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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5-16, 20-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: “an no formaldehyde” in line 3 of Claim 1 should be changed to “and no formaldehyde”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 6, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claims reference cancelled Claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. For the purpose of examination, the claims will be treated as depending from Claim 23.
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 3, 7-8, 16, and 24 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.
Claims 3, 7-8, 16, and 24 recite the limitation "the/said second additive". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the Claims will be treated as depending from Claim 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niks (US 4219589) in view of Van Hijfte (US 4500336), and Burnham (US 2002/0098982).
Regarding Claims 1, 5, 11, 13, and 20, Niks teaches a process of granulation of a liquid urea solution containing 70-99.9 weight percent urea (abstract), the process comprising a multiple stage granulation process wherein each stage receives a urea mixture (Figure and discussion thereof). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05 I. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select the urea concentration of Niks to be any of the taught concentrations, including those within the claimed ranges, because Niks teaches they are all suitable concentrations for use with the invention and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the particles of Niks at any of the taught concentrations.
Niks does not explicitly teach the urea provided as a melt with no formaldehyde. Niks teaches formaldehyde as a crystallization retarder; however, in the urea granulating art urea melts and aqueous urea solutions are both known equivalent precursors (For Example: Van Hijfte Abstract). Van Hijfte teaches water-soluble aluminum compounds are good urea crystallization retarders (col. 2 ln. 3-9). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the composition of Niks to include use of urea melts and aqueous urea solutions with aluminum compound crystallization retarders, as taught in Van Hijfte, because they are known compositions in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the granules of Niks with melt or solution precursors and crystallization retarders as suggested in Van Hijfte.
Niks does not explicitly teach adding a first additive containing carboxymethyl starch to the first stage and not the second; however, Burnham teaches fertilizers having multiple layers of various materials wherein the layers are selected to give controlled performance to match the desired use of the granules ([0015], [0022]). Burnham teaches carboxymethyl starch being a suitable layer component ([0041]). Burnham teaches cellulose being a suitable layer component (i.e. anticaking agent, [0031]). Burnham teaches suitable materials for delaying the release of material from the granule ([0047]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the individual layers of Niks, to include various additive materials, as suggested by Burnham, in order to achieve a controlled performance to match the desired use of the granules and because they are known fertilizer additives in the art such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the granules of Niks with additives as taught in Burnham.
Regarding Claim 14, Niks teaches a longitudinal granulator and said stages of the granulation process are distributed over the length of said granulator (Figure and discussion thereof).
Regarding Claim 15, Niks teaches a fluid bed condition (abstract).
Claims 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niks (US 4219589) in view of Van Hijfte (US 4500336), and Burnham (US 2002/0098982), as applied to claims 1, 5, 11, 13-15, and 20 above, and further in view of Dencs (US 4370198).
Regarding Claim 12, Niks teaches a dilute urea solution discharged from the scrubber (col. 5 ln. 21-34). Niks does not explicitly teach recycling the urea solution from the scrubber to the granulation process; however, Dencs teaches a fluidized bed granulation process for urea (Example 2) wherein the scrubbing liquid is recycled back to the granulation process (col. 6 ln. 17-33). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include recycling of the scrubbing liquid, as taught in Dencs, because it is a known process in the art of urea granulation and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the granules of the combined references with scrubber fluid recycling, as taught in Dencs.
Regarding Claim 22, Niks teaches feeding solid urea matter to act as seeds for the granulation process (nuclei, Examples). Niks does not explicitly teach said seeds comprising carboxymethyl starch; however, Dencs teaches crystallization processes including separation and recirculation to the crystallizer of undersize particles as nuclei (col. 1 ln. 30-36). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of the combined references to include recirculation of undersized particles as nuclei, as suggested by Dencs, because it is a known process for nuclei supply one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the particles of the combined references with recycled particles for nuclei, as suggested in Dencs.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niks (US 4219589) in view of Van Hijfte (US 4500336), and Burnham (US 2002/0098982) as applied to claims 1, 5, 11, 13-15, and 20 above, and further in view of Oshlack (US 5472712).
Regarding Claim 9, Niks teaches a urea solution containing 70-99.9 weight percent urea (abstract). The combined references are silent as to the concentration of the carboxymethyl starch; however, Oshlack teaches controlled release products for fertilizer applications (col. 4 ln. 27-32) including carboxymethyl starch as a release modifying agent to promote erosion (col. 12 ln. 54-60). Oshlack teaches release-modifying agents in controlled-release coatings in an amount of from about 0.1 to 80 wt. percent (col. 13 ln. 46-50). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II A. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the carboxymethyl starch additive concentration of the combined references, as suggested in Oshlack, in order to achieve the desired erosion and controlled-release of the coating and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed concentrations.
Claims 3, 6-8, 10, 16, 21, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niks (US 4219589) in view of Van Hijfte (US 4500336), and Burnham (US 2002/0098982), as applied to claims 1, 5, 11, 13-15, and 20 above, and further in view of Garcia Martinez (US 2016/0332924).
Regarding Claims 23-24, 3, 6-8, 10, and 21, Niks teaches it is desirable to produce a granule having low biuret values (col. 1 ln. 55-60). The combined references do not explicitly teach an additive including calcium lignosulfonate or an amount as claimed; however, Garcia Martinez teaches calcium lignosulfonate included in the preparation of urea fertilizer for the reduction of biuret content ([0007], [0021]). Garcia Martinez teaches the compound added in an amount that minimizes cost and achieves sufficient reduction of biuret content ([0021]). Garcia Martinez teaches the amount suitably less than 1 wt. % ([0017]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the individual layers of the combined references to include various additive materials, as suggested by Garcia Martinez, in order to achieve a minimized biuret content and because they are known fertilizer additives in the art such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the granules of Niks with additives as taught in Garcia Martinez. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II A. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the calcium lignosulfonate additive concentration of the combined references, as suggested in Garcia Martinez, in order to achieve the desired biuret content and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed concentrations.
Regarding Claim 16, Niks teaches feeding the urea by means of a plurality of urea inputs wherein each stage of the granulation process has a respective urea input and addition of the additives to the stages is performed by mixing with the urea of the urea input (Figure and discussion thereof).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the absence of formaldehyde disqualifies Niks as a suitable springboard to achieve the present process because this reference encourages the use of formaldehyde in its granulation process with no other alternative. Applicant argues Burnham does not teach or suggest that carboxymethyl starch is a suitable replacement for formaldehyde. In response to applicant’s argument, Van Hijfte teaches water-soluble aluminum compounds are good urea crystallization retarders (col. 2 ln. 3-9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712