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 § 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.
Claim 1-18 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. In claim 1, it is indefinite as to whether phosphate rock and phosphoric acid are both reactants, since line 2 recites combining micronized sulfur with “one or both of phosphate rock and phosphoric acid”, but line 4 recites “reacting the phosphate rock and phosphoric acid”.
Claims 2-20 are also rejected, since they depend from claim 1 but fail to remedy the objection to claim 1.
In claim 6, the recitation of ‘such as” renders the scope of the claim vague and indefinite, since it is not clear whether the limitation following this term is required, or whether it is merely an example of the broader genus.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-6 and 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALLAIS et al (US 2016/0368830) in view of Antens et al (US 8,702,834), further in view of Iyer ‘446 (US 8,679,446). ALLAIS et al disclose a method for preparing a fertilizer by reacting phosphate rock with phosphoric acid and granulating (See the Abstract.) ALLAIS et al teach in Paragraph [0018] that elemental sulfur can be added to the mixture. The difference between the process disclosed by ALLAIS et al, and that recited in claims 1-6 and 9-18, is that ALLAIS et al do not disclose that the elemental sulfur is micronized sulfur. Antens et al disclose a process comprising granulating a mixture of superphosphates and partially acidulated phosphate rock, and elemental sulfur (se col. 3, lines 6-23), and teach at col. 3, lines 60-65 that the elemental sulfur can be obtained from any suitable source. Iyer ‘446 discloses micronized sulfur powder, and teaches at col. 5, lines 13-18 that the micronized sulfur product is of a higher value than that of the prior art. Iyer ‘446 also implies at col. 1, lines 18-45 that the micronized sulfur is useful in fertilizers. It would have been obvious from Antens et al in view of Iyer ‘446 to employ micronized sulfur as the source of sulfur in the process of ALLAIS et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since the processes of ISAACSON et al and Antens et al are analogous in that both entail the production of superphosphates including elemental sulfur with granulation, and Iyer ‘446 discloses the advantages of micronized sulfur formed by the process disclosed therein in fertilizers.
Regarding claim 2, ALLAIS et al disclose ion Paragraph [0024] that the fertilizer granules have a size of 2 to 4 mm.
Regarding claim 3, ALLAIS et al disclose in Paragraph [0016] that the phosphoric acid has a strength of 10 to 50 wt. %.
Regarding claim 4, Iyer ‘446 discloses at col. 4, lines 13-19 that the micronized sulfur can have a size of 1 to 30 microns.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Antens et al disclose at col. 3, line 52 to col. 4, line 57 that the sulfur can be added as a dispersion in the presence of an anionic solvent.
Regarding claims 9-11, it would have been obvious to provide an acid to rock ratio of 2.5 to 2,8 n the process of ALLAIS et al, since ALLAIS et al teach in Paragraph [0030] that the pH can be controlled by varying the amounts of acid and base reactants.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, ALLAIS et al disclose in Paragraphs [0025], [0026] and [0027] that micronutrients such as zinc and copper may be added to the reaction mixture.
Regarding claims 14-16, Antens et al disclose at col. 4, lines 10-17 that the elemental sulfur is present in an amount of 5-15 wt.%.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, ALLAIS et al disclose in Paragraphs [0025], [0026] and [0027] that micronutrients such as zinc and copper may be added to the reaction mixture.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALLAIS et al in view of Antens et al, further in view of Iyer ‘446, as applied to claim 1 above, even further in view of Kannan et al (US 10,865,159). It would have been even further obvious from Kannan et al to add calcium carbonate to the reaction of ALLAIS et al. one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Kannan et al disclose at col. 4, lines 56-67 that calcium carbonate is a nucleating soil conditioner in fertilizers.
Claims 1, 4-6 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAACSON et al (US 2024/0360050) in view of Antens et al, further in view of Iyer ‘446. ISAACSON et al disclose a process for forming fertilizer granules by mixing ground phosphate rock with phosphoric acid and granulating (see Paragraph [0012] and teach in Paragraph [0039] that sulfur can be added. The difference between the process disclosed by ISAACSON et al, and that recited in claims 1, 4-6 and 12-18, is that ISAACSON et al do not disclose that the sulfur should be micronized sulfur. Antens et al disclose a process comprising granulating a mixture of superphosphates and partially acidulated phosphate rock, and elemental sulfur (se col. 3, lines 6-23), and teach at col. 3, lines 60-65 that the elemental sulfur can be obtained from any suitable source. Iyer ‘446 discloses micronized sulfur powder, and teaches at col. 5, lines 13-18 that the micronized sulfur product is of a higher value than that of the prior art. Iyer ‘446 also implies at col. 1, lines 18-45 that the micronized sulfur is useful in fertilizers. It would have been obvious from Antens et al in view of Iyer ‘446 to employ micronized sulfur as the source of sulfur in the process of ISAACSON et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since the processes of ISAACSON et al and Antens et al are analogous in that both entail the production of superphosphates including elemental sulfur with granulation, and Iyer ‘446 discloses the advantages of micronized sulfur formed by the process disclosed therein in fertilizers.
Regarding claim 4, Iyer ‘446 discloses at col. 4, lines 13-19 that the micronized sulfur can have a size of 1 to 30 microns.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Antens et al disclose at col. 3, line 52 to col. 4, line 57 that the suldur can be added as a dispersion in the presence of an anionic solvent.
Regarding claims 12, 13, 17 and 18, ISAACSON et al disclose in Paragraph [0049] that micronutrients such as zinc and copper can be included in the granules.
Regarding claims 14-16, Antens et al disclose at col. 4, lines 10-17 that the elemental sulfur is present in an amount of 5-15 wt.%.
Claims 2, 3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAACSON et al in view of Antens et al, further in view of Iyer et al ‘446, as applied to claim 1 above, even further in view of ALLAIS et al.
Regarding claim 2, It would have been further obvious from ALLAIS et al to employ a particle size of 80% less than 200 mesh for the phosphate rock of ISAACSON et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since ALLAIS et al disclose in Paragraph [0024] that the fertilizer granules have a size of 2 to 4 mm., and the processes of ISAACSON et al and ALLAIS et al are analogous in that both entail the reaction between phosphate rock and phosphoric acid.
Regarding claim 3, It would have been obvious from ALLAIS et al to employ a phosphoric acid concentration of 35-54 % for the phosphoric acid of ISAACSON, since ALLAIS et al disclose in Paragraph [0016] that the phosphoric acid has a strength of 10 to 50 wt. %.
Regarding claims 9-11, it would have been obvious from ALLAIS et al to provide an acid to rock ratio of 2.5 to 2,8 n the process of ISAACSON et al, since ALLAIS et al teach in Paragraph [0030] that the pH can be controlled by varying the amounts of acid and base reactants.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ISAACSON et al in view of Antens et al, further in view of Iyer ‘446, as applied to claim 1 above, even further in view of Kannan et al. It would have been even further obvious from Kannan et al to add calcium carbonate to the reaction of ISAACSON et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since Kannan et al disclose at col. 4, lines 56-67 that calcium carbonate is a nucleating soil conditioner in fertilizers.
WO 2021/058143 A1 is made of record for disclosing a fertilizer composition comprising phosphate rock powder and surface-reacted calcium carbonate.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights