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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CANOVA et al (US 2022/0227682) in view of Shearer et al (US 9,725,371). CANOVA et al disclose pellets including a porous substrate having a biodegradable coating such as polylactic acid or polybutylene succinate. (See Paragraphs [0011], [0023] and [0035].) CANOVA et al further disclose in Paragraph [0020] that the composition may include fertilizer nutrients. The difference between the composition disclosed by CANOVA et al, and that recited in applicant’s claims, is that CANOVA et al do not disclose that the porous substrate should constitute biochar.i Shearer et al disclose a biochar composition comprising a biochar core which can be mixed with one or more fertilizer nutrients. It would have been obvious from Shearer et al to provide biochar as the porous substrate in the composition of CANOVA et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since CANOVA et al disclose in Paragraph [0011] that the porous substrate can be any suitable porous material such as activated carbon or ground coconut shells, and suggests in Paragraphs [0015] and [0016] that it can have any suitable size or porosity. One would have appreciated that the biochar of Shearer et al would be suitable as the porous substrate of CANOVA et al, since Shearer et al disclose in Section VI in columns 13 and 14 that the biochar is porous, and disclose at col. 11, lines 10-14 that the biochar core can be sorted by size or density such that biochar core particles of a particular size distribution or density are grouped together.
Regarding claim 3, CANOVA et al disclose in Paragraph [0016] that the porous substrate can have any suitable size, such as about 2 mesh to about 400 mesh.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable amount of the porous substrate in the composition of CANOVA et al.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable amount of the coating in the composition of CANOVA et al.
Regarding claim 7, CANOVA et al disclose synthetic polymers and natural polymers in Paragraphs [0035], [0036] and [0037].
Regarding claims 8 and 18, CANOVA et al disclose in Paragraph [0011] that the composition can include kaolin.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that the alginate and wastewater sludge can be present in an amount of 0%.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 17, CANOVA et al disclose in Paragraph [0020] that the composition can include nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus as nutrients.
Regarding claim 13, the amount of biosolid recited therein can be 0%.
Regarding claim 20, it is well-known that moisture content, temperature and pH value of soil affects the release of controlled release fertilizers.
Schumski et al (US 2021/0355044) is made of record for disclosing a particle for delivery of humics, which includes biochar.
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