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 1/7/2026:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-14, and 16-26 are presently pending
Claims 11-14 and 22-24 are withdrawn
Claims 2, 6, and 15 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The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims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, with new support as necessitated by amendment
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, 3-5, 7-10, 16-21, and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koripelly (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0357094 A1, hereinafter “Koripelly”) in view of Sharma (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0098125 A1, hereinafter “Sharma”) and Colpaert (International Patent Pub. No. 2017/042194 A1, hereinafter “Colpaert”).
Regarding claim 1, Koripelly teaches a solid, particulate urea ammonium sulfate-based composition (e.g., a fertilizer core which can comprise urea and an additional nitrogen nutrient such as ammonium sulfate) [Koripelly Abstract & Para. 0082], the particles comprising:
A core comprising urea ammonium sulfate (e.g., urea and an additional nitrogen nutrient such as ammonium sulfate) [Koripelly Para. 0082] (urea ammonium sulfate or “UAS” would appear to be obtained either by physically blending urea and ammonium sulfate or by melt-mixing molten urea with solid ammonium sulfate, in light of applicant’s specification at Page 5 lines 15-23, and Koripelly implements either physical compaction or melt-mixing molten urea [Koripelly Para. 0088]; as such, the composition of Koripelly containing urea and ammonium sulfate is regarded as reading on “urea ammonium sulfate”); and
An outer layer surrounding and contacting the core (e.g., a shell covering an outer portion of the outer surface of the core) [Koripelly Abstract], comprising from about 95 weight% to about 99.9 weight% of urea (e.g., 50 wt. % to 100 wt. % urea) [Koripelly Abstract].
Koripelly does not explicitly include in the outer layer (1) 0.001 to 1.0 wt. % of a phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor or (2) an alkaline or alkaline-forming compound selected form the provided group.
As to (1), Koripelly teaches that the outer layer can comprise other additives such as a nitrification inhibitor [Koripelly Para. 0008], does not explicitly teach that the outer layer comprises a phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor. However, Sharma teaches that it is standard when making fertilizer granules with a urea or ammonium-based core to include in the coating a urease inhibitor [Sharma Abstract] in an amount comprising 0.001 to 1 weight% of the total fertilizer when the coating is applied at a rate of between 0.001 to 10 wt. % of the total fertilizer [Sharma Para. 0014-0015]. Suitable urease inhibitors include NBPT, a phosphoric triamide [Sharma Para. 0009]. The urease inhibitor provides the advantage of counteracting the degradation of the ammonium and urea fertilizer in the soil, which reduces the nitrogen lost through volatilization [Sharma Para. 0005]. Further, including the inhibitor specifically in the coating layer helps to stabilize the inhibitor for a longer period of time [Sharma Para. 0008]. As such, in making the coated fertilizer granule of Koripelly, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Sharma and readily appreciate the advantages of adding a phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor in the coating including decreased nitrogen loss and increased stability. 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 a phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor in an amount overlapping with the claimed range as taught by Sharma in the coating of the fertilizer of Koripelly.
As to (2), Koripelly teaches that the outer layer can comprise other additives, but does not explicitly teach that the outer layer contains an alkaline or alkaline-forming compound selected form the provided group. However, Colpaert teaches that it is standard when combining urea and a phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor (as is done in the coating of the composition of Koripelly as modified by Sharma) to include an alkaline or alkaline-forming inorganic or organic compound to neutralize the phosphoric acid which is formed during decomposition of the urease inhibitor [Colpaert Page 4 lines 18-24]. This slows down the decomposition of the urease inhibitor [Colpaert Page 4 lines 18-24]. Suitable alkaline or alkaline-forming compounds include metal oxides or hydroxides or acetates [Colpaert Page7 lines 23-33], or organic bases such as ammonia, amines, amides, adenines, guanidines, anilines, carbamates, thiazoles, etc. [Colpaert Para. bridging pages 7-8], including specifically calcium oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium carbonate, and mixtures thereof [Colpaert Page 8 lines 12-15]. These also provide the advantage of supplying additional micronutrients to the soil [Colpaert Page 8 lines 12-15]. The alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is applied in an amount between 0.0001 to 5 weight% via standard coating or blending techniques such as spray coating or drum coating, and is in intimate contact with the urease inhibitor [Colpaert Page 8 lines 26-35]. As such, in combining urea and a urease inhibitor in the coating of the composition of Koripelly as modified by Sharma, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Colpaert and readily appreciate the advantages of including the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound as claimed. 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 in the coating of the composition of Koripelly as modified by Sharma an alkaline or alkaline-forming compound selected from the group as claimed as taught by Colpaert.
Regarding claim 3, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the outer layer represents 5 to 20 weight% of the urea ammonium sulfate-based composition (e.g., the core can make up about 60 to 90 wt. % of the fertilizer particle of Koripelly [Koripelly Para. 0012], and it necessarily flows that conversely the shell can make up 10 to 30 wt.% of the composition). Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is dispersed in the outer layer, is present on the outer surface of the outer layer, or a combination thereof (e.g., the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is applied in an amount between 0.0001 to 5 weight% via standard coating or blending techniques such as spray coating or drum coating, and is in intimate contact with the urease inhibitor, which will necessarily result in it being present on the outer surface or dispersed within the outer layer) [Colpaert Page 8 lines 26-35].
Regarding claim 5, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor is dispersed in the outer layer, is present on the outer surface of the outer layer, or a combination thereof (e.g., the shell is a homogeneous shell, meaning that any components are uniformly dispersed within it) [Koripelly Para. 0040].
Regarding claim 7, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor is a compound of the provided formula (e.g., suitable urease inhibitors include NBPT, a phosphoric triamide which meets the provided formula and is further described as an appropriate urease inhibitor in claim 20) [Sharma Para. 0009].
Regarding claim 8, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition but does not explicitly state that it further comprises an anti-caking and/or moisture-repellent and/or anti-dusting agent. However, Colpaert further teaches that it is standard when combining urea and a phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor (as is done in the coating of the composition of Koripelly as modified by Sharma) to further include an anticaking and/or moisture repellent coating in order to slow the degradation of the phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor NBPT (referred to by Colpaert as nBPTP) [Colpaert Page 5 lines 3-10]. The anticaking and/or moisture repellent coating acts as a protection layer and prevents moisture uptake [Colpaert Page 5 lines 3-10]. Suitable coating agents include vegetable oil, paraffin, or other moisture repellent agents, including waxes, oils, and resins, in an amount comprising 0.0001 to 1 weight% of the fertilizer composition [Colpaert Page 9 lines 25-35]. As such, in making the fertilizer composition of Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert containing urea and a phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Colpaert’s further disclosure and readily appreciate the advantages of further including the anti-caking and moisture repellent coating. 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 in the fertilizer composition of Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert the anti-caking and moisture repellent coating as taught by Colpaert.
Regarding claim 9, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the anti-caking and/or moisture repellent and/or anti-dusting agent comprises at least a non-polar material, and is present in the composition at a level of 0.0001 to 1 weight% relative to the total weight of the composition (e.g., suitable coating agents include vegetable oil, paraffin, or other moisture repellent agents, including waxes, oils, and resins, in an amount comprising 0.0001 to 1 weight% of the fertilizer composition) [Colpaert Page 9 lines 25-35].
Regarding claim 10, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the core comprises from about 0.1 to 40 weight% of ammonium sulphate (e.g., the core comprises 20 to 80 weight% of urea, and as such the possible amount of the additional fertilizing ingredient ammonium sulphate in the granule will necessarily overlap with the claimed range) [Koripelly Para. 0082].
Regarding claim 16, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the alkaline or alkaline forming compound is selected from the group consisting of calcium oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium carbonate, and mixtures thereof (e.g., suitable alkaline or alkaline-forming compounds include calcium oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium carbonate, and mixtures thereof) [Colpaert Page 8 lines 12-15].
Regarding claim 17, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the alkaline or alkaline forming inorganic or organic compound is present in or on the outer layer at a level of 0.001 to 1.0 weight% relative to the total weight of the composition (e.g., the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is applied in an amount between 0.0001 to 5 weight% via standard coating or blending techniques such as spray coating or drum coating, and is in intimate contact with the urease inhibitor) [Colpaert Page 8 lines 26-35].
Regarding claim 18, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the level of the alkaline or alkaline forming inorganic or organic compound present in or on the outer layer is 0.01 to 0.5 weight% relative to the total weight of the composition (e.g., the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is applied in an amount between 0.0001 to 5 weight%, overlapping with the claimed range) [Colpaert Page 8 lines 26-35].
Regarding claim 19, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the level of the urease inhibitor is 0.02 to 0.5 weight% (e.g., the urease inhibitor comprises 0.001 to 1 weight% of the total fertilizer when the coating is applied at a rate of between 0.001 to 10 wt. % of the total fertilizer [Sharma Para. 0014-0015], which necessarily overlaps with the claimed range of the inhibitor in the coating).
Regarding claim 20, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the urease inhibitor is N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (also known as NBPT) (e.g., suitable urease inhibitors include NBPT) [Sharma Para. 0009].
Regarding claim 21, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the anti-caking and/or moisture repellent and/or anti-dusting agent is a liquid organic material selected from the group consisting of oil, wax, resin and mixtures thereof (e.g., suitable coating agents include vegetable oil, paraffin, or other moisture repellent agents, including waxes, oils, and resins) [Colpaert Page 9 lines 25-35].
Regarding claim 25, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is selected from metal carbamates, metal hydroxides, metal acetates and mixtures thereof (suitable alkaline or alkaline-forming compounds include metal oxides or hydroxides or acetates [Colpaert Page7 lines 23-33], or organic bases such as ammonia, amines, amides, adenines, guanidines, anilines, carbamates, thiazoles, etc. [Colpaert Para. bridging pages 7-8]).
Regarding claim 26, Koripelly as modified by Sharma and Colpaert teaches the composition wherein the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is selected from the listed nitrogen-containing organic bases (e.g., organic bases such as ammonia, amines, amides, adenines, guanidines, anilines, carbamates, thiazoles, etc.) [Colpaert Para. bridging pages 7-8].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/7/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Koripelly discloses a urease in its core rather than in its shell, and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to add the inhibitor specifically to the shell. This is not found persuasive because Sharma provides motivation specifically to include the urease inhibitor in the shell: Including the inhibitor specifically in the coating layer helps to stabilize the inhibitor for a longer period of time [Sharma Para. 0008]. Further, Sharma describes the fact that adding the inhibitor to the interior of the granule itself can increase the cost of producing the fertilizer or even degrade the inhibitor [Sharm Para. 0006]. As such, in making the fertilizer of Koripelly, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily look to Sharma and appreciate the advantages of instead or additionally including the inhibitor in the coating. Applicant also points to the fact that Sharma also includes superphosphate along with the inhibitor in its shell. However, the superphosphate appears to have minimal importance, as it can be included in extremely trace amounts (e.g., 0.01 wt. %) [Sharma Para. 0014]. Even assuming one of ordinary skill in the art would also include the superphosphate in the coating, claim 1 does not require the absence of superphosphate. As such, this is also not found persuasive.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the challenged rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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