*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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 5, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2020/0508 14 filed on 09/15/2020, which claims
benefit in provisional application 62/900,7 16 filed on 09/16/2019, and claims benefit in
provisional application 62/900,722 filed on 09/16/2019.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 4, 7, 16-18, 24, 25, 34-36, 47, 49, and 50 are pending. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8-15,
19-23, 26-33, 37-46, 48, and 51 were canceled. Claims 18, 24, 25, and 34-36 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 16, 17, 47, 49, and 50 are examined.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 103
Rejections of claims 1, 15, 16, and 17 as being anticipated and rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 15, 16, 17, 17, 49, and 50 as being obvious are withdrawn because claim 1 was amended to require a stabilizing agent, an antifreeze agent, and an antifoam agent, which are not anticipated nor obvious over the cited references. Arguments against these rejections are moot because rejections are withdrawn.
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 1, 4, 7, 16, 17, 47, 49, and 50 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 1 recites the limitation "said active agents" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims provides antecedent basis for said one or more active agents.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the sulfopolyester that has not been lyophilized" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the agrochemical active ingredient or a mixture of two or more agrochemical active ingredients" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4, 7, 16, 17, 47, 49, and 50 are indefinite because the claims depend from an indefinite base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 recite that the composition of claim 1 further comprises at least one of an anti-foaming agent, an anti-freeze agent, and a stabilizing agent in the list of components. The anti-foaming agent, the anti-freeze agent, and the stabilizing agent do not further limit claim 1 because claim 1 already requires the presence of these components.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 CPR 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, 4, 16, 17, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Koskan (WO 98/30099 Published July 16, 1998) and Keiper (WO 2009/138523 A2 Published November 19, 2009).
The claims encompass an agrochemical composition.
Koskan teaches a composition comprising a copolymer of aspartic acid and
sulfoisophthalic acid sodium salt and Cu2+ (Tables XVIII and XIX on pages 29-30).
Koskan does not teach the concentration of active agents, a stabilizing agent, an antifreeze agent, and an antifoaming agent.
The teachings of Keipen are related to pesticidal compositions (Abstract). Active agents include fungicides (page 13 lines 7-10). Suitable carriers and adjuvants can be solid or liquid and are the substances ordinarily employed in formulation technology, e.g. natural or regenerated mineral substances, solvents, dispersants, wetting agents, tackifiers, thickeners, binders or fertilizers Generally, a tank-mix formulation for foliar or soil application comprises 0.1 to 20%, especially 0.1 to 15 % , active ingredient compound(s), and 99.9 to 80 %, especially 99.9 to 85 % , of a solid or liquid auxiliaries (including, for example, a solvent such as water), where the auxiliaries can be a surfactant in an amount of 0 to 20 % , especially 0.1 to 15 % , based on the tank-mix formulation (page 17 lines 23-31). The formulation of the present invention may further comprise other formulation auxiliaries known in the art of agrochemical formulations in customary amounts. Such auxiliaries include, but are not limited to stabilizing agents, antifoaming agents, and antifreeze agents (paragraph bridging pages 12-13).
Regarding claim 1, 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 have formed an agricultural composition comprising a sulfopolymer that comprises a salt of a sulfoisophthalic acid and a fungicide, with a reasonable expectation of success because Koskan teaches an agrochemical composition comprising comprising a sulfopolymer that comprises a salt of a sulfoisophthalic acid and Cu2+, which is a known fungicide.
The phrase "wherein the composition exhibits improved sticker characteristic as compared to the composition without the sulfopolymer" is met because it describes a property of the claimed composition and it would have been reasonable to expect the prior art composition to have the same property as claimed composition because the compositions are structurally identical.
A copolymer obtained from 90 mole % aspartic acid and 10 mole % sulfoisophthalic acid
sodium salt would have been a sulfopolyamide, therefore the molecular weight limitation and concentration limitation of up to 15 wt. % in claim 1 would not apply because these limitations are intended to modify a sulfopolyester, which is an alternative and not required by the claim.
It would have been further obvious to have varied the concentration range of the fungicide in the composition in a range of from 0.1 to 20% wt. of the composition with a reasonable expectation of success because it was known from Keiper that 0.1 to 20% wt. is a suitable concentration range of an active agent in an agrochemical composition.
It would have been further obvious to have formulated the composition as an aqueous formulation because Koskan teaches aqueous formulation (page 10 lines 1-15).
It would have been further obvious to have formulated the composition to comprise a stabilizing agent, an antifreeze agent, and an antifoaming agent, with a reasonable expectation of success because Keiper teaches a stabilizing agent, an antifreeze agent, and an antifoaming agent as commonly used auxiliary agents used in agricultural compositions. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results supports obviousness.
Claim 4 describes a property of the composition in claim 3. Koskan's composition is
structurally the same as claimed composition and it would have been reasonable to expect the
composition to have the same properties as claimed composition when tested under identical
conditions, including having at least 10% improved sticker activity compared to a control,
because a composition and its properties are inseparable.
Regarding claim 16, Cu2+ is a fungicide.
Regarding claim 17 are disclosed because Koskan teaches adjusting the pH of each
solution to pH 6.7(+,-)0.l, which implies use of a pH regulator.
Regarding claim 47, the claim recites an intended use of the claimed composition. The prior art composition contains the same components as claimed and it could have been used as a sticker adjuvant for agrochemical formulations.
Claims 7, 49, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koskan
as applied to claims 1, 4, 16, 17, and 47 above, and further in view of Bozzelli (US 3,252,786
Date of Patent May 24, 1966).
Claims 7, 49, and 50 further define claim 1.
The teachings of Koskan and Keiper are relied upon as summarized above, however they do not teach the limitations of claims 7, 49, and 50.
The teachings of Bozzelli are related to slow release fertilizer compositions containing
urea, wax, and rosin (column I lines 14-17). Most of commercial fertilizers are readily water
soluble and this creates a number of disadvantages. In a heavy rainfall much of the fertilizer may
be dissolved in the rainwater and soaked into the ground below the plant roots or rapidly carried
away by flowing surface water. This fertilizer never becomes available to the plants. In addition,
the readily soluble compounds often become available too rapidly to the plant resulting in injury
to the plant rather than benefit. This is often noticed in burned lawns or crops. Another
disadvantage of high fertilizer solubility is that the fertilizer is often consumed before the end of
the growing season. It frequently happens that that all the fertilizer ingredients are gone at a time
when the plant is still growing and the plant must be re-fertilized (paragraph bridging columns 1-
2). The water resistance of a slow release urea-wax fertilizer is substantially improved by
incorporating rosin into the wax ( column 4 lines 21-25). In addition to these treatments to
improve oxidation stability rosin is also treated, as mentioned previously, to reduce its acidity.
One such method is to convert the resin acids to metal resinates. For example, calcium resinate, zinc resinate, and sodium resinate are prepared by reacting rosin with calcium hydroxide, zinc oxide, and sodium hydroxide respectively. In analogous manner salts of other metals such as manganese, aluminum, lead, etc. can also be prepared. Another method of reducing the acidity of rosin is by esterification with a monohydric alcohol such as methanol, ethanol, etc., or a polyhydric alcohol such as glycerol, pentaerythritol, ethylene glycol, etc., to form methyl ester of rosin, ethyl ester of rosin, glycerol ester of rosin, pentaerythritol ester of rosin, ethylene glycol ester of rosin, and the like. A further method of reducing the acidity of rosin is by ammoniation to convert the carboxylic acid group to a nitrile group which upon hydrogenation is converted to the corresponding amine group. In many cases both the acidity and oxidation instability of rosin are undesirable properties and the rosin is therefore subjected to several treatments in order to improve both of these properties. Such combination treatments results in rosins such as hydrogenated zinc resinate, ethylene glycol ester of polymerized rosin, calcium salt of polymerized rosin, glycerol ester of maleic modified rosin, methyl ester of hydrogenated rosin, and the like (column 5 lines 38-64). Example I teaches a method of making a plurality of particles in the form of a dispersion of solid urea in solid wax, the wax having rosin dissolved therein.
The purpose of Koskan is to provide a composition that provides more efficient
utilization of nutrients by the plants by using the co-polymeric acids and relatively lower nutrient
dosages (page 4 first paragraph). Thus, the teachings of Koskan and Bozzelli are related to
compositions intended to improve utilization of nutrients by plants, and it would have been
obvious to have combined them because they are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 49, 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 have formed Koskan's
aqueous solution comprising co-polymeric acid A and Cu2+ to further comprise a nutrient such
as urea, with a reasonable expectation of success because Koskan teaches urea as a suitable plant
nutrient (paragraph bridging pages 1-2) and in example 6 teaches a composition comprising a copolymeric acid and a fertilizer comprising urea (page 15). It would have been further obvious to have combined the composition of Kosan with particles of Bozzelli comprising solid urea
dispersed in solid wax having a rosin dissolved therein, with a reasonable expectation of success
because both compositions are intended for providing efficient utilization of nutrients such as
fertilizer urea by a plant, and it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of
which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third
composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows
logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d
846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted). MPEP 2144.06(1).
With respect to claim 50, it would have been obvious to have selected rosins from methyl
ester of rosin, among others, because Bozzelli teaches methyl ester of rosin as suitable for
making the composition. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain
predictable results supports obviousness and the selection of a known material based on its
suitability for its intended purpose supports obviousness.
Regarding claim 7, a composition formed by combining Koskan's aqueous solution of
co-polymeric acid A, Cu2+ and fertilizer comprising urea, and Bozzelli's particles comprising
urea coated in wax and rosin, would have been a suspension because Bozzelli's particles are not
soluble in water.
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results
supports obviousness.
Response to Arguments
In the remarks dated March 5, 2026, applicant traversed the rejections.
Applicant's arguments were fully considered, but are not persuasive because arguments are based on limitations that are not claimed. A sulfopolyester is not a required limitation because it is listed as an alternative of sulfopolymers. None of the claims require a specific amount of sulfoisophthalic moieties, therefore it is irrelevant that the prior art does not teach amounts of said moieties. The problem to be solved is not a claimed limitation therefore it is irrelevant that the prior art does not teach the same problem to be solved as instant application. Stability and dispersibility levels are not claimed limitations, therefore it is irrelevant that the instant rejection does not address these parameters.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Alma - Pipic whose telephone number is (571)270-7459. The
examiner can normally be reached M-P 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. 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. Visithttps://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 US PTO Customer Service
Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALMA PIPIC/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617