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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 6 is 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. Claim 6 recites that the magnesium sulfate is present at a level of 0.001 to 5.0 weight % relative to the total weight of the particles (lines 2-3 of the claim). However, amended claim 1 already requires that the magnesium sulfate be present in an amount between 0.05 to 2.0 weight % relative to the total weight of the particles (lines 4-5 of claim 1), which is narrower than the range required by claim 6. As such, claim 6 fails to further limit claim 1, from which it depends.
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.
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) 1-8, 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 urea-based 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.
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 6, Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler discloses the particles wherein the magnesium sulfate is present in the particles at a level of 0.001 to 5.0 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 7, 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 1:100 to 1:1: Ledoux discloses a urease inhibitor such as nBTPT present at a level of 0.0001 to 1 wt. % [Ledoux at Page 9 lines 16-20]. Scheibler discloses magnesium sulfate present at a level between 0.1 to 1.0 wt. % [Scheibler Abstract & Col. 2 lines 22-34]. As such, the ranges of weights disclosed by Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler necessarily overlap with the claimed range.
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 composition (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 discloses a urease inhibitor such as nBTPT present at a level of 0.0001 to 1 wt. % [Ledoux at Page 9 lines 16-20]. Scheibler discloses magnesium sulfate present at a level between 0.1 to 1.0 wt. % [Scheibler Abstract & Col. 2 lines 22-34]. As such, the ranges of weights disclosed by Scherr as modified by Ledoux and Scheibler necessarily overlap with the claimed range.
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 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the No reference (Remarks Page 7) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the “homogeneous” limitation in claim 1 (Remarks Pages 2-7) are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Scherr implements build-up agglomeration, which is incapable of providing a homogeneous particle, while the instant invention uses a process such as melt mixing, resulting in a mixture that is uniform in its composition throughout. However, Scherr teaches that the components during agglomeration are temporarily present in a creamy and/or viscous form [para. 0074] and at least partially present in dissolved or molten form [para. 0075]. Further, Scherr granules a powder-sized material similar in grain size to those implemented by Applicant: Scherr uses urea having a grain size in the range from 2 to 500 microns [See the original German document of Scherr provided 3/12/2025 at Page 4 lines 25-29]. Applicant uses magnesium sulphate in powder form having a size between 5 and 1000 microns (Specification Page 8 lines 11-13). As such, a powder-sized component within the particle appears to meet Applicant’s homogeneous requirement.
Additionally, Applicant does not appear to explicitly define “homogeneous,” so the term is being interpreted according to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that a “uniform mixture” is another term for “homogeneous mixture” (as evidenced by “Mixture,” Wikipedia, retrieved 2025, at Page 2, last paragraph). Scherr teaches that the components are uniformly distributed [Scherr Para. 0033], meeting this definition. Further, Scherr implements an Eirich mixer to combine the components [Scherr Para. 0079]. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that an Eirich mixer creates a homogeneous mixture for granulation of components of various grain sizes (as evidenced by “Mix to Granules,” Thomas Lansford, EIRICH, Germany, 2018, at Page 2 Para. 3 “Mixing and granulating in one unit”). As such, Scherr is still regarded as reading on a homogeneous particle as claimed.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the challenged rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
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