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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 11, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 5, 10-18, and 20-24 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 5, 20, and 23 has been amended. Claim 24 is newly added. Claims 2-4 are cancelled. Claims 10 and 12-14 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected species. Claims 1, 5, 11, 15-18, and 20-24 will presently be examined to the extent they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Status of the Claims
The rejection of claims 2, 3, and 4 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoso et al. (EP 2,706,843) in view of Anderson et al. (WO 2017/197066) is maintained. The rejection of claim 2 is withdrawn due to cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 11, 15-18 and 20-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (WO 2017/197066) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0213451) is maintained. The rejection of claims 2-4 is withdrawn due to cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (WO 2017/197066) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0213451) as applied to claims 1, 5, 11, 15-18 and 20-22 above, and further in view of Ahern Publication (1995, The Scientist) is maintained.
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 9, 12-13 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,425,902 (‘902) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0213451) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claim to cancel claim 4 requiring the macromonomer and the limitation in U.S. Patent No. ‘902 of “wherein the co-polymer is free of an anionic mono-ethylenically unsaturated monomer comprising at least one acidic group chosen from -SO3H”.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cardoso et al. (EP 2,706,843).
Cardoso et al. disclose a composition comprising an agrochemical substance and a random terpolymer which comprises the monomers i), ii), iii) and optionally further monomers incorporated into the polymer, wherein monomer i) comprises an olefinically unsaturated monomer comprising a sulfonic acid group and/or a salt thereof, monomer ii) comprises (meth)acrylamide and/or an N-substituted derivative thereof, and monomer iii) comprises a monoethylenically unsaturated C3-C8 carboxylic acid, an anhydride and/or a salt thereof (page 2, paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 24, Cardoso et al. disclose in Example 2, pyraclostrobin (pesticide), terpolymer from example 1 (at least one polymer P1), surfactant A, surfactant B nonionic surfactant, alkylamine ethoxylate, water-soluble, surface tension approximately 40 mN/m) (additive), glyphosate isopropylammonium salt (pesticide), and water (page 14, paragraph [0069]).
Regarding claim 24, Cardoso et al. teach in example 1, the terpolymer A was prepared by traditional free-radical polymerization in aqueous solution, based on the following monomers: 60% by weight of acrylic acid, 20% by weight of acrylamide, and 20% by weight of AMPS sodium salt (acrylamidopropanesulfonic acid). The initiator employed was an aqueous solution of sodium peroxodisulfate, and the regulator used was sodium hypophophite (page 13, paragraph [0068]). The terpolymer A is a polymerization reaction product of amides of α,β-ethylenically unsaturated mono- and dicarboxylic acids…salts of unsaturated sulfonic acid. Claim 24 uses the transitional phrase “comprising” which indicates that other polymers, such as acrylic acid, can be used in the polymerization method to form the copolymer.
Cardoso et al. meet all the limitations of the claim and thereby anticipate the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoso et al. (EP 2,706,843) in view of Anderson et al. (WO 2017/197066). Cardosa et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS filed 7/30/2025.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims an aqueous composition comprising a. at least one copolymer P1) that is a polymerization reaction product of a monomer composition M1) comprising acrylamide and 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid, b. at least one additive selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated alkylamine of general formula (II) and c. at least one pesticide, or a salt thereof, wherein upon spraying of the aqueous composition to form droplets, less than 5% of the droplets have volume mean diameter (VMD) of <141 µm as determined using ASTM E2798-11, a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyser, and a TTI11004-VP TeeJet Spray Tip Nozzle.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Cardoso et al. teach a composition comprising an agrochemical substance and a random terpolymer which comprises the monomers i), ii), iii) and optionally further monomers incorporated into the polymer, wherein monomer i) comprises an olefinically unsaturated monomer comprising a sulfonic acid group and/or a salt thereof, monomer ii) comprises (meth)acrylamide and/or an N-substituted derivative thereof, and monomer iii) comprises a monoethylenically unsaturated C3-C8 carboxylic acid, an anhydride and/or a salt thereof (page 2, paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 1, Cardoso et al. teach in example 1, the terpolymer A was prepared by traditional free-radical polymerization in aqueous solution, based on the following monomers: 60% by weight of acrylic acid, 20% by weight of acrylamide, and 20% by weight of AMPS sodium salt (acrylamidopropanesulfonic acid). The initiator employed was an aqueous solution of sodium peroxodisulfate, and the regulator used was sodium hypophophite (page 13, paragraph [0068]).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Example 2, pyraclostrobin (pesticide), terpolymer from example 1 (at least one polymer P1), surfactant A, surfactant B nonionic surfactant, alkylamine ethoxylate, water-soluble, surface tension approximately 40 mN/m) (additive), glyphosate isopropylammonium salt (pesticide), and water (page 14, paragraph [0069]).
Cardoso et al. teach a method of preparing the composition by bringing the terpolymer and the agrochemical substance into contact, for example by mixing (page 13, paragraph [0062]).
Cardoso et al. teach the sample preparation, for example the dilution to the measuring concentration, will, in this measuring method, depend on the fineness and concentration of the active substances in the suspension sample and on the apparatus used (for example Malvern Mastersizer). Cardoso et al. teach the procedure must be developed for the system in question and is known to a person skilled in the art (page 12, paragraph [0058]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Cardoso et al. do not specifically disclose upon spraying of the aqueous composition to form droplets, less than 5% of the droplets have volume mean diameter (VMD) of <141 µm as determined using ASTM E2798-11, a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyser, and a TTI11004-VP TeeJet Spray Tip Nozzle. It is for this reason Anderson et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Anderson et al. teach an aqueous agricultural composition includes a pesticide, water, and a co-polymer (Abstract).
Anderson et al. teach the compositions show a reduced volume percent of droplets having a diameter less than 140 microns, as determined using ASTM E2798-11 and a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyzer (page 2, paragraph [0009]). Anderson et al. teach the aqueous composition produces fines %V <141 µm of less than 30, upon spraying, as determined using ASTM E2798-11 and a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyzer and a TeeJet 8002VA nozzle (page 3, paragraph [0010]).
Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Cardoso et al. and Anderson et al. and wherein upon spraying of the aqueous composition to form droplets, less than 5% of the droplets have volume mean diameter of <141 µm as determined using ASTM E2798-11, a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyser, and a TTI11004-VP TeeJet Spray Tip Nozzle. Cardoso et al. teach a composition comprising pyraclostrobin (pesticide), terpolymer from example 1 (at least one polymer P1), surfactant A, surfactant B nonionic surfactant, alkylamine ethoxylate, water-soluble, surface tension approximately 40 mN/m) (additive), glyphosate isopropylammonium salt (pesticide), and water. Cardoso et al. teach the terpolymer A was prepared by traditional free-radical polymerization in aqueous solution, based on the following monomers: 60% by weight of acrylic acid, 20% by weight of acrylamide, and 20% by weight of AMPS sodium salt (acrylamidopropanesulfonic acid). Cardoso et al. further teach the sample preparation, for example the dilution to the measuring concentration, will, in this measuring method, depend on the fineness and concentration of the active substances in the suspension sample and on the apparatus used (for example Malvern Mastersizer). Cardoso et al. teach the procedure must be developed for the system in question and is known to a person skilled in the art. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that following the prior art teaching that if the same composition is taught in the prior art, one that comprises pyraclostrobin (pesticide), terpolymer from example 1 (at least one polymer P1), surfactant A, surfactant B nonionic surfactant, alkylamine ethoxylate, water-soluble, surface tension approximately 40 mN/m) (additive), glyphosate isopropylammonium salt (pesticide), and water, the skilled artisan would expect to obtain a result that necessarily flows with the intended purpose and properties, i.e., upon spraying of the aqueous composition to form droplets, less than 5% of the droplets have volume mean diameter of <141 µm as determined using ASTM E2798-11, a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyser, and a TTI11004-VP TeeJet Spray Tip Nozzle.
In addition, since Cardoso et al. teach the sample preparation, for example the dilution to the measuring concentration, will, in this measuring method, depend on the fineness and concentration of the active substances in the suspension sample and on the apparatus used (for example Malvern Mastersizer), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the known technique of measurement taught by Anderson et al. The droplets were determined using ASTM E2798-11 and a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyzer. Anderson et al. teach the aqueous composition produces fines %V <141 µm of less than 30, upon spraying, as determined using ASTM E2798-11 and a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyzer and a TeeJet 8002VA nozzle. Therefore, since Cardoso et al. teach the procedure must be developed for the system in question and is known to a person skilled in the art, a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known option within his technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Cardoso discloses a terpolymer having three monomers. Applicant argues that the terpolymer is exemplified as a polymerization product of monomers of acrylic acid, acrylamide and AMPS sodium salt and that the copolymer of pending claim 1 is the polymerization product of acrylamide and 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid. In response to Applicant’s argument, the terpolymer A is a polymerization reaction product of amides of α,β-ethylenically unsaturated mono- and dicarboxylic acids…salts of unsaturated sulfonic acid. The claim uses the transitional phrase “comprising” which indicates that other polymers, such as acrylic acid, can be used in the polymerization method to form the copolymer. In addition, the claim recites “at least one monomer A”, which further indicates that more than one monomer selected from amides of α,β-ethylenically unsaturated mono- and dicarboxylic acids unsaturated sulfonic acid can be used to formulate the reaction product. As evidenced by cancelled claim 2, acrylic acid is one of the monomers that can be used in reaction. As such, Cardoso is obvious over independent claim 1 and anticipated by newly added claim 24.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15-18, 20-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (WO 2017/197066) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0213451). Anderson et al. and Zhu et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 1/5/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims an aqueous composition comprising a. at least one copolymer P1) that is a polymerization reaction product of a monomer composition M1) comprising acrylamide and 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid, b. at least one additive selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated alkylamine of general formula (II) and c. at least one pesticide, or a salt thereof, wherein upon spraying of the aqueous composition to form droplets, less than 5% of the droplets have volume mean diameter (VMD) of <141 µm as determined using ASTM E2798-11, a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyser, and a TTI11004-VP TeeJet Spray Tip Nozzle.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Anderson et al. teach an aqueous agricultural composition includes a pesticide, water, and a co-polymer (Abstract).
Anderson et al. teach suitable pesticides include glyphosate (page 4, paragraph [0015], page 5, paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Anderson et al. teach the copolymer is a reaction product of (A) an acrylamide monomer and (B) a macromonomer. The macromonomer has the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
40
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 6, paragraph [0024]). Anderson et al. teach that k is from 5 to 150; l is from 0 to 25; m is from 0 to 15; R1, which is equivalent to R4 of the instant application, is H or methyl; R2, which is equivalent to R5 of the instant application, is independently a single bond or a divalent linking group chosen from –(CnH2n)- and -O-(Cn’H2n’), wherein n is from 1 to 6 and n’ is from 2 to 6; R3, which is equivalent to R6 of the instant invention, is independently a hydrocarbyl radical having at least 2 carbon atoms or an ether group of the general formula -CH2-O-R3’ wherein R3’ is a hydrocarbyl radical having at least 2 carbon atoms; and R4, which is equivalent to R7 of the instant invention, is independently H or a hydrocarbyl radical having 1 to 4 atoms (page 8, paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson et al. teach that the composition includes and emulsifier a fatty amine alkoxylates and fatty acid amide alkoxylate (page 23, paragraph [0090]).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson et al. teach a composition comprising acrylamide, Macromonomer 1 and AMPS (page 28, Table 1).
Regarding claim 1, Anderson et al. teach the compositions show a reduced volume percent of droplets having a diameter less than 140 microns, as determined using ASTM E2798-11 and a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyzer (page 2, paragraph [0009]). Anderson et al. teach the aqueous composition produces fines %V <141 µm of less than 30, upon spraying, as determined using ASTM E2798-11 and a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyzer and a TeeJet 8002VA nozzle (page 3, paragraph [0010]).
Anderson et al. teach the acrylamide monomer is chosen from (meth) acrylamide, N-methyl (meth) acrylamide, N, N’-dimethyl (meth) acrylamide, and N-methylol (meth) acrylamide (page 7, paragraph [0027]).
Regarding claim 5, Anderson et al. teach in various embodiments the co-polymer has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of 2,000,000 to 15,000,000 g/mol, which falls within the range of 1,000,000 g/mol-15,000,000 g/mol, currently claimed.
Regarding claim 15, Anderson et al. teach the co-polymer is present in an amount of form 0.01 to 10 weight percent based on the total weight of the aqueous agricultural composition (page 6, claim 12).
Regarding claim 16, Anderson et al. teach the emulsifier, an additive is present in an amount 0 to 20, 5 to 15, and 5 to 10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the composition (page 23, paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 17, Anderson et al. teach the pesticide is present in amounts of 0.01 to about 85, 0.1 to about 60 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition (page 5, paragraph [0019]).
Regarding claim 18, Anderson et al. teach the composition also includes water (page 5, paragraph [0020]). Anderson et al. teach the water is present from 60 to 99 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the composition (page 6, paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Anderson et al. teach a method of forming the composition. The method includes the step of combining the pesticide, water, and the copolymer. This step also include adding additives (page 27, paragraphs [0102] and [0104]).
Regarding claim 21, Anderson et al. teach a method of applying the composition to an agricultural target wherein the method includes the step of spraying the composition. The agricultural target may be any known in the art of pesticide applications and may be, for examples, weeds, crops, fields (page 27, paragraph [00105]).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Anderson et al. teach the data in Table 2 demonstrates that Co-Polymers 3, 4, 5, and 7 provide significant reduction of driftable fines (droplets <141 um) when compared to RoundUp PowerMax alone and improved reduction of driftable fines when compared to Comparative Co-Polymer 1(page 32, paragraph [0118]). Anderson et al. teach Table 2 demonstrates effective reduction of driftable droplets (<141 um) with Co-Polymers with a varies range of weight percent of the Macromonomer (page 33, paragraph [0123]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Anderson et al. do not specifically disclose the fatty amine alkoxylate has the compound of formula (II) or AO is CH2-CH2-O. It is for this reason Zhu et al is added as a secondary reference.
Zhu et al. teach a stable glyphosate formulations with improved efficacy by a highly effective alkoxylated alkylamine quaternary surfactant at a very low used level (Abstract). Zhu et al. teach the class of alkoxylated alkylamine quaternary surfactant adjuvants that have formula
PNG
media_image2.png
191
301
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(page 2, paragraphs [0019-0020]).
Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Anderson et al. and Zhu et al. and use an alkoxylated amine of formula (II) in the composition. Anderson et al. teach an aqueous agricultural composition includes a pesticide, water, and a co-polymer, wherein the copolymer is a reaction product of (A) an acrylamide monomer and (B) a macromonomer. Anderson et al. further teach an emulsifier and an additive is added to the aqueous composition. The emulsifier includes a fatty amine alkoxylates. Zhu et al. teach agricultural compositions comprising highly effective alkoxylated alkylamine quaternary surfactants. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the alkoxylated alkylamine quaternary surfactants taught by Zhu et al. as the fatty amine alkoxylate because they improve the efficacy of the herbicide glyphosate. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known alkoxylated alkylamine quaternary surfactant used in agricultural applications with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson et al. (WO 2017/197066) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2014/0213451) as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 15-22 above, and further in view of Ahern Publication (1995, The Scientist). Anderson et al. and Zhu et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 1/5/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims an aqueous composition comprising a. at least one copolymer P1) that is a polymerization reaction product of a monomer composition M1) comprising acrylamide and 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid, b. at least one additive selected from the group consisting of alkoxylated alkylamine of general formula (II) and c. at least one pesticide, or a salt thereof, wherein upon spraying of the aqueous composition to form droplets, less than 5% of the droplets have volume mean diameter (VMD) of <141 µm as determined using ASTM E2798-11, a Malvern Spray Tech droplet analyser, and a TTI11004-VP TeeJet Spray Tip Nozzle.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Anderson et al. and Zhu et al. with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection is hereby incorporated and are therefore applied in the instant rejection as discussed above.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Anderson et al. and Zhu et al. do not specifically disclose an agricultural kit comprising, as separate components (a) the at least one copolymer P1), (b) the at least one additive, and (c) the at least one pesticide. It is for this reason the Ahern Publication is added as a secondary reference.
The Ahern Publication teaches premade biochemicals and reagents offers scientist the opportunity to better manage their time putting products all together in kits takes convenience one step further (page 5, paragraph 2).
Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Anderson et al., Zhu et al., and the Ahern Publication and use an agricultural kit comprising, as separate components (a) the at least one copolymer P1), (b) the at least one additive, and (c) the at least one pesticide. It would have been obvious to have formed a kit of separate parts, comprising components (a) the at least one Polymer P1), (b) the at least one additive, and (c) the at least one pesticide because Anderson et al. teach the step of combining the pesticide, water and the copolymer and the additives. One skilled in the art would appreciate that organizing reagents prior to use saves time and reduces the frequency of errors. As taught by the Ahern Publication, kits offer scientists a good return on their investment and allows scientist to better manage their time. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a kit with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Anderson discloses a copolymer that is the reaction product of (A) acrylamide and (B) macromonomer of formula
PNG
media_image1.png
40
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Applicant argues that the (B) macromonomer does not encompass 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid and that the copolymer of pending claim 1 is the polymerization product of acrylamide and 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid. In response to Applicant’s argument, Anderson et al. teach a composition comprising acrylamide, Macromonomer 1 and AMPS, which is 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid. See page 28, Table 1. Applicant argues that Anderson discloses their copolymer is free of 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid (AMPS). In response to Applicant’s argument, while the copolymers are comparative copolymers, Anderson et al. teach the polymerization reaction product of a monomer of composition comprising acrylamide and 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid, which one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious over the instant claims. The cited art taken as a whole indicates copolymers comprising acrylamide, Macromonomer 1 and AMPS, which is 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid, is known in the art, as evidenced by the comparative example. In addition, independent claim 1 uses the transitional phrase “comprising” which indicates that other polymers, such as macromonomer, can be used in the polymerization method to form the copolymer. As such, Anderson et al. is obvious over independent claim 1.
Applicant indicates that Zhu and Ahern Publication do not disclose a copolymer that is a polymerization product of acrylamide and 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Zhu was added to provide a motivation to use an alkoxylated amine of formula (II) in the composition. The Ahern Publication was added to provide motivation to use a “kit”, as indicated hereinabove. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The claims remain rejected for reasons of record.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 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, Ali Soroush can be reached on 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614