DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election of Group II (claims 11-12 and newly added claims 15-22) drawn to a method for coating particles, is acknowledged. The election was made without traverse.
As the requirement for restriction is deemed proper, it is maintained and hereby made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The instant claims have been examined commensurate with the scope of the elected invention. Applicants timely responded to the restriction requirement in the reply filed 4/17/26.
Accordingly, claims 11-12 and 15-22 are under current examination.
Status of Claims
A new claim set was filed on 4/17/26 with the following:
Amended claims
11-12
Newly canceled claims
15-22
Newly added claims
Previously canceled claims
13-14
Instantly withdrawn claims
1-10
Claims under instant examination
11-12 and 15-22
Specification
The use of the term BorreGRO (p. 4 and 10-14), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 11, 15-17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (CN 106380314; published: 2/8/17; in IDS dated 5/20/24).
The English language machine translation of CN 106380314 is attached herein. The passages cited below which indicate the teachings of the ‘314 publication are based on its English translation (Google Patents).
Wu is directed to insect-proofing charcoal row slow-release urea [Title and Abstract].
With regards to instant claims 11, 15-17 and 20-22, Wu teaches a method of spraying 1-5.5 wt%, 2-2.5 wt% or 2.5 wt% of coating agent onto urea granules [See Content of the Invention, claim 9], wherein the coating agent comprises 10-25% activated humic acid, 5-20% charcoal, 5-15% glucomannoglycan, 5-15% dextrin, 10-40% glycerol (i.e., the claimed solvent) and the remainder is water, wherein glycerol and water are a total amount less than 60% [See claim 2]. It is noted that based on the abovementioned concentration ranges of ingredients, water can be within the claimed range of 0 to 5.0 wt% or 0 to 4.0 wt%. Wu describes that the abovementioned process results in the formation of the coating agent wrapped around the urea granules surface (i.e., contacts the solid particulate core substrate) [See 2 ¶ before Embodiment 1].
Therefore, by teaching all the limitations of claims 11, 15-17 and 20-22, Wu anticipates the instant invention as claimed.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11-12 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 106380314; published: 2/8/17; in IDS dated 5/20/24).
The English language machine translation of CN 106380314 is attached herein. The passages cited below which indicate the teachings of the ‘314 publication are based on its English translation (Google Patents).
As noted in the anticipation rejection above Wu anticipates claims 11, 15-17 and 20-22 and so in anticipating these claims, said claims are also considered obvious under 35 USC 103 over Wu for the reasons set forth below ("lack of novelty is the epitome of obviousness" May, 574 F.2d at 1089, 197 USPQ at 607 (citing In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974))).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Wu teaches the limitations of claims 11, 15-17 and 20-22 (see above rejection).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between the Scope of the Prior Art and Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Although Wu teaches the process of spraying the coating composition onto the fertilizer granule, Wu does not teach that it is applied at a rate of from 1.0 to 20 liters/ton, as required by instant claim 12. It is noted that the teaching of spraying implicitly means there was an application rate, but Wu was silent with regards to that value. In accordance with MPEP 2112, the express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. “The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness.”
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
The application rate of a coating composition is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and would reasonably expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal application rate in order to best achieve the desired results as such would provide advantageous coverage of the coating on the fertilizer granule and/or the desired coating thickness. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the application rate of a coating composition onto a fertilizer granule would impact the coverage on the granules and/or the thickness of the coating and therefore be an optimizable variable.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Thus, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11-12 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (CN 106380314; published: 2/8/17; in IDS dated 5/20/24), in view of Prada et al. (US 2018/0237355; published: 8/23/18).
The English language machine translation of CN 106380314 is attached herein. The passages cited below which indicate the teachings of the ‘314 publication are based on its English translation (Google Patents).
As noted in the anticipation rejection above Wu anticipates claims 11, 15-17 and 20-22 and so in anticipating these claims, said claims are also considered obvious under 35 USC 103 over Wu for the reasons set forth below ("lack of novelty is the epitome of obviousness" May, 574 F.2d at 1089, 197 USPQ at 607 (citing In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974))).
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Wu teaches the limitations of claims 11-12, 15-17 and 20-22 (see above rejections).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between the Scope of the Prior Art and Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Although Wu teaches incorporating humic acid in the coating composition, Wu does not teach further incorporating fulvic acid, as required by instant claim 18. However, this deficiency is cured by Prada.
Prada is directed to granular fertilizer capable of supplying a wide array of beneficial nutrient and compounds to soil for uptake by the root systems of plants [Abstract]. Prada teaches a granular fertilizer (e.g., urea-phosphate) encapsulated by a coating comprising humic acid, fulvic acid and a polymer [0005; claim 24]. Prada teaches that humic acids and fulvic acids are a family of organic acids, natural compounds, and components of the humus (a fraction of soil organic matter) [0023]. In use, the humic acid and fulvic acid from the coating solubilize in wet soil and improve the uptake of all available nutrients (including the source of phosphorus and other nutrients described herein) by the root system of plants [0023].
Wu does not teach further incorporating boric acid in the liquid composition, as required by instant claim 19. However, this deficiency is cured by Prada.
Prada teaches that the source of boron may be any number of compounds useful to supply forms of this nutrient to soil for plant uptake and such source of boron is boric acid and is generally provided in an amount sufficient to provide boron content in the second granule of about 0.5-10% by weight [0026].
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Based on these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (humic acid + fulvic acid for the purpose of improving the uptake of all available nutrients by the root system in plants), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06-I).
Wu and Prada et al. are both directed to coated fertilizer granules. Based on these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the coated fertilizer granule of Wu by further incorporating boric acid in the coating composition to achieve the predictable result of obtaining a composition suitable for fertilizing plants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Prada teach that it is advantageous for providing a source of boron for plant uptake [0026].
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Thus, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENEVIEVE S ALLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1111. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Blanchard can be reached at 571-272-0827. 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.
/GENEVIEVE S ALLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights