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/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination without election would not present an undue search burden because all claims are sufficiently related (para. bridging pgs. 1-2). This is not found persuasive because arguments related to serious search burden do not apply to a restriction requirement set forth under 35 U.S.C. 371 based on Unity of Invention standards [see 37 CFR 1.475). The groups of inventions listed in the Restriction Requirement do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 11/09/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenthal (US Patent Publication No. 20060027007 A1 – cite no 1 in 11/09/2023 IDS).
In regard to claim 1, Rosenthal teaches a controlled release fertilizer (e.g. controlled release fertilizer CRF) [para. 0050] comprising:
a plurality of prills (e.g. fertilizer granules) [0051], each prill within the plurality having
a nutrient core including nitrogen (N) and potassium (K) (e.g. a granular core material may contain […] known chemical fertilizers including […] nitrate, potassium […]) [0037], and
a coating (e.g. polymer coating applied to the surface of the fertilizer granules) [0051] structured to release nutrients from the core over a predetermined period of time (e.g. polymeric coating on the present controlled release fertilizers allows for a rather uniform and consistent nutrient release through the barrier) [0051], the plurality of prills having an overall ratio of N:K of about 1:8 to 1:2 (e.g. CRFs […] are 100% polymer coated with polyolefin and or polyurethane coating of formulation with low N, low P and high K ratio, such as, for example, ratios of 1 N to about 2 K ratios) [0045].
In regard to claim 2, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer of claim 1, further comprising one or more micronutrients (e.g. in a preferred embodiment, the fertilizers contain micronutrients or trace elements) [0037].
In regard to claim 3, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer of claim 1, wherein the fertilizer is a single application fertilizer (e.g. making a single application of a controlled release hydroponic fertilizer) [0083].
In regard to claim 4, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer of claim 1, wherein the predetermined period of time is about 30-360 days (e.g. 90-day and 180-day release formulations) [0044].
In regard to claims 5-6, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer of claim 1, wherein each nutrient core within the plurality of prills has the same composition, wherein each prill within the plurality has a ratio of N:K of about 1:8 to 1:2 (e.g. the plurality of prills having an overall ratio of N:K of about 1:8 to 1:2 (e.g. CRFs […] are 100% polymer coated with polyolefin and or polyurethane coating of formulation with low N, low P and high K ratio, such as, for example, ratios of 1 N to about 2 K ratios) [0045].
In regard to claim 7, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer of claim 1, wherein at least some of the prills within the plurality have a different ratio of N:K than 1:8 to 1:2 (e.g. the fertilizer is obtained from compounding a mixture of these fertilizers) [0037].
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenthal (US Patent Publication No. 20060027007 A1) in view of DeWaard et al. (US Patent Publication No. 20190119177 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Rosenthal teaches the fertilizer of claim 1, wherein the fertilizer is a formulation with low N, low P and high K ratio [0045]. The reference does not explicitly teach wherein the fertilizer has an N:P:K ratio of about 5-1-30.
DeWaard et al. is describes the three major macro nutrients listed in fertilizer labeling nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and potassium (K) [para. 0005]. A farmer might consider using a high-potassium fertilizer at the start of winter and summer to protect crops from temperature extremes or when insects and disease have caused damage to crops [0010]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate a fertilizer to meet specific needs to meet crops requirements throughout the growing season [0007]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose a fertilizer having an N:P:K ratio within the claimed ranges through routine experimentation to discover the optimum or workable ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because high-potassium fertilizers such as those claimed are particularly useful at the start of winter and summer to protect crops from temperature extremes or when insects and disease have caused damage to crops [0010]. Furthermore, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical [See MPEP 2144.05 IIA].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rosenthal et al. (US Patent Publication No. 20160221886 A1) discloses a fertilizer formulation having low nitrogen and low phosphate with high potassium for flowering [para. 0053].
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 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights