DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed February 13, 2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 13, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 15 have been amended. Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16, 19, 21-33, 35-39, 42-47 and 49-60 are cancelled. No claims are newly added. Accordingly, claims 1, 8, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34, 40, 41 and 48 remain pending and are currently under examination.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
Applicant’s amendment renders the objections of claims 11 and 15 moot. Specifically, claim 11 has been cancelled and claim 15 has been amended to remedy the minor informality. Thus, said objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejections of claims 10-12 under 35 USC 112(b) moot. Specifically, said claims have been cancelled. Thus, said rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection of claim 10 under 35 USC 112(d) moot. Specifically, said claim has been cancelled. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 15, 17, 18, 20, 34, 40, 41 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wempe (WO 2009/120182 A2, Oct. 1, 2009, hereafter as “Wempe”) in view of Florentine (“Standard Operating Procedures for the Application of Pesticides in Agricultural Research”, Rutgers, Oct. 15, 2012, hereafter as “Florentine”) and Wang et al. (WO 2006/107905 A1, Oct. 12, 2006, hereafter as “Wang”) and further as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich (see PTO-892) and Sittig’s Handbook of Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals (see PTO-892), Adams et al. (USPN 5,660,816, Aug, 26, 1997, hereafter as “Adams) and Pierce (USPN 5,158,762, Oct. 27, 1992, hereafter as “Pierce”).
The instant invention is drawn to a composition comprising a sulfopolymer, a stabilizing agent, an antifreeze agent, an antifoaming agent, water, and one or more active agents, wherein the one or more active agents is present in an amount of at least 1 wt.% to at most 80 wt.%, relative to the total weight of the composition; wherein the composition is homogeneously dispersed having no phase separation after sitting still in a container having a height to diameter ratio (H/D) between 20 and 0.7 at a diameter of at least 0.5 inches for 14 days at 54 OC and 1 atm; and wherein the one or more active agents is at least one selected from the group consisting of a pesticide, a fertilizer, a plant growth regulator, or a plant growth agent; wherein said sulfopolymer is a sulfopolyester that includes 4 to 40% mole% based on the total repeating units of the sulfoisophthalic moieties; and wherein said sulfopolyester that has not been lyophilized is present in an amount up to 15 wt%, relative to the total weight of said composition.
Regarding instant claims 1, 34, 36 and 37, Wemple teaches sulfo-polyester (sulfopolymer) powders and sulfo-polyester blend powders in combination with carriers (e.g., solvents such as water, methanol, ethanol, propanol, isopropyl alcohol, polyethylene glycols, propylene glycols, etc., and solvent mixtures thereof) and/or actives as well as methods of making the powders and dispersions thereof (abstract; page 3, 1st paragraph; page 4, 2nd and 4th full paragraphs). It is noted that glycols are antifreeze agents (see instant specification at [0199]. Wempe explains that sulfopolyesters are chiefly made up of sodiosulfoisophthalic acid (5-SSIPA) (page 1, 1st paragraph) which is a synonym for 5-Sulfoisophthalic acid monosodium salt or 5-Sulfoisophthalic acid sodium salt as evidenced by Sigma Aldrich. Wempe teaches that the active agent can be present in amounts from about 0.1% to about 90%, about 0.5 % to about 40%, about 1% to about 20%, or about 2% to about 10% (page 29, 1st full paragraph; page 32, 1st paragraph; claims 3-5). Wempe teaches active agents include compounds for agricultural use including bactericide, fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, miticide, molluscicide, nematicide and plant growth regulator (paragraph bridging pages 23-24). Wempe teaches additional components can be included such as excipients, emulsifiers, binders, stabilizers, etc. (paragraph bridging pages 29-30). Wempe teaches that the powdered composition can be lyophilized or alternatively, spray-dried jet milled, etc. (lyophilization is not required; paragraph bridging pages 4-5). Wempe also teaches that the sulfo-polyesters can be included in an amount of 2-35%, 5-25% or 7-15% (page 4, paragraph 4). Wempe also teaches exemplary sulfopolyesters including AQ38S and AQ55S which contain about 16-25 mole% of 5-sodiosulfoisophthalic acid as evidenced by Adams (col. 1, lines 39-43) and Pierce (col. 2, lines 47-68; claims 6-7).
While Wempe does not exemplify a particular embodiment containing a pesticide, a fertilizer, a plant growth regulator or a plant growth agent, Wempe teaches the above agents are suitable for the intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the particular agricultural active agents, bactericide, fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, miticide, molluscicide, nematicide or plant growth regulator with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches that said particular agricultural active agents are suitable for inclusion in the composition.
While Wempe does not exemplify a particular embodiment containing a stabilizer in combination with the claimed elements, Wempe teaches stabilizers are suitable for the intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the particular component, a stabilizer, in combination with the claimed components with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches that said stabilizers are suitable for inclusion in the composition.
Wempe is silent to an antifoaming agent.
Florentine teaches that it is standard operating procedure to use a defoamer in pesticidal application (pages 1/4-3/4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the particular component, an anti-foaming agent or defoamer, in the composition of Wempe with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because a defoaming agent is effective in reducing foam that can occur during mixing or agitation of the pesticidal composition prior to application.
While Wempe discusses ensuring a homogenous dispersion (Examples) as well as incorporating a stabilizing agent (paragraph bridging pages 29-30), Wempe does not explicitly teach the limitation, “wherein the composition is homogeneously dispersed having no phase separation after sitting still in a container having a height to diameter ratio (H/D) between 20 and 0.7 at a diameter of at least 0.5 inches for 14 days at 54°C and 1 atm”.
Wang teaches pesticidal formulations and the importance of even (uniform/homogenous) dispersion or emulsification to ensure stability of said formulation in storage (page 1). Wang teaches testing the formulations for their storage stability including testing in accelerated storage conditions such as at 54°C (page 9, 3rd full para.). Wang demonstrates good storage stability of pesticidal compositions after 2 weeks at 54°C (Table 6b).
Wempe, Florentine and Wang are all drawn to agricultural/pesticidal formulations, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to formulate a pesticidal composition such as the one advanced by Wempe/Florentine that is stable for 14 days at 54°C as suggested by Wang with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Wang teaches that standard storage stability testing includes testing pesticidal formulations for 14 days at 54°C to ensure stability, i.e., an even or homogenous dispersion/emulsification of the product.
MPEP 2112.01(I) states,
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
Further, MPEP 2112.01(II) states that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. As discussed above, Wempe and Florentine suggest the claimed composition and, as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of the prior art to possess the same properties as that of the claimed invention including stability. Please note that the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicants' pesticidal composition differs and, if so, to what extent, from that of the discussed references. Therefore, with the showing of the reference, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants.
Regarding instant claim 8, it is noted that the claim and its depending claims 10-12 are deemed product-by-process claims due to the limitation, “the composition is produced from a concentrate” and as such, determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not by the method in which it is made. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113). Additionally, Wempe teaches a starting dispersion contains about 2% to about 35% by weight sulfo-polyester or sulfo-polyester blend and optionally an active agent which is lyophilized into a powder (page 4). Wempe further teaches that an active agent is present in the powder (concentrated formulation) (claim 1). While Wempe does not explicitly teach the sulfopolymer range of 0.05 wt.% to 5 wt.%, MPEP 2144.05 states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Because the claimed ranges overlap with the ranges disclosed in Wempe, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, it would have further been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of sulfopolymer to arrive at the claimed amounts by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches the general conditions of the claim, that is, to include a sulfopolyester in an amount of about 2% to about 35% and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.
Regarding instant claim 10, said claim is deemed a product-by-process claim as discussed above. Wempe further teaches a starting dispersion contains about 2% to about 35% by weight sulfo-polyester or sulfo-polyester blend which is lyophilized into a powder (page 4). While Wempe does not explicitly teach the sulfopolymer range of 1 wt.% to 8 wt.%, MPEP 2144.05 states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Because the claimed ranges overlap with the ranges disclosed in Wempe, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, it would have further been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of sulfopolymer to arrive at the claimed amounts by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches the general conditions of the claim, that is, to include a sulfopolyester in an amount of about 2% to about 35% and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.
Wempe also teaches active agents for agricultural use including the particular agricultural active agents, abamectin, amitraz, bifenthrin, carbaryl, chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, penconazole, etc. (paragraph bridging pages 23-25) all of which are relatively or practically insoluble in water as evidenced by Sittig’s Handbook of Pesticides and Agricultural Chemicals. While Wempe does not exemplify a particular embodiment containing a water-insoluble or partially water-soluble agrochemical active agent, Wempe teaches the above agrochemical agents are suitable for the intended purpose (MPEP 2144.07). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the particular agricultural active agents with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches that said particular agricultural active agents are suitable for inclusion in the composition.
Regarding instant claim 11, said claim is deemed a product-by-process claim as discussed above. Wempe, as discussed above, teaches a starting dispersion contains about 2% to about 35% by weight sulfo-polyester or sulfo-polyester blend (i.e., surfactant) which is lyophilized into a powder (page 4). Wempe teaches the inclusion of additional surfactants (page 32, 1st paragraph and page 43, 1st full paragraph). While Wempe does not explicitly teach the sulfopolymer/surfactant range of 0.05 wt.% to 2.9 wt.%, MPEP 2144.05 states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Because the claimed ranges overlap with the ranges disclosed in Wempe, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, it would have further been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of sulfopolymer/surfactant to arrive at the claimed amounts by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches the general conditions of the claim, that is, to include a sulfopolyester in an amount of about 2% to about 35% and, optionally, an additional amount of surfactant (e.g., 0.1%) and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.
Regarding instant claim 12, said claim is deemed a product-by-process claim as discussed above. Wempe, as discussed above, teaches a starting dispersion contains about 2% to about 35% by weight sulfo-polyester or sulfo-polyester blend (i.e., surfactant) which is lyophilized into a powder (page 4). Wempe teaches the optional inclusion of additional surfactants up to about 90% (page 32, 1st paragraph). While Wempe does not explicitly teach the sulfopolymer range of at least 70 wt.% by weight of all surfactants, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, it would have further been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of sulfopolymer and surfactant to arrive at the claimed concentration by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches the general conditions of the claim, that is, to include a sulfopolyester in an amount of about 2% to about 35% and, optionally, an additional amount of surfactant up to about 90% and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.
Regarding instant claim 15, Wempe, as discussed above, teaches that the active agent can be present in amounts from about 0.1% to about 90%, about 0.5 % to about 40%, about 1% to about 20%, or about 2% to about 10% (page 29, 1st full paragraph; page 32, 1st paragraph; claims 3-5). While Wempe does not explicitly teach that the active agent is in the particular amount of 10-70%, MPEP 2144.05 states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Because the claimed range overlaps/lies inside with the ranges disclosed in Wempe, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Furthermore, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states, Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Therefore, it would have further been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of active agent to arrive at the claimed amounts by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches the general conditions of the claim, that is, to include an active agent in the amount of from about 0.1% to about 90%, about 0.5 % to about 40%, and about 1% to about 20% and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.
Regarding instant claim 17, Wempe is silent to limitations regarding contact angle and percent coverage. However, the instant specification discusses contact angle and percent coverage as optimizable via surfactants and amounts thereof ([0038]). As discussed above, Wempe teaches the inclusion of surfactants in amounts of up to about 90%. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the amount of surfactant in order to arrive at the desired properties of the composition by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches the general conditions of the claim, that is, to include surfactants in the amount of up to about 90% and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known. Furthermore, MPEP 2112.01(I) states,
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
MPEP 2112.01(II) also states that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. Wempe suggests the claimed composition and, as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of the prior art to possess the same properties as that of the claimed invention including contact angle and percent coverage.
Regarding instant claim 18, Wempe is silent to the limitation, “the composition is capable of being stable in water having a total water hardness in the range of from 0 to 1500 ppm”. However, the language “capable of being” implies that the limitations are not required. Additionally, stability and water hardness are properties of the composition. MPEP 2112.01(I) states,
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
MPEP 2112.01(II) also states that if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. Wempe suggests the claimed composition and, as such, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition of the prior art to possess the same properties as that of the claimed invention including stability and water hardness.
Regarding instant claim 20, Wempe, as discussed above, teaches the elements discussed above including particles, agrochemical active agents, and a sulfopolymer. Wempe also teaches that the compositions can be in nanoparticle form (page 14, 1st full paragraph). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least 80% of the particles in the formulation having a particle size of less than 2 microns because Wempe teaches that the composition is suitable to be formulated in nanoparticle form (i.e., 100% less than 1 micron).
Regarding instant claims 40 and 41, Wempe further teaches the particular active agent, gum resin (page 19, 3rd to last line). While Wempe does not teach a particular embodiment comprising said gum resin, it would have further been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a rosin or rosin resin such as gum resin with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches gum resin as a suitable active agent for the composition (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding instant claim 48, Wempe, discussed above, teaches agricultural active agents including bactericide, fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, miticide, molluscicide, nematicide and plant growth regulator (paragraph bridging pages 23-24). Wempe teaches that agricultural active agent refers to any substance administered to a plant (page 23, last paragraph). Wempe also teaches the step of administration to a plant to achieve desired agricultural results (paragraph bridging pages 27-28). While Wempe does not explicitly teach a method of killing pests and weeds, Wempe teaches the claimed composition and the active step of administration to plants as well as known pesticides (e.g., insecticide, miticide, nematicide) and weed killing agents (herbicide). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a method of killing pests and weeds around plants with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Wempe teaches administering a composition comprising an agricultural active agent including pesticides and herbicides to a plant. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that administering agricultural active agents known to kill pests and weeds to a plant would be effectively in killing pests and weeds.
Thus, the teachings of Wempe render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed February 13, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the amount of sulfoisophthalic moieties in the sulfopolyester. Applicant asserts that the sulfopolyesters used in the working examples fulfill desired levels of stability and dispersibility. Remarks, pages 6-7.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that Wempe teaches exemplary sulfopolyesters including AQ38S and AQ55S which contain about 16-25 mole% of 5-sodiosulfoisophthalic acid as evidenced by Adams (col. 1, lines 39-43) and Pierce (col. 2, lines 47-68; claims 6-7). Thus, Wempe implicitly teaches the claimed amounts of sulfoisophthalic moieties in the sulfopolyester. With respect to “dispersibility” and “stability”, the prior art meets the limitations regarding the dispersibility and stability in the claims as discussed in the rejection above. If applicant is asserting unexpected results, Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 716.02 which details the burden on Applicant to establish that results in a side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art are unexpected and significant. Specifically, Applicant must establish that differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and are of both practical and statistical significance. Additionally, evidence of unexpected properties must be commensurate in scope with the claims.
Thus, for these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASEY S HAGOPIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights