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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 1/7/2026:
Claims 1-4, 9-21 and 23 are presently pending
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn
Claims 5-8 and 22 are cancelled
New grounds of rejection are presented herein, as necessitated by amendment
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu Rabeah (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0250037 A1, hereinafter “Abu Rabeah”) in view of “Improving Potassium Recommendations for Agricultural Crops,” Murrell et al, Springer Nature, Published 15 December 2020 (hereinafter “Murrell et al”) and Beer (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0192570 A1, hereinafter “Beer”).
Regarding claim 1, Abu Rabeah teaches a fertilizer granule [Abu Rabeah Abstract] comprising a homogeneous mixture (e.g., mixing may be performed in a device capable of achieving perfect homogenization) [Abu Rabeah Para. 0037] comprising:
10 to 48 wt. % urea (e.g., 20-50 wt. % urea) [Abu Rabeah Abstract];
Wherein the weight percentages are based on the total weight of the homogeneous mixture (e.g., the percentages are based on the concentration in the granule) [Abu Rabeah Abstract]; and
Wherein the fertilizer granule comprises no crystalline adduct having the formula CaSO4·4CO(NH2)2, or comprises the adduct but at a weight percent less than 0.1 wt.% (the granules of Abu Rabeah are comprised of urea and polyhalite physically compacted together [Abu Rabeah Para. 0020-0023], which appears to be a similar method as implemented in the instant specification at Example 1 (See Spec Para. 0094) and as such this method of making the granule appears to necessarily avoid the formation of the adduct).
Abu Rabeah teaches the presence of a similar potash-containing evaporite mineral used in agriculture, polyhalite, in an amount overlapping with the claimed range (e.g., 20-80 wt. % polyhalite) [Abu Rabeah Abstract & Para. 0010], but does not explicitly disclose 52 to 90 wt. % langbeinite.
However, Murrell et al teaches that langbeinite and polyhalite are both potash ores [Murrell et al Page 54, “Resources and Reserves”] used in fertilizer production [Murrell et al Page 54, “Materials and Use”]. Langbeinite specifically is a nutrient-rich fertilizer [Murrell et al page 61, first paragraph] which has a higher potassium content by weight as compared to polyhalite [Murrell et al page 58, table 2.4]. Langbeinite also has increased solubility compared to polyhalite, which allows the fertilizing nutrients to disperse more rapidly [Murrell et al page 58, table 2.4]. Further, Beer teaches that urea can be instead granulated with langbeinite in the same procedure as it can be granulated with polyhalite [Beer Para. 0031]. Beer implements a procedure involving a urea melt at a temperature of 130 °C, while the instant specification implements urea at temperatures between 70 and 100 °C or 150 to 200 °C during the granulation and agglomeration process. As such, it would appear that these parameters are also acceptable to avoid formation of the adduct. As such, in making the fertilizer granule of Abu Rabeah, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Murrell et al and readily appreciate the advantages of substituting langbeinite for polyhalite including higher potassium content and increased nutrient solubility, and further would know how to do so via the teachings of Beer which indicate that langbeinite can be substituted for polyhalite in an identical granulation process. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would start by substituting the langbeinite in the same weight range as the polyhalite (here, 20-80 wt. %). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the fertilizer granule of Abu Rabeah to entirely substitute the polyhalite with langbeinite as taught by Murrell et al such that the amount of langbeinite is within the claimed range and the fertilizer comprises no polyhalite.
Regarding claim 9, Abu Rabeah as modified by Murrell et al and Beer would appear to inherently teach a granule having a urea stability and crushing strength higher compared to a reference granule containing urea and free of metal sulfates as claimed. Specifically, the granules of the modified Abu Rabeah are comprised of urea and langbeinite (a metal sulfate) and comprise a granule strength of at least 1.1 Kg/granule [Abu Rabeah Abstract]. A granule comprising the requisite ingredients as claimed and formed in the same manner provided in the instant specification (See Spec Para. 0094) will necessarily contain metal sulfates and urea and thus have the same inherent properties (namely, higher urea stability and crushing strength compared to a reference granule containing urea and free of metal sulfates). See MPEP 2111.01: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition . . . a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.”
Regarding claim 21, Abu Rabeah as modified by Murrell et al and Beer teaches the fertilizer granule of claim 1, but does not explicitly state a range of langbeinite between greater than 80 wt. % to 90 wt. %. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, one of ordinary skill in the art, in replacing the polyhalite with langbeinite, would start by substituting the langbeinite in the same amount as the polyhalite (here, 20-80 wt. %). Where the prior art and the claimed range do not overlap but are merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Here, 80 wt. % is regarded as being close to greater than 80 wt. %. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the modified fertilizer of Abu Rabeah to include the langbeinite in an amount within the claimed range.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu Rabeah, Murrell et al and Beer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Birthisel (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0259582 A1, hereinafter “Birthisel”), with evidence from “Calcium Lignosulfonate,” Emma, Green Agro Chem Blog (hereinafter “Emma”).
Regarding claim 2, Abu Rabeah as modified by Murrell et al and Beer teaches the fertilizer granule, but does not explicitly disclose that the homogeneous mixture comprises 0.1 to 15 wt. % of calcium. However, Abu Rabeah further describes the fertilizer as comprising 1-5% of a binder such as lignosulfonates [Abu Rabeah Abstract & Para. 0039]. Further, Birthisel confirms that lignosulfonates are advantageous binders for fertilizer granules [Birthisel Para. 0011 & 0017], and teaches that two particularly advantageous forms of lignosulfonates for this purpose are calcium and magnesium lignosulfonates [Birthisel Para. 0017]. These salt forms serve a dual function of binding the granule while also providing soluble calcium or magnesium to the soil [Birthisel Para. 0017]. As such, selecting calcium lignosulfonate as the binder amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in looking for a suitable lignosulfonate binder as taught by Abu Rabeah. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the fertilizer of the modified Abu Rabeah to specifically include calcium lignosulfonate as taught by Birthisel. Calcium lignosulfonate typically contains 55-65% by weight lignosulfonate, which is conversely assumed to equate to 35-45% calcium, as evidenced by Emma [Emma Page 3 Para. 1]. As such, in including 1-5% by weight of the binder as taught by Abu Rabeah, one of ordinary skill in the art would include approximately 0.4-2% calcium, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 3, Abu Rabeah as modified by Murrell et al and Beer teaches the fertilizer granule comprising:
6 to 10 wt. % magnesium (e.g., 20-80 wt. % langbeinite, langbeinite contains approximately 12 wt. % magnesium and as such the possible magnesium content necessarily overlaps with the claimed range)
11 to 20 wt. % potassium (e.g., 20-80 wt. % langbeinite, langbeinite contains approximately 19 wt. % potassium and as such the possible potassium content necessarily overlaps with the claimed range),
Urea in an amount providing 5 to 22 wt. % nitrogen (e.g., 20-50 wt. % urea, urea contains approximately 46 wt. % nitrogen and as such the possible nitrogen content necessarily overlaps with the claimed range), and
Sulfate in an amount providing 11 to 20 wt. % sulfur (e.g., 20-80 wt. % langbeinite, langbeinite contains approximately 23 wt. % sulfur from sulfate and as such the possible sulfate content necessarily overlaps with the claimed range).
The modified fertilizer of Abu Rabeah does not expressly contain any calcium. However, Abu Rabeah further describes the fertilizer as comprising 1-5% of a binder such as lignosulfonates [Abu Rabeah Abstract & Para. 0039]. Further, Birthisel confirms that lignosulfonates are advantageous binders for fertilizer granules [Birthisel Para. 0011 & 0017], and teaches that two particularly advantageous forms of lignosulfonates for this purpose are calcium and magnesium lignosulfonates [Birthisel Para. 0017]. These salt forms serve a dual function of binding the granule while also providing soluble calcium or magnesium to the soil [Birthisel Para. 0017]. As such, selecting calcium lignosulfonate as the binder amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in looking for a suitable lignosulfonate binder as taught by Abu Rabeah. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the fertilizer of the modified Abu Rabeah to specifically include calcium lignosulfonate as taught by Birthisel. Calcium lignosulfonate typically contains 55-65% by weight lignosulfonate, which is conversely assumed to equate to 35-45% calcium, as evidenced by Emma [Emma Page 3 Para. 1]. As such, in including 1-5% by weight of the binder as taught by Abu Rabeah, one of ordinary skill in the art would include approximately 0.4-2% calcium, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Abu Rabeah as modified by Murrell et al and Beer teaches the fertilizer granule, but does not explicitly disclose that the homogeneous mixture comprises a moles of K, b moles of Ca, c moles of Mg and d moles of S, and d is greater than or equal to (a/2)+ b + c and a, b, c and d are positive real numbers. However, the modified fertilizer of Abu Rabeah contains 20 to 80 wt. % langbeinite, which converts to approximately:
2.4%-9.6% magnesium
3.8%-15.2% potassium
9.2%-23% nitrogen
4.6%-18.4% sulfur from sulfate
(calculated based on langbeinite being approximately 12 wt. % Mg, 19 wt. % K, and 23 wt. % sulfur from sulfate, and urea being approximately 46 wt. % N).
The modified fertilizer of Abu Rabeah does not expressly contain any calcium. However, Abu Rabeah further describes the fertilizer as comprising 1-5% of a binder such as lignosulfonates [Abu Rabeah Abstract & Para. 0039]. Further, Birthisel confirms that lignosulfonates are advantageous binders for fertilizer granules [Birthisel Para. 0011 & 0017], and teaches that two particularly advantageous forms of lignosulfonates for this purpose are calcium and magnesium lignosulfonates [Birthisel Para. 0017]. These salt forms serve a dual function of binding the granule while also providing soluble calcium or magnesium to the soil [Birthisel Para. 0017]. As such, selecting calcium lignosulfonate as the binder amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success, in looking for a suitable lignosulfonate binder as taught by Abu Rabeah. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the fertilizer of the modified Abu Rabeah to specifically include calcium lignosulfonate as taught by Birthisel. Calcium lignosulfonate typically contains 55-65% by weight lignosulfonate, which is conversely assumed to equate to 35-45% calcium, as evidenced by Emma [Emma Page 3 Para. 1]. As such, in including 1-5% by weight of the binder as taught by Abu Rabeah, one of ordinary skill in the art would include approximately 0.4-2% calcium.
These calculated ranges necessarily overlap with the range created by the mols set forth in claim 4. As one illustrative example offered only for demonstrating that the range is met, the combination of the prior art would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art a fertilizer having: 8.2 wt. % Mg, 13.6 wt. % K, 1.3 wt. % Ca, 11.5 wt. % N, and 17 wt. % S. Assuming 100 g, the percentages convert to approximately 0.35 moles K (variable a), 0.03 moles Ca (variable b), 0.34 moles Mg (variable c) and 0.53 moles S (variable d). As such, d is approximately equal to (a/2) + b + c, satisfying the formula. one of ordinary skill in the art would readily arrive at nutrient contents within the claimed range which satisfy the formula. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the fertilizer granule of the modified Abu Rabeah Mg, K, Ca, and S content within a range which satisfies the provided formula.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu Rabeah, Murrell et al and Beer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lewis (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0380272 A1, hereinafter “Lewis”).
Regarding claim 10, Abu Rabeah as modified by Murrell et al and Beer teaches the fertilizer granule comprising a coating (e.g., a biodegradable, sustained release, controlled release, or oily or waxy coating) [Abu Rabeah Para. 0055] but does not explicitly disclose that the coating comprises a urease inhibitor and/or a nitrification inhibitor. However, Lewis teaches that it is known in the fertilizer art to include in the granule coating one or more additives such as sealants to help condition the fertilizer and reduce dust and caking, and/or a chemical agent which may inhibit the breakdown of urea (i.e., a urease inhibitor) into undesirable compounds that then are unavailable to the crop [Lewis Para. 0064]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include in the coating of the modified Abu Rabeah a urease inhibitor so as to prevent the breakdown of urea as indicated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the fertilizer granule coating of Abu Rabeah specific additives such as a urease inhibitor, as taught by Lewis, so as to arrive at a fertilizer granule as claimed with decreased urea breakdown or dusting.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abu Rabeah, Murrell et al and Beer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Merritt (U.S. Patent No. 11390570 B1, hereinafter “Merritt”).
Regarding claim 23, Abu Rabeah as modified by Murrell et al and Beer teaches the fertilizer granule comprising a coating (e.g., a biodegradable, sustained release, controlled release, or oily or waxy coating) [Abu Rabeah Para. 0055] but does not explicitly state that the coat comprises humic acid. However, Merritt teaches that it is standard in the fertilizer art to coat fertilizers with humic acids [Merritt Col. 2 lines 14-16]. Humic acids are well-known soil amendments that can produce good binding properties, due to their high cation exchange capacity and high carbon content. They increase cation exchange capacity of the soil, increase nutrient uptake, increase fertilizer efficiency and increase microbial activity, and therefore are commonly employed with solid fertilizers [Merritt Col. 2 lines 4-16]. The humic acid is coated onto solid fertilizer granules by mixing or spraying [Merritt Col. 19 lines 5-10]. As such, in making the modified fertilizer of Abu Rabeah comprising a coating, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Merritt and readily appreciate the advantages of further including humic acid within the coating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in making the modified fertilizer of Abu Rabeah to include a coating comprising humic acid as taught by Merritt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues unexpected results of a homogeneous mixture of urea and langbeinite, specifically citing Example 2 and a crush strength above 2.5 kg/granule (Remarks Page 5). However, the unexpected results are not found persuasive at least because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." See MPEP 716.02(d). Here, the granules produced in Example 2 on Page 23 of the Specification contain particulars which are not claimed: They contain particular amounts of N, K, S, and Mg, all of which are not included in claim 1. They contain a wide variety of langbeinite and urea percentages, about half of which appear to fall outside the claimed ranges, and the crush strengths of the granules with components inside and outside the claims ranges are not distinguished. They exhibit particular particle sizes (generally 1-4 mm), which are not claimed. Further, example 2 states that the granules are made in a manner similar to example 1, which involves a crusher, screening, and rotary drum steam granulation, none of which are claimed. As such, Applicant has not shown that the asserted unexpected results flow directly and consistently from the composition as claimed.
Applicant next argues that removing polyhalite from the composition of Abu Rabeah undermines the core purpose of the reference’s teachings (Remarks Page 6). This is not found persuasive because Murrell et al establishes clear motivation to substitute the polyhalite, and also because Abu Rabeah does not appear to teach away from substituting the polyhalite. Langbeinite specifically is a nutrient-rich fertilizer [Murrell et al page 61, first paragraph] which has a higher potassium content by weight as compared to polyhalite [Murrell et al page 58, table 2.4]. Langbeinite also has increased solubility compared to polyhalite, which allows the fertilizing nutrients to disperse more rapidly [Murrell et al page 58, table 2.4]. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art, also being a person of ordinary creativity, would readily appreciate the advantages of using langbeinite in replacement of the polyhalite in the fertilizer of Abu Rabeah.
Applicant next argues regarding claim 10 that Lewis does not teach a coating comprising an inhibitor. Applicant states that “Lewis discusses applying a coating onto fertilizer granules for the purpose of forming a barrier between the main pellet, granule or prill and the exterior that may slow the release of urea” (Remarks Page 7). This does not provide a distinction over Lewis because, even assuming Applicant is correct in that Lewis applies the additive as a barrier between the core and the exterior, a barrier is still a coating surrounding a core. Applicant also asserts that Lewis does not specifically require a nitrification or urease inhibitor. However, Lewis refers to a chemical agent to inhibit the breakdown of urea into undesirable compounds. This is regarded as being a urease inhibitor.
The arguments regarding a combination of polyhalite and langbeinite (Remarks Page 7) appear to be moot as the present claims require the absence of polyhalite.
For at least the foregoing reasons, these arguments are not found persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HEATHER E RAINBOW whose telephone number is (571)272-0185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM PST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/H.E.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731