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The previous Office Action is withdrawn.
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 1-14 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 1, last line, the recitation of “the fertilizer comprises more than 80 wt.% (by dry weight of the fertilizer)” is indefinite, since it does not indicate the basis for the percentage.
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 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roach et al (US 10,059,633). Roach et al disclose a fertilizer composition comprising a Bacillus-based plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in combination with a potassium source such as potassium sulfate or potassium phosphate. (See col. 1, line 44-col. 2, line 31.) Roach et al teach at col. 2, lines 21-31 that the soluble organic potassium is combined with the soluble potassium from the inorganic source in an amount as high as about 20%. The difference between the composition disclosed by Roach et al, and that recited in claims 1, 2 and 4-14, is that Roach et al do not disclose that the inorganic potassium source is present in an amount greater than10 wt.% of the fertilizer. It would have been obvious to provide the potassium sulfate or potassium phosphate in an amount greater than 10% in the fertilizer of Roach et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since one would have appreciated that the inorganic potassium source and organic source could be present in any combination of amounts, so long as the combination provides an available potassium source between about 2% to about 20%.
Regarding claim 2, Roach et al disclose in claim 10 that the fertilizer can be in the form of granules. The potassium sulfate and microorganism would presumably be present in the same particle.
Regarding claim 4, Roach et al disclose potassium sulfate and potassium thiosulfate as potassium sources at col. 1, lines 47-52.)
Regarding claim 5, the amount of chloride would presumably be less than 5 wt.%, in the composition of Roach et al, since there is no indication in Roach et al that chloride is present.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to provide the potassium sulfate in an amount of 20.5 wt.% in the composition of Roach et al, since Roach et al disclose that the amount of available potassium can be as high as “about” 20 wt.%, and the organic and inorganic sources of potassium can be combined in any suitable proportion.
Regarding claim 7, Roach et al disclose at col. 1, lines 47-62 that the microorganism is a bacillus-based PGPR.
Regarding claim 8, Roach et al disclose at col. 3, lines 5-7 that the Bacillus-based PGPR is added to deliver at least 5X103 cfu/ml
Regarding claim 9, Roach et al disclose at col. 2, lines 12-18 that the composition can include various macronutrients and micronutrients.
Regarding claim 11, Roach et al disclose in col. 2, lines 18-20 that the composition may be in the form of granules. It would have been within the level of skill in the art to determine a suitable size for such granules.
Regarding claim 12, it would be expected that the pH of a 1 wt.% solution of the fertilizer of Roach et al would be within the range of 2.5-6, since the components of the composition of Roach et al are identical to those recited in applicant’s claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Roach et al disclose Bacillus subtilis as the microorganism in claim 4.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roach et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Porubcan (US 205/0235717). It would have been further obvious from Porubcan to provide the Bacillus-based PGPR of Roach et al as a coating on the fertilizer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Porubacn discloses the step of spraying a Bacillus solution onto dry ingredients of a fertilizer as they revolve within a granulator in Paragraph [0119] which would coat the granules. One would have appreciated that such conventional expedient of Porubcan would be useful in the process of Roach et al.
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.
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, 3 and 14 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 CN104446927A. No distinction is seen between the liquid fertilizer disclosed by CN104446927A, and that recited in claims 1 and 3. CN104446927A discloses a liquid fertilizer which can include 10 parts of monopotassium phosphate, 15 parts of potassium chloride, 10 parts of potassium nitrate,, 5 parts of urea, 2 parts of borax, 2 parts of potassium -solubilizing bacteria, 2 parts of phosphate-solubilizing bacteria, 2 parts of photosynthetic bacteria and 20 parts of deionized water. (See claim 1 and Paragraphs [0033] through [0041] of the English translation. Accordingly CN104446927A anticipates claims 1 and 3, since one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage the aforementioned amounts of the components, and the amount of potassium would be such that more than 10 wt% of potassium would be provided. In any event, it would have been obvious to provide the aforementioned amounts of the components in the composition of CN104446927A, since CN104446927A would suggest such amounts in claim 1 and Paragraphs [0033] through [0041].
Claims 6, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104446927A. CN104446927A is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore.
Regarding claim 6, the amount of available potassium in the fertilizer of CN104446927A would be greater than 20wt.% in the scenario discussed hereinbefore.
Regarding claim 9, CN104446927A discloses phosphorus as a macronutrient and copper as a micronutrient in Paragraphs [0034], [0035] and [0037], respectively.
Regarding claim 12, it would be expected that the pH of a 1 wt.% solution of the fertilizer of CN104446927A would be within the range of 2.5-6, since the components of the composition of CN104446927A are substantially identical to those recited in applicant’s claim 1.
Claims 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104446927A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roach et al.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, it would have been obvious from Roach et al to provide Bacillus subtilis as the potassium-solubilizing bacteria in the composition of CN104446927A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Roach et al disclose Bacillus subtilis as a microorganism in an analogous composition comprising a liquid potassium fertilizer, and one would have appreciated that any known or conventional potassium-solubilizing bacteria would function in the composition of CN104446927A.
Regarding claim 8, Roach et al disclose at col. 3, lines 5-7 that the Bacillus-based PGPR is added to deliver at least 5X103 cfu/ml. It would have been obvious from this disclosure of Roach et al to provide the number of CFUs recited in claim 8 in the composition of CN104446927A, since the compositions of Roach et al and CN104446927A are analogous in that both entail liquid potassium fertilizers including potassium-solubilizing bacteria.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 14 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 CN106831187A. No distinction is seen between microbial fertilizer disclosed by CN106831187A, and that recited in claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 14. CN106831187A. CN106831187A discloses a microbial fertilizer prepared from 45 parts of an organic fertilizer, 50 parts of an inorganic fertilizer, 8 parts of humic acid, 5 parts of trace elements and 4 parts of microbial active strains, wherein the inorganic fertilizer comprises calcium superphosphate, potassium sulfate, ammonium dihydrogen phosphate and clay in a mass ratio of 6:3:5:2. (See Paragraph [0028] of the English Abstract.) Accordingly claims 1, 4-6, 9 and 14 are anticipated by CN106831187A, since one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage from such amounts of components a fertilizer comprising at least 10 wt% potassium (or 20 wt.% potassium in claim 6). In any event, it would have been obvious to provide that amounts of components in the fertilizer of CN106831187A such that at least 10 wt.% (or 20 wt.%) of p[potassium is provided, since CN106831187A would suggest such components at the aforementioned passage.
Regarding claim 5, the composition of CN106831187A would presumable contain less than 5 wt.% chloride, since there is no indication that chloride would be present.
Regarding claim 9, CN106831187A discloses zinc and copper as trace elements in Paragraph [0024].
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106831187A. CN106831187A is relied upon as discussed hereinbefore.
Regarding claim 2, CN106831187A discloses that the fertilizer is in the form of granules in claim 6. It would have been obvious to provide the potassium sulfate and potassium -solubilizing bacteria in the same particle, since there is no indication in the reference that they should be present in separate particles.
Regarding claim 11, CN106831187A discloses a granular size of 1-3 mm in Paragraph [0039].
Claims 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106831187A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roach et al.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, it would have been obvious from Roach et al to provide Bacillus subtilis as the potassium-solubilizing bacteria in the composition of CN106831187A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Roach et al disclose Bacillus subtilis as a microorganism in an analogous composition comprising a liquid potassium realizer, and one would have appreciated that any known or conventional potassium-solubilizing bacteria would function in the composition of CN106831187A.
Regarding claim 8, Roach et al disclose at col. 3, lines 5-7 that the Bacillus-based PGPR is added to deliver at least 5X103 cfu/ml. It would have been obvious from disclosure of Roach et al to provide the number of CFUs recited in claim 8 in the composition of CN106831187A, since the compositions of Roach et al and CN106831187A are analogous in that both entail liquid potassium fertilizers including potassium-solubilizing bacteria.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106831187A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Porubcan. It would have been further obvious from Porubcan to provide the potassium-solubilizing bacteria of CN106831187A as a coating on the fertilizer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Porubacn discloses the step of spraying a Bacillus solution onto dry ingredients of a fertilizer as they revolve within a granulator in Paragraph [0119], which would coat the granules. One would have appreciated that such conventional expedient of Porubcan would be useful in the process of CN106831187A, since CN106831187A discloses the step of granulating the components.
Claims 1, 6, 9 and 14 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 CN104387177A. No distinction is seen between the fertilizer disclosed by CN104387177A, and that recited in claims 1, 6, 8 and 14. CN104387177A discloses a fertilizer including 10-20 parts of potassium phosphate, 15-25 parts of potassium nitrate, and 20-40 parts of potassium chloride, (See claim 1 and Paragraphs [0008] through [0020] of the English translation.) CN104387177A also discloses a potassium solubilizing bacteria in Paragraph [0013]. Accordingly CN104387177A anticipates claims 1 and 6, since one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage a fertilizer which would provide at least 10 wt.% (or 20 wt.%) of potassium from such amounts of ingredients. In any event, it would have been obvious to provide the amounts of the components in the composition of CN104387177A, which would provide more than 1p wt. % (or 20 wt.%) potassium, since CN104387177A would suggest such amounts at the aforementioned passages.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104387177A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN106831187A. It would have been further obvious from CN106831187A to provide the fertilizer of CN104387177A in granular form of any suitable size, since CN106831187A discloses an analogous fertilizer composition in granular form, and CN104387177A discloses in Paragraph [0058] that the fertilizer is formed into particles.
Claims 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104387177A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roach et al.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, it would have been obvious from Roach et al to provide Bacillus subtilis as the potassium-solubilizing bacteria in the composition of CN104387177A One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Roach et al disclose Bacillus subtilis as a microorganism in an analogous composition comprising a liquid potassium realizer, and one would have appreciated that any known or conventional potassium-solubilizing bacteria would function in the composition of CN104387177A
Regarding claim 8, Roach et al disclose at col. 3, lines 5-7 that the Bacillus-based PGPR is added to deliver at least 5X103 cfu/ml. It would have been obvious from disclosure of Roach et al to provide the number of CFUs recited in claim 8 in the composition of CN104387177A. Regarding claims 7 and 13, it would have been obvious from Roach et al to provide Bacillus subtilis as the potassium-solubilizing bacteria in the composition of CN104387177A. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Roach et al disclose Bacillus subtilis as a microorganism in an analogous composition comprising a liquid potassium realizer, and one would have appreciated that any known or conventional potassium-solubilizing bacteria would function in the composition of CN104387177A
Regarding claim 8, Roach et al disclose at col. 3, lines 5-7 that the Bacillus-based PGPR is added to deliver at least 5X103 cfu/ml. It would have been obvious from disclosure of Roach et al to provide the number of CFUs recited in claim 8 in the composition of CN104387177A, since the compositions of Roach et al and Claim(s) s 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104387177A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roach et al.
Regarding claims 7 and 13, it would have been obvious from Roach et al to provide Bacillus subtilis as the potassium-solubilizing bacteria in the composition of CN104387177A One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Roach et al disclose Bacillus subtilis as a microorganism in an analogous composition comprising a liquid potassium realizer, and one would have appreciated that any known or conventional potassium-solubilizing bacteria would function in the composition of CN104387177A.
Regarding claim 8, Roach et al disclose at col. 3, lines 5-7 that the Bacillus-based PGPR is added to deliver at least 5X103 cfu/ml. It would have been obvious from disclosure of Roach et al to provide the number of CFUs recited in claim 8 in the composition of CN104387177A, since the compositions of Roach et al and CN104387177A are analogous in that both entail liquid potassium fertilizers including potassium-solubilizing bacteria.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Roach et al disclose Bacillus subtilis as a microorganism in an analogous composition comprising a liquid potassium realizer, and one would have appreciated that any known or conventional potassium-solubilizing bacteria would function in the composition of CN104387177A Regarding claim 8, Roach et al disclose at col. 3, lines 5-7 that the Bacillus-based PGPR is added to deliver at least 5X103 cfu/ml. It would have been obvious from disclosure of Roach et al to provide the number of CFUs recited in claim 8 in the composition of CN104387177A A, since the compositions of Roach et al and CN104387177A are analogous in that both entail liquid potassium fertilizers including potassium-solubilizing bacteria.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN104387177A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Porubcan. It would have been further obvious from Porubcan to provide the potassium-solubilizing bacteria of CN104387177A as a coating on the fertilizer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Porubcan discloses the step of spraying a Bacillus solution onto dry ingredients of a fertilizer as they revolve within a granulator in Paragraph [0119], which would coat the granules. One would have appreciated that such conventional expedient of Porubcan would be useful in the process of CN104387177A, since CN104387177A discloses that the fertilizers should be roll pressed.
Sen (US 2021/0188729) is made of record for disclosing various potassium solubilizing bacteria.
CN114368997A is made of record for disclosing feldspar as a source of potassium in fertilizers.
CN106396971A is made of record for disclosing a fertilizer including potassium solubilizing bacteria.
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.
The 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