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 4/8/2026:
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 12-17 and 19-26 are presently pending
Claims 14-15 and 24-25 are withdrawn
Claims 6-7, 9, 11, and 18 are cancelled
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims
All prior art grounds of rejection are maintained
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) 1-5, 8, 10, 12-13, 16-17, 19-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scherr (WO 2020/064036 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Scherr”) in view of Ledoux (WO 2017/081183 A1) (hereinafter referred to as “Ledoux”) and Scheibler (U.S. Patent No. 5154752, hereinafter “Scheibler”).
Regarding claim 1, Scherr teaches homogeneous urea-based particles comprising:
urea (e.g., granules produced from urea [Para. 0018] wherein the free urea is present in a uniformly distributed form [Para. 0033] and the components are at least partially dissolved or molten prior to build-up agglomeration, as well as mixed with an Erich mixer, which will further result in homogeneity [Para. 0075 & 0079]) and
a urease inhibitor (urease inhibitors may be included) [Para. 0085],
wherein the particles comprise a magnesium sulfate (e.g., a magnesium sulfate hydrate) [Para. 0030], and
the particles comprise from 40 to 99 wt. % of urea (e.g., urea calculated as nitrogen in an amount of 11 wt. % to 33 wt. % [Para. 0011] which, assuming 100 g total, converts to 24-70 wt. % urea; overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05).
Scherr does not explicitly disclose that the particles comprise 0.0001 to 1 wt. % of a urease inhibitor specifically of the type phosphoric triamide. However, Ledoux teaches that it is known in the fertilizer art to include within a urea-based composition [Ledoux at Para. bridging pages 24-25] 0.0001 to 1 wt. % of a urease inhibitor of the type phosphoric triamide (a urease inhibitor such as nBTPT, a phosphoric triamide, is present at a level of 0.0001 to 1 wt. %, preferably 0.02 to 0.2 wt. %, most preferably 0.04 to 0.06 wt. %) [Ledoux at Page 9 lines 16-20]. Urease inhibitors of the type phosphoric triamide are particularly advantageous because they are among the most effective inhibitors presently known [Ledoux at Page 3 lines 13-15]. As such, in looking to add the urease inhibitor as suggested by Scherr, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select a phosphoric triamide such as nBTPT so as to provide the most effective inhibition, and would further know from Ledoux that 0.0001 to 1 wt. % is an appropriate concentration. 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 0.0001 to 1 wt. % of a urease inhibitor of the type phosphoric triamide as taught by Ledoux in the urea-based particles of Scherr.
Scherr further does not explicitly disclose that the magnesium sulfate is included in an amount from 0.05 to 2 wt. % of the total weight of the particles. However, Scheibler teaches that hydrated sulfates such as magnesium sulfates are known to suppress dust during agglomeration of nitrogen-based fertilizer granules when added in an amount between 0.1 to 1.0 wt. % [Scheibler Abstract & Col. 2 lines 22-34]. As such, in including magnesium sulfate in the fertilizer granule of Scherr as modified by Ledoux, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Scheibler and readily appreciate that an amount within the claimed range is standard to include in fertilizer granules and can serve the purpose of decreasing dust during granulation. 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 Scherr as modified by Ledoux to include the magnesium sulfate in an amount within the claimed range as taught by Scheibler.
Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler above discloses the particles wherein the weight ratio of urease inhibitor of the type phosphoric triamide to the magnesium sulfate ranges from 1:100 to 1:1: Ledoux teaches that the urease inhibitor such as nBTPT should be present at a level of 0.0001 to 1 wt. % [Ledoux at Page 9 lines 16-20]. Scheibler teaches that the magnesium sulfate should be present at a level between 0.1 to 1.0 wt. % [Scheibler Abstract & Col. 2 lines 22-34]. As such, in making the combination of Scherr, Ledoux, and Scheibler, the possible ranges of weights necessarily overlap with the claimed range of ratios of 1:100 to 1:1 of urease inhibitor:magnesium sulfate. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 2, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the average particle size (dp50) of the particles is between 1.0 mm and 5 cm, as determined by mesh sieve screening (“Preferably the grain size of the granules is . . .at least 90% by weight in the range from 0.5 to 3 mm” [Scherr at Para. 0043], determined by sieve analysis [Para. 0044]; overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 3, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the urease inhibitor of the type phosphoric triamide is a compound of the provided formula (see below). The particles of Scherr as modified by Ledoux comprise a urease inhibitor such as nBTPT, a phosphoric triamide which satisfies the provided structure [Ledoux at Page 9 lines 16-18 and Page 15, structure at bottom of page].
Claim 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
137
237
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ledoux (nBPTP) :
PNG
media_image2.png
132
264
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the urease inhibitor is present at a level of 0.02 to 0.2 wt. % relative to the total weight of the urea-based particles (The urease inhibitor is present at a level of 0.0001 to 1 wt. %, preferably 0.02 to 0.2 wt. %, most preferably 0.04 to 0.06 wt. %) [Ledoux at Page 9 lines 16-20].
Regarding claim 5, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the magnesium sulfate is a magnesium sulfate hydrate (a magnesium source can be a magnesium sulfate, for example a magnesium sulfate hydrate [Scherr at Para. 0030]).
Regarding claim 8, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler does not explicitly disclose the particles comprising an anti-caking and/or moisture repellent and/or anti-dust coating. However, Ledoux further teaches that it is known in the fertilizer art to coat granules with an anti-caking and/or moisture repellent and/or anti-dust coating made from a non-polar material; for example a liquid organic material such as an oil, wax, resin or any mixture thereof, in the amount of 0 to 1 wt. %, preferably 0.0001 to 1 wt. %, more preferably 0.02 to 0.5 wt. %, most preferably 0.1 to 0.2 wt. % based on the total weight of the composition in order to reduce dust formation and increase moisture repellence [Ledoux at Para. bridging pages 22-23]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to coat the urea-based particles of Scherr with the coating of Ledoux so as to provide a granule having reduced dust formation and increased moisture repellence. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to coat the urea-based particle of Scherr with the anti-caking and/or moisture repellent and/or anti-dust coating of Ledoux.
Regarding claim 10, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the urea-based particles comprise at least one compound selected from ammonium nitrate, calcium nitrate, calcium ammonium nitrate, sodium nitrate, ammonium sulfate nitrate, potassium ammonium nitrate, ammonium phosphate such as MAP and DAP, calcium bis(dihydrogen)-orthophosphate, super phosphate, triple superphosphate, rock phosphate, potassium sulfate, potassium magnesium sulfate, AS, MOP, magnesium nitrate, or mixtures thereof (“Preferably, at least 80% of the magnesium, calcium and potassium are in the form of sulfate salts. These include in particular MgSO4, CaCO4, and K2SO4”) [Scherr at Para. 0028].
Regarding claim 12, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles comprising:
40 to 99 wt. % of urea (e.g., urea calculated as nitrogen in an amount of 11 wt. % to 33 wt. % [Scherr at Para. 0011] which, assuming 100 g total, converts to 24-70 wt. % urea; overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness; see MPEP 2144.05).
0 to 60 wt. % of one of more compounds selected from the provided group (“Preferably, at least 80% of the magnesium, calcium and potassium are in the form of sulfate salts. These include in particular MgSO4, CaCO4, and K2SO4” [Scherr at Para. 0028], the proportion of magnesium salts other than polyhalite will not exceed 50 wt. % [Scherr at Para. 0030]; overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness);
0.0001 to 1 wt. % of a urease inhibitor of the type phosphoric triamide (a urease inhibitor such as nBTPT, a phosphoric triamide, is present at a level of 0.0001 to 1 wt. %) [Ledoux at Page 9 lines 16-20];
0.0001 to 2 wt. % of a magnesium sulfate (e.g., 0.1 to 1.0 wt. % magnesium sulfate) [Scheibler Abstract & Col. 2 lines 22-34].
0 to 1 wt. % of an anti-caking and/or moisture repellent and/or anti-dust coating (Scherr as applied to claim 1 above does not comprise a coating i.e., 0 wt. % of a coating)
adding up to 100 wt. %, being the total weight of the particles (the ranges provided above can add up to 100 wt. %).
Regarding claim 13, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses a fertilizer comprising the particles (“The present invention also relates to the use of a fertilizer granulate according to the invention as a fertilizer or in fertilizer compositions”) [Scherr at Para. 0015].
Regarding claim 16, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the urease inhibitor is nBTPT (a urease inhibitor such as nBTPT, a phosphoric triamide, is present at a level of 0.0001 to 1 wt. %) [Ledoux at Page 9 lines 16-20].
Regarding claim 17, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the level of the urease inhibitor is 0.03 to 0.06 wt. % relative to the total weight of the urea-based particles (nBPTP is present at a level of 0.0001 to 1 wt. %, preferably 0.02 to 0.2 wt. %, most preferably 0.04 to 0.06 wt. % [Ledoux at Page 16 lines 5-8]. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 19, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the magnesium sulfate is present in the particles at a level of 0.1 to 1.0 wt. % relative to the total weight of the particles (e.g., 0.1 to 1.0 wt. % magnesium sulfate) [Scheibler Abstract & Col. 2 lines 22-34].
Regarding claim 20, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the weight ratio of urease inhibitor of the type phosphoric triamide to the magnesium sulfate ranges from 1:20 to 1:1: Ledoux teaches that the urease inhibitor such as nBTPT should be present at a level of 0.0001 to 1 wt. % [Ledoux at Page 9 lines 16-20]. Scheibler teaches that the magnesium sulfate should be present at a level between 0.1 to 1.0 wt. % [Scheibler Abstract & Col. 2 lines 22-34]. As such, in making the combination of Scherr, Ledoux, and Scheibler, the possible ranges of weights necessarily overlap with the claimed range of ratios of 1:20 to 1:1 of urease inhibitor:magnesium sulfate. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 21, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the coating comprises a non-polar material, which is a liquid organic material selected from an oil, wax or mixtures thereof (“Preferably the coating material is a non-polar material, in particular a liquid organic material, such as an oil, wax, resin or the like and any mixture thereof”) [Ledoux at Page 23 lines 5-7].
Regarding claim 22, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the coating is present at a level of 0.0001 to 1.0 wt. % relative to the total weight of the composition (The coating material is preferably present in the composition at a level of 0.0001 to 1 wt. % relative to the total weight of the composition) [Ledoux at Page 23 lines 7-10].
Regarding claim 23, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the coating is present at a level of 0.02 to 0.5 wt. % relative to the total weight of the composition (The coating material is most preferably present in the composition at a level of 0.02 to 0.5 wt. % relative to the total weight of the composition) [Ledoux at Page 23 lines 7-10].
Regarding claim 26, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the ammonium phosphate is selected from mono-ammonium phosphate (MAP) and di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) (Scherr teaches the presence of magnesium sulfate, calcium carbonate and potassium sulfate as discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above [Scherr at Para. 0028], and ammonium phosphate is recited in the alternative in claim 10. As such, Scherr reads on a further limitation of the type of ammonium phosphate).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references would lead to the specified ranges of the urease inhibitor or the magnesium sulfate, or the ratio between the two components (Remarks Page 7). In particular, Applicant argues that the weight percentage ranges are taught separately and are not disclosed by the prior art as ratios (Remarks Page 7). This is not found persuasive because any range of weight percentage set forth for different components necessarily and inherently results in there being some numerical ratio between the two components. The fact that the prior art does not address the ratio between the components does not mean that it does not exist. Further, rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the prior art provides rationale for including the components in amounts which overlap with the claimed ranges and the ratios between the components, even though the prior art does not explicitly mention a ratio.
Applicant points out that mathematically, the endpoints of the ranges permit ratios ranging from 1:10,000 to 10:1 of urease inhibitor to magnesium sulfate (Remarks Page 7). Thus, the calculations result in values that lie both inside and outside the claimed range. Applicant concludes that because the ratios must be calculated from two separate references, the ratios cannot overlap with the claimed range. This is not found persuasive for identical reasons as discussed above. The fact that the calculations result in values that lie both inside and outside the claimed range only supports the idea that the prior art teaches ranges which mathematically overlap with the claimed ratios.
Applicant also argues that there would be no reasonable expectation of success (Remarks Page 8). Specifically, Applicant points out that Scherr teaches that solid mixtures of magnesium sulfate granules and urea are not stable in storage (Remarks Page 8). However, Scherr itself combines magnesium sulfate and urea inside one granule, not as a solid mixture: the components are at least partially dissolved or molten prior to build-up agglomeration [Para. 0075 & 0079]. As such, there is reasonable expectation of success in combining urea and magnesium sulfate inside one granule. Applicant also points out that Ledoux teaches that phosphoric triamide urease inhibitors are not stable when in contact with a urea-based blend composition containing additional particulate components such as sulfate (Remarks Page 8). However, patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). Ledoux itself teaches that urease inhibitors of the type phosphoric triamide are among the most effective currently known to be used in conjunction with urea-based fertilizers. Further, Ledoux discusses the idea that stability decreases when implemented in a blend composition comprising urea and other components in particulate form. Here, Scherr combines the components inside one granule. The fact that Ledoux shares one disadvantage of making such a blend combination so does not negate that Ledoux establishes that the combination is regularly made (“a urease inhibitor of the type phosphoric triamide is generally disclosed for use with urea-based fertilizers”) [Ledoux at Page 4 lines 15-17].
Applicant also submits a rebuttal of the prima facie case of obviousness using unexpected results (Remarks Page 9). This is not found persuasive at least because any unexpected results 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." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Here, Applicant points to Example 1, which tests urea-based particles comprising 0.06 wt. % NBTPT and 1.0 wt. % magnesium sulfate and demonstrates improved storage stability (Remarks Pages 9-10). However, a much broader range of 0.0001 to 1 wt. % of the urease inhibitor and 0.05 to 2.0 wt. % of the magnesium sulfate is claimed in claim 1. Further, the Example contains particulars not claimed: The specific urease inhibitor NBTPT, and the specific magnesium sulfate heptahydrate form. As such, Applicant has not established that any asserted unexpected results flow directly from the range as claimed. Therefore, the asserted unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claims.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the challenged rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
