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. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT Group I (claims 1 and 3-16) in the reply filed on FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT amended claim 1 (claim amendments 10/30/2025) requires the further limitation of the type of base . This is not found persuasive because this technical feature is still not a special technical feature , as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Colpaert and Castillo as discussed below on Pages 3-4 . The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim s 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 . Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: FILLIN "Enter appropriate explanation" \* MERGEFORMAT "an urea adduct" (line 2 of the claim) appears to be a typographical error which should read "a urea adduct" . Appropriate correction is required. 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 , 3-4, 8-13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colpaert (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0388919 A1, hereinafter “ Colpaert ”) in view of Castillo (U.S. Patent No. 5476527, hereinafter “Castillo”). Regarding claim 1, Colpaert teaches a fertilizer granule (e.g., a granulated fertilizer which is a urea-based compound such as a urea calcium sulfate granule) [ Colpaert Abstract & Para. 0069-70] comprising: A core comprising a urea adduct comprising urea and calcium sulfate (e.g., a urea calcium sulfate granule) [ Colpaert Para. 0069] and A coat comprising a urease inhibitor (e.g., a urease inhibitor is applied to the fertilizer granules by coating) [ Colpaert Para. 0055] and a base (e.g., an alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is applied to the fertilizer granules by coating) [ Colpaert Para. 0059], the coat forming a coating on an outer surface of the core (the urease inhibitor and the base are coated onto the fertilizer particles) [Para. 0055 & 59] , Wherein the base is an oxide, bicarbonate, acetate and/or hydroxide of a group 1 metal, group 2 metal, group 13 metal, and/or ammonium (e.g., the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is a metal oxide, metal carbamate, metal hydroxide, or metal acetate, in particular selected from the group consisting of calcium oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium carbonate, and mixtures thereof) [ Colpaert Abstract & Para. 0060]. Colpaert teaches that the urea-containing core can comprise mixtures of other fertilizers such as various phosphates [ Colpaert Para. 0069], but does not explicitly state that the core further comprises phosphoric acid. However, Castillo teaches that it is advantageous to include phosphoric acid in urea-based fertilizer compositions in an amount between 0.2 to 7 wt. % because it improves mechanical resistance and decreases lumping or caking without affecting dissolution [Castillo Abstract]. Phsophoric acid further maintains a desirable white color in the fertilizer, while avoiding toxic or carcinogenic additives and remaining inexpensive [Castillo Col. 3 lines 15-20]. As such, in making the fertilizer of Colpaert , one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Castillo and readily appreciate the advantages of further including phosphoric acid. 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 urea-containing fertilizer of Colpaert to further include phosphoric acid as taught by Castillo. Regarding claim 3, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the base is CaO and/or MgO (e.g., the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is a metal oxide, metal carbamate, metal hydroxide, or metal acetate, in particular selected from the group consisting of calcium oxide, zinc oxide, magnesium oxide, calcium carbonate, and mixtures thereof) [Abstract & Para. 0060]. Regarding claim 4, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the urease inhibitor is a thiophosphoric triamide derivative (e.g., the urease inhibitor is of the type phosphoric triamide , in particular nBTPT ) [ Colpaert Para. 0001]. Regarding claim 8, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the base is comprised in particulate solids (e.g., the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound, which is also referred to as a stabilizer [ Colpaert Para. 0035] may be a solid, in particular a particulate material with a particle size between 1 and 1000 micrometers) [ Colpaert Para. 0062-64]. Regarding claim 9, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the particulate solids have an average diameter of 0.1 to 150 micrometers (e.g., the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound, which is also referred to as a stabilizer [ Colpaert Para. 0035] may be a solid, in particular a particulate material with a particle size between 1 and 1000 micrometers) [ Colpaert Para. 0062-64]. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 10, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the fertilizer granule wherein the core comprises 47 to 79.5 wt. % urea, 20 to 45 wt. % calcium sulfate, and 0.1 to 3 wt. % phosphoric acid: Colpaert teaches that the urea-based compound, which is the core, comprises 40-99 wt. % of the total composition [ Colpaert Para. 0098] , and Castillo teaches that the phosphoric acid comprises 0.2 to 7 wt. % of the total composition [Castillo Abstract]. Here, the urea-based compound is urea calcium sulfate. Urea calcium sulfate implemented in fertilizer contains approximately 64 % urea and 36 % calcium sulfate by weight, so a core made of urea calcium sulfate and 0.2 to 7 wt. % phosphoric acid meets the claimed range. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 11, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the fertilizer granule wherein 90 wt. % to 99 wt. % of the fertilizer granule is comprised of the core (e.g., the urea-based compound, which is the core, comprises 40-99 wt. % of the total composition) [ Colpaert Para. 0098]. Regarding claim 12, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the fertilizer granule comprising 0.2 to 7 wt. % of the base (e.g., the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound is present in the composition at a level of 0.001 to 1 weight %) [ Colpaert Para. 0059]. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 13, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the fertilizer granule comprising 0.01 to 0.2 wt. % of the urease inhibitor (e.g., the urease inhibitor is included between 0.0001 to 1.0 weight % of the total composition) [ Colpaert Para. 0047]. Note that similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. Regarding claim 16, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the fertilizer granule comprised in a fertilizer blend or compounded fertilizer ( e.g., the granule can be formulated as part of a blend) [ Colpaert Title & Abstract]. Claim (s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colpaert and Castillo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Colpaert 2 (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2023/0202939 A1, hereinafter “ Colpaert 2”). Regarding claim 5, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the fertilizer granule comprising the urease inhibitor and base in a coating (see, e.g., Colapert Para. 0105), but does not explicitly state whether the coating components are mixed or added in layers. However, Colpaert 2 teaches a similar urea and sulfate-containing fertilizer granule comprising a coating containing a urease inhibitor and a base [ Colpaert 2 Abstract & Para. 0051]. Colpaert 2 teaches that the coating is advantageously either mixed together or applied in layers [ Colpaert 2 Para. 0054, 58 & claims 4 & 5]. Adding the components in separate layers allows for customization according to market requirements and regulations post-manufacture [ Colpaert 2 Para. 0058]. As such, in making the coated granule of Colpaert as modified by Castillo comprising a urease inhibitor and a base in the coating, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Colpaert 2 and readily appreciate the advantages of including these same compounds in separate layers post-manufacture. 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 granule of Colpaert as modified by Castillo to manufacture it such that there are separate layers comprising the base and the inhibitor as taught by Colpaert 2. Regarding claim 6, Colpaert as modified by Castillo and Colpaert 2 teaches the fertilizer granule, but does not explicitly state that a portion of the alkaline coating layer is arranged between the core and the inhibitor coating layer. However, Colpaert 2 further teaches that either the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound (the base) or the urease inhibitor, or both, would be present either on the outer surface of the outer layer or dispersed within the outer layer [ Colpaert 2 Para. 0045 & 54 & claims 4 & 5]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily envision a scenario where either the base or the urease inhibitor is applied first, then followed by an outer layer comprising the other, or a scenario where they are mixed and applied in multiple outer layers. Applying first the base and then the inhibitor as claimed thus amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with reasonable expectation of success. 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 granule of Colpaert as modified by Castillo to include at least a portion of the alkaline coating layer between the core and the inhibitor as taught by Colpaert 2. It is also noted that the claim does not require the absence of the other component in each respective layer (i.e., the layer comprising the base can also comprise the urease inhibitor and still read on the claim, and conversely, the layer comprising the urease inhibitor can also comprise the base and still read on the claim). Regarding claim 7, Colpaert as modified by Castillo and Colpaert 2 teaches the fertilizer granule, but does not explicitly state that a portion of the alkaline coating layer is arranged between the core and the inhibitor coating layer. However, Colpaert 2 further teaches that either the alkaline or alkaline-forming compound (the base) or the urease inhibitor, or both, would be present either on the outer surface of the outer layer or dispersed within the outer layer [ Colpaert 2 Para. 0045 & 54 & claims 4 & 5]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily envision a scenario where either the base or the urease inhibitor is applied first, then followed by an outer layer comprising the other, or a scenario where they are mixed and applied in multiple outer layers. Applying first the urease inhibitor and then the base as claimed thus amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with reasonable expectation of success. 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 granule of Colpaert as modified by Castillo to include at least a portion of the urease inhibitor coating layer between the core and the base as taught by Colpaert 2. It is also noted that the claim does not require the absence of the other component in each respective layer (i.e., the layer comprising the base can also comprise the urease inhibitor and still read on the claim, and conversely, the layer comprising the urease inhibitor can also comprise the base and still read on the claim). Claim (s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colpaert and Castillo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Hundreds Questions and Answers on the Efficient Use of Fertilizers,” Page 61, edited by Ma Guorui , China Agriculture Press, January 2006, cited in the IDS filed 9/5/2025 (hereinafter “ Guorui ”) , with evidence from “ Phosphogypsum ,” EPA.gov, Radiation Protection, retrieved 12/12/2025 (hereinafter “EPA”) as to claim 15 only . Regarding claim 14, Colpaert as modified by Castillo teaches the granule comprising urea calcium sulfate, also known as urea gypsum, but does not explicitly state a source for acquiring the included gypsum. However, Guorui teaches that there are only three kinds of agricultural gypsum: Raw gypsum, calcined gypsum and phosphogypsum . As such, selecting phosphogypsum from the limited list provided by Guorui amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with reasonable expectation of success. 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 Colpaert as modified by Castillo to source the included gypsum in the urea gypsum from phosphogypsum as taught by Guorui . Regarding claim 15, Colpaert as modified by Castillo and Guorui teaches the granule containing phosphogypsum , but does not explicitly state a source from which the phosphogypsum is obtained. However, phosphogypsum is necessarily produced from a phosphoric acid manufacturing process, by definition: “ Phosphogypsum is a solid waste byproduct from processing phosphate ore to make phosphoric acid that is later used in fertilizer” [EPA Page 1 Para. 1]. As such, the phosphogypsum implemented is necessarily sourced from a phosphoric acid manufacturing process. In the alternative, the recitation “wherein the phosphogypsum is obtained from a phosphoric acid manufacturing process” sets forth a product-by-process limitation. 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 15 sets forth a step of obtaining phosphogypsum from phosphoric acid manufacturing. This would not appear to impart any additional structure beyond what is already necessarily contained in phosphogypsum itself. Because the cited references would appear to teach an identical end product comprising phosphogypsum , they is regarded as reading on this limitation despite no specific mention of the manufacturing process. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT HEATHER E RAINBOW whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0185 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber Orlando can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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