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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKnight et al ‘346. McKnight et al ‘346 disclose a composition comprising a nitrification inhibitor and a solvent comprising DMSO and an alkanolamine such as ethanolamine. (See the Abstract and Paragraphs [0074] through [[0079]. ) McKnight et al ‘346 also disclose that 3,4 dimethyl pyrazole phosphate as a solvent on Example 5 and 1H-1,2,4-triazole as a solvent in Examples 7, 13 and 15. The difference between the formulation disclosed by McKnight et al ‘346, and that recited in claim 22, is that McKnight et al ‘346 does not disclose a specific combination of the alkanolamine, DMSO and pyrazole or triazole as solvent. It would be obvious to include the3,4 dimethyl pyrazole and/or 1H-1,2,4 triazole disclosed in the examples of McKnight et al ‘346 in combination with the DMSO and alkanolamine disclosed in Paragraphs [0074] through [0079]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since McKnight et al ‘346 teaches in Paragraph [0074] that the system includes at least one aprotic and protic solvent, and the examples of McKnight et al ‘346 disclose DMSO (an aprotic solvent) in combination with the pyrazole or triazole.
Claims 21, 23-25, 27, 29, 30, 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over McKnight et al ‘802 (US 2022/0242802). No distinction is seen between the formulation disclosed by McKnight et al ‘802, and that recited in claims 21, 23-25, 27, 29, 30, 33 and 34. McKnight et al ‘802 discloses a composition comprising a urease inhibitor dissolved in a solvent which may comprise DMSO, an alkanolamine such as diethanolamine or triethanolamine, and further discloses in Paragraph [0108] that the system can include dimethyl pyrazole organic and inorganic salts. McKnight et al ‘802 further discloses in Paragraphs [0013] and [0086] that the nitrogen source can by anhydrous ammonia. Accordingly McKnight et al ‘802 anticipates claims 21, 23-25, 27, 29, 30, 33 and 34, since one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage a combination of the recited components from the reference. In any event, it would be obvious from McKnight et al ‘802 to combine the recited components into a single composition, since McKnight et al ‘802 suggests in the aforementioned passages that such combination would be a useful delivery system for urease inhibitors.
Regarding claim 23, McKnight et al ‘802 discloses in Paragraph [045] that the composition can include 4-amino-1,2,4,6-triazole-HCl.
Regarding claims 24 and 25, McKnight et al ‘802 discloses in Paragraph [0108] that the composition can include dimethyl pyrazole.
Regarding claims 27, McKnight et al ‘802 discloses in Paragraph [0112] that the solvent can include diethyl sulfoxide.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, McKnight et al ‘802 discloses in Paragraph [0628] that the solvent can include diethanolamine or triethanolamine.
Regarding claims 33 and 34, McKnight et al ‘802 contemplates a mixture of 4-amino-1,2,4,6-triazole-HCl and 1-mercapto-1,2,4-triazole in Paragraph [045].
Claims 26, 28, 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKnight et al ‘802 as applied to claims 21 and 25 above, and further in view of McKnight et al ‘346.
Regarding claim 26, it would be obvious from McKnight et al ‘346 to employ 3,4-dimethyl pyrazole as the dimethyl pyrazole disclosed in Paragraph [0108] of McKnight et al ‘802. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since one would expect that the 3,4-dimethyl pyrazole disclosed in Example 5 of McKnight et al ‘346 would be suitable in that the compositions of McKnight et al ‘346 and McKnight et al ‘802 are analogous formulations including DMSO and a protic solvent for delivery of urease inhibitors.
Regarding claim 28, McKnight et al ‘346 teaches in Paragraph [0076] that the solvent system comprises a mixture of protic and aprotic solvents, with a specific disclosure of DMSO as an aprotic solvent in Paragraph [0077]. One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that other organosulfur solvents, such as sulfolane, would be useful as the aprotic solvent.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, it would be obvious from McKnight et al ‘346 to provide the DMSO at a concentration of at least 45 wt.% and the ethanolamine at a concentration of 25 wt% to 30.0 wt% in the formulation of McKnight et al ‘802. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since McKnight et al ‘346 discloses in Paragraph [0082] that the dimethyl sulfoxide may be between about 90/10 and 10/90 (by volume or by weight) of the composition, and one would appreciate that the concentration of other solvents including ethanolamine would provide the difference.
Claims 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKnight et al ‘802 as applied to claim 21 above, further in view of McKnight et al 346, even further in view of McKnight et al ‘655 (US 11,198,655). It would be obvious from McKnight et al ‘346 to form the composition of McKnight et al ‘802 by dissolving the dimethyl pyrazole into the DMSO and ethanolamine to provide a dissolved inhibitor fraction. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since McKnight et al ‘346 discloses in Example 5 that the DMSO and 3,4-dimethylpyrazole was charged to a vessel, followed by charging propylene carbonate to the vessel, and the propylene carbonate of McKnight et al ‘346 would be analogous to the ethanolamine of McKnight et al ‘802 in that both are protic solvents. It would be further obvious from McKnight et al ‘655 to mix the resulting composition with anhydrous ammonia. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since McKnight et al ‘655 discloses an analogous composition including DMSO, ethanolamine and a nitrification or urease inhibitor (see col. 11 line 33 to col. 12, line 61), and teaches in the Abstract and col.12, line 60 that the nitrogen source can be ammonia. Moreover, McKnight et al ‘802 discloses anhydrous ammonia as a nitrogen source at the aforementioned passages.
Regarding claim 36, it would be obvious to mix the dissolved nitrification inhibitor fraction with the anhydrous ammonia just prior to delivery as a fertilizer, to minimize the loss of ammonia before application of the fertilizer.
Regarding claim 37, McKnight et al ‘346 discloses in Example 5 that the 3,4 dimethyl pyrazole was added to the DMSO. It would be obvious from such disclosure of McKnight et al ‘346 to ad the 3,4 dimethyl pyrazole to a mixture of the DMSO and ethanolamine, if using ethanolamine as the protic solvent.
Regarding claims 38 and 39, it would be obvious from McKnight et al ‘346 to provide the DMSO at a concentration of at least 45 wt.% and the ethanolamine at a concentration of 25 wt% to 30.0 wt% in the formulation of McKnight et al ‘802. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since McKnight et al ‘346 discloses in Paragraph [0082] that the dimethyl sulfoxide may be between about 90/10 and 10/90 (by volume or by weight) of the composition, and one would appreciate that the concentration of other solvents including ethanolamine would provide the difference.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McKnight et al ‘802 as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Eastin (US 4,602,928). It would be further obvious from Eastin to provide the anhydrous and ammonia of McKnight et al ‘802 on a truck comprising a first vessel containing the ammonia and a second vessel containing the solvents and nitrification inhibitor. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since Eastin discloses in col. 1, lines 40-48 that ammonia has physical characteristics which make long distance truck transport efficient, and also discloses in Fig. 1 and the description thereof that anhydrous ammonia is transported or synthesized on site and used to form an analogous ammonium nitrate fertilizer solution.
McKnight et al ‘854 (US 11,440,854) is made of record for disclosing a non-aqueous polar, aprotic organic liquid as a liquid fertilizer additive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736