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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of the foreign priority document is of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4/19/24 and 4/30/26 are compliant with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Thompson, WO 2016/094462 A1 (OMS INVESTMENTS INC) 16 June 2016 (IDS: 4/19/24: hereinafter: Thompson).
Thompson discloses (ref. claim 24) a method of making the fertilizer composition of methylene urea (ref. claim 3), comprising spraying molten urea containing fertilizer resin onto rice hulls (seed particles) and forming a granule.
According to [0090], methods which may be employed for producing compositions containing urea containing fertilizer and granular rice hulls include:
dissolving a urea containing fertilizer resin (e.g., a resin of urea fertilizers or
urea formaldehyde reaction product fertilizers such as methylene urea (MU).
fertilizers) concentrate in a liquid solvent/ surfactant blend, e.g., water to make
aqueous resin solution, then spraying this mixture onto ground rice hulls so the
solution is uniformly absorbed on the substrate particles. See e.g. [0034]; [0090].
The fertiliser composition can further contain additional fertilisers such as isobutylidene dirurea (IBDU) and nutrients (ref. claims 20,21).
Accordingly, the Thompson reference method suggests making granules comprising methylene urea-isobutyolen diurea (MU-IBDU) as in instant claim 1 and 13.
The spray granulation process can be done in a fluidised bed (ref. claim 28,
[0034,0087]); [0104: “… a continuous of batch/mixer/bender”)]thus constituting a “continuous” processing of granulation followed by drying.
Since fluidised bed (ref. paragraph [0034] ) processes generally use air as fluidizing medium before and/or after granulation, it is considered that the use of air is implicitly disclosed meeting instant claims 1 and 6.
Thompson further discloses that fertilizer granules sizes may range from about 0.5 to about 5.0 mm diameter (e.g. , about 0.5-2mm), ref. at [0078] –[0079].as in instant claims 2, 13 and 15.
The temperature of the process can be from 130 to 160°F (54 to 71 °C) and the slurry temperature from 270 to 275 °F (132 to 135°C), ref. [0034] anticipating instant claim 5.
Additional fertilizer components can be added e.g. “micro elements” “coated urea”, “ammonium nitrate”, “micronutrients” or mixtures thereof. See [0016]-[0018] anticipating instant claim 14.
Once the granulation step was completed, the materials were “screened” to a size most appropriate. See e.g. [01030 anticipating instant claim 10.
Claim(s) 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Saitoh et al., US Pat. No. 5,039,328 (13 August 1991(IDS: 4/19/24: hereinafter: Saitoh).
Claims 13-15 are as follows:
13. A fertilizer composition comprising the granules of MU-IBDU formed according to the method of claim 1.
14. The fertilizer composition according to claim 13, further comprising an additional fertilizer, a micronutrient, a secondary nutrient, an organic additive, or a combination thereof.
15. The fertilizer composition according to claim 13, wherein the granules of MU-IBDU have a particle size of from about 1.5 mm to about 5 mm.
In accordance with MPEP 2113, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) “The Patent Office bears a lesser burden of proof in making out a case of prima facie obviousness for product-by-process claims because of their peculiar nature” than when a product is claimed in the conventional fashion. In re Fessmann, 489 F.2d 742, 744, 180 USPQ 324, 326 (CCPA 1974). Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an nonobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 803, 218 USPQ 289, 292-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983. …. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith. In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972).
Saitoh teaches in Examples 1-5, making fertilizer composition comprising the granules of MU-IBDU (instant claim 13) of 2-4 mm (within the particle size of from about 1.5 mm to about 5 mm as in instant claim 15). Additionally, the crystals incorporate paraformaldehyde and citric acid (an “organic additive”), urea (an “additional fertilizer”) as in instant claim 14. Although, the granulations steps were not performed in a continuous bed granulator (used a “dish-type” granulator) the examples nonetheless providing IBDU ™ seed particles to which methylol urea was sprayed and dried to obtain granules. Accordingly, the Saitoh prior art crystals are within the scope of the instant product-by-product 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saitoh et al., US Pat. No. 5,039,328 (13 August, 1991(IDS: 4/19/24: hereinafter: Saitoh) in view of Bertin et al. "Dynamics of an Industrial Fluidized-Bed Granulator for Urea Production", Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. Vol. 49 , pages 317-326. (Year: 2010) (hereinafter Bertin) and Cotabarren et al., “Production of Granular Urea as Niitrogenous Fertilizer”, Chapter 1 in Urea: Synthesis, Properties, and Uses, Pub. 2012 pp. 1-63 (IDS: hereinafter Cotabarren).
Saitoh teaches a process for producing slow-acting granular nitrogenous fertilizer by blending an aqueous methylol urea solution to a urea-isobutyraldehyde condensate powder or a mixture thereof
with a urea-formaldehyde condensate powder and granulating the resulting aqueous slurry blend while subjecting the methylol urea to dehydration condensation under acidic conditions to form a urea-formaldehyde condensate. This aqueous condensate is preferably sprayed onto “seed” particles. See Abstract; examples and claims. More specifically, the process involves blending an aqueous methylated urea (MU) solution to a urea-isobutyraldehde (IBDU condensate) power to form a slurry which is introduced into the granulator (a “continuous” method) under acidic conditions . See column 3; see col. 4 lines 60-64: granulation/condensation thats are simultaneously conducted in the same which corresponds to “injecting air” into the granulator as in instant clam 1. Saitoh further teaches that “in order to conduct the granulation efficiently, a substance which serves as a nuclei for granules (i.e. a “seed”) may be added e.g. “a urea-formaldehyde or iso butyraldehyde” condensate powder may be used (see col. 6, lines 8-20) which corresponds to “the seed particles” of instant claim 1 and the “MU-IBDU” seed particles of instant claim 9. Thus, the reference heated air is injected onto the granulation reactive system”) . The granulation reaction chamber temperature is 40-80 degrees C, which is within the range of 30-110 degrees Celsius as instant claim 5. As in instant claim 1, the aqueous methylated urea is sprayed/blended into the urea-isobutyraldehyed condensate powder under aqueous acidic heated conditions (see col. 5). During the granulation step a heater or the use of “hot air” may be employed chamber in the presence of “seed particles” which serve to fluidize these particles at temperatures of up to 100 degrees Celsius as in instant claims 1, 5, 6 and 7.
The particles are removed from the granulator and dried after granulation at temperature up to 120 degrees Celsius, but preferably 60-90 degrees Celsius (col. 6 lines 52-55) as in instant claim 1.
The reference granules use methylurea (MU) in amounts of from 3-45%, but preferably 5-25% by weight relative to the urea-isobutyraldehyde (IBDU) powder which corresponds to MU:IBDU of
from about 45:55 to about 5:90 which overlaps with the MU:IBDU of “about 90:10 to about 25:75” as in instant claim 8. See e.g. col. 4 of the reference. It is noted that result-effective variables are optimizable.
The particle size of the granules vary from 0.5-6mm, preferably 1.5-4 mm with exemplified 2-4 mm. See col. 8 and examples which encompass instant claims 2. Saitoh teaches in Examples 1-5, making fertilizer compositions comprising the granules of MU-IBDU (instant claim 13) of 2-4 mm ( within the particle size of from about 1.5 mm to about 5 mm as in instant claim 15) . Additionally, the crystals incorporate paraformaldehyde and citric acid (an “organic additive”), urea (an “additional fertilizer” (see instant claim 14). Although, the granulations steps were not performed in a continuous bed granulator (used a “dish-type” granulator) the examples nonetheless providing IBDU ™ seed particles to which methylol urea was sprayed and dried to obtain granules. Accordingly, the Saiton prior art crystals are within the scope of the instant product-by-product claims 13-15. The reference examples 4 and 5 i.e. “Fertilizer 4” and “Fertilizer 5” are at least 1.5 kg/granule hardness as measured by means of a Kiya Hardness tester which suggests that the reference exemplified particles would be reasonably expected to meet the instant claim 3 “at least 1.5kg/granule as measured by a Chatillon 225 digital force tester. It is important to note that in Examples 4 and 5 the aqueous slurry (from the earlier examples) of the condensate of MU-IBDU is sprayed onto the IBDU “seed” which results in increased particle hardness. However, it is also noted that the Saitoh reference at column 6 teaches a “recycling” step whereby the granulated product “may be used” as the seed particle. See col. 6, lines 20-36 which suggests use of MU-IBDU as the seed particles in the Saitoh method.
The Saitoh reference teaches the use of different types of granulators (rolling-type; drum-type; dish-type; stirring-type) (see col. 5, lines 43-67) but differs from instant claims 1 and 4: by
failing to explicitly teach a “fluid bed granulator” (claim 1);
wherein the fluid bed granulator comprises at least two chambers with the 1st chamber and 2nd chamber having heated injected air of 70-170 degrees C and 35 to 90 degrees Celsius, respectively as in instant claim 1 (fluid bed) and claim 4 (at least 2 chambers).
Bertin teaches that granulation is the preferred route for solid fertilizer production with industrial use of fluidized-Bed granulators for urea production particularly, “continuous fluidized granulators” which utilize “very small urea particles (usually called seeds, which come in a recycle stream …) that are constantly incorporated to the bed while a concentrated urea solution .. is sprayed from the bottom of the unit. Industrial granulators often have several growth chambers, with growth chambers and cooling chambers that cool solids below that growth chamber that utilize high temperatures than 100 degrees Celsius. See Abstract and page 317. The following Bertin Figure is illustrative:
PNG
media_image1.png
294
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cotabarren at the bottom of page 11 to page 13 further discloses the temperature parameters of multi-chamber fluidized bed granulators with the growth (accretion) chamber (atomized air temperatures of 130-132 to 109-112 degrees C) and cooling chambers to 70-90 degrees Celsius with recycling of the granules seeds occurring “out of specification”. Here’s Cottabarren UFT fluidized bed granulator for illustration.
PNG
media_image2.png
702
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that Cotabarren describes other analogous types of fluid-bed granulators e.g. TEC spouted fluid-bed granulators which are within the instantly claimed invention. See e.g. Cotabarren Fig. 6.
It is also noteworthy that Cotabarren illustrated the use of the UFT and TEC fluidized bed granulators to obtain granules of crush strengths greater than 1.5 kg as in instant claim 3. See Table 3.
Accordingly, the Bertin and Cotabarren references provide motivation to modify the Saitoh reference to utilize the improved commercially available “fluidized bed granulators” to make MU-IBDU granulator fertilizers. The Bertin and Cotabarren reference indicate that the reaction parameters (reactants/temperatures) are result-effective parameters which are optimizable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Saitoh reference fails to explicitly teach screening MU-IBDU particles to desired particle sizes (instant claim 10); returning (e.g. recycling) undersized granules (instant claim 11); and crushing oversized granules (claim 12).
However, the screening, recycling and crushing steps are features of conventional “fluidized-bed urea granulators”. These features are illustrated in Cotabarren for the UFT-Fluidized bed apparatus on page 16 and Figure 7 as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
508
838
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would be obvious to incorporate conventional fluidized bed apparatuses in the Saitoh reference method along with the screening, recycling and crushing steps of instant claims 10-12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Goertz US 4,954,154 (Issued: 9/4/90) (4/19/24 IDS): teaches controlled release fertilizers that incorporate methylene diurea as a gelling agent in a liquid medium to dry methylene urea by shear force in air milling.
Goertz US 6,254,655 (Issued: 7/3/01): (4/19/24 IDS): teaches a continuous cost-effective process for producing controlled or slow-release fertilizer composition containing nitrogen (e.g. urea formaldehyde concentrates) in combination with micronutrients, phosphorus, potassium or secondary nutrient sources.
Culler WO-0232832-A1 teaches the conventional use of the Chatillon Model (DPP-25) crush testers for reliably determining particle crush values from 0-25 pounds (0-11.3 kilograms).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENNETT CELSA whose telephone number is (571)272-0807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Zachariah Lucas can be reached at (571) 272-0905 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.
/BENNETT M CELSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights