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, 3, 6-13, 15, 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khaleel (WO-2018042312-A1).
In regard to claims 1 and 3, Khaleel discloses an acidic (e.g. fertilizer composition comprises an inorganic acid in an amount of 0.1 to 2 wt.%) [para 0018] fertilizer granule (e.g. granular fertilizer) [0010] comprising:
1 to 60 wt. % nitrogen [0013; 0016];
1 to 60 wt. % phosphorus [0013; 0016];
potassium [0016] (e.g. preferred embodiment comprising 19% potassium) [0031; 0032];
0.027 to 13.32 w. % sulfur (e.g. 0.1 to 50 wt.% additional nutrient compound; an exemplary compound is magnesium sulfate) [0015];
and in the 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
in the case where the potassium source of Khaleel is provided in amounts exemplified as 19% [0032] in the form of potassium chloride [0014], it necessarily follows that chlorine is also present in amounts ranging from 13 to 19 wt. % of chlorine;
wherein the granule comprises 8 wt. % or more of an inorganic acid (e.g. the inorganic acidic compound is present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt.%, based on the total weight of the fertilizer composition, which overlaps the claimed range) [0018], sufficient to form a solution having a pH of less than 5 when the fertilizer composition is dissolved in water [0028-0029] and furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate a fertilizer granule as described by Khaleel which exhibits a pH less than 4 or less than 3 (claim 3) as claimed. pH is a result effective variable depending on the concentration of acid component present in the granule. Khaleel teaches the inorganic acid component present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt.%, based on the total weight of the fertilizer composition [0018]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 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), and wherein the inorganic acid is added to the granular fertilizer [0010].
The Khaleel reference does not explicitly recite an embodiment in which the inorganic acid is distributed throughout the granule. However, providing the known ingredient (inorganic acid) throughout a granule or on the surface of a granule is considered a routine design choice. Both the inorganic acid and the fertilizer granule form are known in the art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to incorporate the known ingredient (inorganic acid) either throughout a granule or on the surface of a granule. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. Incorporating an active component throughout the granular matrix and applying it as a surface coating are two primary, well-known manufacturing techniques. Selecting the distribution of the inorganic acid material from a finite number of predictable structural arrangements to achieve a predictable result supports a prima facie case of obviousness.
In regard to claims 6-7, Khaleel discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein the inorganic acid comprises sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, or any combinations thereof [0018] with sulfuric acid described in preferred embodiments [0031; 0032].
In regard to claim 8, Khaleel discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, further comprising a secondary nutrient and/or a micronutrient (e.g. additionally a source of one or more trace elements, i.e., micronutrients, can be included) [0017].
In regard to claim 9, Khaleel discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of nitrogen is present as ammonium (e.g. exemplary nitrogen compounds include ammonium nitrate, ammonium sulfate, ammonium sulfate nitrate) [0011].
In regard to claim 10, Khaleel discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of phosphorus is present as phosphate (e.g. exemplary phosphate compounds include monoammonium phosphate ("MAP"), diammonium phosphate ("DAP"), polyphosphate compounds including but not limited to P2O5, phosphate rock, single superphosphate ("SSP"), triple super phosphate ("TSP"), or a combination thereof) [0011].
In regard to claim 11, Khaleel discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of potassium is present as potassium salt (e.g. exemplary potassium sources include potassium nitrate, potassium chloride, or potassium sulfate [0014].
In regard to claim 12, Khaleel disclose the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of chlorine is present as chloride (e.g. potassium chloride) [0014].
In regard to claim 13, Khaleel discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of sulfur is present as sulfate (e.g. 0.1 to 50 wt.% additional nutrient compound; an exemplary compound is magnesium sulfate) [0015].
In regard to claim 15, Khaleel discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, comprising 8 to 12 wt. % or more of the inorganic acid (e.g. the inorganic acidic compound is present in an amount of 0.1 to 10 wt.%, based on the total weight of the fertilizer composition) [0018], wherein the inorganic acid comprises sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, or any combinations thereof [0018] with sulfuric acid described in preferred embodiments [0031; 0032].
