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 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.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 CN 112142524A. No distinction is seen between the fertilizer product disclosed in CN 112142524A, and that recited in claim 6. CN 112142524A discloses a fertilizer substrate having a composite coating on its surface, wherein the composite coating is a network structure formed by the cross-linking of calcium alginate and bacterial cellulose/ (See Paragraph [0008] of the English translation.) Accordingly CN 112142524A anticipates claim 1. In any event, it would have been obvious to use a cross-linking agent to cross-link the calcium alginate in the composition of CN 112142524A, since CN 112142524A suggests that the calcium alginate should be cross-linked in Paragraph [0008] of the English translation.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN[112142524A 2 ] as applied to claim[ 6 above, and further in view of AU 2018/273388 A1. It would have been obvious from AU 2018/273388 A1 to co-granulate the calcium alginate and fertilizer substrate in the process of CN 112142524A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since AU 2018/273388 A1 establishes he conventionality of co-granulating fertilizer components on pages 10 and 11. The calcium alginate would be embedded in the fertilizer substrate of CN 112142524A to no less extent than in the composition recited in applicants’ claim 7, when co-granulating the components.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112142524A as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of CN 105565969 A. It would have been further obvious from CN 105565969 A to provide microspheres of the coated fertilizer substrate of CN 112142524A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since CN 105565969 A establishes the conventionality of providing coated fertilizers as microspheres in claims 1-6.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112142524A as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Waldman (US 6284278). It would have been further obvious from Waldman to form an extruded product for the fertilizer of CN 112142524A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112142524A in view of Gomes (US 2021/0237035). CN 112142524A discloses a fertilizer substrate having a composite coating on its surface, wherein the composite coating is a network structure formed by the cross-linking of calcium alginate and bacterial cellulose/ (See Paragraph [0008] of the English translation.). The differences between the process disclosed by CN 112142524A, and that recited in claims 2 and 4, are that CN 112142524A does not disclose that that the cross-linking agent s in the form of a powder coated onto the fertilizer substrate, and that the calcium alginate is sprayed onto the fertilizer substrate. It would have been obvious to provide the cross-linking agent in the form of a powder in the process of CN 112142524A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since one would have appreciated that a powder would provide a greater surface are for reaction with the calcium alginate. It would have been further obvious to coat the fertilizer substrate with the cross-linking agent. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since one would have appreciated that the cross-linking agent should be present on the fertilizer substrate to react with the calcium alginate. It would have been even further obvious from Gomes to spray the calcium alginate of CN 112142524A onto the fertilizer substrate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since CN 112142524A discloses in Paragraph [0008] of the English translation that the network structure is coated onto the fertilizer substrate, and Gomes establishes the conventionality of spray coating for coating agricultural products in Paragraph [0142].
Claims 11-14, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112142524A in view of WO 2014/013086, further in view of Gomes. CN 112142524A discloses a fertilizer substrate having a composite coating on its surface, wherein the composite coating is a network structure formed by the cross-linking of calcium alginate and bacterial cellulose/ (See Paragraph [0008] of the English translation.). The difference between the process disclosed by CN 112142524A, and that recited in claims 11-4, is that CN 112142524A does not disclose that a solution comprising alginate is sprayed onto the fertilizer during granulation. WO 2014/013086 discloses a method for producing fertilizer granules, and teaches on page 9 of the English translation that biopolymers cross-linked by calcium chloride and alginate improve the granular integrity. Gomes establishes the conventionality of spray coating for coating agricultural products in Paragraph [0142]. It would have been obvious from WO 2014/013086 to granulate the mixture of fertilizer substrate and alginate in the process of CN 112142524A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since WO 2014/013086 teaches that the coated fertilizer is in the form of granules, and the fertilizer compositions of CN 112142524A and WO 2014/013086 are analogous. It would been even further obvious from Gomes to spray the alginate onto the fertilizer during granulation. One of ordinary skill in the aert would have been motivated to do so, since comes establishes the conventionality of spray coating for coating agricultural products in Paragraph [0142].
Regarding claim 12, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable ratio of the calcium chloride to alginate in the process of CN 112142524A.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, CN 112142524A discloses calcium chloride as a cross-linking agent in Paragraph [0017] of the English translation.
Regarding claim 16, the calcium chloride and alginate disclosed in CN 112142524A would form a hydrogel to no less extent than in the fertilizer of CN 112142524A.
Regarding claim 17, CN 112142524A discloses in claim 2 that the fertilizer substrate may be urea or potassium dihydrogen phosphate.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112142524A in view of WO 2014/013086, further in view of Comes as applied to claim 11 above, even further in view of Whittington (US 7,452,399). It would have been even further obvious from Whittington to include a hydrophobic coating for the fertilizer of CN 112142524A . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Whittington teaches in column 2, lines 15-29 that hydrophobic coatings allow for the slow release of plant fertilizers from the fertilizer particles in response to moisture and temperature.
Regarding claim 19, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable amount of the hydrophobic material to utilize.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112142524A in view of WO 2014/013086, further in view of Comes, still further in view of Whittington, as applied to claim 15 above, yet further in view of Xing et al (US 2010/0233332). It would be yet further obvious from to employ a wax as the hydrophobic material. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Xing et al disclose wax as a hydrophobic material in claim 11, and Whittington discloses the advantages of hydrophobic materials as coating on fertilizers.
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 15, 18 and 19 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. There is no clear antecedent basis for “the hydrophobic component”, since the hydrophobic component is optional in the process recited in claim 11.
CN 112759467A is made of record for disclosing spraying a coating mixture onto fertilizer particles in Paragraph [n0026] of the English translation.
WO 2014/013096 is made of record for disclosing biopolymers which are cross-linked by calcium chloride and alginate.
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