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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/02/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0376076 – cited in 06/30/2022 IDS).
In regard to claim 1, Ward et al. teach a process for reducing the dust evolution (e.g. coated fertilizer which is non-dusting) [para. 0016] of granules based on inorganic salts or urea (e.g. prills or granules, […] such as calcium ammonium nitrate and ammonium nitrate, urea; calcium nitrate) [0011; 0045], which comprises treating the granules with a quantity of a combination comprising:
a) a fatty acid liquid at 20°C (e.g. Methylated Rapeseed Oil) [0043-0044], as component A;
b) at least one amorphous silica as component B (e.g. fumed silica) [0043-0044],
where said quantity reduces the dusting of the granules (e.g. low dust levels) [0045] and where the mass ratio of component A to component B in said combination is in the range from 40:1 to 3:1 (e.g. 34:1) [0043].
The Ward reference, in Example 4, discloses a methylated rapeseed oil and a hydrophobic silica but does not explicitly teach a fatty acid triglyceride mixture and a hydrophilic silica. However, Ward describes the oil which can be any suitable vegetable oil including rapeseed oil, soya oil, sunflower oil, linseed oil, castor oil, or other similar vegetable oils. Other oils, such as methylated oils or modified vegetable oils could also be used [0020]. Similarly, although Example 4 describes a hydrophobic silica, Ward describes suitable clay thickeners including hydrophilic fumed silica; hydrophobic fumed silica; fumed mixed oxides [0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform simple substitution of one known element (e.g. rapeseed oil and hydrophilic silica) for the elements utilized in Ward’s Example 4 (e.g. methylated rapeseed oil and hydrophobic silica). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the substituted components are described as equivalents in the reference [0020; 0025] and the results of substitution would have been predictable.
In regard to claims 2 and 4, Ward et al. discloses methylated rapeseed oil [0043-0044] or rapeseed oil [0020] as component A. Rapeseed oil has a dynamic viscosity as determined according to DIN 53019-1:2008-09, in the range from 20 to 200 mPas (e.g. 72 mPas) at 20°C and a shear rate of 1 s-1 [confirmed by Applicant’s Specification, pg. 24, table 1].
In regard to claim 5, Ward et al. teach the process as claimed in claim 1, where component B (e.g. Aerosil R812) has a specific surface area as determined by nitrogen adsorption according to the BET method to of at least 50 m2/g (e.g. 230-290 m2/g). Although the Aerosil component is a hydrophobic silica, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform substitution of a hydrophilic silica with similar surface area.
In regard to claim 6, Ward et al. teach the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein component B is fumed silica [0025].
In regard to claim 7, Ward et al. teach the process as claimed in claim 1, where the combination consists to an extent of at least 80 wt% based on the total weight of the combination, of components A and B (e.g. 0.3988 kg rapeseed oil + 0.0054 kg clay thickener when added in the order listed (0.4506) = 89.7%) [0037].
In regard to claim 8, Ward et al. teach the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein the granules are selected from granules based on sulfate, chloride, phosphate or nitrate salts of potassium, magnesium, calcium or ammonium, based on mixtures thereof, based on mixed salts thereof (e.g. coated onto granular calcium nitrate) [0045].
In regard to claim 9, Ward et al. teach the process as claimed in claim 1, where components A and B are used in a mixture for treating the granules (e.g. the suspension described in Example 4) [0045].
In regard to claim 10, Wang et al. teach the process as claimed in claim 9, where the combination of components A and B is used in the form of an oil composition which contains
75 to 97.6 wt%, based on the total weight of the oil composition, of component A (e.g. 0.3988 kg rapeseed oil / 0.4506 = 88.5%) [0037]; and
2.4 to 25 wt%, based on the total weight of the oil composition, of component B (e.g. 0.0054 kg clay thickener / 0.4506 = 1.2%, in which a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed ranges is close to the prior art) [0037].
In regard to claim 11, Ward et al. teach the process as claimed in claim 10, where the oil composition is shear-thinning (e.g. rapeseed oil is a shear thinning fluid) [0029].
In regard to claim 12, Ward et al. teach the process as claimed in claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose the dynamic viscosity as claimed. Because Ward’s oil composition is substantially the same as what is claimed, the dynamic viscosity values are considered inherent. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.
In regard to claim 14, Ward et al. teach the process as claimed in claim 1, where the combination contains component A and component B in a mass ratio A:B in the range from 40:1 to 5:1 (e.g. 34:1) [0043].
In regard to claim 15, Ward et al. teach the process as claimed in claim 1, where the combination is used in an amount of 1 to 10 kg per metric ton of granules (e.g. 5 liters per metric tonne of granular fertilizer, which is considered to lie inside the claimed range based on the densities of the components) [0045].
In regard to claim 24, Ward et al. disclose granules obtainable by the process as claimed in claim 1 (e.g. coated granular calcium nitrate) [0045].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims based on the Ward and Hubei references have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection based on Hubei has been withdrawn. A new rejection based on a different embodiment disclosed by Ward is presented above.
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 09/02/2025 is refers only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is (571)270-3599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-6pm EST.
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 R Orlando can be reached at (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.
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 October 22, 2025