A9DETAILED 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite optional steps (claim 1) and a choice of additives in the alternative (claim 5). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. [See MPEP 2111.04].
Claim Objections
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “neemcake” in line 8 should read “neem cake” as two words.
The term “terraole” in line 9 should read “Terrazole” which is the trade name for 5-ethoxy-3- trichloromethyl-1,2,4-thiadiazol
Appropriate correction is 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 1-16 and 18-23 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 is incomplete for omitting the step of adding an additive. The preamble recites a composition comprising “urea and an additive” but there is no step of adding an additive to the urea-based composition. Lines 19-22 in claim 1 describe adding the additive to the “effluent gas treatment section” or the “scrubber solution storage section”. The claim fails to teach any recycling or returning of the additive to the urea-containing composition. For the purposes of examination, the (iv) and (v) steps of the claims are presented as optional (e.g. the limitations following “optionally” in line 13 are not required). See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim 1 defines the limitation “urea melt” in step (i), step (ii) describes “urea or urea-based melt”, step (iv) describes producing a “urea-based melt” from “the urea melt” and step iv) recites "urea or urea-based composition". It is unclear what these terms define and how they relate to one another.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "urea particles" in line 3. Claim 1, from which claim 2 depends, recites “urea-based dust particles” but does not define “urea particles”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "[…] and derivatives and salts thereof" in the last line. This limitation leaves the scope of the claim as open-ended because a “derivative” can include any structurally distinct composition not described by the specification.
In regard to claims 8 and 15, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 11 and 21 recite the limitation "the alkaline-forming or alkaline compound" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination this limitation is interpreted as "the alkaline-forming or alkaline inorganic compound".
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 1-16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gabrielson et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2017/0247297 A9).
In regard to claim 1, Gabrielson et al. disclose a method for the manufacture of a homogeneous, solid, particulate, urea-based composition (e.g. homogenous granular urea-based fertilizer) [0201] comprising urea and an additive [0203], in a urea production plant comprising at least an evaporator section (23) [0191] and a particulation section (e.g. granulator) [0197], further comprising at least one of a mixing section (e.g. mix tank 25) [0212] and an effluent gas treatment section (e.g. scrubbing unit) [0163] wherein the method comprises at least the steps of:
concentrating in the evaporator section-concentrating a urea melt to 95 to 99 weight% of urea (e.g. the molten urea is concentrated by evaporation to reduce the water to 5%, 4.5%, 4%, 3.5%, 3%, 2.5%, 2%, 1.5%, or 1%) [0048];
particulating in the particulation section (e.g. granules produced in a standard granulator) [0160] a urea or urea-based melt into a homogeneous (e.g. the nitrogen stabilizer composition is homogenous within the solid urea composition) [0111], solid, particulate, urea-based composition (e.g. to form urea-based granules) [0160], thereby producing an effluent gas comprising urea-based dust particles and ammonia gas (e.g. a scrubbing unit to capture dust from the granulation process; to capture ammonia and basic impurities) [0163-0164];
treating in the effluent gas treatment section the effluent gas from the particulation section comprising urea-based dust particles and ammonia gas (e.g. scrubbing unit to capture ammonia and basic impurities) with an aqueous solution to produce a scrubber solution (e.g. acid treatment) [0164];
wherein steps (iv) and (v) are optional and not required to be performed.
In regard to claim 2-3, steps (iv) and (v) are optional limitations and therefore the steps recited in claims 2 and 3 are contingent limitations and are therefore not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not required to be met.
In regard to claim 4, Gabrielson et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the particulation section is selected from the group consisting of fluidized bed granulator or drum granulator [0160].
In regard to claims 5-7 and 18, Gabrielson et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the additive is a phosphoric triamide urease inhibitor - N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) [0103], wherein the urease inhibitor is present an amount of about 0.1% by weight [0060].
In regard to claims 5, 8-9 and 19, Gabrielson et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the additive is a nitrification inhibitor – dicyandiamide (DCD) [0055], wherein the nitrification inhibitor is present in an amount between about 0.03% and about 3.0% by weight [0058].
In regard to claims 10-14 and 20-23, Gabrielson et al. disclose the method according to claim 5, wherein the additive is at least one of a phosphoric triamide urea inhibitor and/or a nitrification inhibitor (see rejection of claim 5 above). The claim does not require, in addition to these inhibitors, the components further defined in the present claims.
In regard to claim 15, Gabrielson et al. disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the solid, solid, particulate, urea-based composition further comprises mono- ammonium phosphate (MAP) or di-ammonium phosphate (DAP) [clm. 11].
In regard to claim 16, Gabrielson et al. disclose the method according to claim 15, wherein the solid, particulate, urea- based composition comprises from about 40 to 99 weight% of urea (e.g. the amount of the urea in the urea-nitrogen stabilizer composition is at least about 60 wt. %, about 70 wt. % about 80 wt. % about 90 wt. %, about 91 wt. %, about 92 wt. %, about 93 wt. %, about 94 wt. %, about 95 wt. %, about 96 wt. %, about 97 wt. %, about 98 wt. %, or about 99 wt. %. by weight of the total weight of the urea-nitrogen stabilizer composition) [0047].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of copending Application No. 18/265,351 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application being examined is directed to a species or sub-genus covered by the generic claim in the conflicting application and can be said to “anticipate” the examined claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kuttenkuler (US-20190256432-A1) describes a method for recovering and reusing compounds from a waste stream of an enhanced efficiency urea finishing facility including collecting a liquid waste stream from a scrubber designed to purify waste air stream [0009].
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 December 12, 2025