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 .
Status
Applicant’s response dated 08 December 2025 to the previous Office action dated 08 September 2025 is acknowledged. Pursuant to amendments therein, claims 1, 5, 8-9, and 12-20 are pending in the application.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 made in the previous Office action is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments, but a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 is made herein in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 made in the previous Office action is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments, but a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is made herein in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 made in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments, but new rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are made herein in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 6-7, filed 08 December 2025, with respect to the anticipation rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive in that Gao (CN-102584423-A; of record) requires more than one fungicide, which is excluded by claims 17 and 20. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made herein as set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks pages 7-8, filed 08 December 2025, with respect to the obviousness rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive in that Bauer et al. (US 2014/0256716 A1; of record) requires carboxylic acid dibutylamide, which is excluded by claim 15. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made herein as set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 8, filed 08 December 2025, with respect to the obviousness rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive in that Fujimoto et al. (EP 0569210 A2; of record) requires antimicrobial agent, which is excluded by claim 16. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made herein as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites at least one nonionic surfactant and later recites “optionally, a surfactant”, which renders the claim ambiguous and thus indefinite as it is unclear whether the nonionic surfactant is optional or required. It would be acceptable to recite “optionally, a second surfactant” or similar language. Claim 18 is rejected as depending upon claim 15 without remedying such deficiency.
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.
Claim(s) 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN-101913952-A; published 15 December 2010; citations herein to English machine translation made 09 January 2026).
Yang et al. discloses a fertilizer (i.e., an agrochemical composition) comprising large element fertilizer and bactericide and assistant (claim 1) wherein the large element fertilizer is potassium nitrate (claim 4) wherein the bactericide is hymexazole (i.e., hydroxyisoxazole; i.e., sole fungicidal ingredient) (claim 7) wherein the assistant/auxiliary agent may be polycarboxylate (i.e., a carboxylic acid type anionic surfactant) (claim 10; paragraph [0030]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burkhart et al. (US 2018/0125073 A1; published 10 May 2018).
Burkhart et al. discloses a pesticidal composition comprising at least one non-ionic surfactant and an active ingredient group alpha (AIGA) compound (claim 1) wherein the AIGA compound may be fungicide hymexazol (claim 5; paragraphs [0017], [0019], [0038]) wherein the non-ionic surfactant may be polysorbate surfactant such as PEO sorbitan esters of fatty acids (i.e., POE sorbitan fatty acid ester) (paragraphs [0040], [0044]) wherein the composition may include a solvent such as water (paragraph [0052]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Burkhart et al. as discussed above and to make the pesticidal composition of Burkhart et al. as discussed above with hymexazol fungicide, POE sorbitan fatty acid ester nonionic surfactant, and water solvent, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5, 8-9, and 12-14 are allowed.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 MICHAEL B. PALLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Sue Liu can be reached on (571)272-5539. 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.
/MICHAEL B. PALLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617