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 § 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) 2-4, 9-13, and 15-18 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 2, the recitation “preferably, each of R1’ is independently selected from hydrogen or methyl; more preferably, each of R1’ is hydrogen” renders the claim indefinite. The phrases “preferably” and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. As such, there is a question or doubt as to whether the features following “preferably” are merely exemplary or are a required feature of the claims, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, any features following “preferably” or “more preferably” are regarded as being optional.
Regarding claim 3, the recitation “preferably, each of R2’ is independently selected from hydrogen or methyl; more preferably, each of R2’ is hydrogen” renders the claim indefinite. The phrases “preferably” and “more preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. As such, there is a question or doubt as to whether the features following “preferably” are merely exemplary or are a required feature of the claims, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, any features following “preferably” or “more preferably” are regarded as being optional.
Regarding claim 4, the several recitations of the phrases “preferably” and “more preferably” (lines 5, 8, 10, 11 of the claim) render the claim indefinite for identical reasons as set forth above. For purposes of examination, any features following “preferably” or “more preferably” are regarded as being optional.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation “from 2.0 to 30.0 wt. %, or in an amount from 2.0 to 20.0 wt. %, or in an amount from 2.5 to 15 wt. %, or in an amount from 3.0 to 10.0 wt. %” renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “from 2.0 to 30.0 wt. %,” and the claim also recites “or in an amount from 2.0 to 20.0 wt. %, or in an amount from 2.5 to 15 wt. %, or in an amount from 3.0 to 10.0 wt. %” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, any recited narrower ranges are regarded as being exemplary and therefore not required.
Regarding claim 11, the recitation “from 10.0:1.0 to 1.0:10.0, or from 5.0:1.0 to 1.0:5.0, or from 3.0:1.0 to 1.0:3.0, or from 1.5:1.0 to 1.0:1.5, or from 1.5:1.0 to 1.0:1.0” renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “from 10.0:1.0 to 1.0:10.0,” and the claim also recites “or from 5.0:1.0 to 1.0:5.0, or from 3.0:1.0 to 1.0:3.0, or from 1.5:1.0 to 1.0:1.5, or from 1.5:1.0 to 1.0:1.0” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, any recited narrower ranges are regarded as being exemplary and therefore not required.
Regarding claim 12, the recitation “from 10.0:1.0 to 1.0:10.0, or 10.0:1.0 to 1.0:5.0, or from 9.0:1.0 to 1.0:3.0, or from 9.0:1.0 to 1.0:2.0, or from 8.0:1.0 to 1.0:1.0” renders the claim indefinite. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “from 10.0:1.0 to 1.0:10.0,” and the claim also recites “or 10.0:1.0 to 1.0:5.0, or from 9.0:1.0 to 1.0:3.0, or from 9.0:1.0 to 1.0:2.0, or from 8.0:1.0 to 1.0:1.0” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, any recited narrower ranges are regarded as being exemplary and therefore not required.
Further regarding claim 13, the recitation “from 1.0 to 20.0 wt. %, preferably from 2.0 to 19.0 wt. %, preferably from 3.0 to 18.0 wt. %, preferably from 3.0 to 17.0 wt. %, preferably from 3.5 to 16.0 wt. %” renders the claim indefinite.
First, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “from 1.0 to 20.0 wt. %,” and the claim also recites “preferably from 2.0 to 19.0 wt. %, preferably from 3.0 to 18.0 wt. %, preferably from 3.0 to 17.0 wt. %, preferably from 3.5 to 16.0 wt. %” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For purposes of examination, any recited narrower ranges are regarded as being exemplary and therefore not required.
Second, the several recitations of the phrase “preferably” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, any features following “preferably” or “more preferably” are regarded as being optional.
Regarding claim 16, the recitation “suspending agents and similar ingredients to enhance the shelf life of the product” renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear whether “similar ingredients” refers only to suspending agents, or also to other ingredients previously set forth in the claim such as dispersing agents, humectants, surfactants, and micronutrients. Second, it is unclear whether “to enhance the shelf life of the product” refers to the intended effect of the similar ingredient, or whether the similar ingredient need only be similar to a suspending agent and not necessarily enhance the shelf life of the product. Further, the words “similar” and “enhance” are relative terms which are not defined by the claim or the specification, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. For purposes of examination, any additive which acts as a suspending agent is regarded as reading on this limitation.
