CTNF 18/258,244 CTNF 84177 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Species (a), directed to claims 1-10 and 20, in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 11-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 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]; and 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]. 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 CaSO 4 .4CO(NH 2 ) 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 aragement. In regard to claim 10, Young discloses the fertilizer granule of claim 1, 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 core and shell is considered 90:10 which lies within the claimed range. 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 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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 demonstrate 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. 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 April 2, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/258,244 Page 2 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/258,244 Page 3 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/258,244 Page 4 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/258,244 Page 5 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/258,244 Page 6 Art Unit: 1731 Application/Control Number: 18/258,244 Page 7 Art Unit: 1731