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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I (claims 1-5, 7-8, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 20-22) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the technical feature of “the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1” is not disclosed by Bottai. This is not found persuasive because Groups I-IV, inclusive, lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of “the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Varadachari (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0002118 A1) as demonstrated in the rejection herein.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 25-26, 30-31 and 44-45 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/27/2023 and 11/16/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
In regard to claim 1, the limitation “wherein the water-insoluble fraction is obtained by…” appears to be describing a step of separating the water-insoluble fraction from the urea-polyphosphate composition (for measurement or subsequent treatment steps) and because the claim requires the water-insoluble fraction as a component of the urea-polyphosphate composition, this step of obtaining the water-insoluble fraction is not required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 20-22 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains the trademark/trade name “Whatman 1 filter paper”. Whatman is a registered trademark for filtration and separation products. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a specific grade or diameter of filter paper and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 1(g) recites total nitrogen and total phosphorus in the water-insoluble fraction but also describe in 1(a) a nitrogen content and a phosphorus content in the composition comprising a water-insoluble fraction. It is unclear how these values relate and if the total nitrogen and total phosphorus are separate values or related to only a fraction of the claimed composition.
Claim 2 recites “the nitrogen content in the water-insoluble fraction” while claim 1 recites “a nitrogen content” and “a water-insoluble fraction”. It is unclear if these values are different, related or the same.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the water-soluble micronutrient content" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the inorganic fraction" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-5, 7-8, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Varadachari (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0002118 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Varadachari teaches a urea-polyphosphate composition comprising urea, a polyphosphate, inorganic cations (e.g. urea mixed with calcium-magnesium polyphosphate fertilizer) [para. 0328] and a water-insoluble fraction (e.g. wherein the fertilizer of Example 31 is used, solubility in water was 0.4% and solubility in citric acid was 95%) [0320] having
(a) a nitrogen content in the range of 5 wt% to 40 wt% (e.g. 30.7 weight percent nitrogen) [0328],
(b) a phosphorus content in the range of 1 wt% to 20 wt.% (e.g. 6.5 weight percent phosphorus) [0328],
(c) primary inorganic cations in the range of 1 wt% to 20 wt% wherein the primary inorganic cations are selected from the group consisting of ammonium, calcium, iron, magnesium, and potassium cations and combinations thereof (e.g. 5.9 weight percent calcium, 1.7 weight percent magnesium) [0328],
(d) a molar ratio of nitrogen to the combined total of the primary inorganic cations in the range of 2:1 to 40:1 (e.g. equivalent of 1.095 mol N / .147 mol Ca + 0.070 mol Mg = 5:1) [0328],
(e) a number average chain length of polyphosphate groups of 1.1 to 20 when orthophosphates are included in the number average chain length calculation (e.g. number average chain length of the product was 4.5) [0321],
(f) a molar ratio of nitrogen to phosphorous in the range of 3:1 to 60:1 (e.g. equivalent of 1.095 mol N / 0.2357 mol P = 5:1) [0328], and
(g) while Varadachari does not explicitly disclose solubility percentages in 2 wt.% citric acid and 0.2 wt.% citric acid, the polyphosphates dissolve relatively rapidly at room temperature in a one hour period in dilute citric acid, such as 6.9 wt. %, 2 wt. %, 1 wt. % or even 0.2 wt % or 0.1 wt. % citric acid [0068] and because Varadachari teaches a product indistinguishable from the present claim, the solubility properties are considered inherent to the products of Varadachari. The claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004) [MPEP 2112].
In regard to claim 2, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 wherein the nitrogen content in the water-insoluble fraction is in the range of 5 to 40 wt% (e.g. 30.7 weight percent nitrogen) [0328].
In regard to claim 3, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 wherein the phosphorus content in the water-insoluble fraction is in the range of 4 wt% to 13 wt.% (e.g. 6.5 weight percent phosphorus) [0328].
In regard to claim 4, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 wherein the inorganic cation content in the water-insoluble fraction is in the range of 5 wt% to 15 wt% (e.g. 5.9 weight percent calcium, 1.7 weight percent magnesium) [0328].
In regard to claim 5, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 wherein the primary inorganic cations are selected from the group consisting of calcium, magnesium and iron (e.g. 5.9 weight percent calcium, 1.7 weight percent magnesium) [0328].
In regard to claim 7, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 wherein the molar ratio of nitrogen to the combined total of the primary inorganic cations in the water-insoluble fraction is in the range of 3:1 to 15:1 (e.g. equivalent of 1.095 mol N / .147 mol Ca + 0.070 mol Mg = 5:1) [0328].
In regard to claim 8, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 wherein the number average chain length of polyphosphate groups in the water-insoluble fraction is 1.1 to 5 when orthophosphates are included in the number average chain length calculation (e.g. number average chain length of the product was 4.5) [0321].
In regard to claim 11, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 wherein the polyphosphates dissolve relatively rapidly at room temperature in a one hour period in dilute citric acid, such as 6.9 wt. %, 2 wt. %, 1 wt. % or even 0.2 wt % or 0.1 wt. % citric acid [0068] and because Varadachari teaches a product indistinguishable from the present claim, the solubility properties are considered inherent to the products of Varadachari.
In regard to claims 13 and 15, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 wherein the urea- polyphosphate composition additionally comprises a cross-linking promoter containing hydroxyl groups selected from the group consisting of polysaccharides, cellulose derivatives, polyalcohols, natural gums, and combinations thereof and additionally comprises starch (e.g. binders include polysaccharides, polyvinyl alcohols, polyvinyl alcohol copolymers, celluloses, including ethylcelluloses and methylcelluloses, hydroxymethyl celluloses, hydroxypropylcelluloses, hydroxymethylpropyl-celluloses, gum arabics, starches, carboxymethylcellulose or mixtures thereof) and wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would understand binders are included in small amounts less than 20 wt% of the urea-polyphosphate composition (e.g. wherein zinc acts as a binder, zinc is present at 2 weight percent) [0236], absent teaching otherwise.
In regard to claim 17, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 wherein the water- insoluble fraction in the urea-polyphosphate composition additionally comprises micronutrients selected from the group consisting of Zn, Fe, Mn, Cu, B, Mo, and Se and combinations thereof (e.g. the composite particles may comprise a micronutrient source; suitable micronutrient sources include iron, manganese, copper, boron, zinc and molybdenum salts), and the water-soluble micronutrient content of the urea-polyphosphate composition is less than 10 wt% (e.g. micronutrient source about 0.5 to about 10 wt. % of a polyphosphate composition) [0042].
In regard to claim 20, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 and is indistinguishable from the present claim, the solubility properties are considered inherent to the products of Varadachari.
In regard to claim 21, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 wherein the urea- polyphosphate composition is in granular form and the granules have a screen size of at least 1 mm (e.g. 2 mm granules) [0328].
In regard to claim 22, Varadachari teaches the urea-polyphosphate composition of claim 1 and is indistinguishable from the present claim, the XRD pattern is considered inherent to the products of Varadachari.
Conclusion
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 January 7, 2026