Regarding claim 17, the claim appears to recite the generic “use” of the composition of
claim 1 for fertilization purposes to provide plant nutrition for growing plants. Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness. Merely reciting a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced renders a claim indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q). Here, Applicant generically recites that the products are used for plant nutrition, but this does not include any specific steps as to how one would carry this out.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation “such as but not limited to” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, it is unclear whether this phrase only refers to soaking or also refers to all of the other application options such as spraying, atomizing, painting, etc. Further, the term “conventional” is a relative term which is not defined by the claim or the specification. For purposes of examination, any application technique using any equipment for any of the provided application options is regarded as reading on this limitation.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation “wherein the alkanolamine of the at least one alkanolamine metal or boron complex” [emphasis added] lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, does not include an alkanolamine metal or boron complex. For purposes of examination, claim 1 is regarded as depending from claim 6, which appears to be Applicant’s intention because claim 6 includes at least one alkanolamine metal or boron complex.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation “the at least one gelling agent” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1, from which claim 15 depends, does not include a gelling agent. For purposes of examination, claim 15 is regarded as depending from claim 15, which appears to be Applicant’s intention because claim 14 includes a gelling agent.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 9 sets forth a limitation wherein “the alkanolamine of the at least one alkanolamine metal or boron complex is the same or different from the alkanolamine of the at least one alkanolamine salt.” Logically, an alkanolamine must be either the same or different from another alkanolamine. As such, a claim limitation requiring this inherent fact fails to further limit the claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are “use” claims. “Use” claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961)("one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101 "). See MPEP 2173.05(q). Note that it is appropriate to reject a claim that recites a use but fails to recite steps under both 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) facts support both rejections.
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) 1-5, 7-8, 10-11, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Darvaux-Hubert (International Patent Pub. No. 03/042342 A2) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Darvaux-Hubert”).
Regarding claim 1, Darvaux-Hubert teaches an aqueous composition (e.g., an aqueous lubricant composition) [Title & Page 1 Para. 1] comprising:
At least one alkanolamine salt of a sulphonic acid according to the provided formula (e.g., methanesulfonic acid [Page 3 Para. 4], in the form of a water-soluble salt such as an alkanolamine, including monoethanolamine, diethanolamine or triethanolamine [Page 3 Para. 5 & 7]).
Darvaux-Hubert does not explicitly state that the aqueous composition is a fertilizer composition. However, this would appear to be a recitation of the intended use of the composition. Such a recitation limits the claim only to the extent that the prior art must be capable of performing the purpose or intended use. In this case the composition taught by Darvaux-Hubert comprises the necessary components and is capable of being used in agriculture as a fertilizer. Because Darvaux-Hubert discloses the formulation claimed, and there appear to be no structural differences imparted by the intended use, it necessarily follows that the formulation meets the recitation of the intended use. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
Regarding claim 2, Darvaux-Hubert teaches the composition wherein each of R1’ is independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, halo, methyl, and ethyl (e.g., methanesulfonic acid, wherein R1’ is hydrogen) [Page 3 Para. 4].
Regarding claim 3, Darvaux-Hubert teaches the composition wherein each of R2’ is independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, halo, methyl, and ethyl (e.g., methanesulfonic acid, wherein R2’ is hydrogen) [Page 3 Para. 4].
Regarding claim 4, Darvaux-Hubert teaches the composition wherein each of R3’ is independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, halo, methyl, ethyl, propyl, isopropyl, and the described Si(R4’)3 group (e.g., methanesulfonic acid, wherein R3 is hydrogen) [Page 3 Para. 4].
Regarding claim 5, Darvaux-Hubert teaches the composition wherein the compound S is of the provided formula IS-a (e.g., methanesulfonic acid) [Page 3 Para. 4].
Regarding claim 7, Darvaux-Hubert teaches the composition wherein the alkanolamine of the at least one alkanolamine salt is selected from the provided group (e.g., monoethanolamine, diethanolamine or triethanolamine [Page 3 Para. 5 & 7]).
Regarding claim 8, Darvaux-Hubert teaches the composition wherein the alkanolamine of the at least one alkanolamine salt is selected from the provided group (e.g., monoethanolamine, diethanolamine or triethanolamine [Page 3 Para. 5 & 7]).
Regarding claim 10, Darvaux-Hubert teaches the composition wherein the alkanolamine is present in an amount from 2 to 30 wt. % (e.g., the water-soluble methanesulfonic acid salt is present in total in an amount between 10 to 50% by weight, the salt may be, for example, triethanolamine, in which case the alkanolamine would be present in an amount between approximately 6 to 36% by weight) (calculated using a molecular weight of the methanesulfonic acid of 96.1 g/mol, a molecular weight of the triethanolamine of 149.2, and assuming a 1:1 molar ratio between the two in the salt form); see also Table 2 in the original French document on Page 6 which includes an example having 3.04% triethanolamine (TEA)).
PNG
media_image1.png
473
715
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Darvaux-Hubert teaches the composition wherein in the composition (C) the molar ratio of the compound (S) to the alkanolamine is from 10.0:1.0 to 1.0:10.0 (Darvaux-Hubert teaches that the composition only contains the salt form of the methanesulfonic acid; the salt form is assumed to have a 1:1 molar ratio of the alkanolamine to the methanesulfonic acid).
Regarding claim 16, Darvaux-Hubert teaches the composition further comprising at least one other additional ingredient selected from the provided group (e.g., bactericidal agents, emulsifiers, smoothing agents, antifoams) [Page 4 Para. 4].
Regarding claim 17, Darvaux-Hubert teaches the composition, but does not explicitly state a use of the composition for fertilization purposes. However, this would appear to be a recitation of the intended use or result of the composition. Such a recitation limits the claim only to the extent that the prior art must be capable of performing the purpose or intended use. In this case the composition taught by Darvaux-Hubert comprises the necessary components and is capable of being used in agriculture as a fertilizer. Because Darvaux-Hubert discloses the formulation claimed, and there appear to be no structural differences imparted by the intended use, it necessarily follows that the formulation meets the recitation of the intended use. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979).
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) 1-5, 13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (U.S. Patent No. 6206946 B1, hereinafter “Hayashi”) in view of Bull (U.S. Patent No. 4954556 A, hereinafter “Bull”).
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi teaches an aqueous fertilizer composition (e.g., a fertilizer absorption accelerator composition in aqueous solution) [Hayashi Abstract & Col. 2 lines 46-55] comprising at least one alkanolamine salt of a sulfonic acid (e.g., an anionic surfactant such as a sulfonic acid; specifically, alkyl sulfonic acids or salts thereof, wherein suitable salts include alkanolamine salts) [Hayashi Col. 3 lines 3-5, 14-17, & 35-37].
Hayashi does not explicitly disclose a suitable structure of the alkyl sulfonic acid as claimed. However, Bull teaches that a standard example of an alkyl sulfonic acid used in aqueous compositions as an anionic surfactant is methanesulfonic acid [Bull Abstract & Col. 2 lines 60-66]. As such, in making the composition of Hayashi which is also aqueous, wherein Hayashi expressly suggests using an alkyl sulfonic acid as an anionic surfactant, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Bull to identify a suitable specific acid for this same context. Selecting methanesulfonic acid from the limited number of anionic surfactants which are also alkyl sulfonic acids amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. 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 Hayashi to specifically implement methanesulfonic acid as taught by Bull.
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition wherein each of R1’ is independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, halo, methyl, and ethyl (e.g., methanesulfonic acid) [Bull Col. 2 lines 60-66].
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition wherein each of R2’ is independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, halo, methyl, and ethyl (e.g., methanesulfonic acid) [Bull Col. 2 lines 60-66].
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition wherein each of R3’ is independently selected from the group consisting of hydrogen, halo, methyl, ethyl, propyl, isopropyl, and the described Si(R4’)3 group (e.g., methanesulfonic acid) [Bull Col. 2 lines 60-66].
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition wherein the compound S is of the provided formula IS-a (e.g., methanesulfonic acid) [Bull Col. 2 lines 60-66].
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition wherein water is present in an amount from 1.0 to 20.0 wt. % (e.g., the fertilizer composition of the invention contains 5-20 weight % surfactant, 0.5-10 weight % heptonic acid, and 10-60 weight % of a fertilizer component, in a medium of water [Hayashi Col. 4 lines 38-47]; as such, the water is conversely present in an amount between 10-84.5%). Note that overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 16, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition further comprising at least one other additional ingredient selected from the provided group (e.g., an additional solvent may be included [Hayashi Col. 4 lines 6-10], mixtures of surfactants may be included [Hayashi Col. 3 lines 58-60]).
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition for fertilization purposes to provide plant nutrition for growing plants (e.g., a fertilizer absorption accelerator composition comprising plant nutrients [Hayashi Col. 4 lines 5-15] which is applied to plants [Hayashi Col. 4 lines 58-62]).
Regarding claim 18, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition for fertilization purposes to provide plant nutrition for growing plants (e.g., a fertilizer absorption accelerator composition comprising plant nutrients [Hayashi Col. 4 lines 5-15] which is applied to plants [Hayashi Col. 4 lines 58-62]) wherein said use comprises supplying the composition by spraying using conventional equipment (e.g., the leaves of plants are sprayed with the composition) [Hayashi at the Para. Bridging Col. 7-8]
Claim(s) 6, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi and Bull as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ward (International Patent Pub. No. 2019/106338 A1, cited in the IDS received 10/31/2023, hereinafter “Ward”).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition comprising an alkanolamine [Hayashi Col. 3 lines 3-5, 14-17, & 35-37] and a metal for plant nutrition (e.g., elements including Zn, Cu, Mn, Fe, B) [Hayashi Col. 4 lines 11-16] but does not explicitly state that these are in the form of an alkanolamine metal or boron complex. However, Ward teaches that alkanolamine metal complexes are standard additions to liquid aqueous fertilizer compositions [Ward Abstract]. In particular, alkanolamines are surprisingly good complex formers for micronutrients such as boron, copper, iron, and zinc. The alkanolamine metal complexes are perfectly miscible and soluble in an aqueous composition, and so they are a good vehicle to add micronutrients to a fertilizer composition [Ward Page 5 lines 27-32]. Typical complexes include boron ethanolamine, which has a molar ratio of monoethanolamine:boric acid of 1:3 [Ward Page 9 lines 28-30]. As such, in making the composition of Hayashi as modified by Bull already comprising micronutrients and alkanolamines, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Ward and readily appreciate the advantages of specifically also including an alkanolamine metal or boron complex. 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 Hayashi as modified by Bell to include an alkanolamine metal or boron complex, wherein the metal is selected from the provided group, as taught by Ward.
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi as modified by Bell and Ward teaches the composition wherein the alkanolamine of the at least one alkanolamine metal or boron complex is the same or different from the alkanolamine of the at least one alkanolamine salt (an alkanolamine must logically be the same or different as another alkanolamine).
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi as modified by Bell and Ward teaches the composition wherein the molar ratio of the metal or boron to the alkanolamine is from 10.0:1.0 to 1.0:10.0 (e.g., typical complexes include boron ethanolamine, which has a molar ratio of monoethanolamine:boric acid of 1:3) [Ward Page 9 lines 28-30].
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi and Bull as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gonzagowski (U.S. Patent No. 11603336 B1, hereinafter “Gonzagowski”).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition but does not explicitly state that it further comprises a gelling agent selected from the provided group. However, Gonzagowski teaches that gum Arabic, also known acacia gum, is a standard addition to a solid or liquid fertilizer composition [Gonzagowski Abstract]. Specifically, adding about 4 to 6 weight percent acacia gum [Gonzagowski Paragraph bridging Col. 1-2] is beneficial to fertilizer [Col. 3 lines 26-29] at least because it can act as a binding agent and promote emulsification [Col. 4 lines 23-26]. As such, in making the fertilizer composition of Hayashi as modified by Bull, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate the advantages of also including the gelling agent gum Arabic as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention making the composition of Hayashi and Bull to further include gum Arabic as taught by Gonzagowski.
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi as modified by Bull teaches the composition but does not explicitly state that it further comprises a gelling agent in an amount from 0.05 to 5 wt. %. However, Gonzagowski teaches that gum Arabic, also known acacia gum, is a standard addition to a solid or liquid fertilizer composition [Gonzagowski Abstract]. Specifically, adding about 4 to 6 weight percent acacia gum [Gonzagowski Paragraph bridging Col. 1-2] is beneficial to fertilizer [Col. 3 lines 26-29] at least because it can act as a binding agent and promote emulsification [Col. 4 lines 23-26]. As such, in making the fertilizer composition of Hayashi as modified by Bull, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate the advantages of also including the gelling agent gum Arabic as claimed, and would further know the appropriate amount based on the teachings of Gonzagowski. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention making the composition of Hayashi and Bull to further include gum Arabic as taught by Gonzagowski in an amount overlapping with the claimed range. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
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