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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The amendments and arguments filed 31 December 2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-15, 19-20, and 22-23 are currently pending. Claims 1-2, 20, and 22-23 are amended; claims 16-18 and 21 are cancelled; claims 6-15 are withdrawn; no claims are new.
Claims 1-5, 19-20, and 22-23 are examined on the merits herein.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied, and constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 1-2 be found allowable, claims 22-23 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-5, 19-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 6,406,143; of record).
Claims 1 and 22 are drawn to an organic agricultural pesticide dispersant comprising a styrene maleic anhydride-polyalkylene glycol copolymer having a styrene to maleic anhydride molar ratio of at least 4.0:1.0, more specifically at least 5.0:1.0 (claim 3) or 6.0:1.0 (claim 4), and a monofunctional polyalkylene glycol moiety of the formula (1):
R1O-(CpH2pO)z-[(EO)b-(AO)c]-H
where R1 is an alkyl group, more specifically a lower alkyl group (claim 5) or methyl group (Applicant’s elected species); p is 2 or 3; z is 1, 2, or 3; EO is ethyleneoxy; AO is alkyleneoxy; b is an integer in the range from 0 to 100; c is an integer in the range from 0 to 100; and at least one of b or c is greater than 0; more specifically b is greater than 0 (claims 2 and 23) and c is 0 (claim 19).
Chen et al. teach in claims 1 and 3 a dispersant being a graft copolymer of styrene-co-maleic anhydride and a polyethylene glycol. Chen et al. further teach in claim 1 the copolymer having a styrene content x from about 30 to about 90 weight ratio (i.e., a styrene to maleic anhydride weight ratio of 30:70 to 90:10), corresponding to a molar ratio of 0.403:1 to 8.47:1 as calculated by examiner, overlapping with the instantly claimed range of at least 6.0:1.0.
Chen et al. further teach in claim 1 the polyethylene glycol having a formula of:
PNG
media_image1.png
76
264
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein X2 is O; R2 and R2’ are H; R3 is CH3; and z and z’ are from 3 to about 50. This polyethylene glycol of Chen et al. corresponds to a polyalkylene glycol moiety of instant formula (1) wherein R1 is methyl; p is 2; z is 1; EO is ethyleneoxy; b is an integer in the range of 6 to 100; and c is 0.
The recitations of “an organic agricultural pesticide dispersant” in claim 1 and “an agricultural dispersant for an organic pesticide” in claim 22 are statements of intended use and are not considered limitations and as such, are of no significance to claim constitution (See MPEP 2111.02(II)).
Based on all of the foregoing, claims 1-5, 19, and 22-23 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Claim 20 is drawn to the dispersant of claim 1, wherein the styrene maleic anhydride-polyalkylene glycol copolymer has a weight average molecular weight (MW) that is less than 20,000 g/mol.
Chen et al. teach the number average molecular weight of poly(styrene-co-maleic anhydride) is from about 1000 to 3000 g/mol and the number average molecular weight of the polyalkylene oxide being from 500 to about 3000 g/mol (Col. 3 lines 1-10). Chen et al. further teach “Narrow molecular weight distribution (Mw/Mn<1.5) is preferred. To control the molecular weight distribution, Atom Transfer Radical Polymerization (ATRP) or Group Transfer Polymerization (GTP) are preferred” (Col. 3 lines 43-46). As such, Chen et al. teach a preferred Mw of poly(styrene-co-maleic anhydride) from about 1500 to 4500 g/mol, and a Mw of the polyalkylene oxide from 750 to 4500 g/mol. The combination of these poly(styrene-co-maleic anhydride) and polyalkylene oxide moieties would result in a dispersant having a Mw less than 20,000 g/mol, overlapping with the instantly claimed range.
As such, claim 20 is rejected as prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pg. 6-7 that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Ran et al. to modify the dispersant of Chen et al. as the purposes of the dispersants are significantly different.
Arguments regarding the combination of Chen et al. and Ran et al. are moot as after further consideration, the polyalkylene glycol moiety taught by Chen et al. has been found to read on the polyalkylene glycol moiety of instant claims 1 and 22.
Applicant argues on pg. 8 of the Remarks that the teachings of Chen et al. are not related to an agricultural dispersant and one of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable expectation of success that the dispersant of Chen et al. would be able to disperse agricultural pesticides.
It is noted that the recitation of “an organic agricultural pesticide dispersant” is considered to be an intended use of the claimed dispersant (See MPEP 2111.02(II)). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Paul Hoerner whose telephone number is (571)270-0259. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm eastern.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571)272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/PAUL HOERNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights