DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/06/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 16-23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kust (US Patent No. 5,917,110 – cite no 3 in 10/06/2023 IDS) in view of Schulte et al. (College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin, 1975), as evidenced by Rose Mill (2008) regarding claim 18.
In regard to claims 16-17, Kust teaches a method comprising the following steps:
e) selecting an animal nutrient in a fertilizer comprising a core particle comprising one or more compounds comprising animal nutrients, an outer surface (e.g. calcium-containing particles) [col. 3, lines 18-22], and a first coating of urea on the outer service (e.g. granules having a calcium chloride core and a soluble nitrogen-containing coating wherein the coating is selected from preferably urea, ammonium nitrate, urea phosphate, melamine, urea aldehyde polymers, monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, or the like or a combination of the above) [col. 3, lines 55-62]; and
f) applying the fertilizer resulting from step e) to soil (e.g. used as a fertilizer in which the nutrient element can be released into the soil) [col. 5, lines 56-64].
The Kust reference does not explicitly disclose the “determining steps” a-d, however, the determining steps appear to be purely mental in which the metal processes do not recite any physical components or physical acts and thus the claimed steps are anticipated by a mental process in which a calculation or thought process can be performed by a person in their mind. Nevertheless, Schulte et al. is cited as teaching
a) determining a deficiency of an human animal nutrient in an animal (e.g. nutrient deficiency is measured via plant analysis) [pg. 2, 3rd para.];
b) determining the amount of the animal nutrient in a food plant grown on a specific soil (e.g. plant analysis useful in confirming nutrient deficiencies) [pg. 3, 1st para.];
c) determining the amount of the animal nutrient in the soil (e.g. soil testing) [pg. 3, para. 7];
d) determining the amount of animal nutrient required to be applied to the soil to increase the amount of the animal nutrient in the food plant (e.g. information provided through plant analysis helps farmers with decisions on fertilizer effectiveness, the need for additional nutrients, and planning fertilizer programs for future years) [pg. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the determining steps mentally or as described by Schulte et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because plant analysis can be an important guide to efficient crop production because it provides a nutritional profile of the growing plant [Schulte, pg. 1, 2nd para.].
In regard to claim 18, Kust in view of Schulte et al. disclose the method of claim 16, and while the Kust reference does not explicitly teach urea with values from 84.4 to 98.7%, the reference is directed to a fertilizer composition and the Rose Mill reference notes that fertilizer-grade urea is 98% pure [pg. 1].
In regard to claim 19, Kust in view of Schulte et al. disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the first coating further comprises a coating material selected from the group consisting of ureaform, water soluble urea formaldehyde polymer, water insoluble urea formaldehyde polymer, methylene urea, methylene diurea, dimethylenetriurea, urea formaldehyde, and combinations thereof (e.g. a soluble nitrogen-containing coating wherein the coating is selected from preferably urea, ammonium nitrate, urea phosphate, melamine, urea aldehyde polymers, monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate, or the like or a combination of the above) [col. 3, lines 55-62].
In regard to claims 20-22, Kust in view of Schulte et al. disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the selected nutrient of step e) is zinc (e.g. the core includes one or more other plant nutrients selected from […] zinc) [col. 3, lines 45-49].
In regard to claim 23, Kust in view of Schulte et al. disclose the method of claim 16, wherein the claimed limitation directed to a “second coating of urea on the first coating of urea” is considered a product-by-process limitation; ““[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)”. In this case a double coating of urea on the Kust composition is indistinguishable from a single coating when the coatings are of identical compositions. In this way, Kust discloses a single and a double coating of urea, furthermore Kust teaches additional nutrients within the urea coating including phosphorous, and potassium (e.g. urea phosphate, monoammonium phosphate, diammonium phosphate or combinations thereof) [Column 3, lines 45-62].
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 October 27, 2025