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 1/9/2026:
Claims 1, 3, 3, 5, 7-9, 11-13 and 18-19 are presently pending
Claims 19 are withdrawn
Claims 2, 4, 6, 10 and 14-17 are cancelled
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims
All prior art grounds of rejection are maintained
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that EP ‘223 (“Peters”) does not anticipate the claimed invention because Peters teaches that both inhibitors are mixed together; i.e., the inhibitors are not separated into a solid carrier A and a solid carrier B (Remarks Page 11). However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Specifically, claim 1 does not require the absence of the nitrification inhibitor on carrier B, and similarly, claim 1 does not require the absence of the urease inhibitor on carrier A. As such, the claim does not require that the inhibitors be separated into a solid carrier A and solid carrier B. The following quote is taken from Page 6 of the Non Final Action mailed 9/16/2025: “For purposes of clarity, note that a portion of the totality of fertilizer granules which are coated in the treatment composition [Para. 0071] is regarded as being component 1 (Carrier A and active compound I) and the remaining portion is regarded as being component 2 (Carrier B and active compound II).” Therefore, as presently mapped, Peters teaches each and every limitation of claim 1, even assuming the active compounds are mixed together.
Applicant also argues that the separation of active compounds I and II would be non-obvious and yields unexpected results (Remarks Page 13). However, these arguments are not applicable to an anticipation analysis. Because claim 1 is regarded as being anticipated by Peters as discussed above, these arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant also argues that Peters failed to unambiguously disclose that urea is present as a solid carrier (Remarks Page 11), as required by claim 12. However, Peters teaches a plurality of urea-containing fertilizer granules, compacts or prills, to which the treatment composition is applied [Para. 0001 & 0102]. Urea-containing granules, compacts, or prills necessarily contain solid urea. See also [Para. 0006] describing urea granules or prills. As such, Peters discloses the solid carrier being urea.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the challenged grounds of rejection are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 7, 11-13 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peters (European Patent No. 3109223) with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter “Peters”).
Regarding claim 1, Peters teaches a mixture (e.g., a plurality of urea-containing fertilizer granules, compacts or prills, to which a treatment composition is applied) [Para. 0001 & 0102] comprising:
A solid carrier A (e.g., granules of fertilizers [Para. 0071] such as urea-containing nitrogen fertilizer) [Para. 0094] comprising at least one active compound I (nitrification inhibitor) which is 2-(3,4-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid and/or 2-(4,5-dimethyl-1H-pyrazol-1-yl)succinic acid, and/or a derivative thereof and/or a salt thereof (also known as DMPSA1 or DMPSA2, see Specification at Page 5 lines 5-10) (e.g., the treatment composition comprises 1-(N-3,4-dimethylpyrazole)-succinic acid, also referred to as DMPSA or DMPBS) [Para. 0018 & 0047] and
A solid carrier B (e.g., granules of fertilizers [Para. 0071] such as urea-containing nitrogen fertilizer) [Para. 0094] comprising at least one active compound II (urease inhibitor) which is N-(n-butyl)thiophosphoric acid triamide, also known as NBPT (e.g., the treatment composition comprises NBPT) [Para. 0018 & 0038-39]).
For purposes of clarity, note that a portion of the totality of fertilizer granules which are coated in the treatment composition [Para. 0071] is regarded as being component 1 (Carrier A and active compound I) and the remaining portion is regarded as being component 2 (Carrier B and active compound II).
Regarding claim 3, Peters teaches the mixture wherein compound I is selected from the provided group (e.g., the treatment composition comprises 1-(N-3,4-dimethylpyrazole)-succinic acid, also referred to as DMPSA or DMPBS) [Para. 0018 & 0047].
Regarding claim 5, Peters teaches the mixture wherein compound II is a mixture comprising NBPT and NPPT (e.g., mixtures of NBPT and NPPT can also be used, or any thiophosphoric acid triamide or diamide) [Para. 0004 & 0024].
Regarding claim 7, Peters teaches the mixture wherein solid carrier A is a fertilizer and solid carrier B is a fertilizer (e.g., granules of fertilizers [Para. 0071] such as urea-containing nitrogen fertilizers) [Para. 0094].
Regarding claim 11, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. Claim 11 sets forth steps of treating the solid carriers with the active compounds before, after, or at the same time, and blending the treated solid carriers together. This would appear to impart the structure of mixed solid carriers with the active compounds on their surfaces. Peters teaches such a fertilizer where the active agents are applied to the fertilizer surface [Para. 0098-0010]. The fertilizers are mixed with the treatment composition [Para. 0102]. Peters would therefore appear to teach an identical end product, as discussed here and above in claim 1. Because Peters would appear to teach an identical end product, it is regarded as reading on these product-by-process limitations.
Regarding claim 12, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. Claim 12 sets forth steps of treating the solid carriers with the active compounds before, after, or at the same time, and blending the treated solid carriers together, wherein the solid carriers are urea. This would appear to impart the structure of a plurality of urea carrier solids with the active compounds on their surfaces. Peters teaches such a fertilizer where the active agents are applied to the fertilizer surface, and the fertilizer can be or contain urea [Para. 0098-0010]. The fertilizers are mixed with the treatment composition [Para. 0102]. Peters would therefore appear to teach an identical end product, as discussed here and above in claim 1. Because Peters would appear to teach an identical end product, it is regarded as reading on these product-by-process limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Peters teaches the mixture wherein the solid carrier A and B are fertilizers selected from the provided group (e.g., granules of fertilizers [Para. 0071] such as urea-containing nitrogen fertilizer) [Para. 0094].
Regarding claim 18, Peters teaches an agrochemical composition comprising an auxiliary and a mixture according to claim 1 (e.g., the fertilizers of Peters can include additional auxiliary materials such as adhesion promoters or wrapping materials or can be treated with anti-caking or anti-dust agents before application in an are used for agriculture or horticulture) [Para. 0102].
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) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters.
Regarding claim 8, Peters teaches the mixture wherein compound I (here, DMPSA) and compound II (here, NBPT) are present in a weight ratio of from 100:1 to 6.5:1 (e.g., components A and B, which are the NBPT and DMPSA, respectively, [Para. 0038 & 47], are preferably present in a weight ratio in a range of 1:1 to 6:1 DMPSA:NBPT) [Para. 0062]. Where the claimed range and the prior art do not overlap but are merely close (here, 6.5:1 is regarded as being close to 6:1) a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Peters teaches the mixture wherein compound I (here, DMPSA) and compound II (here, NBPT) are present in a preferable weight ratio (e.g., components A and B, which are the NBPT and DMPSA, respectively, [Para. 0038 & 47], are present in a weight ratio of 1:1 to 6:1 DMPSA:NBPT) [Para. 0062] but does not explicitly state that the compounds are present in a weight ratio of from 100:1 to 19:1. However, Peters further teaches that the resulting urea fertilizer can contain a total of 0.01 to 0.3 wt. % of the nitrification inhibitor (here, DMPSA) [Para. 0068] and a total of 0.01 to 0.08 wt. % of the NBPT [Para. 0069]. As such in making the fertilizer mixture of Peters comprising NBPT and DMPSA, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Peters’ general disclosure and readily appreciate that any amount within these ranges is standard and acceptable. As such, the possible ranges of ratios of DMPSA:NBPT necessarily overlap with the claimed range of 100:1 to 19:1. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
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 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.
/H.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731