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/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I (claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16) in the reply filed on 01/20/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 6 and 16 are 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 6 recites the limitation "the end product" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations "the smoothing layer" and “the reinforcement layer” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitation in the claim.
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, 8-9 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Klaus (DE-3638039).
In regard to claim 1, Klaus teaches a coated product with controlled release, in water or in soil (e.g. the coating process ensures that water cannot penetrate the core) [col. 4, lines 27-31], of soluble active ingredients of agronomic and agricultural interest, comprising a core that contains one or more active ingredients (e.g. fertilizer extruded core) [col. 2, line 34-40], said core being coated with at least one layer for control of release of the active ingredient or ingredients comprising one or more canalizing agents that determine the rate of release of the active ingredient or ingredients (e.g. coating process wherein the coating completely surrounds the core) [col. 3, lines 24-26];
wherein the canalizing agents are protein hydrolysates (e.g. coating consists of a protein, in particular protein hydrolysate) [col. 3, lines 41-44; and
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein said at least one layer for control of release comprises a non-water-soluble or water-repellent low-melting material chosen from waxes (e.g. the coating, in addition to protein, contains a wax, in particular polywax) [col. 3, lines 58-63].
In regard to claims 8-9, Klaus teaches the product according to claim 1, wherein the core and the product are in the form of a granulate or tablet or micro-tablet or pellet [Fig. 4].
In regard to claims 13-14, Klaus teaches the product according to claim 1, wherein the active ingredient(s) is a fertilizer, wherein a fertilizer is, by definition, a substance that provides either macroelements or microelements (e.g. fertilizer extruded core) [col. 2, line 34-40].
In regard to claims 15-16, Klaus teaches the product of claim 1, comprising at least two different active ingredients, wherein at least two active ingredients are included in the core or else one active ingredient is included in the material that forms one from among the smoothing layer, the reinforcement layer, or the layer for control of release or else one active ingredient forms an additional intermediate layer between the smoothing layer, the reinforcement layer, or the layer for control of release (e.g. core or covering layer contains algae, protein and sugar) [clms 13-14]
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus (DE-3638039) in view of Naka et al. (US-5645624-A – cite no. US5 in 05/21/2025 IDS).
In regard to claim 6, Klaus teaches the product according to claim 1, wherein the canalizing agent is present in the coating in amounts ranging from 40 to 80% by weight [clm. 13] and wherein the coating contains algae, protein or sugar individually or in combination in amounts of 5 to 50 percent by weight of the weight of the core [clm. 16]. Thus, the canalizing agent is considered present in quantities of between 2% and 40% (w/'w) of the end product (e.g. 40-80% * 5-50%) which overlaps with the claimed range. 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) [See MPEP 2144.05].
Claims 2-4, 7, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaus (DE-3638039) in view of Naka et al. (US-5645624-A – cite no. US5 in 05/21/2025 IDS).
In regard to claims 2-4, 7, 10 and 12, Klaus teaches the product according to claim 1 but does not disclose the claimed additional coating layers.
Naka et al. is directed to a coated product with controlled release (e.g. coating materials control dissolving out of fertilizer nutrients) [Abstract]. The product comprises coating layers including a mechanical-reinforcement layer and a layer of smoothing and/or thickening of the core comprising a non-water-soluble or water-repellent low-melting material underlying the reinforcement layer which is an elastic layer comprising water- soluble or non-water-soluble polymers (e.g. polycaprolactone and low molecular weight wax) [Column 4, lines 14-16]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the additional coating layers disclosed by Naka on the coated product described by Klaus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a fertilizer in which the dissolving-out rate and pattern of nutrients can be controllable by coating with at least two types of materials having different moisture permeability in a multilayer structure (e.g. the coating materials reduce the hygroscopicity of the active ingredients) [Naka, col. 1, lines 44-55].
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 February 5, 2026