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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/20/2026 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6-10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terada (JP-2006327841) in view of Lajoie (WO 96/27288 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Terada teaches a water submersible (e.g. anti-floating) [0009] controlled release (e.g. the thickness of the resin coating varies depending on the desired elution pattern of the fertilizer salts) [0018] fertilizer particle (e.g. coated fertilizer granule) [0018] comprising: (i) a fertilizer core material (e.g. granular fertilizer particle) [0015]; (iii) a hydrophilic outer layer encapsulating the polyurethane coating layer (e.g. water-soluble polymers adhered to the surface of the resin-coated fertilizer particle, including polymers containing hydrophilic groups) [0022] and an inorganic compound (e.g. additive may be added to the coating composition such as clay, talc, calcium carbonate, sodium carbonate, metal oxides such as iron oxide, diatomaceous earth, silicon dioxide, urea, and sulfur powder) [0019], wherein the hydrophilic outer layer dissolves when subjected to water (e.g. water-soluble) [0022].
Terada does not explicitly describe wherein the hydrophilic outer layer comprises a polyether polyol or a polyester polyol and dissolves when subjected to water for a period ranging from 0 hours to 24 hours.
Lajoie is directed to a slow release agrochemical composition composed of encapsulated particles [pg. 7, paras. 1-2]. The coating can be a single layer or multiple layers [pg. 8, 2nd para.]. A hydrophilic polymer is employed for coating the agrochemical selected from water-soluble and water-dispersible organic polymers [pg. 17, 3rd para.]. Lajoi discloses suitable polymer for the purpose of coating the agrochemical [para. bridging pgs. 17-18, emphasis added]:
“Suitable hydrophilic polymers for coating inorganic salt crystallites include gum arabic, gum karaya, gum tragacanth, guar gum, locust bean gum, xanthan gum, carrageenan, alginate salt, casein, dextran, pectin, agar, 2-hydroxyethyl starch, 2-aminoethyl starch, maltodextrin, amylodextrin, 2-hydroxyethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose salt, cellulose sulfate salt, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, polyethylene oxide, polyvinyl alcohol/acetate, polyacrylamide, and the like. Polyvinyl acetate is illustrative of a water- insoluble polymer which can be included as an additional coating component to moderate the hydrophilicity of a hydrophilic polymer coating.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform simple substitution of known elements by substituting known water-soluble polymers (e.g. such as those disclosed by Terada: starch/carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone) with another known water-soluble polymer (e.g. the polyether polyols disclosed by Lajoi: polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, polyethylene oxide) to achieve predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lajoi demonstrates that the polyester polyol polymers belong to the same functional class of water-soluble polymer coatings as those disclosed in the Terada referene. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the substitution yields the expected outcome of a fertilizer particle coated with a water soluble polymer providing the intended soluble coating performance. Furthermore, Terada describes varying the amount of the coating (e.g. water-soluble polymer compounds applied to the surface of the fertilizer particles coated with the resin of the present invention, the range is 0.01 to 10 parts by mass) [0020]. The amount of water-soluble coating is considered a result-effective variable depending on the desired dissolution rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an amount of coating material which allows dissolution of the outer layer in less than one day (e.g. 24 hours). 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 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).
In regard to claim 2, Terada teaches the water submersible controlled release fertilizer particle according to Claim 1, wherein the hydrophilic layer aids in the submersion of the controlled release fertilizer particle (e.g. coating the surface of resin-coated fertilizer particles with amino acid salts and/or water-soluble polymer compounds, the coated particles exhibit strong water repellency; furthermore, they found that this treatment yields excellent anti-floating effects and sustained durability) [0009].
In regard to claim 3, Terada teaches the water submersible controlled release fertilizer particle according to Claim 1, wherein the fertilizer particle does not float in water (e.g. treatment for anti-floating effects) [0009].
In regard to claim 4, Terada teaches the water submersible controlled release fertilizer particle according to Claim 3, wherein the fertilizer particle does not float (e.g. 0% float rate when 1000 fertilizer particles are dropped above water surface in a square container) [0025; 0042; table 1] which is considered to meet the limitation wherein the particles remain at a surface bottom of a container.
In regard to claim 6, Terada teaches the water submersible controlled release fertilizer particle according to Claim 1, wherein the polyurethane coating layer is the reaction product of an isocyanate compound and an isocyanate reactive compound (e.g. formed by the reaction of an isocyanate compound and a polyol compound) [0016].
In regard to claim 7, Terada teaches the water submersible controlled release fertilizer particle according to Claim 6, wherein a wax layer encapsulates the polyurethane coating layer (e.g. additive may be applied to the coating composition; additives include waxes) [0019].
In regard to claims 8-9, Terada teaches the water submersible controlled release fertilizer particle according to Claim 6, wherein (ii) a polyurethane coating layer encapsulating the fertilizer core material (e.g. coating fertilizer particle surfaces with a polyurethane resin) and the thickness of the resin coating varies depending on the desired elution pattern of the fertilizer salts [0018]. The reference does not explicitly teach a second or third polyurethane coating layer encapsulating the first and second coating layers, however, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. [MPEP 2144.04]. In this case the one layer of polyurethane coated on the fertilizer particle is not considered structurally different than three layers of polyurethane coated on the fertilizer particle, if each the combined polyurethane thickness is the same.
In regard to claim 10, Terada teaches the water submersible controlled release fertilizer particle according to Claim 9, wherein at least one of the second and third polyurethane coating layers do not contain a wax compound because the additive is described as optional (e.g. additive may be applied to the coating composition; additives include waxes) [0019].
In regard to claim 21, Terada teaches a water submersible (e.g. anti-floating) [0009] controlled release (e.g. the thickness of the resin coating varies depending on the desired elution pattern of the fertilizer salts) [0018] fertilizer particle (e.g. coated fertilizer granule) [0018] comprising: (i) a fertilizer core material (e.g. granular fertilizer particle) [0015]; (iii) a hydrophilic outer layer encapsulating the polyurethane coating layer (e.g. water-soluble polymers adhered to the surface of the resin-coated fertilizer particle, including polymers containing hydrophilic groups) [0022] and an inorganic compound (e.g. additive may be added to the coating composition such as clay, talc, calcium carbonate, sodium carbonate, metal oxides such as iron oxide, diatomaceous earth, silicon dioxide, urea, and sulfur powder) [0019], wherein the hydrophilic outer layer dissolves when subjected to water (e.g. water-soluble) [0022].
Terada does not explicitly describe wherein the hydrophilic outer layer comprises a polyether polyol or a polyester polyol.
Lajoie is directed to a slow release agrochemical composition composed of encapsulated particles [pg. 7, paras. 1-2]. The coating can be a single layer or multiple layers [pg. 8, 2nd para.]. A hydrophilic polymer is employed for coating the agrochemical selected from water-soluble and water-dispersible organic polymers [pg. 17, 3rd para.]. Lajoi discloses suitable polymer for the purpose of coating the agrochemical [para. bridging pgs. 17-18, emphasis added]:
“Suitable hydrophilic polymers for coating inorganic salt crystallites include gum arabic, gum karaya, gum tragacanth, guar gum, locust bean gum, xanthan gum, carrageenan, alginate salt, casein, dextran, pectin, agar, 2-hydroxyethyl starch, 2-aminoethyl starch, maltodextrin, amylodextrin, 2-hydroxyethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose salt, cellulose sulfate salt, polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, polyethylene oxide, polyvinyl alcohol/acetate, polyacrylamide, and the like. Polyvinyl acetate is illustrative of a water- insoluble polymer which can be included as an additional coating component to moderate the hydrophilicity of a hydrophilic polymer coating.”
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform simple substitution of known elements by substituting known water-soluble polymers (e.g. such as those disclosed by Terada: starch/carboxymethyl cellulose, polyvinylpyrrolidone) with another known water-soluble polymer (e.g. the polyether polyols disclosed by Lajoi: polyethylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, polyethylene oxide) to achieve predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Lajoi demonstrates that the polyester polyol polymers belong to the same functional class of water-soluble polymer coatings as those disclosed in the Terada referene. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because the substitution yields the expected outcome of a fertilizer particle coated with a water soluble polymer providing the intended soluble coating performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/20/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments filed herein. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made above in view of the teachings of the Terada and Lajoi reference.
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 September 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights