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 06/06/2023, 06/06/2023, 10/23/2024, 03/24/2025, and 04/21/2025 have been being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim s 1-3, 8-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schwob (FR 2,745,564 – citation B28 in 06/06/2023 IDS). In regard to claim s 1 -2 , Schwob teaches a method for producing a urea calcium sulfate (UCS) adduct (e.g. calcium sulfate tetra-urea) [pg. 2, line 44] , the method comprising: (a) contacting an aqueous urea solution (e.g. 2400 g urea with 600 g water) and with a moist phosphogypsum (e.g. gypse résiduaire ) comprising 10 wt. % to 30 wt. % of moisture (e.g. 20 wt. % with 600 g water ) , under conditions sufficient to form a slurry (e.g. slurry mixture) comprising formed UCS adduct (e.g. calcium sulfate tetra-urea) [pg. 2, Example 1 ]. In regard to claim 3, Schwob teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the formed slurry comprising formed UCS adduct comprises 10 wt. % to 30 wt. % of water (e.g. 1200/2400 = 22 wt. %) [pg. 2, lines 32-33). In regard to claims 8- 10 , Schwob teaches the method of claim 1 , further comprising obtaining the moist phosphogypsum from a phosphoric acid manufacturing plant (e.g. residual gypsum as by-products in the form of filter sludge […] in the manufacture of phosphoric acid, which produces filter cakes known as phosphogypsum) prior to step (a) [pg. 1, lines 6-10], wherein: i) the moist phosphogypsum produced from the phosphoric acid manufacturing plant is not dried and/or pretreated to reduce moisture content of moist phosphogypsum below 10 wt. % prior to contacting the urea in step (a) and/or ii) wherein no water is added to the moist phosphogypsum produced from the phosphoric acid manufacturing plant after production of the phosphogypsum or in the contacting step (a) other than the water contained in the moist phosphogypsum from the phosphoric acid manufacturing plant (e.g. moist phosphogypsum (e.g. gypse résiduaire) comprising 20 wt. % with 600 g water) [pg. 2, Example 1]. Schwob does not teach a “cooling” step and therefore the reference is considered to teach the limitation wherein the moist phosphogypsum produced from the phosphoric acid manufacturing plant is not cooled to a temperature below 30°C prior to contacting the urea in step (a). In regard to claim 11, Schwob teaches the method of claim 1 , wherein a molar ratio of urea contacting the moist phosphogypsum to calcium sulfate contained in the moist phosphogypsum contacted in step (a) is 1:0.25 to 1.2:0.16 (e.g. 2400 g urea : 1720 g gypsum = a molar ratio of 1:0.25) [pg. 2, lines 32-33]. In regard to claims 12-13 and 15 , Schwob teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: (b) drying the slurry to form a dried fertilizer composition comprising the formed UCS adduct , wherein the dried fertilizer composition comprises 0 wt. % to 10 wt. %. of moisture (heating in a greenhouse to the final product which contains less than 4% moisture) [pg. 2, lines 35-42] , thus 40 wt. % to 95 wt. % of the dried fertilizer composition is comprised of the formed UCS adduct. In regard to claim 14, Schwob teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the drying in step (b) comprises contacting the slurry or a dryer used for drying the slurry with steam (e.g. steam is inherently present at experimental conditions of a relative humidity of approximately 75 % and an average ambient temperature of 18°C ) [pg. 2, lines 40-42]. In regard to claims 16-1 8 , Schwob teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising granulating the formed UCS adduct before, during, and/or after drying the slurry , wherein the granulating is performed in a granulator and step (a) is performed in a vessel different from the granulator (e.g. drying is stopped when the mixture's dryness allows for easy granulation. The still-wet mixture is then introduced into a granulation loop well known to those skilled in the art, i.e., one comprising a granulator, a drying unit […]) [pg. 3, lines 4-8]. Schwob teaches wherein the drying in step (b) comprises contacting the slurry or a dryer used for drying the slurry with steam (e.g. steam is inherently present at experimental conditions of a relative humidity of approximately 75 % and an average ambient temperature of 18°C ) [pg. 2, lines 40-42]. In regard to claim 20, Schwob teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises combining the formed UCS adduct with at least one additional fertilizer to form a fertilizer blend and/or compounded fertilizer (e.g. potassium chloride is added to the mixture to result in a N-K binary fertilizer) [pg. 3, example 3]. 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. 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. Claim s 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwob (FR 2,745,564 – citation B28 in 06/06/2023 IDS) . In regard to claims 4-5, Schwob teaches the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein urea particles having a size of 0.1 mm to 1 mm (claim 4) or urea granules and/or prills having a size of 1 mm to 4 mm (claim 5) are contacted with the moist phosphogypsum to form the slurry. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose from a finite number of predictable materials (e.g. liquid molten urea or solid particulate urea in commercially available sizes) . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success . In regard to claims 6-7, Schwob teaches the method of claim 1, wherein conditions are at ambient temperature [pg. 1, line 3] or at the average temperature of 27°C [pg. 1, lines 29-30], or 18°C in greenhouse conditions [pg. 2, line 41]. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) [MPEP 2144.05 IIA]. In this case it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the contacting step at an elevated temperature (e.g. 30°C to 60°C or 40°C to 80 °C ). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in performing the drying process at an elevated temperature for a shorter period of time required to form a dry product. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwob (FR 2,745,564 – citation B28 in 06/06/2023 IDS) in view of Kells et al. (WO 2019/016763 – citation B 26 in 06/06/2023 IDS). In regard to claim 19, Schwob teaches the method of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the slurry of step (a) further comprises a base and/or a urease inhibitor. However, the Kells reference describes additional additives can be added to the UCS granule at the granulation process or any later stage [0056]. The UCS granules can comprise one or more inhibitors [0058]. 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 urease inhibitor in the USC produced by the methods of Schwob. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because to slow the breakdown of the urea component which reduces the loss of nitrogen through ammonia volatilization. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3599 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber R 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. /JENNIFER A SMITH/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 September 3, 2025