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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 5/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 22 and 30 were amended.
Claims 22 and 24-42 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/5/2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 5/11/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
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.
Claims 25 and 39-41 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.
Claim 25 recites “collagen (fish)” which is indefinite. It is unclear whether the limitations in the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention. It is unclear if the source of collagen is limited to fish or can encompasses other sources. For the purpose of examination the term collagen encompasses collagen from any source.
Claims 39-41 recite “macronutrients”… “or sources thereof” which is indefinite. It is unclear what else besides elemental, salt, complexes, and derivatives is encompassed by the term sources thereof. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the limitation cannot be deciphered. For the purpose of examination the term is taken to encompasses any compound comprising a water insoluble macronutrient.
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.
Claims 22 and 24-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vadakekuttu et al. (WO 2018/207124; published November 15, 2018).
Applicant claims an organic agricultural composition comprising at least one water insoluble macronutrient selected from magnesium, potassium and phosphorus in its elemental form or salts or complexes or derivatives or sources thereof; and at least one hydrocolloid which has a viscosity of less than 400 cps, wherein the composition comprises particles in the size range of 0.1-15 microns. (claim 22)
Applicant claims process of preparing the organic agricultural composition of claim 1 in the form of a water dispersible granule comprising: milling the water insoluble macronutrient and hydrocolloid to obtain a slurry or wet mix with a particle size range of 0.1-15 microns; and drying the wet mix to obtain water dispersible granules. (claim 39)
Applicant claims process of preparing the organic agricultural composition of claim 1 in the form of a spheronised granules comprising: milling the water insoluble macronutrient and hydrocolloid to obtain a slurry or wet mix with a particle size range of 0.1-15 microns; drying the wet mix to obtain water dispersible granules; and adding water to the dried composition to make a dough or paste which is then extruded or agglomerating the wet mix or dried composition in an agglomerator to obtain granules in size range of 0.05-6mm. (claim 40)
The fact that the hydrocolloid has a viscosity of less than 400 cps has been treated as an inherent property of the compound.
With respect to claims 22, 24-29, 31-37 and 42, Vadakekuttu et al. teach agricultural water disintegrable granular compositions which comprise at least one water insoluble crop nutrient or algae or pesticidal active ingredient and one or more agriculturally acceptable excipient and a process of preparing the granules (abstract; limitation of claims 22, 27 and 28). The water insoluble nutrients are selected from magnesium, potassium and phosphorous including magnesium oxide and magnesium carbonate (page 12, line 5 through page 13, lines 11; page 72, lines 15-19; limitation of claims 22 and 24). The excipients include binders which are hydrocolloids including polysaccharides such as gum arabic, gum karaya and gum tragacanth (katira gum) (page 62, lines 10-18; limitation of claims 22, 25 and 26). The granule compositions comprise 0.1-95% w/w water insoluble nutrients (page 13, line 16 through page 14, line 5) and 0.1-40% w/w binder (page 63, lines 8-20; line 8). The granules have a size of 0.1-6mm (page 11, lines 19-25; limitation of claims 32 and 33). The agricultural granular composition comprises particles in a size range of from 0.1-50 microns (page 5, lines 10-20; limitation of claim 22). The compositions have a D50 less than 6 microns and D90 less than 15 microns (page 87, lines 13-17; limitation of claim 31). The suspensibility of the composition is at least 30% (page 50, lines 7-8; limitation of claim 34). The dispersibility of the composition is at least 30% (page 49, lines 1-2; limitation of claim 35). The compositions further comprise surfactants, carriers, diluents, pH stabilizers and other ingredients (page 50, lines 20-27; limitation of claim 37). The compositions are used as a fertilizer composition, nutrient composition, plant strengthener, soil conditioner or yield enhancer composition and pesticides can be included to form plant protection compositions (page 76, lines 5-11; limitation of claim 36 and 42). Vadakekuttu et al. teach granules may be subjected to a longer granulation time in order to give a more compact spherical granule that release the agrochemical over a longer period of time, however the disintegration time exhibited by the water disintegrable granules is less than 150 minutes to less than 6 minutes (page 46, line 23 through page 47, line 20). Vadakekuttu teach the water disintegrable granular composition prepared by spheronisation (page 74, lines 22-24).
With respect to claims 39 and 40, Vadakekuttu et al. the process of preparing the water disintegrable granular composition by milling a blend of water insoluble nutrient, water and at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient to obtain a wet mix in the form of a slurry, drying the wet mix to obtain powder or coarse granule (page 74, lines 25-30; limitation of claim 39). The powder or granules can further be subjected to agglomeration in an agglomerator in which water or an aqueous suspension containing binder may be added (page 75, lines 1-16; limitation of claim 40).
Vadakekuttu et al. teach selected water insoluble nutrients and combining them with hydrocolloids to form granules that are used as a fertilizer composition, nutrient composition, plant strengthener, soil conditioner or yield enhancer composition. The water insoluble nutrient includes a fertilizer is selected from one or more of nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium fertilizers or sulphur fertilizers; or a micronutrient selected from magnesium, phosphorous or potassium in their elemental form, salts or derivatives of these elements (page 12, lines 5-20).
With respect to claims 30, 38 and 41, Vadakekuttu et al. do not specify the composition is in the form of a liquid suspension or prepared by homogenizing the insoluble macronutrient, a liquid vehicle and at least one hydrocolloid and wet milling. However, Vadakekuttu et al. teach water disintegrable granules containing nutrients (iron oxide) are prepared by blending the nutrients with surfactants, milling to get a powder, mixing the powder with water to form a slurry, wet milling the slurry and spray drying to a powder having a D50 less than 4 microns (page 77, line 25 through page 70, line 20).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Vadakekuttu et al. to form granules comprising water-insoluble macronutrients selected from magnesium, phosphorus or potassium and hydrocolloids with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Vadakekuttu et al. to form compositions comprising water insoluble macronutrients with binders selected from hydrocolloids because Vadakekuttu et al. teach that granular compositions comprising water-insoluble macronutrients and hydrocolloids form water disintegrable granules which comprises particles in a size range of from 0.1-50 microns.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Vadakekuttu et al. to form liquid suspensions by wet milling with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Vadakekuttu et al. to form liquid suspensions by wet milling because Vadakekuttu et al. teach granules containing nutrients are prepared by blending the nutrients with surfactants, milling to get a powder, mixing the powder with water to form a slurry, wet milling the slurry and spray drying to a powder.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Vadakekuttu et al. do not teach a particular subrange within the 0.1-50 micron and the specification Table 4 demonstrates a 26.05% yield increase when compared to only a 19.06% increase at 15-50 microns which is unexpected. The Examiner is not persuaded by this argument because Vadakekuttu et al. agricultural granular compositions comprising macronutrients and hydrocolloids comprising particles in a size range of from 0.1-50 microns. The compositions can have a D50 less than 6 microns and D90 less than 15 microns (page 5, lines 10-20; limitation of claim 22; page 87, lines 13-17). Furthermore, Table 4 only discloses formulations comprising 23% rock phosphate and 16% gum ghatti so the showing is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Therefore, the rejection in view of Vadakekuttu et al. has been maintained.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Qing et al. (CN 104211508; published December 17, 2014).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
DANIELLE D. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights