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 .
Status of Application
The Amendments and Remarks filed on 09/30/25 are acknowledged.
Claims 4, 7, 9-10, 12, 19, 22, 24, 27-28, 30, and 32 were previously cancelled. Claims 2, 5, 16-18, and 23 were cancelled on 09/30/25.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 21, 25-26, 29, and 31 were amended.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13-15, 20-21, 25-26, 29, 31, and 33-38 are pending and included in the prosecution.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Objection to the Specification
Since Applicant did not amend the specification or provide arguments, the objection to the specification is maintained for the reasons outlined previously and reiterated below.
Claim Objection(s)
In light of the cancellation of claims 2 and 16, the objection to these claims is moot.
Since Applicant did not address the objection to claim 14, this objection is maintained and reiterated below.
Rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112(b)
In light of the cancellation of claim 5, the rejection of this claim under 35 USC 112(b) is moot.
In light of the amendment of claims 6, 8, and 21, the rejection of these claims under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
However, in light of the addition of new claim 36 which recites the term “significant corrosion,” a new ground of rejection for this claim is presented below.
Rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112(d)
In light of the cancellation of claims 16-18 and 23, the rejection of these claims under 35 USC 112(d) is moot.
Rejection of claims under 35 USC § 102(a)(2)
Applicant’s statement (Page 2, filed 09/30/25) that the pending application and Mazo (Mazo et al. WO 2020/046819 A1) were owned by Verdesian Life Sciences U.S. LLC no later than the effective filing date, February 16, 2020, of the pending application, is effective to overcome the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, 11, 13-18, 20-21, 23, 25-26, 29, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mazo. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 – Dave in view of Sanders
Applicant’s arguments (Pages 3-7, filed 09/30/25) with respect to the maintained obviousness rejection based on Dave in view of Sander are addressed below.
Rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 – Dave in view of Sanders and Ehr
In light of the amendment of claim 8, Applicant’s arguments (Pages 7-8, filed 09/30/25) regarding the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dave in view of Sanders and Ehr have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Since Applicant amended claim 8 and added new claim 38, a new ground of rejection for these two claims is presented below. Since the new ground of rejection was necessitated by amendment, this action is made FINAL.
Maintained Objection to the Specification
The disclosure is again objected to because of the following informalities:
There are numerous trademarks or trade names recited in the instant disclosure. For example, on Page 2, lines 23 and 31-32, the terms “N-Serve®” and “Instinct®II” are trade names or trademarks used in commerce. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
On Page 47, line 27, the term “isoterephtalic” should be corrected to recite “isoterephthalic.”
On Page 49, line 12, the term “allysulfonic” should be corrected to recite “allylsulfonic.”
Appropriate correction is required.
New Rejection necessitated by Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 36 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection. Claim 36 recites the phrase “… does not cause significant corrosion of the metal-based components” (emphasis added). After carefully examining the instant disclosure, the examiner respectfully submits that support for this amendment is lacking and the addition of said limitation is new matter. Although the instant specification discloses “reduced corrosion behavior” (Abstract, Page 4, lines 6-11 and 23-26, Page 5, lines 1-3, Page 8, lines 5-10, Page 27, lines 17-19, Page 33, lines 4-5, Page 49, embodiments 26-28), there is no disclosure regarding what is considered “significant” corrosion. This limitation of “… does not cause significant corrosion …” was not set forth and is considered new matter.
Although the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims, when filing an amendment an applicant should show support in the original disclosure for new or amended claims. See MPEP 714.02 and 2163.06 (“Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).
New claim 36 recites a limitation which was not clearly disclosed in the specification as filed, and now changes the scope of the instant disclosure as filed. Such limitations recited in the newly added claim, which did not appear in the specification, as filed, introduces new concepts and violate the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C 112. Applicant is required to provide sufficient written support for the limitations recited in the present claims in the specification, or claims as-filed, or remove these limitations from the claims in response to this Office Action.
New Rejection necessitated by Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 36 recites the term “significant corrosion” (emphasis added). The term “significant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear how much of a reduction in corrosion is considered “significant.” Clarification and/or amendment are required.
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 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.