In regard to claim 17, Khaleel discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, comprised in a fertilizer blend comprising the fertilizer granule and an additional fertilizer (e.g. the fertilizer composition comprising the inorganic acidic compound can be blended with a granular fertilizer free of inorganic acidic compound) [0028].
In regard to claim 21, Khaleel discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein the fertilizer granule is a water soluble fertilizer for fertigation [0030]. Although not explicitly described as “100%” water soluble, the composition is intended for use in fertigation [title] and fertilizers for fertigation must be water soluble [0003] compared to fertilizer that is not readily water soluble [0003]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate Khaleel’s composition as a 100% water-soluble granule to avoid residue or sediment in fertigation apparatus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate a 100% water-soluble formulation because insolubles lead to clogging in fertigation irrigation systems.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khaleel (WO-2018042312-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Industry News (Risso Chemical, 2018).
In regard to claim 16, Khaleel does not explicitly disclose wherein the fertilizer granule has a moisture content of less than 2 wt. %, measured at 50 °C. Industry News describes best practices for storing NPK fertilizers including that water-soluble fertilizers should be kept dry and away from moisture, in which case they can last 2-3 years [pg. 4, last line]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate Khaleel’s fertilizer granule with low moisture within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to increase the shelf life of the disclosed water-soluble NPK fertilizers.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth in the prior Office Action is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant argues (pg. 5, last full para.) the Khaleel reference does not teach or suggest a fertilizer granule “wherein the inorganic acid is distributed throughout the granule”. This argument has been considered but is not persuasive in view of all that it would have reasonably been suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art when reading the Khaleel reference. Although Khaleel’s preferred embodiments disclose the inorganic acid as a granule coating, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. Providing the known ingredient (inorganic acid) throughout a granule or on the surface of a granule is considered a routine design choice. Both the inorganic acid and the fertilizer granule form are known in the prior art and one of skill would have been motivated to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success (e.g. incorporating an active component throughout the granular matrix versus applying it as a surface coating). Selecting the distribution of the inorganic acid material from a finite number of predictable structural arrangements to achieve a predictable result supports this prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant argues (pg. 6, section 2) Khaleel in combination in Industry News does not make obvious the claim 16 limitation regarding moisture content of less than 2 wt.%. This argument is not persuasive. Industry News describes best practices for storing NPK fertilizers including that water-soluble fertilizers should be kept dry and away from moisture, in which case they can last 2-3 years [pg. 4, last line]. One of skill in the art would understand the role of moisture content and the motivation to store the fertilizer granules of Khaleel in a dry environment to enable the granules to have a moisture content of less than 2 wt.% to achieve a favorable shelf life as described by Industry News, absent explicit teaching in Khaleel to any preferred moisture values.
Applicant argues (pg. 7, section 3) the claimed fertilizer provides unexpected results of preventing or reducing the reaction between calcium in the irrigation water and the phosphorus in fertilizer. Applicant describes how the phosphorus of the fertilizer can react with the calcium in the water to form an insoluble calcium phosphate complex under high pH conditions. However, Khaleel discloses a composition sufficient to form a solution having a pH of less than 5 when the fertilizer composition is dissolved in water [0028-0029] which would achieve the results described by Applicant. 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. 7, section 3) the claimed acidic fertilizer granules reduce the tendency of the fertilizer to absorb atmospheric water compared to an acid coated fertilizer. Further, Applicant argues the unexpected result of the claimed granule regarding supplying chlorine and reduced clogging and increase rate of nutrient release in a fertigation solution. However, these results would have been expected by one of skill in the art and are not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness because the teachings of Khaleel lead to the general expectation of chlorine supply and reduced clogging in fertigation. Furthermore, the tendency of inorganic acid to absorb atmospheric water is not unexpected.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for these reasons.
Conclusion
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 August 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights