DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after January 05, 2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ claimed invention filed on 01/05/2024 in the matter of Application N° 18/576,975. Said documents are entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Thus, claims 16-28 represent all claims currently under consideration.
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.
Claims 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawant et al. (CN106310515A), in view of Fowles et al. (WO2017208009A1), and Vadakekuttu et al. (US20180325105A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 28, Sawant et al. discloses a water-dispersible granular composition with at least one iron (water soluble and/or water insoluble) complexes, derivatives, or mixtures thereof, in the range of 1-70% w/w of the total composition (as required by instant claims 24). The granules of the composition are in the size range of 0.1-2.5 mm and consist of particles in the size range of 0.1-20 microns (as required by instant claims 20 and 21), Additionally, at least one permitted agrochemical excipient is included in the mixture (See Abstract and Field of the invention, page 2, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 17, Sawant et al. teach wherein the water insoluble salts comprises one or more of iron oxide, iron hydroxide, iron phosphate, iron fumarate, iron succinate, iron sucrate, iron oxalate, carbonyl iron, and iron dichromate (See page 11, lines 10-16).
However, Sawant et al, fails to teach the use of magnesium and zinc-base salts along with the iron salt comprising the crop nutrition composition.
Fowles et al. teach a plant treatment composition comprising 0.1 to 15% w/w magnesium, from 0.1 to 5% zinc and/or in the range of 0.1 to 5% iron, based on the total weight of the plant treatment composition (See claims 3 and 4).
However, Fowles does not specify if these nutrients are soluble or insoluble in water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the iron-containing water-dispersible granules of Sawant et al. by incorporating the magnesium and zinc salts taught by Fowles, because Fowles explicitly teaches using magnesium and zinc in combination with iron for plant nutrition, thereby, providing predictable improvement in micronutrient delivery. Combining known plant nutrients for the same purpose, enhancing micronutrient availability and plant growth, constitutes a combination of known elements yielding predictable results, consistent with MPEP2143 (I). Furthermore, adjusting nutrient composition by adding additional micronutrient salts (e.g., magnesium or zinc) to an existing fertilizer or crop nutrition granule is considered routine optimization of prior—art compositions as recognized in MPEP 2144.05. A person skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that incorporating the magnesium and zinc salts of Fowles et al. into the granular system of Sawant et al. would produce a composition providing balance micronutrient deliver, a known and predictable result.
Vadakekuttu et al. disclose water-insoluble nutrients such as iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, silicon, sodium, zinc, or their salts or derivatives are disclosed in the water disintegrable granular composition. Additionally, Vadakekuttu explains in detail the technical consequences of these salts insolubility non creating granules that dissolve in water (See Abstract and paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 18, Vadakekuttu et al. discloses wherein the complex, or at least one water insoluble zinc salt, or derivative comprises at least one of zinc oxide, zinc carbonate, zinc sulphide, zinc molybdate, zinc phosphate, zinc pyrophosphate (See paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 19, Vadakekuttu et al. discloses wherein at least one water insoluble magnesium salt, derivative, or complex, comprises magnesium molybdate, magnesium hydroxide, calcium magnesium phosphate, magnesium carbonate (See paragraph 0047), magnesium silicate (See paragraph 0120), calcium magnesium phosphate, magnesium aluminum, calcium magnesium silicates (See paragraph 0125).
Regarding claims 22, and 23, Vadakekuttu et al. teach wherein surfactants and binders’ makeup at least one of the agrochemical excipients selected from dispersing agents, wetting agents and emulsifiers (See paragraph 0099). The agrochemical excipients include diluents, binders, inert fillers, and surfactants (See paragraph 0093). Liquid carriers or fillers are additional carriers utilized in the water disintegrable granular composition (See paragraph 0119).
Regarding claim 25, Vadakekuttu et al. teach in order to prepare the water disintegrable granular composition, a milling of at least one water-insoluble nutrient and at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient must be ground into a slurry. To create a granule, the wet mix or slurry must be dried (See paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 26, Vadakekuttu et al. teach wherein utilizing the water-disintegrable granular composition of water-insoluble nutrients for at least one of the following purposes: nutrient composition, fertilizer composition, soil conditioner composition, plant strengthener composition, and yield enhancer composition (See paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 27, Vadakekuttu et al. teach a method of enhancing plant health that involves applying a water-disintegrable granular algal composition that contains at least one algae to at least one plant, plant propagation, material, seed, seeding, or surrounding soil (See paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to incorporate the water-insoluble nutrient forms disclosed in Vadakekuttu (e.g., water-insoluble iron or magnesium compounds) into the micronutrient ranges taught by Fowles, because both references address the same purpose, providing essential macro -and micronutrients to plants in a form suitable for agricultural application. The combination represents the use of known nutrient forms (water-insoluble micronutrients) within known nutrient concentration ranges, producing predictable benefits such as improved nutrient stability, controlled release, or enhanced availability. Such a modification constitutes a combination of known elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results, as set forth in MPEP 2143(I).
Furthermore, selecting the particular chemical form of a nutrient (e.g., soluble vs. water-insoluble salts or complexes) is regarded as routine optimization within the fertilizer arts, since nutrient solubility, release rate, and plant uptake characteristics are well-understood design variables. As explained in MPEP 2144.05, such adjustments fall within the skill of an ordinary artisan seeking to tailor nutrient delivery properties.
Regarding claim 25, Vadakekuttu et al. teach in order to prepare the water disintegrable granular composition, a milling of at least one water-insoluble nutrient and at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient must be ground into a slurry. To create a granule, the wet mix or slurry must be dried (See paragraph 0018).
Regarding claim 26, Vadakekuttu et al. teach wherein utilizing the water-disintegrable granular composition of water-insoluble nutrients for at least one of the following purposes: nutrient composition, fertilizer composition, soil conditioner composition, plant strengthener composition, and yield enhancer composition (See paragraph 0019).
Regarding claim 27, Vadakekuttu et al. teach a method of enhancing plant health that involves applying a water-disintegrable granular algal composition that contains at least one algae to at least one plant, plant propagation, material, seed, seeding, or surrounding soil (See paragraph 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to use the same method with the composition taught by the combination of Sawant et al. (CN106310515A), in view of Fowles et al. (WO2017208009A1), and Vadakekuttu et al. with the expectation of achieving good results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 02, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Sawant et al., Fowles et al., and Vadakekuttu et al., do not disclose, teach, or suggest the features of independent claim 16, particularly (i) at least one water-insoluble iron salt, complex, or derivative thereof in an amount of 1-50% w/w of the water-dispersible granular crop nutrition composition; (ii) at least one water-insoluble zinc salt, complex, or derivative thereof in an amount of 1-50% w/w of the composition; (iii) at least one water-insoluble magnesium salt, complex, or derivative thereof in an amount of 1-80% w/w of the composition; and (iv) granules comprising particles having a size range of 0.1 micron to 20 microns.
Applicant first requests clarification of the references that were cited. Sawant et al. is, in fact, WO2019215562A, as applicant surmises. Examiner apologizes for citing the wrong reference in error.
Applicant’s first argument is that Fowles’ compositions are emulsions and that this means that their teaching of magnesium, zinc and iron together is limited only to emulsions. This is not found persuasive because the argument implies that the three metal salts are stable only with the urea present, a fact not shown.
Applicant next argues that Fowles fails to provide any examples showing the combination of the three metal salts. Examiner disagrees with this argument because of the well-settled premise that references are good for all they teach and there is no requirement that the teachings be present in examples. Teachings from other parts of the reference are just as applicable as examples.
Applicant next argues that Vadakekuttu et al. fails to provide any examples of the three metal salts together. Again, examiner disagrees because there is no requirement that examples be provided.
Applicant cites three Annexes; their status is incorrect. Either these are prior art that must be cited in a proper IDS or they are intended as declarations or affidavits. Accordingly, they have been fully considered by the examiner. To the extent that they are evidence, such is not persuasive. The fact that the applicant found a specific instance that the three metal salts may have incompatibility issues does not prove the point. The claims recite, for example, ANY insoluble iron salt, complex or derivative. The disclosure in the Annexes of single examples of incompatibility is nowhere near commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicant’s final argument is that instant experiment 4 proves that granules perform better than powder or pellet. Again, examiner disagrees that this provides sufficient evidence of obviousness. Experiment 4 shows three silicate salts of the three metals and draws various conclusions. It is incredible to examiner that these three silicate salts permit any conclusion at all to be drawn about ANY salt, complex or derivative of iron, zinc and magnesium. Thus, the argument fails for lack of being commensurate in scope with the claim.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Barber whose telephone number is (703) 756-5302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/KIMBERLY BARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights