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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-10 are pending.
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 2-3, 8 and 11 have been canceled.
Claims 7 and 9-10 are withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are currently under consideration.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected.
Acknowledgement of Receipt
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/15/2025 has been entered.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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. Applicants are 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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertoglu (US 2015/0173349) and Pereira (WO 2015/128620 A1).
Mertoglu discloses an agroformulation comprising a copolymer of alkyl (meth)acrylate (i.e., methacrylic acid) and polylalkylene glycol (meth)acrylate (i.e., alkylacrylate of a monoalkyl polyethylene glycol), and a pesticide (title, [0011], claims 16, 20, 34).
Regarding the 15 to 60 wt% limitation, Applicants describe butyl(meth)acrylate as an acrylic acid monomer (see Spec., pg. 4, lines 11-23). Mertoglu teaches acrylic acid monomers, such as C1-C8 alkyl(meth)acrylate (monomer C) (e.g., butyl(meth)acrylate) ([0006], claim 16). Mertoglu teaches that the copolymer may contain from at least 8 wt% and up to 50 wt % monomer C ([0018]).
Regarding the 20 to 50 wt% limitation, Mertoglu teaches that mono C1-22 alkyl terminated poly(ethylene glycol) (meth)acrylate (monomer B) ([0011]). Mertoglu teaches that the copolymer may contain at least 8 wt% and up to 50 wt % monomer B, based on the total amount of monomers ([0017]). MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding the 20 to 30 wt% of the total weight of the polymer of styrene or a substituted styrene limitation, Mertoglu discloses that the copolymer may contain further monomers (monomer D) that are suitable ones if they are polymerizable with monomers A, B and C, such as ethylenically unsaturated monomers ([0014]).
Mertoglu does not teach styrene as a copolymer.
Pereira discloses an agrochemical micronutrient concentrate and or formulations with dispersants for said concentrates/formulations, in particular, a dispersant for use in suspending solid micronutrients in suspension concentrate type formulations comprising one or more micronutrients (abstract, pg. 2, lines 8, 14; claim 1).
The dispersant is preferably a water dispersible styrene (meth)acrylic copolymer (abstract, pg. 2, line 9, 15; claim 1). Pereira teaches that the copolymer comprises styrene monomer(s) of substituted styrene (pg. 3, lines 26-28; claims 3-4, 14, 19). Pereira teaches that the copolymer comprises (meth)acrylic acid monomer(s) of acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, crotonic acid or a mixture of two or more of these (pg. 3, lines 30-31; claims 3-4). Pereira teaches that in the styrene (meth)acrylic copolymer the proportions of residues of the monomers by weight are typically from 67 wt.% to 40 wt.% of the (meth)acrylic acid monomer(s) and from 13 wt.% to 75 wt.% of the styrene monomer(s) (pg. 4, lines 21-25).
Regarding the 20 to 30 wt% of styrene limitation, Pereira teaches that in the water dispersible styrene (meth)acrylic copolymer disclosed, the molar ratio of residues of the (meth)acrylic acid monomer(s) to those of the styrene monomer(s) is particularly from 3:1 to 1:1 (pg. 4, lines 18-21), thereby making obvious both the recited limitations 15-60% of methacrylic acid and 20 to 30 wt% of styrene. MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding the 75%-85% of the polymer is in a neutralized form limitation, Mertoglu does not teach non-free acid form.
Pereira teaches that desirably, the formulation will be near neutral and so most of the acid groups will be presented as salts (bridging pgs. 5-6) with formulations typically having a pH near neutral (e.g., about 5-8).
Regarding element ii) (i.e., agrochemical active, nutrient, biostimulant), Applicants disclose agrochemical active compounds to include insecticides and fungicides (see Spec., pg. 8, lines 29-31).
Mertoglu teaches fungicides, insecticides, safeners and/or growth regulators ([0038]).
Regarding element ii) (i.e., dispersant : at least one agrochemical active, 0.05:1–0.08:1), Mertoglu teaches that the weight ratio of copolymer to pesticide can be situated in the range from 10:1 to 1:10 ([0060]). Here the prior art teaches a ratio to include 1:10 of dispersant to active. A ratio of 1:10 is close to the claimed ratio of 0.08:1 in which there is 12.5 times more active to dispersant (i.e., 12.5 x 0.08 = 1). Pereira teaches that the ratio of dispersant to micronutrient or active agrochemical is preferably from about 0.1:1 to about 1:1 (pg. 12, lines 21-27). Here the claimed 0.08 is quite close to 0.1. MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the active relative to dispersant in order achieve specific objectives such as logistical or economic efficiency.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the styrene taught by Pereira in the agroformulation of Mertoglu with expected results. Mertoglu provides a formulation where the agrochemical active at high concentrations is well stabilized and even at low temperatures do not crystallize attributed by the high concentration of copolymer ([0073]). One would be motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because similarly, Pereira addresses the challenges of instability when higher amounts of micronutrients are used in a concentrate (pg. 1, line 22). Pereira provides a dispersant of styrene(meth)acrylic copolymers in a formulation that includes at least one agrochemical active (pg. 3, line 6; claims 1, 15) that avoids agglomeration of the particles of or including micronutrients during storage and use (pg. 9, lines 24-25). Pereira provides a dispersant that allows for preparation of stable micronutrient concentrates which are able to comprise relatively high amounts of micronutrients whilst remaining stable, and therefore having an improved shelf life (pg. 24, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 4, Mertoglu teaches polyethyleneglycol monomethyl ether methacrylate (MPEGMA) ([0088]). The agrochemical formulation of Pereira may include acrylic copolymers such as a comb copolymer with capped polyethylene glycol side chains on a polyacrylic backbone (pg. 14, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that the (meth)acrylic acid derivative containing sulfate acid substituents, sulphonic acid substituents or their salts is optional. Nevertheless, Mertoglu teaches 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS) ([0014]).
Regarding claim 6, Mertoglu discloses that the copolymers generally have an average molar weight in the range from 2,000 to 50,000 g/mol (i.e., 2 to 75 kDa) ([0029]). MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the claim amendments, the combination of teachings of Mertoglu and Pereira teach and suggest the components of the recited polymer in the indicated amounts. Mertoglu provides a formulation where the agrochemical active at high concentrations is well stabilized and even at low temperatures do not crystallize attributed by the high concentration of copolymer ([0073]). The challenges of instability when higher amounts of micronutrients are used are top of mind for Pereira (pg. 1, line 22). Pereira not only provides a dispersant of styrene (meth)acrylic copolymers in a formulation that includes at least one agrochemical active (pg. 3, line 6; claims 1, 15) but also extends shelf-life (pg. 24, lines 1-10).
With respect to the range of ratios recited, Meroglu’s teaching of 10:1 to 1:10 ([0060]) and Pereira’s teaching of 0.1:1 to about 1:1 (pg. 12, lines 21-27) dispersant to active renders the clam obvious as discussed above. In addition, the MPEP 2144.05 states that 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) there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges.
For these reasons, Applicants’ arguments are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected; no claims are currently allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karen Ketcham whose telephone number is (571)270-5896. The examiner can normally be reached 900-500 ET.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/Karen Ketcham/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614