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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 objected to because of the following informalities: the claims exhibit grammatical errors, punctuation mistakes (no commas) and capitalization issue (e.g. “Ammonium sulfate”). Appropriate correction is required to correct the claim text with proper punctuation and grammar.
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 1-2 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.
Claims 1-2 recite the limitation "the composition" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “A composition”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 1-2 recites the broad recitation “quaternary ammonium salts”, and the claim also recites “Alkylbenzyldimethylammonium chloride” (claim 1) and Didecyldimethylammonium chloride (claim 2) which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pursell et al. (US Patent Publication 20120067094 A1) in view of Soons et al. (US Patent Publication 20180201551 A1).
In regard to claims 1 and 2, Pursell et al. is directed to a granulated fertilizer composition (e.g. fertilizer particle) [para. 0022] containing urea (e.g. urea compounds) [0022; 0028] and functional additives including ammonium sulfate (e.g. the central particle contains plant macronutrients selected from the group consisting of urea […] and ammonium sulfate) [0033] and a urease inhibitor (e.g. ammonia volatilization inhibiting compounds) [clm. 5] in the form of quaternary ammonium salts (e.g. quaternary ammonium cations including benzalkonium chloride - a synonym for alkylbenzyldimethylammonium chloride, cetyl trimethylammonium bromide or chloride, didecyldimethylammonium chloride) [0041] in an amount of about 0.2% by weight benzalkonium chloride ammonium salt, in one example [0107], wherein the claimed proportions of the quaternary ammonium salt and that of the prior art are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties [MPEP 2144.05].
Pursell does not explicitly disclose wherein the urea and ammonium sulfate are within the claimed ranges.
Soons et al. is directed to granulation of urea product [title]. The granulation material components include (wt. %) [Table 1]: urea (85.7%) [0065] and ammonium sulfate (12%) [0065]. In the absence of explicit disclose in the Pursell reference, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the urea and ammonium sulfate components in the amounts disclosed by Soons et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because ammonium sulfate is soluble in urea up to concentrations of about 20% which can then be processed in a fluid bed granulator [Soons; 0005]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in formulating a granulated fertilizer composition with the amounts of urea and ammonium sulfate within the claimed ranges because where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights