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 § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-4, 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over GB 984,109. No distinction is seen between the composition and method disclosed by Gb 984,109, and that recited in claims 1-4, 9, 10, 14 and 15. GB 984,109 discloses a fertilizer comprising 43% wax and 2-35% rosin on page 14, col. 1, line 27 to col. 2, line 69. The wax in the composition of GB 984,109 would constitute a “cutter”. In any event, it would have been obvious to provide a coating of wax and rosin in the composition of GB 984,109, since GB 984,109 would suggest such combination of components at the aforementioned passage.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 984,109. GB 984,109 is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, it would have been obvious to employ a vegetable wax as the wax in the composition of GB 984109, since GB 984109 does not provide any limits as to the type of wax that can be used.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, GB 984109 discloses in Example IV on page 22 that the components are agitated in a mixing tank and the wax is heated to 240 F. It would have been obvious from such disclosure to mix the components in a steam jacketed static mixer, since the reference teaches that the mixing tanks must be heated, and it is well-known to employ steam jacketed vessels to provide such heating. It would also have been obvious to heat the components to 260 F, since GB 984,109 teaches in Example IV that the wax should be molten.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, it would have been obvious to mix the components of GB 984109 in a blending tank, since GB 984109 discloses on page 2, lines 2-16 that the fertilizer particles are coated by mixing the particles with the wax.
Claims 5, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 984109 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gonzalez Leon (US 2022/0055958). It would have been further obvious from Gonzalez Leon to include soybean oil or natural alcohol bottoms as components in the coating composition of GB 984109. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Gonzalez Leon discloses soybean oil and oils of renewable origin such as a distillate in Paragraphs [0027] and [0031], and the compositions of GB 984109 and Gonzalez Leon are analogous in that both are directed to coating of granular material. (See the Abstract of Gonzalez Leon.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 14-16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 02/090295 A1. WO 02/090295 A1 discloses a coating agent for fertilizers comprising 5-50 wt% wax and 0-60 wt% rosin. (See the Abstract and page 7, lines 4-9.) The difference between the composition disclosed by WO 02/090295 A1, and that recited in applicant’s claims, is that applicant’s claims require rosin as the resin. It would have been obvious to employ rosin as the resin in the compositions of WO 02/090295 A1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since WO 02/090295 A1 establishes the equivalence between resins and rosin in disclosing on page 1, lines 9-12 that the conditioning agent comprises wax, oil “resin/rosin”, and so on.
Regarding claim 5, WO 02/090295 A1 discloses on page 5, liners 8 and 9 that the composition can include corn oil or sunflower oil.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 18 and 19, it would have been obvious from page 5, lines 16-18 of WO 02/090295 A1 to employ mixtures of the disclosed waxes, one of which has a flash point above 250 F and another of which has a flash point below 250 F.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 02/090295 A1 as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Gonzalez Leon. It would have been further obvious from Gonzalez Leon to include natural alcohol bottoms as components in the coating composition of WO 02/090295 A1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Gonzalez Leon discloses oils of renewable origin such as a distillate in Paragraphs [0027] and [0031], and the compositions of WO 02/090295 A1 and Gonzalez Leon are analogous in that both are directed to coating of granular material. (See the Abstract of Gonzalez Leon.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 02/090295 A1 as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of GB 984109.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, It would have been obvious from GB 984109 to mix the components of WO 02/090295 A1 in a steam jacketed static mixer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since GB 984109 discloses on page 2, lines 2-16 that the fertilizer particles are coated by mixing the particles with the wax, with a further disclosure in Example IV on page 22 that the components are agitated in a mixing tank and the wax is heated to 240 F. It would have been obvious to employ a steam jacketed mixing means to mix such components since the reference teaches that the mixing tanks must be heated, and it is well-known to employ steam jacketed vessels to provide such heating. It would also have been obvious to heat the components to 260 F, since GB 984,109 teaches in Example IV that the wax should be molten.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, it would have been further obvious to mix the components of WO 02/090295 A1 in a blending tank, since GB 984109 discloses on page 2, lines 2-16 that the fertilizer particles are coated by mixing the particles with the wax.
Claims 1, 5, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gonzalez Leon. No distinction is seen between the composition disclosed by Gonzalez Leon, and that recited in claim 1. Gonzalez Leon disclose a coating composition for fertilizers which can include a vegetable oil such as soybean oil (see Paragraph [0031]), and further disclose in Paragraph [0085] that rosin acids can be included as a rheology modifier. Accordingly Gonzalez Leon anticipates claim 1. In any event, it would have been obvious to include rosin and soybean oil as a coating composition of Gonzalez Leon, since Gonzalez Leon would suggest such combination of components at the aforementioned passages.
Claims 1, 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over BOZZELLI ET AL (US 3,252,786). No distinction is seen between the composition and method disclosed by BOZZELLI ET AL, and that recited in claims BOZZELLI ET AL disclose a composition comprising 10% rosin and wax for coating fertilizers. (See Fig. 5 and the description thereof. ) The wax disclosed by BOZZELLI ET AL would constitute a “cutter”.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, BOZZELLI ET AL disclose at col. 2, lines 17 and 18 that the fertilizer particles are encased in wax. Accordingly the particles are coated with the wax-rosin composition.
Claims 7, 8, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOZZELLI ET AL. BOZZELLI ET AL is relied upon nas discussed hereinbefore. It would have been obvious to provide a wax having a flash point below 250 F in the composition of BOZZELLI ET AL , or a mixture of waxes one of which has a flash point above 250 F and the other of which has a flash point below 250 F, since BOZZELLI ET AL teach in the paragraph bridging columns 13 and 14 that the types of wax which can be used are paraffin wax and microcrystalline wax.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BOZZELLI ET AL as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of GB 984109. It would have been further obvious from GB 984109 to mix the components of BOZZELLI ET AL in a steam jacketed static mixer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since GB 984109 discloses on page 2, lines 2-16 that the fertilizer particles are coated by mixing the particles with the wax, with a further disclosure in Example IV on page 22 that the components are agitated in a mixing tank and the wax is heated to 240 F. It would have been obvious to employ a steam jacketed mixing means to mix such components since the reference teaches that the mixing tanks must be heated, and it is well-known to employ steam jacketed vessels to provide such heating. It would also have been obvious to heat the components to 260 F, since GB 984,109 teaches in Example IV that the wax should be molten.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, it would have been further obvious to mix the components of BOZZELLI ET AL in a blending tank, since GB 984109 discloses on page 2, lines 2-16 that the fertilizer particles are coated by mixing the particles with the wax.
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 5, 8 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.
In claims 5 and 16, the recitation of “like” renders the scope of the claims vague and indefinite, since it is unclear whether the limitations following the word “like” is positively recited, or whether such limitations are merely examples of the broader genus.
In claim 8, the recitation of “anyone of claim 1” is ungrammatical and therefore indefinite.
Campbell et al ‘677 (US 3,331,677) is made of record for disclosing particulate fertilizer coated with a urea-wax adduct.
Campbell ‘728 (US 3,306,728) is made of record for disclosing a slow release fertilizer comprising urea and petroleum waxes.
Hess (US 3,285,733) is made of record for disclosing a slow release fertilizer comprising urea, wax and natural resin.
Schaafsma et al (US 8,506,671) is made of record for disclosing a biomass composition for coating on fertilizer particles comprising solid biomass particles and mineral oil, wax or fat. (See col. 1, lines 44-48 and col. 3, lines 4-25.)
Belak et al (US 3,458,303) is made of record for disclosing a method for preparing wax coated slow release fertilizers.
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
Prosecution Insights