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
Newly submitted claim 23 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The invention originally claimed and claim 23 are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the coating disposed around the granular fertilizer does not require an ion exchange nanoparticle. The subcombination has separate utility such as a coating for fabric, garments and textiles .
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 23 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 10, 12, 15-16, 18 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Korekane et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0199507 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Korekane et al. teach a composition (e.g. slow-release coated granular fertilizer) [para. 0035] comprising:
a granular fertilizer [0115]; and
a coating disposed around the granular fertilizer (e.g. a film including a fertilizer coating material film and precoat layer film) [0166], wherein the coating comprises:
a first polymer that is water soluble (e.g. a precoat layer containing biodegradable resin such as polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)) [0117] (PVA is described as an appropriate water-soluble polymer by Applicant’s Specification at Paragraph 0109);
a second polymer comprising a copolymer (e.g. mixtures thereof of include polyalkylene glycols obtained by copolymerization of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol) [0117]; and
a wetting agent (e.g. a precoat layer including surfactants) [0117], wherein surfactants are chemical compounds that lower a liquid’s surface tension;
wherein the Korekane coating film is in physical contact with the granular fertilizer [0110] and while Korekane does not explicitly disclose a step of forming a coating solution mixed with the granular fertilizer, this limitation represents a product-by-process limitation and Korekane is considered to disclose the structure implied by these steps (e.g. the components of the coating are contacted with the surface of the granular fertilizer). [See MPEP 2113].
In regard to claims 4, Korekane et al. teach the composition of claim 1, wherein the coating is disposed around a plurality of granules (e.g. the fertilizer to be coated is urea granules) [0120].
In regard to claim 6, Korekane et al. disclose the composition of claim 1, wherein the granular fertilizer comprises a nitrogenous fertilizer (e.g. the fertilizer to be coated is urea granules) [0120].
In regard to claim 10, Korekane et al. disclose the composition of claim 1, wherein the composition is in a desiccated form (e.g. urea particles with a coating liquid is dried) [0160], and wherein the composition is applied to soil in the desiccated form (e.g. applying the granules to soil) [0013].
In regard to claim 12, Korekane et al. disclose the composition of claim 1, wherein the granular fertilizer comprises a liquid loading potential such that the granular fertilizer adsorbs the wetting agent (e.g. adhesion to the core material) [0110-0111].
In regard to claims 15-16 and 18, Korekane et al. disclose the composition of claim 1, wherein the wetting agent (e.g. surfactant) terminates with a polar anionic group comprising an anionic functional group (e.g. anionic surfactants) including polyethylene glycol-branched alkyl ethers which is an organic compound comprising a hydrophilic group (e.g. ether group) and a hydrophobic group (e.g. branchy alkyl chain) [0117].
In regard to claims 21 and 22, Korekane et al. teach a composition (e.g. slow-release coated granular fertilizer) [para. 0035] comprising:
a granular fertilizer [0115]; and
a coating configured to be disposed around the granular fertilizer (e.g. a film including a fertilizer coating material film and precoat layer film) [0166], wherein the coating comprises:
a first polymer that is water soluble (e.g. a precoat layer containing biodegradable resin such as polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)) [0117] (PVA is described as an appropriate water-soluble polymer by Applicant’s Specification at Paragraph 0109);
a second polymer comprising a copolymer (e.g. mixtures thereof of include polyalkylene glycols obtained by copolymerization of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol) [0117]; and
a wetting agent (e.g. a precoat layer including surfactants) [0117], wherein surfactants are chemical compounds that lower a liquid’s surface tension;
wherein the Korekane coating film is in physical contact with the granular fertilizer [0110] and while Korekane does not explicitly disclose the process steps of the present claims, these limitation represents a product-by-process limitation and Korekane is considered to disclose the structure implied by these steps (e.g. the components of the coating are contacted with the surface of the granular fertilizer). [See MPEP 2113].
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 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korekane et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0199507 A1) in view of Kankale et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2023/0257652).
In regard to claims 17 and 19, Korekane et al. disclose the composition of claims 1 and 18, wherein the wetting agent (e.g. surfactant) terminates with a polar anionic group comprising an anionic functional group (e.g. anionic surfactants) including polyethylene glycol-branched alkyl ethers which is an organic compound comprising a hydrophilic group (e.g. ether group) and a hydrophobic group (e.g. branchy alkyl chain) [0117]. The reference does not explicitly state wherein the weather agent comprises one or more of a fluorosurfactant or a siloxane surfactant (claim 17) or wherein the anionic function group comprises a sulfate, sulfonate, phosphate or carboxylate (claim 19).
Kankale et al. is directed to a soil wetting composition to provide enhanced distribution of bioactive materials (e.g. fertilizer) across the soil profile [0007] wherein the wetting agent is the anionic surfactant (e.g. surface-active) comprising a sulfonate group (e.g. anionic polyacrylate carboxylate copolymer, an anionic styrene acrylic acid copolymer, an anionic alkylnaphthalene sulfonate condensate polymer, a sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate) [0026], comprising a hydrophilic group (e.g. sulfonate groups) and a hydrophobic group (e.g. alkyl naphthalene backbone ), wherein the wetting agent comprises one or more of a hydrocarbon chain and a polyether chain and wherein the wetting agent terminates with a polar anionic group comprising an anionic functional group comprising a sulfonate or wherein the wetting agent comprises a siloxane change (e.g. a siloxane alkoxylate) [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a wetting agent like those disclosed by Kankale in the composition described by Korekane in place of or in addition to the surfactant wetting agents described in the reference. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve distribution of water and nutrients in soil application [0002] by performing simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 7-9, 13-14 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record - Korekane et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2024/0199507 A1) discloses a coated particle (e.g., a coated granular fertilizer) [Para. 0035] comprising an inner particle comprising a fertilizer granule (e.g., a granular fertilizer with a coating) [Para. 0035] and a coating disposed on a surface of the inner particle (e.g., a coating material that forms a film or shell on the fertilizer) [Para. 0035]. The fertilizer granule comprises one or more nanoparticles (e.g., the particle can contain a carrier or filler such as talc, mica, calcium carbonate, silica, clay, etc. [Para. 0115 & 0116], which has a particle size of 100 microns or less [Para. 0118].
The prior art reference(s) do not teach or render obvious all the cumulative limitations of claim 2 with particular attention to an “ion exchange nanoparticle” comprising “a structural particle comprising an ion exchange site; and an ion, wherein the ion is attracted to the structural particle at the ion exchange site”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (pgs. 11-12) Korekane fails to disclose wherein a fertilizer coating material includes each of a water soluble polymer, a copolymer, and a wetting agent. In response to this argument Korekane is cited as teaching an embodiment [0117] in which the pre-coat layer includes all three elements: a first polymer that is water soluble (e.g. a precoat layer containing biodegradable resin such as polyvinyl alcohol (PVA)) [0117] (PVA is described as an appropriate water-soluble polymer by Applicant’s Specification at Paragraph 0109), a second polymer comprising a copolymer (e.g. mixtures thereof of include polyalkylene glycols obtained by copolymerization of ethylene glycol and propylene glycol) [0117], and a wetting agent (e.g. a precoat layer including surfactants) [0117], wherein surfactants are chemical compounds that lower a liquid’s surface tension.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim rejection(s) based on the Antens and Bunderson references have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 February 2, 2026