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 statements (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2024 and 02/11/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 contains misspelling “xanthate gum” which should read “xanthan gum”.
Claim 3 contains misspelling “betonite” which should read “bentonite”.
Claim 9 contains misspelling “Ammonia sulphate” and “Potassium hydrochloride” which should read “ammonium sulfate” and “potassium chloride”, respectively.
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 1-13 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 regard to claim 1, the use of the term “and/or” in line 4 creates ambiguity because the clear boundaries of the claim are not defined when read in the entirety of the claim. The claim does not recite an embodiment which would apply to an aqueous urease inhibitor and nitrification inhibitor or, alternatively, an aqueous urease inhibitor or nitrification inhibitor as presently presented.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "other urease inhibitors/nitrification inhibitors" in line 2. This open-ended Markush-like recitation leaves the scope of functional equivalents open-ended and indefinite.
Claim 1 defines an aqueous formulation but includes the functional limitations “wherein said coating formulation is applied to urea granules”. The product-by-process type hybrid composition renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this represents an intended use or if the claim is directed to a granular formulation instead. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as an aqueous formulation which may be applied to granules.
In regard to claims 3-4, the use of the language “further consists of” contradicts with claim 1 which uses the semi-closed transitional phrase “essentially consisting of”. Additional essential ingredients contradict the transitional phrase of the independent claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the average particle size of ZnO" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regard to claim 5, the term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear whether “substantially” introduces a degree of acceptable deviation from the parameters recited, and if so, how much deviation thereof is permissible.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim is fully redundant to claim 1.
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 1-2, 6-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Waliwitiya (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0048260 A1).
In regard to claims 1-2, 6, and 10, Waliwitya teaches an aqueous urease inhibitor and/or nitrification inhibitor coating formulation (e.g. ArmU formulation containing water, NMP and NBPT) [para. 0052] essentially consisting of:
a thickening agent in the form of a microbial gum (e.g. xanthan gum) present at an amount of .1 % w/w to 1.0 % (e.g. 0.2%) [0052];
NBPT present in the amount of 0.5 % w/w to 35 % w/w (e.g. 15%) [0052]; and
water to 100 % w/w (e.g. 2.5%) [0052].
In regard to claims 7-8, Waliwitya teaches a fertilizer composition which includes a nutrient source in the form of a fertilizer granule (e.g. urea granules) [0055] coated with the coating composition of claim 1 (e.g. coated with ArmU) [0055].
In regard to claim 11, Waliwitiya teaches the coating formulation of claim 1 wherein the formulation does not contain urea [0052] and although a surfactant is recited in the example, a surfactant is not required (e.g. method may include a further step (c) adding a surfactant to the mixture) [0006].
In regard to claims 12-13, Waliwitiya teaches the coating formulation of claim 1, wherein the coating formulation maintains a viscosity below 10,000 cP at 20°C (e.g. 12.8 cP) [0061].
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.
Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waliwitiya (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0048260 A1) in view of Van Hijfte et al. (US Patent No. 4,150,965).
In regard to claims 3 and 5, Waliwitiya teaches the coating formulation of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the composition which further consists of kaolin clay or calcium bentonite.
Van Hijfte et al. describes materials added to improve storage properties of fertilizer pellets. Normally the pellets are dusted with a fine inorganic powder such as kaolin, diatomaceous earth, chalk [col. 1, lines 33-36]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the coating formulation as described by Waliwitiya with powdered kaolin clay. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to improve the storage properties of the fertilizer coated with the coating formulation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success choosing from a powdered kaolin clay within the claimed size range because powdered materials are typically 100 micron or less and can be easily classified using mesh sieves.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waliwitiya (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0048260 A1) in view of Tucker et al. (US Patent No. 3,941,578).
In regard to claim 4, Waliwitiya teaches the coating formulation of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the composition which further consists of powdered ZnO.
Tucker et al. is directed to urea particles coated with zinc oxide powder [abstract]. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the coating formulation as described by Waliwitiya with powdered ZnO. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because zinc is a micronutrient identified as essential to all living things, and therefore a very desirable trace element [col. 1, lines 21-24]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in formulating a coating with zinc oxide for adherence to a urea fertilizer particle as demonstrated by Tucker [col. 2, lines 5-25].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waliwitiya (US Patent Publication No. 2019/0048260 A1) in view of Blaylock (Crop Nutrition, 2021).
In regard to claim 9, Waliwitiya teaches a fertilizer blend including the fertilizer of claim 8 (e.g. a fertilizer blend comprising sulfur, nitrogen, phosphate, and potash at a 90-30-30-25 was subsequently
PNG
media_image1.png
650
556
media_image1.png
Greyscale
added at a 2:1 ratio of fertilizer blend to coated urea granules, and the final fertilizer product is shown in FIG. 5E) [0059].
While the reference does not explicitly disclose the chemical makeup of the fertilizer blend, Blaylock describes phosphorus as a primary essential plant nutrient and the most common phosphorus fertilizers are ammoniated phosphates such as monoammonium phosphate (MAP), diammonium phosphate (DAP), and ammonium polyphosphate solutions (APP). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the fertilizer blend as described by Waliwitiya with granular ammonium phosphate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because these are the most commonly used phosphate fertilizer material with wide commercial availability. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 September 9, 2026
Prosecution Insights