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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/09/2026 has been entered.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b).
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Soons et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0201551 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
423
752
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Soons et al. teach a process for the production of a urea ammonium sulfate granulate (e.g. granulate of urea product comprising urea and a salt, such as urea ammonium sulfate) [abstract], using a granulator [Fig. 2] and providing a first fluidized bed of a granulate precursor material (e.g. seed particles) in a compartment of the granulator (e.g. granulator inlet for seed particles) (e.g. non-final granulation compartment (2) [para. 0046; 0062], the first fluidized bed continuously moving from a nuclei inlet to an outlet of the compartment (e.g. the granulator is configured to move the particles from the inlet to the outlet) [0046];
wherein a first spraying liquid (1) comprising a urea melt and an aqueous solution of ammonium sulfate (e.g. feed stream of granulation liquid UAS melt or suspension) [0055] is sprayed into the first fluidized bed to produce an intermediate granulate material (e.g. the granulation liquid will be provided in the form of atomized droplets, or as a sprayed film) [0051], the first fluidized bed having a bed temperature below the crystallization temperature of the sprayed mixture (e.g. ammonium sulfate reduces the crystallization temperature of the granulation liquid, typical temperatures for UAS granulation of the granulation liquid are in a range of 118-140° C) [0051];
wherein the intermediate granulate material is subsequently moved to a next compartment (e.g. second granulation compartment) [0057] where it is fluidized to form a second fluidized bed (e.g. fluidized bed granulator) [0057] while a second spraying liquid comprising a urea melt is sprayed into the second fluidized bed (e.g. other liquid stream is a solution comprising urea without salt, typically a homogenous urea liquid comprising no ammonium sulfate) [0025], the second fluidized bed having a bed temperature which is higher than the first fluidized bed and lower than the crystallization temperature of the sprayed second spraying liquid (e.g. temperature of the urea granulation liquid is in a range of 132-140° C) [0051],
the first spraying liquid comprising a mixture of urea ammonium sulfate (e.g. CE3: first non-final liquid in the form of a urea melt having 10% of AS) [0031] in an aqueous solution (e.g. urea is present as a urea liquid containing at most small amounts of water, generally the amount of water will not exceed 10%) [0039], wherein the mixture is considered a eutectic urea ammonium sulfate mixture as confirmed by Applicant (e.g., with about 1 to about 5 wt% water and about 2 to about 15 wt%, e.g. up to about 12 wt% of ammonium sulfate) [Specification, pg. 4, lines 20-24].
In regard to claims 6 and 16, Soons et al. teach the process of claim 1, wherein exhaust air from the granulator is scrubbed using an aqueous solution of sulfuric acid converting ammonium and ammonium cyanate from the exhaust to ammonium sulfate in an aqueous solution, which is collected (e.g. the off-gases and condensates from the UAS-evaporation section containing a high amount of NH3 are preferably transported to a dust-and NH3-washing section. There the NH3 is simply neutralized so as to form AS, i.e., converted by reaction with sulfuric acid to ammonium sulfate) [0049] and said ammonium sulfate in aqueous solution is used to produce said first spraying liquid after adjustment of the ammonium sulfate concentration (e.g. ammonium sulfate from the evaporation section reduces the amount of AS that has to be added separately) [0050].
In regard to claim 8, Soons et al. teach the process according to claim 1, wherein the second spraying liquid is a hypereutectic mixture of a urea melt and at least 15 wt% of ammonium sulfate in an aqueous solution (e.g. CE3: a second non-final liquid in the form of a urea melt having 25% of AS) [0031].
In regard to claim 21, Soons et al. teach the process of claim 1, wherein said eutectic mixture of urea ammonium sulfate in aqueous solution has 1 wt% to 5 wt% water (e.g. urea is present as a urea liquid containing at most small amounts of water, generally the amount of water will not exceed 10%) [0039] and 5 wt% to 12 wt% of ammonium sulfate (e.g. CE3: first non-final liquid in the form of a urea melt having 10% of AS) [0031].
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.
Claims 2-5, 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soons et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2018/0201551 A1).
In regard to claims 2-3, Soons et al. teach the process of claim 1, wherein the bed temperature of the second fluidized bed is maintained below the melting temperature of the dried mixture on the granulate precursor material (e.g. typical temperatures for UAS granulation of the granulation liquid are in a range of 118-140° C) (e.g. temperature of the urea granulation liquid is in a range of 132-140° C) [0051]. In this case the bed temperature of the second fluidized bed at least overlaps with sub-melting temperature of the UAS (claim 2) and the bed temperature in the second compartment is 10 - 12°C higher than the bed temperature in the first compartment at values across the range (claim 3). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [See MPEP 2144.05].
In regard to claim 4, Soons et al. teach the process of claim 1, wherein the typical temperatures for UAS granulation of the granulation liquid are in a range of 118-140° C and the temperature of the urea granulation liquid is in a range of 132-140° C) [0051]. While Soons et al. teach the temperatures of the liquid material, the reference does not explicitly teach the temperature of the bed. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the bed temperature in the first and second compartment are at values lower than the inlet liquid material temperature disclosed by Soons, within the claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand evaporative cooling necessarily causes a temperature difference between the inlet material and the bed temperature with bed temperature decreasing due to the evaporation of liquid (e.g. heat is also dissipated by evaporation of water present in the urea melt). Furthermore, 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 [See MPEP2144.05 IIA].
In regard to claim 5, Soons et al. teach the process of claim 1, wherein the mean residence time of the granulate precursor material in the second fluidized bed is controlled to produce a granulate having a residual moisture content of at most 0.3 wt% (e.g. up the urea melt finishing metal utilizes urea having up to 1.5% water) (urea concentration is between 95 and 99% by weight) [0044-0045] which overlaps with the claimed range.
In regard to claims 7 and 17, Soons et al. teach the process of claim 6, wherein the aqueous solution of sulfuric acid is utilized in the reaction of sulfuric acid to ammonium sulfate [0049]. Soons does not explicitly disclose wherein the aqueous solution of sulfuric acid has a pH below 5, e.g., below 3. However, any aqueous solution of sulfuric acid in any concentration greater than 0.0.005 M exhibits a pH below 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an aqueous sulfuric acid with a concentration greater than about 0.0049 weight % to achieve a favorable reaction condition with the off-gas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose this predictable solution with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims based on the teachings of the Soon reference have been fully considered. Applicant argues (pg. 8, 2nd para.) Soons describes a first non-final liquid (c) having 10% AS in paragraph [0027] whereas paragraph [0039] discloses the amount of water in granulation liquids having more than a soluble amount of the same (e.g. >20% by weight) and the combination of the teachings of Soons paragraph [0027] and [0039] are unallowable regarding the composition of the first non-final liquid (c). With respect to the claim limitation “the first spraying liquid comprising an eutectic mixture of urea ammonium sulfate in an aqueous solution”, the teachings of Soons, when view as a whole, anticipate this limitation. The “first non-final liquid” described throughout Soons is “(c) having 10% of AS” [0027]. Paragraph [0039] describes the continuous phase of the slurry regarding the granulation liquids having more than a soluble amount of the salt. Urea will generally be highly concentrated and generally the amount of water will not exceed 10% [0039]. This statement is not limited to only the granulation liquids having more than a soluble amount of salt when taken at its face value. This would be understood by one of skill in the art because Soons describes a first non-final liquid (emphasis added). Urea is a solid material and ammonium sulfate is a solid material. To achieve the required liquid material as disclosed by Soons, when no other solvents or liquids are described in the reference, the presence of water and description of water in the liquid(s) in paragraph [0027] would not be limited to only a subsection of the liquids described. Applicants arguments invoke prior art limitations which are not recited or implied by Soons. The mixture taught by Soons is considered a eutectic urea ammonium sulfate mixture as described by Applicant (e.g., with about 1 to about 5 wt% water and about 2 to about 15 wt%, e.g. up to about 12 wt% of ammonium sulfate) [Specification, pg. 4, lines 20-24]. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
It is not immediately clear if Applicant's arguments, filed 07/09/2026, are a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. Simply duplicating prior arguments without any changes or new information is generally not proper or effective. The intent of an RCE is to move prosecution forward, usually through some form of substantive action by the applicant. Any subsequent Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114 requires a submission that is a bona fide attempt to advance the application which requires (in the absence of amendments or new evidence) NEW arguments. If no submission is made (no amendments, no new arguments/evidence) any future RCE will be considered deficient and the application will be abandoned.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ding (CN 103086808 A) describes a urea-ammonium sulphate melt: whereby a melting tank containing ammonium sulphate, urea, water and ammonium sulphate by weight ratio of 100: 5-15: 10-20 is heating and stirred to form a urea-ammonium sulphate eutectic molten liquid [0005].
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is (571)270-3599. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Amber R 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.
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 August 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights