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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed March 11, 2026, with the submission filed on February 5, 2026, that includes a response to the Final Office Action mailed November 7, 2025, has been entered. 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 Claims 12, 13, 15-17, 21, and 22 have been withdrawn.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 Claim Objections
Claim 1 has been satisfactorily amended. Therefore, the objections to claim 1 presented in the Final Office Action mailed November 7, 2025 are hereby withdrawn.
Withdrawal of Prior Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The limitations “the composition exhibits a disintegration time of less than 15 inversions”, and “the composition achieves a suspensibility of at least 85%” have been deleted from claim 1. Therefore, the 35 USC 112(a) rejection presented in the Final Office Action mailed November 7, 2025 is hereby withdrawn.
Withdrawal of Prior Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Claim 1 has been satisfactorily amended. Therefore, the 35 USC 112(b) rejection presented in the Final Office Action mailed November 7, 2025 is hereby withdrawn.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. First, it is noted that the present abstract filed February 5, 2026 has been completely overhauled from the previous abstract filed October 15, 2025. The terms “stabilization system”, “steric stabilizer”, and “static stabilizer” appear to be new matter. However, the abstract filed October 15, 2025 was generally quite satisfactory, except for a couple tweaks required in language. Recommendations were offered in the prior Office Action for overcoming the remaining language issues.
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 following key aspects of the invention: “water-dispersible granules”, “a hydrophilic insecticidal active and a hydrophobic insecticidal active”, the “polymer matrix and the inorganic salt in the required weight ratio of e.g. 1:2 to 1:4”, and perhaps even the polymer matrix being urea-formaldehyde and the inorganic salt being ammonium sulfate.
4. The newly amended abstract merely introduces in generic and uninformative terms that the invention is a “stabilization system” with “a stearic stabilizer” and “a static stabilizer”, which provides no clear and useful information of any real substance as far as informing the reader about what the key ingredients of the invention actually are. Indeed, so-called “stabilization systems” are not new to the art at all. Aqueous insecticidal compositions comprising an insecticide and a so-called “stabilization system” are generally not new to the art either. Indeed, the invention appears to be water-dispersible granules and not an aqueous composition. While the granules are “water-dispersible”, they are not necessarily dispersed in water. Further, the presently claimed composition comprises a “disintegration system”, which is not really a “stabilization system”.
5. The abstract introduces a method of making an aqueous insecticidal composition, and also a method of controlling insects, without reciting the key active steps for the recited methods.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification/Abstract
The amendment to the abstract filed February 5, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure include the following terms:
1) “a stabilization system”
2) “a steric stabilizer”
3) “a static stabilizer”
4) “an aqueous insecticidal composition”
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 about 1:2 to about 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 weight ratio of urea-formaldehyde to ammonium sulfate is e.g. 1:1.35 to 1:1.66, i.e. about 1:1 to about 1:2, and wherein the insecticides can be e.g. flonicamid and fipronil.
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 is e.g. about 1:1 to about 1:2, 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 February 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Applicant contends that “Hercamp teaches a polymer matrix to salt ratio of 1:1.35 to 1:1.6 based on Samples 4 and 2, respectively” and thus “consequently, the claimed water-dispersible granules do not overlap with the teachings of Hercamp” and “Hercamp does not provide any suggestion or motivation to a skilled artisan…to change this ratio”.
The Examiner, however, would like to point out the following:
1. Hercamp need not anticipate the presently claimed subject matter under 35 USC 102 with one specific example or preferred embodiment, and Hercamp does not need to recite Applicant’s claims verbatim.
2. Hercamp exemplifies a weight ratio range of urea-formaldehyde to ammonium sulfate of e.g. 1:1.35 to 1:1.66. Using standard scientific rounding to the nearest whole numbers to be consistent with the accuracy of Applicant’s claimed ratios, the is thus equivalent to about 1:1 to about 1:2, which is not patentably distinct from Applicant’s claimed range of “about 1:2 to about 1:4”.
3. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Hercamp need not provide any suggestion or motivation to “change” their ratio.
For the foregoing reasons, the 35 USC 103 rejection is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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