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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KELLS et al ‘673 (US 2020/0207673). KELLS et al ‘673 discloses urea calcium sulfate (UCS) fertilizer granules comprising urea, calcium sulfate and a calcium sulfate urea adduct, wherein the granules are made by mixing a slurry of urea, calcium sulfate and water to form a UCS adduct, wherein a high level of mixing (e.g., agitator rpm of greater than 200 rpm) is used to form the UCS granules(See Paragraphs [0012] and [0043].) The difference between the composition disclosed by KELLS et al ‘673, is that KELLS et al ‘673 does not disclose that the UCS fertilizer granule comprises at least 80% calcium sulfate urea adduct. KELLS et al ‘673 teaches in Paragraph [0043] that a high level of mixing is used, and in Paragraph [0010] that the UCS granule can comprise at least 30 wt.% of the urea in the granule can be comprised in the UCS adduct. It would have been obvious to modify the composition of KELLS et al ‘673 such the UCS granule would comprise at least 80% calcium sulfate urea adduct. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, since the: high level of mixing” disclosed in Paragraph [0043] would suggest a shear of at least 50,000/seconds, with a further disclosure in Paragraph [0010] that the granule can contain at least 30 wt.% UCS adduct.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, KELLS et al ‘673 discloses in TABLE 1 that the granules can have a size of about 1 mm. It would be expected from such disclose that the calcium sulfate would have an average particle size of less than about 1 mm0.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable type of mixer to use in the process of KELLS et al ‘673. In any event, there is no evidence on record showing that the type of mixer would modify the properties of the UCS granules
Regarding claims 2 and 3, KELLS et al ‘673 discloses in TABLE 1 that the granules can have a size of about 1 mm.
Regarding claim 6, KELLS et al ‘673 discloses a reaction temperature of 80 to 100 C in Paragraph [0043].
Regarding claim 7, it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a suitable mixing time for the process of KELLS et al ‘673.
Regarding claim 8, KELLS et al ‘673 discloses in TABLE 1 that the granules can have a size of about 1 mm to 4 mm.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, KELLS et al ‘673 discloses in claim 16 that water is removed from the slurry.
Regarding claim 11, it would be expected that the composition of KELLS et al ‘673 would be free-flowing at room temperature, since the process disclosed in KELLS et al ‘673 is substantially identical to the process recited in applicant’s claim 1
Regarding claims 12 and 13, KELLS et al ‘673 discloses in Paragraph [0057] that the granules can include an addition micronutrient or secondary nutrient.
Regarding claim 14, it is within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to convert a batch process into a continuous process. In any event there is no evidence on record showing that a continuous process would modify the characteristics of the granules.
Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to pre-grind the calcium sulfate in the process of KELLS et al ‘673, since KELLS et al ‘673 discloses in TABLE 1 that the granules can have a diameter of about 1 mm.
WO 2019/016761 A1 is made of record for disclosing a method for forming calcium sulfate urea granules by mixing an aqueous solution of water, urea and calcium sulfate.
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