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
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 1-3, 5-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al. (US Patent No. 4,026,696 – ref. A3 in 02/13/2024 IDS) with evidenced from Malinowski (Polish Journal of Chemical Technology, 2007), regarding claims 6-7.
In regard to claim 1, Young et al. disclose a fertilizer granule (e.g. commercially available urea prill having diameters between 5 to 30 mesh) [col. 5, lines 51-55] comprising:
a core comprising at least 90 wt. % of urea (e.g. commercially available urea prills) [col. 5, line 53];
a shell comprising a urea calcium sulfate (UCS) adduct (e.g. urea-calcium sulfate reaction product layer) [clm. 1], wherein the shell covers at least a portion of an outer surface of the core (e.g. around said particle-form nitrifier selected from urea) [clm. 1], and wherein the calcium (Ca) content of the fertilizer granule is 2.8 wt. % or less (e.g. calcium sulfate hemihydrate or calcium sulfate dihydrate added in amounts corresponding to about 10 weight percent = 2.32-2.76 wt. % Ca) [col. 6, lines 52-60] and the nitrogen (N) content of the fertilizer granule is 41 wt. % or more (e.g. 90 weight percent urea * 46% total nitrogen = 41.4 wt. % nitrogen) [col. 5, lines 42-46]; and
wherein weight ratio of the core and shell is 90:10 to 99.5:0.5 (e.g. the composition should contain up to 90 weight percent urea based on the total product) [col. 5, lines 42-55]. In this case the weight ratio of the urea and calcium sulfate is considered 90:10, Young teaches a shell which comprises the urea calcium sulfate adduct formed by reacting 10 weight percent calcium sulfate with the commercial urea and, if present, unreacted calcium sulfate. The core of Young is interpreted as a component of the granule comprising urea and up to 10% of urea calcium sulfate adduct (consistent with the interpretation of the present claims). The formation a reaction product which corresponds to a core (90% urea, 10% UCS adduct) and shell (the remainder of UCS adduct and calcium sulfate) with a weight ratio within the claimed range is considered disclosed by Young when the composition of Young first comprises 90 weight percent urea and 10 weight percent calcium sulfate based on the total product, which is then subjected to reaction.
In regard to claim 2, Young et al. disclose the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein the shell comprises a crystalline reaction product of gypsum and urea (e.g. considered 100 wt. % of the UCS adduct, based on total weight of the shell, when the shell is described as the reaction product) [clm 1].
In regard to claim 3, Young et al. disclose the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein the core further comprises a urease inhibitor, a nitrification inhibitor, one or more secondary nutrients, or one or more micro nutrients, or any combinations thereof (e.g. additives including major plant nutrients and micronutrients) [col. 4, lines 43-55].
In regard to claim 5, Young discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1 wherein at least 95 wt. % of the shell is comprised of the UCS adduct, urea, and calcium sulfate (e.g. the central core is surrounded by the crystalline reaction product of gypsum and urea) [col. 12, lines 15-16].
In regard to claims 6-7, Young et al. disclose the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein the UCS adduct has a chemical formula of CaSO4.4CO(NH2)2 (e.g. urea-calcium sulfate reaction product layer) [clm. 1] (e.g. the crystalline reaction product of gypsum and urea) [col. 12, lines 14-16], wherein wt.% ratio of N to Ca in the shell is 15:1 to 1:1 (e.g. 3:1) [see Malinowski teaching urea reacting with gypsum forms the claimed crystalline adduct having the claimed weight ratio at pg. 111, col. 1].
In regard to claims 8-9, Young et al. discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1 further comprising coating the particles or combining with the original components a hydrophobic material (e.g. waxes and oils, including asphalt, polysilicones) [col. 7, lines 38-46]. It necessarily follows that the binder-containing coating composition of Young either forms a binding layer or is present in the shell (e.g. either coating the particles or combining with the original components) [col. 7, lines 38-40] in such an arrangement.
In regard to claim 10, Young discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, wherein the calcium (Ca) content of the fertilizer granule is 2.8 wt. % or less (e.g. calcium sulfate hemihydrate or calcium sulfate dihydrate added in amounts corresponding to about 10 weight percent = 2.32-2.76 wt. % Ca) [col. 6, lines 52-60].
In regard to claim 20, Young et al. disclose a method of fertilizing, the method comprising applying the fertilizer granule of claim 1 to at least a portion of a soil, a crop, or the soil and the crop (e.g. the resulting particles can be applied to soil) [col. 7, lines 29 – 35].
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US Patent No. 4,026,696 – ref. A3 in 02/13/2024 IDS) in view of (Malinowski, Polish Journal of Chemical Technology, 2007).
In regard to claim 4, Young discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1 where the urea core is surrounded by a crystalline reaction product of calcium sulfate (e.g. gypsum) and urea [col. 12, lines 15-16]. The reference does not explicitly recite wherein the shell further comprises urea and calcium sulfate. However, Malinowski demonstrates the urea conversion to adduct form varies with contact time and temperature. The conversation into adduct can be below 50% under some conditions [pg. 114] or up to 90% in some conditions[pg. 114]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a measurable amount of urea and calcium sulfate in the outer layer of Young remains unreacted as demonstrated by Young. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected conversion into the adduct form below 100% under typical conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (para. bridging pgs. 5-6) the Young reference does not disclose the claimed “weight ratio of the core and the shell is 90:10 to 99.5:05”. Applicant submits the reaction product of Young is interpreted to make up the shell of the Young reference and if Young reacts 90 wt% urea with calcium sulfate, some of the urea would convert to a reaction product that is a different compound, thus reducing the amount of urea that makes up the core to less than 90 wt%. While the Examiner does not dispute this fact, the claims recite a core that comprises “at least 90 wt.%” urea. Thus, upon reaction, the core of Young is still considered to meet this limitation wherein the core comprises 90 wt% urea (e.g. the core is initially a commercial urea granule) and up to 10% reaction product. The shell is considered to comprise the UCS reaction product and unreacted calcium sulfate. Arguments directed to a core which consists of 100% urea are not persuasive because Applicant is arguing limitations which are not claimed. If Applicant’s core consists of 100% urea, free of reaction product, Applicant is encouraged to further limit the claims to include this, if support is present in the Specification as originally filed.
Applicant argues (pg. 6, section 2; pg. 7, section 1) the Young reference does not teach wherein the calcium content of the fertilizer granule is 2.8 wt.% or less. This argument is not persuasive. Young teaches an embodiment which comprises about 10 weight percent calcium sulfate. The calcium sulfate is described as “preferably at least partially hydrated. The most common hydrates are the hemihydrate, commonly known as plaster of paris, and the dihydrate known as gypsum. Of course, the calcium sulfate can comprise a combination of the hemi- and dihydrate” [col. 6, lines 52-58]. Thus, when calculating calcium sulfate hemihydrate or calcium sulfate dihydrate added in amounts corresponding to about 10 weight percent, consistent with the teachings of Young, the calcium content of the resulting granule of Young is considered 2.32-2.76 wt. % Ca. The calcium sulfate utilized by Young is hydrated calcium sulfate and there is no teaching or suggestion that calcium sulfate is utilized in its anhydrous form or that one of skill would consider the values recited by Young to be referring to anhydrous calcium sulfate. Thus Applicant’s calculations based on the amount of calcium in anhydrous calcium sulfate are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg. 7, section 2) neither Young nor Malinowski teach or suggest wherein the shell further comprises urea and calcium sulfate as recited in claims 4 and 5. This argument is not persuasive. Young discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1 wherein the shell is comprised of the UCS adduct, urea, and calcium sulfate (e.g. the central core is surrounded by the crystalline reaction product of gypsum and urea) [col. 12, lines 15-16]. Malinowski demonstrates the urea conversion to adduct form varies with contact time and temperature. The conversation into adduct can be below 50% under some conditions [pg. 114] or up to 90% in some conditions[pg. 114]. Thus, the presence of unreacted calcium sulfate, urea, along with UCS adduct is necessarily expected because one of skill would understand the reaction process described by Young does will not reach the maximum possible theoretical yield of 100% UCS adduct.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 July 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights