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 § 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 21-31, 33-37 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yadav (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0218059 A1).
In regard to claim 21, Yadav discloses a method of manufacturing a polymer coated fertilizer [0068], the method comprising:
placing a solid substrate in a first cavity (e.g. articles are held in the cavities) [0068];
applying a first coating layer onto a first exposed surface area of the solid substrate (e.g. a first layer of molten polymer film is extruded on the articles) [0068] by applying vacuum suction underneath the solid substrate (e.g. vacuum suction under the said articles pulls the molten polymer layer around the articles) [0068] through an opening in the first cavity (e.g. the cavity has an opening/hole in the bottom through which a vacuum suction is provided) [0065] the first coating layer having a first edge at
PNG
media_image1.png
533
585
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an end of the first coating layer, the first edge being a narrowing strip of the first coating layer (e.g. first polymer film 105 narrowing – emphasis added - in box below at edge of first polymer film) [Fig. 2], the first coating layer covering a part of the first exposed surface area to create a partially coated solid substrate (e.g. partially coated articles) [0068];
transferring the partially coated solid substrate into a second cavity in such a way that exposes a second exposed surface area of the partially coated substrate (e.g. transferred to the cavity of a second chill roll and the uncoated portion of the partially coated particle is exposed) [0068];
PNG
media_image2.png
648
697
media_image2.png
Greyscale
applying a second coating layer onto the second exposed surface area of the partially coated substrate (e.g. second layer of molten polymer is extruded and applied on the uncoated portion of the partially coated articles) [0068] by applying vacuum suction underneath the solid substrate through an opening in the second cavity (e.g. second cavity by a vacuum suction adopted at a bottom of the second cavity) [0051] in such a way that the second coating layer covers the second exposed surface area (e.g. second polymer film 108) [Fig. 3], the second coating layer having a second edge at a second end of the second coating layer, the second edge being a narrowing strip of the second coating layer (e.g. first polymer film 108 narrowing – emphasis added - in box below at edge of first polymer film) [Fig. 3], the first edge and the second edge and forming an sealing overlap layer with the first coating layer covering a third portion of the surface of the solid substrate to form the polymer coated fertilizer (e.g. encapsulated between the first coating layer and the second coating layer by sealing the first polymer film and the second polymer film coated on the plurality of articles by melt fusing the second polymer film with the first polymer film on an overlapping area of the first polymer film and the second polymer film) [0108];
wherein the polymer coated fertilizer releases the solid substrate through at least one of the first coating layer and the second coating layer over a period of time when placed in an agriculture media (e.g. the encapsulated fertilizer between the first polymer film and the second polymer films is releasable over a time period or interval by diffusion through the first polymer film or the second polymer film) [0085].
In regard to claim 22, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21 wherein the fertilizer includes at least one of the following: an organic fertilizer, an inorganic fertilizer, a natural fertilizer, a synthetic fertilizer, or a micronutrient [0005].
In regard to claim 23, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the solid substrate includes at least one of the following: a tablet, a capsule, a briquette, and a granule (e.g. pellet) [0020].
In regard to claims 24 and 25, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first and second coating layer includes at least one of the following: a processing additive, a polymer stabilizing additive, an inorganic mineral, a biodegradation additive, an organic surfactant, an inorganic surfactant, and a pigment (e.g. hydrophilic additives, surfactants, inorganic minerals, biodegradable additives, pigments and water soluble additive) [0046].
In regard to claim 26, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein at least one of the first coating layer and the second coating layer includes any film extrusion grade polymer of natural or synthetic origin (e.g. the first and second polymer film is any extrusion grade polymer) [0070].
In regard to claim 27, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein at least one of the first coating layer and the second coating layer has a water vapor transmission rate within the range of 1 g/(m2-day) to 2000 g/(m2-day) [0049].
In regard to claim 28, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein at least one of the first coating layer and the second coating layer is made up of multiple coating layers (e.g. the first polymer film and second polymer film have multiple film layers forming a single laminated coating layer) [0073].
In regard to claim 29, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein sealing the first polymer film and the second polymer film coated on the article is by melt fusing the second polymer film with the first polymer film on an overlapping area of the first polymer film and the second polymer film [0050]. It necessarily follows that because the sealing layer is a combination of the first and second polymer film, the sealing layer has a greater thickness than the thickness of the first coating layer and the second coating layer. Fig. 3 demonstrates wherein the first coating layer and the second coating layer have a same thickness.
In regard to claim 30, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first coating layer, the second coating layer, and the overlap layer each have a different thickness (e.g. the multilayer coated films are of different thickness) [0074].
In regard to claim 31, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the solid substrate has a diameter (e.g. mean article size) within a range of 2 mm to 150 mm [0052].
In regard to claim 33, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the sealing layer is formed by laminating the edge of the second coating layer with the edge of the first coating layer, wherein the overlap layer is distinct from the first coating layer and the second coating layer (e.g. a second layer of molten polymer is extruded and applied on the uncoated portion of the partially coated articles in such a way that second coating layer overlaps the first coating layer and the high temperature of the molten second layer helps in laminating the second layer with the overlapping area of the first layer) [0125].
In regard to claim 34, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the solid substrate includes any fertilizer for use in agriculture crops production [0003].
In regard to claims 35-36, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein the first and second coating layer includes any polymer film that can be thermoformed (e.g. a molten polymer is extruded and chilled to form the polymer film) [0108].
In regard to claim 37, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21, wherein applying the first coating layer onto the first exposed surface area of the solid substrate includes depositing the first coating layer onto the first exposed surface area of the solid substrate under a pulling force (e.g. a pulling force of the vacuum suction under the plurality of articles is adapted to pull the first polymer film and the second polymer film around the plurality of articles and to adhere the first polymer film and the second polymer film respectively to an opposing surface of the plurality of articles) [0051].
In regard to claim 39, Yadav discloses the method of claim 38, wherein the extruder 106b gives the second molten polymer film 108, to coat the partially coated fertilizer granule 107. The surface of the chill rolls 103b has sharp edge 111b to assist the breakage of the polymer film while applied onto the fertilizer granule 107. Wherein the first coating layer is cut and then the second coating layer is applied after the first coating layer, the overlap layer (e.g. edge of the first coating layer) is necessarily wholly interior to the edge of the second coating layer in the overlap layer because the second layer is coated on top of the already coated material [Fig. 5; 0143].
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.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yadav (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0218059 A1) in view of Yang et al. (J. Agric. Food Chem, 2012).
In regard to claim 32, Yadav discloses the method of claim 21 wherein the fertilizer includes at an inorganic fertilizer, a natural fertilizer [0005]. The reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the inorganic fertilizer is a urea tablet having a weight within a range of 100 mg to 800 mg.
Yang et al. discloses polymer-coated urea (PCU), specifically large tablet polymer-coated urea (LTPCU) having a diameter of 12 mm [pg. 11230, Table 1, footnote h] and weight of approximately 1,000 mg (1.08-1.09 g per tablet) [pg. 11231, col. 2, para 2] is an effective alternate of PCUs that reduces the coating material usage by 70-80% and consequently lowers the product cost of the coated fertilizer [pg. 11234, col. 1, last paragraph]. Yang et al and Yadav are analogous inventions in the field of polymer-coated fertilizers. Therefore, it would have it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a large tablet polymer-coated urea with a diameter of 12mm and weight of about 1,000 mg like that described in Yang et al as the encapsulated fertilizer of Yadav. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because LTPCUs are economical and effective polymer-coated fertilizers [pg. 11231, col. 2, para 2]).
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 21 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments (01/09/2026) to the claims.
Applicant argues (pg. 7, last para.) Yadav does not teach or suggest the newly added claim limitations of independent claim 21. This argument is not persuasive. Yadav teaches vacuum suction under the articles pulls the molten polymer layer around the articles [0068]. The cavity has an opening/hole in the bottom through which a vacuum suction is provided [0065]. The first polymer film has a first edge and narrowing strip as emphasized in Fig. 2 presented above. Yadav similarly teaches these features for the application of the second coating layer (see rejection of claim 21). Importantly Yadav teaches the exact same process of manufacture (illustrated in Fig. 1) of the polymer coated fertilizer. Applicant’s Specification describes the overlap layer as formed by melt fusing the edge of the first coating layer with the edge of the second coating layer [0054] which is the same process described by Yadav (“sealing the first polymer film and the second polymer film coated on the plurality of articles by melt fusing the second polymer film with the first polymer film on an overlapping area of the first polymer film and the second polymer film”) [0050]. The difference between the prior art and the claims is merely the characterization of the forms that result from the known Yadav process.
Applicant argues (pg. 8, 2nd para.) The Yadav reference does not teach the existence of a coating layer edge and the changes in properties of the edges relative to the rest of the coating control release of the solid substrate encapsulated within the polymer coated fertilizer. In response to this argument, Yadav is cited as teaching a coating layer. When applied to the surface of the fertilizer granule, the polymer film is subjected to breakage in application [0143]. Thus, the polymer film(s) inherently has an edge as the point of breakage, wherein edge is given its standard definition (e.g. the boarder, margin, boundary line of a surface). Melt fusion of the first coating layer and the second coating layer is performed to seal the article [0129]. Melt fusion of the two materials is expected to result in a melt fused material with different properties than the portion of the coating layer(s) not subjected to melt fusion (e.g. first and second coating layers)
In response to applicant's arguments (para. bridging pgs. 8-9) against the Yang reverence, 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). In this case Yadav is cited as teaching the claim limitations.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 January 27, 2026