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 .
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 13-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatramesh et al (US 2020/0255355) in view of either Achille et al (US 2018/0022661) or Geiger et al (US 6,663,686). Venkatramesh et al disclose compositions including a core particle including at least one fertilizer nutrient and a shell substantially covering the core particle, wherein the shell includes at least one polymer layer or wax layer and one or more species of microbes. (See the Abstract and Paragraph [0037].) Venkatramesh et al teach in Paragraph [0069] that the polymer of the first layer can be polyurethane. The microbes in the composition of Venkatramesh et al would be capable of substantially biodegrading the coating shell in a target period of time, to no less extent than the composition recited in applicant’s claims. The difference between the composition disclosed by Venkatramesh et al, and that recited in applicant’s claims, is that Venkatramesh et al do not disclose that the first coating layer should comprise both the first coating formulation (such as polyurethane) and the wax. Achille et al disclose in Paragraphs [0018] through [0022] that a moisture barrier comprising at least one organic wax, at least one thermoset polymer and at least one wax soluble polymer substantially improves the moisture barrier properties of the thermoset polymer and provides an effective moisture barrier coating that is non-tacky at the cure temperature of the thermoset polymer. Geiger et al disclose in column 2, lines 7-26 that an improved controlled release fertilizer material may be achieved from coating which is the reaction product of a mixture comprising a polyol, and isocyanate and an organic wax. It would have been obvious from either Achille et al or Geiger et al to provide a layer of polyurethane and wax as the first layer on the fertilizer core of Venkatramesh et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since one would have appreciated that the improvement in moisture barrier properties disclosed by Achille et al, and the advantages disclosed at col. 2, lines 16-26 of Geiger et al, all achieved through the combination of polyurethane and a wax, would be beneficial as a replacement for either a wax layer or polymer layer in the composition of Venkatramesh et al.
Regarding claim 1, Venkatramesh et al disclose a polymer layer having a thickness of 1-50 microns in Paragraph [0056], which would suggest an amount of about 0.1 to about 1.0 percent by weight of the coated particle.
Regarding claims 5 and 20, Venkatramesh et al, Achille et al and Geiger et al all disclose that the polyurethane is formed by the reaction between an isocyanate and a polyol.
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 21, the one or more species of microbes disclosed in Paragraphs [0062] through [0066] of Venkatramesh et al would be expected to be capable of degrading the polyurethane and the wax, particularly since Venkatramesh et al teach in Paragraph [0067] that the microbes have desirable metabolic characteristics or activities.
Regarding claims 7 and 22, at least some of the microbes disclosed in Paragraphs [0062] through [0066] of Venkatramesh et al would be classified as Bio-Safety Level 1 organisms.
Regarding claim 8, Venkatramesh et al, Venkatramesh et al disclose in Paragraph [0055] that 4 or more polymer layers can cover the fertilizer particles, with the one or more species of microbes between at least two polymer layers, between at least two wax layers, or between at least one polymer layer and at least one wax layer.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Venkatramesh et al disclose in Paragraphs [0084] and [0085] that the microbial consortia are formed by freeze-drying or fermentation, which suggest a powder of the consortia.
Claims 3, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkatramesh et al in view of either Achille et al or Gieger et al, as applied to claims 1, 10 and 16 above, and further in view of Goldstein et al (US 2020/0102457). It would have been further obvious from Goldstein et al to coat a seed with the composition of Venkatramesh et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Goldstein et al establish the equivalence between fertilizers and seeds regarding coatings for agricultural products in Paragraph [0002], and Venkatramesh et al teaches in Paragraphs [0076] and [0079] that the fertilizer-microbial compositions can be used to treat seeds.
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 16-22 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. In claim 16, line 4, there is no antecedent basis for “the coating formulation.
Claims 17-22 are also rejected, since they depend from claim 16 but fail to remedy the objection to claim 16.
Shirley, JR. et al is made of record for disclosing seed coatings for promoting plant growth.
Burnham et al’605 (US 2020/0148605) is made of record for disclosing coated fertilizer granules containing micronutrients and/or microorganisms in Paragraph [0038].
Hargrove et al (US 8,888,887) is made of record for disclosing cross-linked modifies waxes for controlled release fertilizers
Goodwin, II et al (US 2022/0186072) is made of record for disclosing fertilizer granules coated with a polyol, an isocyanate and a wax. (See Paragraph [0029].
Hudson et al (US 5,423,897) is made of record for disclosing fertilizer granules coated with wax-surfactant composites.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
