSA and 10 to 35 wt. % of PLA (e.g., PBSA and PLA, wherein the weight ratio between the two polymers is 10:1 to 1:10, which necessarily encompasses the claimed range) [Kannan Para. 0079].
Regarding claim 3, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer granule comprising 65 to 90 wt. % PBSA as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, along with PLA, but does not explicitly also include PBS in an amount between 10 wt. % to 35 wt. %. However, Van Trump further teaches in its similar biodegradable polymeric coating for fertilizer granules [Van Trump Abstract] that it is standard to include any or all of PBSA and/or PBS and/or PLA [Van Trump Para. 0043 & 0046], which all contribute to a controlled release fertilizer coating and can be mixed or applied in layers [Para. 0018 & 0045]. As such, Van Trump teaches an art recognized equivalence of these polymers, which are known for the same purpose in fertilizer granule coatings. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 2144.06(I). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily combine the included PLA with PBS in order to afford a mixture for the same purpose in a slow-release fertilizer coating. In mixing the PLA with PBS, one of ordinary skill in the art would start by including them in a 1:1 ratio. As such, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches a coating composition comprising a weight ratio between (PBSA) and (a 1:1 combination of PLA/PBS) of 10:1 to 1:10, which necessarily encompasses the claimed weight percent ranges of the 3 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 fertilizer granule of Kannan as modified by Van Trump to include PBS within the weight range as claimed as further taught by Van Trump.
Regarding claim 4, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the coat comprises 0.5 to 30 wt. % of the wax (e.g., a sealant such as a wax) [Kannan Para. 0075-76] (the sealant is varied between 0 to 1.5%, based on the total weight of the fertilizer granule including the coating) [Kannan Para. 0131].
Regarding claim 5, Kannan as modified by Van Trum teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the PBSA and the second polymer (here, PLA) is comprised in one or more polymer coating layers and the wax is comprised in a wax coating layer, wherein the one or more polymer coating layers are at least partially located between the core and the wax coating layer (e.g., the components of the coating are present in more than one layer; for example the first layer can comprise the PLA and the second polymer, and the second layer can comprise the sealant; here, the wax) [Kannan Para. 0046].
Regarding claim 6, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the PBSA and/or the second polymer is comprised in a first polymer coating layer and at least a second polymer coating layer, wherein the first polymer coating layer and the second polymer coating layer are different (e.g., the components of the coating are present in more than one layer; for example the first layer can comprise the PLA or the second polymer, the second layer can also comprise the PLA or the second polymer, provided that the material in the first layer is not the same as the material in the second layer) [Kannan Para. 0046].
Regarding claim 7, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the coat comprises a wax and the wax is an alpha-olefin wax, paraffin wax, natural wax, or combination thereof (e.g., the sealant can comprise a wax, and examples of waxes include paraffin waxes, natural petroleum waxes, and alfa-olefin wax) [Kannan Para. 0043 & Para. 0126, Table 1].
Regarding claim 8, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the PLA has an average molecular weight of 100 kg/mol to 200 kg/mol (e.g., the PLA has an average molecular weight of 50 to 250 kg/mol) [Kannan Para. 0037]. Because no evidence of criticality of the method of measurement has been presented as to the GPC limitation in line 4 of the claim, Kannan is regarded as reading on this limitation despite no mention of the method of measurement.
Regarding claim 9, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer granule comprising 10 wt. % to 30 wt. % of the PLA, 70 to 90 wt. % of the PBA (e.g., PBSA and PLA, wherein the weight ratio between the two polymers is 10:1 to 1:10, which necessarily encompasses the claimed range) [Kannan Para. 0079] and 0 wt. % to 10 wt. % of the wax (e.g., a sealant such as a wax) [Kannan Para. 0075-76] (the sealant is varied between 0 to 1.5%, based on the total weight of the fertilizer granule including the coating) [Kannan Para. 0131].
Regarding claim 10, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the coat has a thickness of 10 to 100 microns over the core (e.g., the thickness of the coating is adjusted to provide the desired sustained release and protection properties; for example, between 20 to 70 micrometers) [Kannan Para. 0058].
Regarding claim 11, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the plant nutrient comprises nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, or any combination thereof (e.g., the fertilizer granules can comprise nitrogen, phosphorus, or potassium sources) [Kannan Para. 0031].
Regarding claim 12, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer wherein the plant nutrient comprises urea (e.g., a suitable nitrogen source is urea) [Kannan Para. 0031].
Regarding claim 13, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the fertilizer wherein the fertilizer granule comprises 85 to 98 wt. % of the core and 2 wt. % to 15 wt. % of the coat (e.g., when coated on the fertilizer granules, the amount of the coating is between 0.5 to 10 wt. %, or less than or equal to 6 wt. %) [Kannan Para. 0045 & 0054]; conversely, the amount of the core also overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 14, Kannan teaches a coating composition (a coating for a fertilizer granule) [Kannan Abstract] comprising:
55 wt. % to 90 wt. % of a first polymer and 10 wt. % to 45 wt. % of a second polymer selected from PLA and/or PBS (e.g., a coating comprising polylactic acid and a second polymer comprising a polybutylene succinate; the polybutylene succinate is regarded as being mapped onto a first polymer and the polylactic acid is regarded as being mapped onto the second polymer as claimed) [Kannan Para. 0072-73] (the weight ratio of the polylactic acid to the second polymer is 10:1 to 1:10, which necessarily encompasses the claimed weight percent ranges) [Kannan Para. 0079] and 0 wt. % to 30 wt. % of a wax (e.g., a sealant such as a wax) [Kannan Para. 0075-76] (the sealant is varied between 0 to 1.5%, based on the total weight of a fertilizer granule including the coating composition) [Para. 0131].
Kannan as cited teaches that the first polymer is polybutylene succinate (PBS), not explicitly PBSA as claimed. However, Van Trump teaches in a similar biodegradable polymeric coating for fertilizer granules [Van Trump Abstract] that it is standard to include either or both of PBSA and/or PBS [Van Trump Para. 0043 & 0046], which both contribute to a controlled release fertilizer coating and can be mixed or applied in layers [Para. 0018 & 0045]. As such, Van Trump teaches an art recognized equivalence of these polymers, which are known for the same purpose in fertilizer granule coatings. Thus, substituting PBS for PBSA amounts to no more than substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06(II). 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 coating composition of Kannan to substitute the PBS for PBSA as taught by Van Trump. Note that the weight ratio of Kannan cited above necessarily encompasses the claimed ranges of PBSA and PLA (the weight ratio of the polylactic acid to the second polymer is 10:1 to 1:10) [Kannan Para. 0079].
Regarding claim 15, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the coating composition comprising 65 wt. % to 90 wt. % PBSA and 10 wt. % to 35 wt. % of PLA (e.g., PBSA and PLA, wherein the weight ratio between the two polymers is 10:1 to 1:10, which necessarily encompasses the claimed range) [Kannan Para. 0079].
Regarding claim 16, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the coating composition comprising 0.5 to 30 wt. % of the wax (e.g., a sealant such as a wax) [Kannan Para. 0075-76] (the sealant is varied between 0 to 1.5%, based on the total weight of the fertilizer granule including the coating) [Kannan Para. 0131].
Regarding claim 17, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the coating composition wherein the coating composition comprises one or more polymer coating layers and a wax coating layer, wherein each of the one or more polymer coating layers independently comprises PBSA, the second polymer, and/or a blend thereof, and the wax coating layer comprises wax (e.g., the components of the coating are present in more than one layer; for example the first layer can comprise the PLA and the second polymer, and the second layer can comprise the sealant; here, the wax) [Kannan Para. 0046].
Regarding claim 18, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the coating composition wherein the wax is an alpha-olefin wax, paraffin wax, natural wax, or combination thereof (e.g., the sealant can comprise a wax, and examples of waxes include paraffin waxes, natural petroleum waxes, and alfa-olefin wax) [Kannan Para. 0043 & Para. 0126, Table 1].
Regarding claim 19, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches the coating composition comprising 10 wt. % to 30 wt. % of the PLA and/or PBS, 70 to 90 wt. % of the PBSA (e.g., PBSA and PLA, wherein the weight ratio between the two polymers is 10:1 to 1:10, which necessarily encompasses the claimed range) [Kannan Para. 0079] and 0 wt. % to 10 wt. % of the wax (e.g., a sealant such as a wax) [Kannan Para. 0075-76] (the sealant is varied between 0 to 1.5%, based on the total weight of the fertilizer granule including the coating) [Kannan Para. 0131].
Regarding claim 20, Kannan as modified by Van Trump teaches a coated material comprising a material at least partially coated by the coating composition of claim 14 (e.g., the coating disposed on a surface of a fertilizer granule) [Kannan Abstract].
Claim(s) 14-15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nevalainen (International Patent Pub. No. 2014/064340 A1, hereinafter “Nevalainen”).
Regarding claim 14, Nevalainen teaches a coating composition (e.g., a biodegradable packaging material to coat and seal drinking cups and board trays) [Abstract] comprising:
55 wt. % to 90 wt. % of a PBSA (e.g., 5-80 wt. % of polybutylene succinate/PBS or a biodegradable derivate thereof [Abstract]; a suitable biodegradable derivate is PBSA [Page 5 lines 30-32]),
10 wt. % to 45 wt. % of a second polymer selected from PLA and/or PBS (e.g., 20-95 wt. % of a polylactide/PLA [Abstract & Page 1 line 17]; polylactide is also known as polylactic acid and is therefore construed as being the same material), and
0 wt. % to 30 wt. % of a wax (e.g., no wax or 0 wt. % wax is included).
Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 15, Nevalainen teaches the coating composition comprising 65 wt. % to 90 wt. % of PBSA and 10 wt. % to 35 wt. % of PLA and/or PBS (e.g., 5-80 wt. % PBSA and 20-95 wt. % PLA) [Nevalainen Abstract].
Regarding claim 19, Nevaleinen teaches the coating composition comprising 10 to 30 wt. % of the PLA and/or PBS, 70 wt. % to 90 wt. % of the PBSA, and 0 wt. % to 10 wt. % of the wax (e.g., 5-80 wt. % PBSA and 20-95 wt. % PLA) [Nevalainen Abstract] (no wax or 0 wt. % wax is included).
Regarding claim 20, Nevalainen teaches a coated material comprising a material at least partially coated by the coating composition of claim 14 (e.g., disposable drinking cups and board trays as well as sealed carton packages for solids and liquids are coated with the composition) [Nevalainen Abstract].
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