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 .
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 16-17 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 (the sulphur particles have a size of at most 250 microns) [0044] 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. 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 claims 12-13, Antens discloses wherein the micronized sulphur particles have a size of at last 0.5 microns and preferably at most 100 microns [0044] and 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 claim 17, Antens discloses wherein a secondary macronutrient (e.g. calcium, magnesium) 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) [0039].
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, 14-15 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 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]; 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 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
Applicant argues (pg. 4, last para.) Antens does not disclose a spray step that deposits a spray on pre-formed seed particles nor hardening to form a crusted coating layer. This argument is not persuasive. 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]. 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. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the conventional and routine process descried in Perry’s for operating a granulator system to yield predictable results.
Applicant argues (pg. 5, 5th para.) Zhu does not disclose a sprayable suspension comprising a solution of a primary macronutrient fertilizer. Applicant further argues Zhu does not disclose allowing drying to form a crust over the seed particle. In response to this argument, the Smith reference is cited as providing motivation to include a primary macronutrient fertilizer in the sprayable solution of Zhu as providing a macronutrient-containing modifier to Zhu’s sulfur coating that, 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]. Additionally Zhu teaches 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].
Applicant argues (pg. 5, last para.) it would not be obvious to modify Zhu with the teachings of Smith because adding dissolved macronutrients in liquid medium to sulfur would adversely affect he molten sulfur and cause steam generation. In response to this argument, Zhu is cited as describe a micronized sulfur in suspension. Micronized sulfur is a ultra-fine powdered sulfur.
For these reasons, Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 February 3, 2026