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 .
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
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VAN BELZEN et al (US 2021/0070669) in view of WO 2014/033160 A2. VAN BELZEN et al disclose urea in particulate form coated with a urease inhibitor of the type phosphoric triamide, in particular N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (nBTPT). (See Paragraph [0145].) The differences between the composition disclosed by VAN BELZEN et al , and that recited in applicant’s claims, are that VAN BELZEN et al do not disclose that the particulate urea includes a solid nonhomgenous layer, the solid layer comprising on its inner region a reaction product of an inorganic acid with the urea, and the solid layer comprising on its outer region a reaction product of the inorganic acid with a compound which can be calcium oxide or magnesium oxide, or the amount of the inorganic acid. WO 2014/033160 A2 discloses urea particles which are passivated by treating the urea particles with a small amount of a mineral acid such as sulfuric acid, which has the property to react with the urea, followed by treatment with a solid base such as magnesium oxide, which is added in excess to coat the acidified surface, and which reacts with the urea. (See page 6, lines16-23.) It would have been obvious to employ the passivated particulate urea of WO 2014/033160 A2 as the particulate urea coated with a urease inhibitor in the composition of VAN BELZEN et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since WO 2014/033160 A2 discloses on page 6, line 4 that post treatment by coating is possible and on page 6, lines 32 and 33 that that the product is applicable to fields other than blending with other fertilizers, and VAN BELZEN et al teach in Paragraph [0106] that the urease inhibitor is present onto the particles of the urea-based composition in particulate form. It would have been further obvious to use from 0.1 to 2.0 wt% of the inorganic acid, since WO 2014/033160 A2 teaches on page 5, lines 29 and 30 that that the particles are preferably treated with 0.1 to 2.0 wt% acid.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, WO 2014/033160 A2 discloses on page 6, lines 17-19 that the mineral acid may be sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, the urea would inherently form urea sulfate when reacted with sulfuric acid in the composition of WO 2014/033160 A2.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, WO 2014/033160 A2discloses on page 8, line 26 that the solid base can be MgO.
Regarding claim 5, WO 2014/033160 A2 discloses in the sentence bridging pages 4 and 5 that 2.5 to 4.0 wt% of solid base can be used.
Regarding claim 6, VAN BELZEN et al disclose in Paragraph [0045] that the nBTPT is present in an amount of 0.0001 to 1 weight %.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the composition would inherently include sulfate ions when sulfuric cid is used as the mineral acid.
Regarding claim 9, WO 2014/033160 A2 discloses on page 5, lines 29 and 30 that the treatment includes 0.1 to 2.0 wt% acid and 2 to 6 wt% base.
Regarding claim 17, VAN BELZEN et al disclose in Paragraph [0031] that the magnesium sulfate is present in an amount of 0.02 to 1 wt%.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is objected to as based on a rejected parent claim, and would be allowed if written in independent form.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
VAN BELZEN et al (US 2021/0070669) disclose urea in particulate form coated with a urease inhibitor of the type phosphoric triamide, in particular N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (nBTPT). (See Paragraph [0145].) WO 2014/033160 A2 discloses urea particles which are passivated by treating the urea particles with a small amount of a mineral acid such as sulfuric acid, which has the property to react with the urea, followed by treatment with a solid base such as magnesium oxide, which is added in excess to coat the acidified surface, and which reacts with the urea. (See page 6, lines16-23.) It would have been obvious to employ the passivated particulate urea of WO 2014/033160 A2 as the particulate urea coated with a urease inhibitor in the composition of VAN BELZEN et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since WO 2014/033160 A2 discloses on page 6, line 4 that post treatment by coating is possible and on page 6, lines 32 and 33 that that the product is applicable to fields other than blending with other fertilizers, and VAN BELZEN et al teach in Paragraph [0106] that the urease inhibitor is present onto the particles of the urea-based composition in particulate form. It would have been further obvious to use from 0.1 to 2.0 wt% of the inorganic acid, since WO 2014/033160 A2 teaches on page 5, lines 29 and 30 that that the particles are preferably treated with 0.1 to 2.0 wt% acid. However there is no teaching, disclosure or suggestion in either VAN BELZEN et al or WO 2014/033160 A2 to heat the inorganic acid to at least 40 C before applying it on the particle comprising urea. Nor would there have been any motivation from the prior art to do so. Accordingly claim 11 is not rejected over VAN BELZEN et al in view of WO 2014/033160.
.
SHARMA et al (US 2022/0002210) s made of record for disclosing fertilizer particles comprising a first layer powdered acid coat and a second layer powdered basic coat.
Ledoux et al (US 2018/0297903) is made of record for disclosing urea in particulate form in combination with phosphates or sulfates.
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