Maintained and Updated Rejections
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13-15, 20-21, 25-26, 29, and 31 are again rejected and new claims 33-37 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dave et al. (US 2016/0332931 A1 – “Dave”) in view of Sanders et al. (US 2016/0174547 A1 – “Sanders”).
Instant claim 1 is drawn to a nitrapyrin-organic acid ionic mixture comprising nitrapyrin and an organic acid selected from the list consisting of: malic acid, tartaric acid, etidronic acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, isophthalic acid, aconitic acid, trimesic acid, biphenyl-3,3',5,5'-tetracarboxylic acid, furantetracarboxylic acid, sebacic acid, azelaic acid, isoterephthalic acid, pyromellitic acid, and mellitic acid.
Dave teaches a non-corrosive nitrification inhibitor polar solvent formulation (Abstract and claims 1-22). The nitrification inhibitor is a nitrapyrin such as 2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl)pyridine ([0003], [0041], [0087], and claims 7-17). The formulation is a liquid fertilizer formulation for use in agricultural applications ([0013]), and includes at least one polar solvent selected from the group consisting of methyl-5-(dimethylamino)-2-methyl-5-oxopentanoate which is available as Rhodiasolv® Polarclean ([0007], [0016], Table 1 – Samples 18 and 19). One or more second solvents can be used to dissolve or disperse the nitrapyrin compounds at high loading levels including solvent naphtha ([0066]-[0070], [0088], [0136], ¶ after Table 1, and claims 7-10) and xylene ([0136]). Additional components include surfactants ([0014], [0096], [0102], and [0134]).
Dave does not expressly teach an organic acid mixed with the nitrapyrin.
Sanders teaches a product for agricultural use by direct application to the soil or in combination with fertilizers to increase nutrient uptake ([0003]). A preferred solid fertilizer is urea ([0048]). The product is a liquid or solutionized fertilizer product including a polyanionic polymer and an alpha-hydroxy acid ([0071]), such as tartaric acid ([0072]). The polyanionic polymer comprises a tetrapolymer containing about 30 mole percent maleic repeat units, about 50 mole percent itaconic repeat units, and a total of about 20 mole percent sulfonated repeat units, made up of about 15 mole percent methallylsulfonate repeat units and about 5 mole percent allylsulfonate repeat units ([0251]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a non-corrosive nitrification inhibitor polar solvent formulation in the form of a liquid fertilizer composition containing a nitrification inhibitor is a nitrapyrin such as 2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl)pyridine, polar solvents methyl-5-(dimethylamino)-2-methyl-5-oxopentanoate which is available as Rhodiasolv® Polarclean, solvent naphtha and xylene, and surfactants, as taught by Dave, in view of the product for agricultural use which is a liquid or solutionized fertilizer product including an alpha-hydroxy acid such as tartaric acid, as taught by Sanders, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because both references are drawn to liquid fertilizer formulations for use in agricultural applications. It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the alpha-hydroxy acid taught by Sanders in the liquid fertilizer formulation taught by Dave because both products have efficacious agricultural applications.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 29, the limitations of a nitrapyrin-organic acid ionic mixture would have been obvious over the nitrapyrin such as 2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl)pyridine ([0003], [0041], [0087], and claims 7-17) taught by Dave and the tartaric acid ([0072]) taught by Sanders since both references teach liquid fertilizer formulations for use in agricultural applications. It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Regarding instant claim 3, the limitation of the organic solvent would have been obvious over the methyl-5-(dimethylamino)-2-methyl-5-oxopentanoate which is available as Rhodiasolv® Polarclean ([0007], [0016], Table 1 – Samples 18 and 19), and solvent naphtha ([0066]-[0070], [0088], [0136], ¶ after Table 1, and claims 7-10), as taught by Dave.
Regarding instant claim 6, the limitation of two or more organic solvents would have been obvious over the methyl-5-(dimethylamino)-2-methyl-5-oxopentanoate which is available as Rhodiasolv® Polarclean ([0007], [0016], Table 1 – Samples 18 and 19), and one or more second solvents including solvent naphtha and xylene ([0136]), as taught by Dave.
Regarding instant claims 11 and 13-15, the limitations of the polyanionic polymer would have been obvious over the polyanionic polymer comprising a tetrapolymer containing about 30 mole percent maleic repeat units, about 50 mole percent itaconic repeat units, and a total of about 20 mole percent sulfonated repeat units, made up of about 15 mole percent methallylsulfonate repeat units and about 5 mole percent allylsulfonate repeat units ([0251]), as taught by Dave.
Regarding instant claim 20, the limitation of the nitrapyrin at a loading/concentration of from about 20% to about 50% wt/wt would have been obvious over the loading range of 30.90% to 34.62% by weight of nitrapyrin (Table 1), as taught by Dave.
Regarding instant claim 21, the limitation of nitrapyrin present at a loading that is at least about 25% higher than a commercially available composition comprising nitrapyrin at a concentration of 22.2% and/or is at least 65% higher than a commercially available composition comprising nitrapyrin at a concentration of 16.9% would have been obvious over the commercially available N-Serve® loading of about 240 g/L ([0088]) and the high load compositions which contain 360 g/L of nitrapyrin, calculated to be 50% higher than the loading of N-Serve®, which demonstrate stability in various extreme conditions, such as cold conditions ([0092]) and the loading of at least 380 g/L or at least 400 g/L ([0093]), as taught by Dave.
Regarding instant claims 25-26, the limitations of a composition comprising an agricultural product and the non-corrosive nitrapyrin formulation of claim 3 would have been obvious over the liquid fertilizer compositions for use in agricultural applications ([0013]), as taught by Dave, and the product for agricultural use by direct application to the soil or in combination with fertilizers to increase nutrient uptake ([0003]), as taught by Sanders.
Regarding instant claim 29, the limitation of reducing nitrapyrin volatilization would have been obvious over the volatile nature of some formulations of nitrapyrin ([0004]) and the formulations which help to reduce the tendency of polar solutions of nitrapyrin to corrode metal surfaces (Abstract, [0155] and Table 4), as taught by Dave, since the reduction of corrosion by the solutions of nitrapyrin would intrinsically be due to the reduction in volatility of nitrapyrin.
Regarding instant claim 31, the limitation of improving a soil condition such as nitrification would have been obvious over the liquid fertilizer formulations containing the nitrification inhibitor nitrapyrin (Abstract, [0003], [0013], [0041], and claim 1), as taught by Dave. One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that the application of a fertilizer would naturally improve the soil condition.
Regarding instant claim 33, the limitation of applying the formulation at cold temperatures would have been obvious over the high load compositions of nitrapyrin, which demonstrate stability in cold conditions ([0092]), as taught by Dave.
Regarding instant claim 34, the limitation of the formulation which does not freeze, solidify or crystallize would have been obvious over the high load compositions of nitrapyrin, which demonstrate stability in cold conditions ([0092]), as taught by Dave.
Regarding instant claim 35, the limitation of the contacting step further comprising agricultural equipment with metal-based material would have been obvious over the reduced levels of corrosion when in contact with ferrous metals (Abstract) and the corrosion resistance provided to carbon steel tanks ([0092]), as taught by Dave.
Regarding instant claim 36, the limitation of the formulation not causing significant corrosion of the metal-based components would have been obvious over the reduced levels of corrosion when in contact with ferrous metals (Abstract) and the corrosion resistance provided to carbon steel tanks ([0092]), as taught by Dave.
Regarding instant claim 37, the limitation of the fertilizer which is an ammonical solid, liquid or gaseous fertilizer would have been obvious over the nitrogenous fertilizer compound which is anhydrous ammonia ([0014], [0097]-[0099], [0102], [0134]-[0135]), as taught by Dave.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Pages 3-8, filed 09/30/25) with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, 11, 13-18, 20-21, 23, 25-26, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dave in view of Sanders have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In light of the cancellation of claims 2, 5, 16-18, and 23 the rejection of these claims is moot.
Applicant argues (Page 3, filed 09/30/25) that Dave and Sanders do not teach or suggest the recited nitrapyrin-organic acid ionic mixture.
This is not persuasive because the nitrapyrin-organic acid ionic mixture would have been obvious over the nitrapyrin such as 2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl)pyridine ([0003], [0041], [0087], and claims 7-17) taught by Dave and the tartaric acid ([0072]) taught by Sanders since both references teach liquid fertilizer formulations for use in agricultural applications. It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A).
Applicant argues (Pages 3-4, filed 09/30/25) that nowhere in the entire disclosure of Dave is there a mention of adding an organic acid.
The Examiner acknowledges that Dave does not teach an organic. The secondary reference, Sanders, is relied upon for teaching this limitation.
Applicant argues (Page 4, filed 09/30/25) that a skilled artisan would note that none of the organic acids recited in amended claim 1 are taught or suggested in Sanders ([0072] in Sanders).
This is not persuasive because tartaric acid, which is recited in amended claim 1, is taught by Sanders ([0072]).
Applicant argues (Page 4, filed 09/30/25) that a skilled artisan would not be motivated to modify any of the alpha hydroxy acids taught in Sanders in the absence of any teachings that any particular benefit can be obtained from doing so.
This is not persuasive because the limitation of organic acids recited in claim 1 is rendered obvious by the tartaric acid ([0072]) taught by Sanders. The same organic acid, i.e., tartaric acid, is taught by the prior art, and no modification of tartaric acid is required for the obviousness rationale.
Applicant argues (Page 4, filed 09/30/25) that a skilled artisan would not be motivated to modify the liquid nitrapyrin-containing formulations of Dave with any alpha-hydroxy acids not disclosed by Dave, much less any of the organic acids recited in amended claim 1.
This is not persuasive because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dave and Sanders since both the references are drawn to liquid fertilizer formulations for use in agricultural applications. It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include the alpha-hydroxy acid taught by Sanders in the liquid fertilizer formulation taught by Dave because both products have efficacious agricultural applications.
Regarding instant claims 3 and 6, Applicant argues (Page 5, filed 09/30/25) that the teachings of Dave and Sanders would not allow a skilled artisan to arrive at the noncorrosive formulation recited in amended claim 3, because neither reference teaches nor suggests that any of the recited solvents are suitable for noncorrosive formulations.
This is not persuasive because Dave teaches a non-corrosive nitrification inhibitor polar solvent formulation (Abstract and claims 1-22), reduced levels of corrosion when in contact with ferrous metals (Abstract), and the corrosion resistance provided to carbon steel tanks ([0092]).
Applicant argues (Page 5, filed 09/30/25) that Dave provides a long list of possible solvents that can be used ([0007]), and (Page 6, filed 09/30/25) that Dave further notes that the following solvents in the above provided list did not work well ([0016]). Applicant argues that “Formulations 18-24 in Table 1, which were formulated using either Dowanol DPM, Polarclean, Rhodiasolv® RPDE or TamiSolve NxG exhibited significantly less metal corrosion stability (i.e., days without visible corrosion; 3-4 days) compared to the remaining exemplary liquid formulations 1-16 (i.e., 19 to > 120 days), which were formulated using other solvents from the list of solvents in paragraph [0017] (see Table 1).” Applicant argues that the teachings provided in [0016] of Dave would actually discourage a skilled artisan from using Polarclean as it does not work well in noncorrosive formulations. Applicant argues (Page 7, filed 09/30/25) that Dave teaches away, a skilled artisan would employ any of the other solvents disclosed in Dave as being suitable solvents for noncorrosive formulations, and none of these solvents are recited in amended claim 1.
The Examiner notes that amended instant claim 1 does not recite any solvent at all. The claim recites nitrapyrin and a Markush group of organic acids. Organic solvents are recited in instant claim 3.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Samples 18 and 19, which were relied upon for teaching the limitation of the solvent, do show 4 days without visible corrosion, which is considered enabling for a noncorrosive formulation. Instant claims do not recite any limitation regarding a time period without corrosion. Therefore, the teaching by Dave of Samples 18 and 19 which have 4 days without visible corrosion renders obvious the limitation of the solvents in a non-corrosive formulation.
Furthermore, MPEP 2164.01 states: “Any part of the specification can support an enabling disclosure, even a background section that discusses, or even disparages, the subject matter disclosed therein. Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361, 77 USPQ2d 1041 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(discussion of problems with a prior art feature does not mean that one of ordinary skill in the art would not know how to make and use this feature).”
Also, the disclosure by Dave regarding solvents is not limited solely to Polarclean. Dave also teaches solvent naphtha ([0066]-[0070], [0088], [0136], ¶ after Table 1, and claims 7-10), thereby rendering obvious the heavy aromatic solvent naphtha recited in instant claim 3.
Applicant argues (Page 7, filed 09/30/25) that neither Dave nor Sanders teach or suggest any combinations of two or more solvents recited in amended claim 3.
This is not persuasive because firstly, instant claim 3 does not recite a combination of two or more solvents. Instant claim 6 recites this limitation. Secondly, the limitation of two or more solvents is rendered obvious by the teaching of one or more second solvents including solvent naphtha and xylene ([0136]), as taught by Dave.
In light of the amendment of claim 8, Applicant’s arguments (Page 7, filed 09/30/25) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The obviousness rejection with respect to amended claim 8 is withdrawn. A new ground of rejection based on supporting reference Sor et al. (US 3,565,599) for amended claim 8 and newly added claim 38 is presented below.
New Rejection necessitated by Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 8 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dave et al. (US 2016/0332931 A1 – “Dave”) in view of Sanders et al. (US 2016/0174547 A1 – “Sanders”), as applied to claims 1, 3, 6, 11, 13-15, 20-21, 25-26, 29, 31, and 33-37 above, in view of Sor et al. (US 3,565,599 – “Sor”).
Instant claim 8 is drawn to the noncorrosive nitrapyrin formulation of claim 3, wherein the formulation further comprises a surface active agent selected from the group consisting of polyoxyethylene tridecyl ether phosphate, propylene oxide ethylene oxide polymer monobutyl ether, a mixture of castor oil, ethoxylated and oleate, 4-dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, sodium tetraborate, sodium gluconate, sodium monolaurate, sodium salt of dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, and a combination thereof.
The teachings of Dave and Sanders are discussed above.
Dave and Sanders do not expressly teach the inclusion of a surface active agent as recited in instant claim 8.
Sor teaches a urea-containing fertilizer composition comprising a major amount of urea and metal borate urease inhibitor (claim 1) which is sodium tetraborate (claim 2). The addition of the urease inhibitor improves the urea-containing fertilizer in regard to urease inhibitive properties and increased inhibition against the rapid volatilization of ammonia therefrom when the fertilizers are surface-applied to soil (Col. 1, lines 17-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a non-corrosive nitrification inhibitor polar solvent formulation in the form of a liquid fertilizer composition containing a nitrification inhibitor is a nitrapyrin such as 2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl)pyridine, polar solvents methyl-5-(dimethylamino)-2-methyl-5-oxopentanoate which is available as Rhodiasolv® Polarclean, solvent naphtha and xylene, and surfactants, as taught by Dave, in view of the product for agricultural use which is a liquid or solutionized fertilizer product including an alpha-hydroxy acid such as tartaric acid, wherein the preferred fertilizer is urea, as taught by Sanders, include sodium tetraborate in the fertilizer composition, as taught by Sor, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Sor teaches that the urease inhibitor sodium tetraborate (claim 2) improves the urea-containing fertilizer in regard to urease inhibitive properties and increased inhibition against the rapid volatilization of ammonia therefrom when the fertilizers are surface-applied to soil (Col. 1, lines 17-26).
Regarding instant claims 8 and 38, the limitations of the surface active agent would have been obvious over the sodium tetraborate (claim 2) which improves the urea-containing fertilizer in regard to urease inhibitive properties and increased inhibition against the rapid volatilization of ammonia therefrom when the fertilizers are surface-applied to soil (Col. 1, lines 17-26), as taught by Sor.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Since this new rejection was necessitated by applicant’s amendment, 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 extension fee 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 ARADHANA SASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 6:30 am to 3:00 pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-6023. 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.
/ARADHANA SASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615