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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/02/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 18 is 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 18 fails to set forth active, positive steps necessary to define the claimed method or process. The claim merely states that a property is “controlled by varying…” leaving the metes and bounds ambiguous as to whether the act of varying is an explicit requirement or an inherently observed property.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the particle size” in lines 2 and 4. It is unclear whether this refers to the seed particle, the solid fertilizer particle or the micronized sulphur particles.
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, 3-9, 11, 13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antens (US 20110302975 A1) in view of Perry et al. (McGraw-Hills, 1997).
In regard to claims 1, 5 and 9, Antens teaches a method of producing a solid fertilizer particle, comprising:
screening fertilizer granules to produce a product-sized portion, an oversize portion and an undersize portion, and further comprising the step of crushing the oversize portion and combining with the undersize portion to form seed particles, and recycling the seed particles to granulating step (e.g. the granules are sorted on their size in a sorting (screening) unit to achieve a more uniform size distribution. Typically, oversized granules are crushed to less than 1 mm and along with undersized granules are returned to the granulator as so-called recycle material (or "off-spec fines")) [0058], wherein
seed particles (e.g. recycle material and product-size material) are provided to the granulator [0063], wherein the seed particles comprise at least one first primary macronutrient fertilizer (e.g. ammonium phosphate) [0056; 0063];
coating the seed particle (e.g. distributed on the granules) [0052] with a suspension (e.g. suspended in slurry) [0044] comprising micronized sulphur particles having an average diameter of less than about 30 microns (e.g. at least 0.5 microns, most preferably at most 100 microns) [0044] (here the prior art range 0.5-100 microns encompasses the claimed range less than 30 microns and "a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”) [MPEP 2144.05] dispersed in a solution of at least one second primary macronutrient fertilizer in a liquid medium, (e.g. liquid phase comprising sulphur comprises a slurry of sulphur particles in an aqueous medium such as water, ammonium phosphate solution, phosphoric acid, ammonium sulphate or a combination thereof) [0044] to form a coating layer on the seed particle (the mixture is pumped and distributed on a rolling bed of material in a rotary drum granulator) [0051]; and
allowing the coating to dry to form a crust of dried primary macronutrient and micronized sulphur particles (e.g. granules of the sulphur-containing fertilizer compositions obtained after the granulation step are optionally dried in a drying unit) [0057].
Antens describes preferred granulators are rotary drum granulators or pan granulators described in Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook and that typically, the mixture is pumped and distributed on a rolling bed of material in a rotary drum granulator [0051]. In drum granulators feeds are either premoistened by mixers to form granule nuclei or liquid is sprayed onto the tumbling bed via nozzles [Perry’s, para. bringing pgs. 20:74-75]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform spray coating in Antens’ process which uses a rotary drum granulator wherein the sprayable suspension is applied to a surface of the seed particle to deposit and build the coating layer until a desired size of the solid fertilizer particle is achieved (e.g. a shift in the controlling mechanism from coalescence to layering) [Perry’s, pg. 20-75, 1st col. 3rd para.]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the conventional and routine process described in Perry for operating Antens’ rotary drum granulator system to yield predictable results.
In regard to claims 3-4, Antens teaches a seed particle comprising recycle material which would include a first primary macronutrient fertilizer and micronized sulfur particles sulphur particles in an aqueous medium such as water, ammonium phosphate solution, phosphoric acid, ammonium sulphate or a combination thereof [0044] (the sulphur particles have a size of at most 250 microns) [0044].
In regard to claim 6, Antens discloses wherein the first and second primary macronutrient fertilizer is the same (e.g. undersized granules are returned to the granulator as so-called recycle material) [0058].
In regard to claim 7-8, Antens discloses producing the sprayable suspension by emulsifying sulfur with a dispersant/cation surfactant [0045-0048] [0032].
In regard to claim 11, Antens discloses wherein a micronutrient is added to the seed particle, or the sprayable suspension, or both (e.g. other ingredients may be incorporated into the fertilizer composition of the present invention, in order to tailor the fertilizer composition to its intended end-use. Examples include plant micronutrients) [0039].
In regard to claim 13, Antens discloses wherein the micronized sulphur particles have a size of at least 0.5 microns, most preferably at most 100 microns [0044] (here the prior art range 0.5-100 microns encompasses the claimed range less than 10 microns and "a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.” [MPEP 2144.05]. 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)
In regard to claim 16, Antens discloses wherein the fertilizer particle is glazed with water or an aqueous solution of fertilizer material (e.g. water and steam can also be fed to the granulator to control the temperature of the granulation process as needed) [0055].
In regard to claims 17 and 18, Antens discloses wherein a secondary macronutrient (e.g. calcium, magnesium) is added to the seed particle, or the sprayable suspension (e.g. concentration of the sprayable suspension), or both (e.g. other ingredients may be incorporated into the fertilizer composition of the present invention, in order to tailor the fertilizer composition to its intended end-use) [0039].
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Antens (US 20110302975 A1) in view of Perry et al. (McGraw-Hills, 1997) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wommack et al. (US Patent No. US 6413291 B1).
In regard to claims 19-20, Antens with Perry disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the solid fertilizer particle is in the form of granules of the sulphur-containing fertilizer compositions obtained after the granulation and optional drying step [0057]. The reference(s) is silent with regard to the granule crushing strength, wherein the granules has a crushing strength of at least about 1.5 kg/granule after drying (claim 19) or wherein the crushing strength is between about 1.5 kg/granule to about 9.9 kg/granule (claim 20).
Wommack et al. is directed to mechanically strong agglomerates containing a plant nutrient source [abstract]. Once dried, the agglomerates should have sufficient mechanical strength to withstand normal handling, transportation and blending without fracturing and without excessive sloughing to form dust. There are several standardized methods that may be used for measuring mechanical strength of granular materials. However, a simple and widely-accepted standard is crush strength. Crush strength is measured by determining the minimum mass which crushes an agglomerate of particular size when the mass is placed on the agglomerate. In the practice of the present invention, the drying and removal of water from the newly-formed agglomerates is controlled such that dried agglomerates having a size ranging from -7 to +8 mesh exhibit an average green crush strength of at least about 2 pounds (about 0.9 kg), preferably at least about 4 pounds (about 1.8 kg), more preferably at least about 6 pounds (about 2.7 kg), still more preferably at least about 8 pounds (about 3.6 kg) and optimally at least about 9 pounds (about 4.1 kg) [col. 11, lines 49-67].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the method of Antens to produce a solid fertilizer particle having a crush strength within the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate a solid material which has sufficient mechanical strength to withstand normal handling, transportation and blending without fracturing and without excessive sloughing to form dust. As a practical matter, it is noted that the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith, In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972) — therefore, based on the preponderance of evidence with particular attention to the similar production methods disclosed by Antens and the motivation to formulate a product having a high crushing strength, there is a reasonable prima facie basis to presume that the solid fertilizer particle of the prior art would exhibit the same strength properties as claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (CN 105272577 A) in view of Smith (US 4032319).
In regard to claim 1, Zhu teaches a method of producing a solid fertilizer particle, comprising:
providing a seed particle comprising at least one first primary macronutrient fertilizer (e.g. ammonium phosphate compound particles) [para. 0013];
spray coating the seed particle with a sprayable suspension comprising micronized sulphur particles having an average diameter of less than about 30 microns dispersed in a solution in a liquid medium, to form a coating layer on the seed particle (e.g. spray the sulfur-slurry on the surface of the ammonium phosphate; sulfur particles are ground into particles with a fineness of less than or equal to 75 µm) [0012-0013] (here the prior art range less than or equal to 75 µm encompasses the claimed range less than 30 microns and "a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”) [MPEP 2144.05], wherein the sprayable suspension is applied to a surface of the seed particle to deposit and build the coating layer until a desired size of the solid fertilizer particle is achieved (e.g. the application rate is determined such that the mass ratio of the sulfur coating slurry to the ammonium phosphate compound granules is in the range of 1–5:20–40) [0019] (e.g. the thickness of the coating layer is 0.05 to 0.1 times the particle size of the core layer [0008]; and
allowing the coating to dry to form a crust of dried fertilizer within which micronized sulphur particle are dispersed (e.g. drying for 2 minutes, the sulfur-containing slow-release compound fertilizer is obtained) [0013].
Zhu does not explicitly teach wherein the sprayable suspension comprises a second primary macronutrient fertilizer. Smith is directed to fertilizers with an ammonium phosphate core coated with an outer coating of sulfur [col. 1, lines 39-45]. The coating material include a particulate modifier which includes a primary macronutrient fertilizer (e.g. include phosphogypsum, especially in a dehydrated form, e.g., the hemihydrate or anhydrite, calcium sulfate (gypsum, hemihydrate or anhydrite), normal superphosphate, enriched superphosphate, triple superphosphate, urea, potassium phosphate, potassium chloride, monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, ammonium polyphosphate, potassium sulfate […]) [col. 4, lines 29-36]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a primary macronutrient modifier such as those described by Smith in the coating of Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because a sulfur coating, when dried, retards the release of the base or core material when utilized as a fertilizer [col. 3, lines 52-56] and a modifier, when present in the coating material, is more hydrophobic and will result in a coating material having greater water solubility and/or which is more hydrophilic [col. 4, lines 1-4].
In regard to claim 4, Zhu discloses wherein the seed particle comprises a primary macronutrient fertilizer (e.g. ammonium phosphate) [0013]. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the ammonium phosphate fertilizer referred to by Zhu includes monoammonium phosphate (MAP) and diammonium phosphate (DAP), the stable ammonium phosphate materials commonly used as fertilizers.
In regard to claim 5, Zhu discloses wherein the spray coating step takes place in a rotary drum [0013].
In regard to claim 6, Smith discloses a sprayable suspension comprising the same primary macronutrient as Zhu’s seed particle (e.g. monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, ammonium polyphosphate) [col. 4, lines 29-36].
In regard to claim 7-8, Zhu discloses producing the sprayable suspension by emulsifying sulfur with a dispersant/anionic surfactant (e.g. sodium diethyl sulfosuccinate) [0023].
In regard to claims 10 and 15, Zhu discloses wherein the fertilizer particle is post-treated to increase dust suppression by coating with a dust suppressant coating (e.g. polyacrylate) [0015].
In regard to claim 11, Zhu does not explicitly teach wherein a micronutrient is added to the seed particle, or the sprayable suspension, or both. However, Smith describes wherein coating material includes a micronutrient (e.g. soluble salts of copper, zinc, manganese, borax, iron, molybdenum and cobalt) [col. 4, lines 36-37].
In regard to claim 13, Zhu discloses wherein the micronized sulfur particles are ground into particles with a fineness of less than or equal to 75 µm (here the prior art range less than or equal to 75 µm encompasses the claimed range less than 10 microns and "a prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.”) [MPEP 2144.05]. 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)
In regard to claim 14, Smith discloses a sprayable suspension comprising a different primary macronutrient as Zhu’s seed particle (e.g. normal superphosphate, enriched superphosphate, triple superphosphate, urea, potassium phosphate, potassium chloride) [col. 4, lines 32-34].
In regard to claim 17, Zhu discloses wherein a secondary macronutrient (e.g. calcium magnesium) is added to the seed particle (e.g. as an auxiliary agent) [0009-0011].
Response to Arguments
The Remarks filed 07/02/2026 are signed by Ahmed Elmallah and Edward Yoo using the Reg. No. 77,849. Under 37 CFR 1.4(d) every paper filed by a practitioner must bear a signature personally signed or inserted by that specific practitioner and their registration number. Signature authority cannot be delegated. A mismatch between the signer’s identity and the registration number renders the signature non-compliant.
Applicant argues (pgs. 5-6) the present application’s spray-coating/accretion process in which a sprayable suspension is prayed onto seed particles is a different process than Antens conventional agglomeration process which recycled fertilizer particles as granulation agents. However, the present claims and Specification do not support the basis of this argument. The over and undersided material from the claimed process recycle stream may be recycled back and used to form the seed particle [claim 9. Specification; 0033]. Antens describes seed particles (e.g. recycle material and product-size material) which are provided to the granulator [0063] consistent with the requirements of the claimed invention. Antens describes a granulator process. Preferred granulators are rotary drum granulators or pan granulators described in Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook and that typically, the mixture is pumped and distributed on a rolling bed of material in a rotary drum granulator [0051]. In drum granulators feeds are either premoistened by mixers to form granule nuclei or liquid is sprayed onto the tumbling bed via nozzles [Perry’s, para. bringing pgs. 20:74-75]. Applicant’s arguments (pg. 6) regarding the accretion process are not persuasive for these reasons.
Applicant argues (pg. 6) Zhu does not disclose spray coating the seed particle with a sprayable suspension as claimed. This argument is not persuasive. Zhu is cited for its teaching of spray coating the seed particle with a sprayable suspension comprising micronized sulphur particles having an average diameter of less than about 30 microns dispersed in a solution in a liquid medium, to form a coating layer on the seed particle (e.g. spray the sulfur-slurry on the surface of the ammonium phosphate; sulfur particles are ground into particles with a fineness of less than or equal to 75 µm) [0012-0013]. Here the prior art range less than or equal to 75 µm encompasses the claimed range less than 30 microns.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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 July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights