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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II (claims 6-9) in the reply filed on 05/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group I and Group II do not lack unity of invention because the technical feature is a special technical. This is not found persuasive because the shared technical feature “a fertilizer granule including polyhalite and an N-fertilizer” does not make a contribution over the prior art Otkrytoe as demonstrated in the rejection below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/06/2024 and 07/01/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6-7 and 9 use inconsistent capitalization. The term “polyhalite” is both capitalized and not capitalized in claim 6. Similarly the terms Carbonate and Potassium are capitalized in claim 9. Capitalized nouns are primarily used for proper nouns. The use of capitalization in such a way makes it appear these limitations are a specific brand name. The term’s format should be consistent through the entire application.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “sulphate salts Potassium salts”. A comma appears to be missing between the terms (e.g. sulphate salts, potassium salts)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-9 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.
Claims 7 and 9 recite the limitation "the granule of claim 1”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 is currently withdrawn from consideration. For the purposes of examination and to promote compact prosecution, this limitation is interpreted as “the granule of claim 6”.
Claim 8 recites "the granule of claim 2”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 2 is currently withdrawn from consideration. This limitation is interpreted as “the granule of claim 7”.
Claim 6 and 9 recite the Markush group “selected from the group including”. This is a non-closed format which renders the scope of the claim indefinite. A Markush group should be closed to define the boundaries of the “at least one” selection. The use of the term “including” within a Markush group makes the list non-exhaustive. Alternatives are preferably set forth as “a material selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C” or “wherein the material is A, B, or C” to limit the terms to only those listed.
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 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Otkrytoe (RU-2106329 – cite no 1 in 11-06-2024 IDS, Russian Language document).
In regard to claim 6, Otkrytoe teaches a fertilizer granule (e.g. granulated composition) [pg. 4, col. 1, lines 1-12; Example 3] including K2Mg(SO4)2 in the form of polyhalite [pg. 4, col. 1, lines 1-2] and ammonium nitrate (AN) [pg. 4, col. 1, lines 5-6] in a ratio of 286.51 kg : 295.6 kg (e.g. 30:30) [pg. 4, col. 1, lines 1-6] which lies inside the claimed range.
In regard to claim 9, Otkrytoe teaches the fertilizer granule of claim 6, further comprising an additive in the form of a sulphate salt (e.g. superphosphate ; (СаН2РО4)2 х Н2О + 2СаSО4 х 2Н2О) [sentence bridging pgs. 3-4].
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otkrytoe (RU-2106329) in view of Bruckbauer (DE-102007034278-A1).
In regard to claim 7, Otkrytoe teaches the fertilizer granule of claim 6 comprising polyhalite and ammonium nitrate (AN) [pg. 4, col. 1, lines 5-6] in a ratio of 286.51 kg : 295.6 kg (e.g. 30:31) [pg. 4, col. 1, lines 1-6]. The reference does not explicitly teach wherein the granule comprises calcium ammonium nitrate within this range.
Bruckbauer is directed to an ammonium nitrate fertilizer granule [abstract]. Bruckbauer describes how it is well known that the addition of approximately 10% calcium carbonate exerts a strong phlegmatizing effect to, thereby reducing the explosive hazard of ammonium nitrate—for instance, in calcium ammonium nitrate—to approximately 12% of that of pure ammonium nitrate [para. 0048].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform simple substitution of the ammonium nitrate disclosed by Otkrytoe for calcium ammonium nitrate (CAN) described by Bruckbauer to yield the predictable result of a combination of polyhalite and calcium ammonium nitrate in a ratio of 30:31. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because ammonium nitrate is classified as a hazardous material for transport purposes and is prone to spontaneous thermal decomposition [0048]. Bruckbauer describes calcium ammonium nitrate as a suitable equivalent with reduced explosive hazard.
In regard to claim 8, Otkrytoe in view of Bruckbauer disclose the granule of claim 7 wherein polyhalite and ammonium nitrate (AN) [pg. 4, col. 1, lines 5-6] are in a ratio of 286.51 kg : 295.6 kg (e.g. 30:31) [pg. 4, col. 1, lines 1-6]. The references do not explicitly disclose wherein said ratio is 30:70. However, Otkrytoe discloses Examples in which the ratio of polyhalite: ammonium compound varies, thus producing fertilizer granules with differing amounts of nutrients provided by the magnesium sulfate component (e.g. polyhalite or kalimagnesia providing MgO and S) and ammonium (e.g. N). Put another way, Otkrytoe teaches the ratio of the nutrient components to be an art recognized result effective variable depending on the desired values of N, P2O, K20, MgO and S. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ratio of polyhalite to ammonium nitrate or calcium ammonium nitrate to 30:70, respectively to obtain fertilizer with a specific fertilizer grades tailored to each particular case [Otkrytoe; pg. 3, col. 2, lines 3-21]. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose the instantly claimed ratio 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).
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 May 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights