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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-3 and 8 have been canceled. Claims included in the prosecution are claims 1 and 4-6.
New Rejections
Applicants’ amendments have necessitated the following grounds of rejection:
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertoglu et al. (US2014/0031205A1) and Werner et al. (US2017/0008813A1) evidenced by Sutton et al. (Microdomain Characterization of Styrene-Imidazole Copolymers. Macromolecules 1988, 21, 2432-2439).
Mertoglu et al. disclose an agrochemical composition containing a pesticide and a copolymer, which contains in polymerized form at least 20 wt % vinylimidazol and/or a quaternized vinylimidazol, an acidic comonomer, and a hydrophobic comonomer up to 30 wt %, which comprises C1-22 alkyl (meth)acrylate, mono C1-22 alkyl terminated poly(ethylene glycol) (meth)acrylate, vinyl ester of aliphatic C1-32 carboxylic acids, or vinyl C1-4 alkyl ether. It further relates to a method for preparing said composition by mixing the pesticide and the copolymer; and to a use of said copolymer as dispersing agent in a composition containing a pesticide (abstract, claim 16).
Mertoglu et al. teach the acidic comonomer comprises a carboxylic acid unit, a sulfonic acid unit or a salt thereof wherein the acidic comonomer is acrylic acid or methacrylic acid (paragraph [0022], claims 17-18). Acrylic acid is taught as a most preferred acidic comonomer (paragraphs [0023], [0025]). The copolymer comprises usually in polymerized form up to 30 wt %, preferably up to 15 wt %, and in particular up to 7 wt % acidic comonomer (e.g., acrylic acid) (paragraph [0039]) to read on the lower end of the claimed range of acrylic acid. 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 20-30 wt.% of styrene limitation, as mentioned above, Mertoglu et al. teach at least 20 wt.% vinylimidazole (i.e., vinyl monomer) but differ from the claimed invention insofar by not teaching the specific monomer, styrene.
However, Werner et al. disclose 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). The agrochemical concentrate comprises i) at least one micronutrient; ii) a dispersant, said dispersant being a styrene (meth)acrylic copolymer wherein the dispersant is water dispersible; wherein monomer repeating units in the copolymer are residues of (meth)acrylic acid monomer(s), and styrene monomer(s) (claims 1-3). The (meth)acrylic acid monomer is selected from acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, crotonic acid or a mixture of two or more of these (claim 4).
Werner et al. teach the styrene monomer(s) is styrene or a substituted styrene, and optionally comprise styrene monomers including strongly acid substituents (claim 5). The proportions of residues of the monomers by weight are typically from 93 wt.% to 10 wt.% of the (meth)acrylic acid monomer(s) and from 7 wt.% to 90 wt.% of the styrene monomer(s) ([0027]) to read on the 20 to 30 wt.% of styrene limitation of instant claim 1.
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 Werner et al. in the copolymer of Mertoglu et al. One would be motivated to do so because substituting or incorporating vinylimidazole with styrene would have been well known in the art to change the polymer properties in terms of hydrophilicity and hydrophobicity to promote stability . As evidenced by Sutton et al., the hydrophobic/hydrophilic copolymers of styrene-imidazole behave as polymeric surfactants characterized by a micelle like structure in an aqueous environment (abstract). Further, Werner et al. provide a dispersant that allow 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 ([0134] and provides stability with a reduction of flocculation/coalescence in the spray formulation ([0135]).
Mertoglu et al. teach suitable pesticides in the aqueous compositions discloses as being in the neutral form but differ from the claimed invention by not disclosing 75-85% of the polymer is in a neutralized form to meet the requirement of instant claim 1.
However, Werner et al. disclose the polymeric dispersant can be used as the free acid or as a salt ([0033]). Desirably, the formulation will be near neutral and so most of the acid groups will be present as salts ([0033]). The spray formulations will typically have a pH that is in particular near neutral (e.g. about 5 to 8) ([0078]).
Mertoglu et al. teach an agrochemical composition containing a pesticide (abstract). Additionally, Werner et al. disclose an agrochemical active included in the formulation are biocides and pesticides (page 16, line 6). Here the prior art reads on the agrochemical active (i.e., element ii) of instant claim 1.
The claimed ratio by weight of the dispersant to the at least one agrochemical active and/or nutrient and/or bio stimulant is about 0.05: 1 to 0.08: 1 (or 1: 20 to 1: 12.5 ) (i.e., 12.5 x 0.08 = dispersant to active is 1: 12.5). Mertoglu et al. disclose the active substance concentrations in the ready to-use preparations can be varied within relatively wide ranges. In general, they are from 0.0001 to 10%, preferably from 0.001 to 1 % by weight of active substance ([0108]). Various adjuvant, herbicide, bactericide, other fungicide and/or pesticide agents can be admixed with the compositions in a weight ratio of preferably 1: 10 to 10: 1 ([0110]). Werner et al. teach a ratio of dispersant to active agrochemical from about 0.1:1 to about 1:1 ([0074]). Here the claimed 0.08 is 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. Further, 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. Further, the combined teachings of Mertoglu et al. and Werner et al. would have made it 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 efficiency or cost savings.
Mertoglu et al. teach PEGMA ([0124]) to read on the methoxy polyethylene glycol methacrylate of instant claim 4 thereby reading on the limitation of claim 1 from which claim 4 depends, i.e., alkylacrylate of a monoalkyl polyethylene glycol. As mentioned above, the hydrophobic comonomer is up to 30 wt.% (claim 16). Here the claimed range of 20 to 50 wt % overlaps with that of the prior art to render obvious the claim limitation. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, the Examiner notes the recitation of “optionally” does not make the (meth)acrylic acid derivative limitation a requirement. Both Mertoglu et al. and Werner et al. teach 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulfonic acid (AMPS) ([0014], [0025] respectively).
Regarding claim 6, Mertoglu et al. in the disclosure of PEGMA teach a molecular weight of PEG was about 350 g/mol (i.e., 350 Daltons) ([0124]). Werner et al. disclose the polymeric dispersant desirably has a molecular weight of from 750 to 20,000 ([0032]). Here the prior art reads on the 5K to 75K Daltons limitation.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments are based on newly amended limitations which have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above. In light of the newly amended claim 1, the Mertoglu et al. and Werner et al. teach and suggest the components of the recited polymer in the indicated amounts.
Conclusion
All claims under consideration remain rejected; no claims are allowed. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 0830-1630.
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 A Ketcham/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights