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
This action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed July 2, 2026 in reply to the Non-final Office Action mailed April 3, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended; and claims 2-11, 14, and 18-20 have been canceled. Claims 12, 13, 15-17, 21, and 22 have been withdrawn. Claim 1 is currently under examination in the application.
Withdrawal of Prior Objection - Specification
The abstract has been satisfactorily amended to remove new matter. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 132(a) objection presented in the Non-final Office Action mailed April 3, 2026 is hereby withdrawn.
Abstract
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following:
1. The abstract should be a concise summary of the key technical aspects of the invention which are new to the art to which the invention pertains. If the invention is a composition, the abstract should recite the key requisite ingredients. If the invention is a method, the abstract should recite the key requisite active steps.
2. The abstract merely informs the reader that the invention is granules comprising a polymer matrix, an inorganic salt, and insecticidal actives, wherein the polymer matrix and the inorganic salt are in an “effective ratio”, which is not defined. Such a composition is generally not new to the art at all.
3. The presently amended abstract does not adequately inform the reader of the key technical aspects of the invention which are new to the art. For example, the abstract, at the very least, should mention the specific polymer matrix to inorganic salt weight ratio of 1:2 to 1:4, and even more specifically that the polymer matrix is urea-formaldehyde and the inorganic salt is ammonium sulfate.
4. The abstract first introduces an insecticidal composition that contains at least two different insecticidal actives, a polymer matrix, and an inorganic salt. Then the abstract discloses a process for preparing this very same insecticidal composition which requires combining at least one agrochemical active, the polymer matrix and other optional auxiliary ingredients. This is incongruous. The method for making the composition should require precisely the same ingredients required by the composition itself that is being made. Furthermore, the abstract recites obtaining a blend, then grinding the blend, then blending the ground mix. This appears awkward and to be going in an endless circle. Applicant is advised to polish up the presentation.
5. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. The final sentence of the abstract merely points to the merits of the composition, which indeed are already well understood, i.e. that an insecticidal composition would be useful for controlling insects. The last line should thus be deleted as being redundant.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hercamp et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2015/0351398).
Applicant Claims
Applicant’s elected subject matter is directed to water-dispersible granules comprising flonicamid, fipronil, urea-formaldehyde, and ammonium sulfate; wherein the weight ratio of urea-formaldehyde to ammonium sulfate is 1:2 to 1:4.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art (MPEP §2141.01)
Hercamp et al. disclose a composition that can be in the form of water-dispersible granules comprising e.g. urea-formaldehyde, ammonium sulfate, and one or more insecticides; wherein the insecticides can be e.g. flonicamid and fipronil; wherein the weight ratio of urea-formaldehyde to ammonium sulfate can be e.g. 1:1.66, i.e. about 1:2, and wherein the ammonium sulfate can be present in the amount of 50-250 g/kg of the composition.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between the Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims (MPEP §2141.02)
Hercamp et al. do not explicitly anticipate the elected subject matter. However, the Hercamp et al. disclosure is sufficient to render the elected subject matter prima facie obvious under 35 USC 103.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the present application was filed to employ the teachings of Hercamp et al., outlined supra, to devise Applicant’s presently claimed composition.
Hercamp et al. disclose a composition that can be in the form of water-dispersible granules comprising e.g. urea-formaldehyde, ammonium sulfate, and one or more insecticides; wherein the weight ratio of urea-formaldehyde to ammonium sulfate can be e.g. about 1:2, wherein the ammonium sulfate can be present in the amount of 50-250 g/kg of the composition, and wherein the composition exhibits excellent storage stability. Since Hercamp et al. disclose that suitable insecticides include e.g. flonicamid and fipronil, one of ordinary skill in the art would thus be motivated to employ flonicamid and fipronil as the insecticide constituents, with the reasonable expectation that the resulting composition will successfully exhibit excellent storage stability.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Applicant contends that while Hercamp discloses that flonicamid and fipronil are suitable insecticides that can be added to the composition, “Hercamp neither specifically selects flonicamid and fipronil together nor exemplifies any composition comprising both active ingredients”; that “Hercamp does not describe urea-formaldehyde copolymer and ammonium sulfate as a defined disintegration system…and does not teach that the ratio therebetween should be controlled within the presently claimed range of 1:2 to 1:4”; and that “the present rejection therefore requires multiple independent selections” and “relies upon hindsight reconstruction”.
The Examiner, however, would like to point out the following:
1. Hercamp has not been cited for individually anticipating the presently claimed subject matter under 35 USC 102. Hercamp thus needs not disclose the presently claimed subject matter with one specific example or one preferred embodiment. Hercamp need not explicitly recite instructions to direct one of ordinary skill in the art to select an insecticide that Hercamp already expressly discloses is a suitable insecticide. Hercamp need not recite Applicant’s claims verbatim. Rather, the prior art rejection is under 35 USC 103, based on what Hercamp expressly discloses and reasonably suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art, who is one of ordinary creativity and not an automaton.
2. Hercamp expressly teaches that their composition contains a “disintegrant” and a “solid buffer”, and that the disintegrant is specifically urea-formaldehyde and the solid buffer is specifically ammonium sulfate (see e.g. claims 1-5). Furthermore, Hercamp provides multiple specific examples of compositions that include both urea-formaldehyde and ammonium sulfate in the same composition. Clearly, one of ordinary skill in the art would thus be able to arrive at a composition comprising the combination of urea-formaldehyde and ammonium sulfate from Hercamp with a reasonable expectation of success. Moreover, Hercamp need only teach the composition itself to preclude the patentability of the composition. Hercamp need not disclose Applicant’s own reasons for combining the urea-formaldehyde and the ammonium sulfate, and need not disclose Applicant’s own fabricated terminology for this combination, e.g. the “disintegration system”.
3. In example 2, Hercamp exemplifies a composition comprising both urea-formaldehyde (i.e. as Pergopak® M) and ammonium sulfate; wherein the weight ratio of urea-formaldehyde to ammonium sulfate is 1:1.66. Using standard scientific rounding to the tens place to be consistent with the accuracy of Applicant’s claimed numbers, 1.66 is thus rounded to 2. Therefore, Hercamp effectively discloses a urea-formaldehyde to ammonium sulfate weight ratio of 1:2, which is not patentably distinct from Applicant’s claimed range of “1:2 to 1:4”.
4. More broadly, however, Hercamp expressly provides that ammonium sulfate can be present in the composition in the amount of 50-250 g/kg of the composition. Using example 2 as a starting point, the urea-formaldehyde (i.e. as Pergopak® M) is present in the amount of 15 g. In this specific example, the ammonium sulfate is present in the amount of 24.9 g. All required ingredients present total 250 g. The presumption is that the water added in the process is removed by drying. Hence, the ammonium sulfate is present in the amount of 24.9 g per 250 g, which is equivalent to about 100 g/kg of the composition.
5. Hercamp provides that the ammonium sulfate can be present e.g. up to 250 g/kg of the composition. Hence, in that case the urea-formaldehyde (i.e. as Pergopak® M) would be present in the amount of 15 g, and the ammonium sulfate would be present in an amount 2.5 times the exemplied amount of 24.9 g, which would be about 62 g. Therefore, Hercamp more broadly provides for a urea-formaldehyde to ammonium sulfate ratio of e.g. up to about 15 g/62 g, or about 1:4.
For the foregoing reasons, the 35 USC 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BROWE whose telephone number is (571)270-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 AM to 6 PM EST.
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 at 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.
/DAVID BROWE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights