-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 .
Applicant’s response dated September 28, 2026 is acknowledged.
Phone Call
On October 7, 2026, the examiner informed attorney Owen, via voicemail, that prior art rejections were obviated with claim amendments and wanted to propose claim amendments that would advance the application to allowance. As of October 13, 2026, the attorney has not called the examiner back. However, after consideration, the claims are rejected over a new combination of prior art references.
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 1, 4, and 17 were amended. 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 Claims 18, 24, 25, and 34-36 remain withdrawn.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Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) and (d)
Rejections of claims 1, 4, 7, 16, 17, 47, 49, and 50 are withdrawn because rejections were obviated with claim amendments. Arguments directed to these rejections are moot because rejections are withdrawn.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Rejections of claims 1, 4, 16, 17, and 47 over Koskan (WO 98/30099 Published July 16, 1998) and Keiper (WO 2009/138523 A2 Published November 19, 2009); and rejections of claims 7, 49, and 50 Koskan, Keiper, and Bozzelli (US 3,252,786 Date of Patent May 24, 1966) are withdrawn because the claims were amended to require a sulfopolyester, which is not taught by the cited references. Arguments directed to these rejections are moot because rejections are withdrawn.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 was amended to recite “wherein the one or more active agents or a mixture of two or more active agents”. The “one or more active agents” is defined as being selected from the group consisting of a pesticide, a fertilizer, a plant growth regulator, and a plant growth agent”. The phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear if “a mixture of two or more active agents” is different from “the one or more active agents”. The phrase could be interpreted as referring to a mixture of two or more active agents selected from the group consisting of a pesticide, a fertilizer, a plant growth regulator, and a plant growth agent; or it could be interpreted as a mixture of two or more active agents that are selected from active agents different from a pesticide, a fertilizer, a plant growth regulator, and a plant growth agent. Ground of rejection may be obviated by deleting “or a mixture of two or more active agents” or by making the scope of the phrase clear.
Claims 4, 7, 16, 17, 47, 49, and 50 are indefinite because the claims depend from an indefinite base claim.
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), Keiper (WO 2009/138523 A2 Published November 19, 2009), and Wempe (US 2009/0163449 A1 Published June 25, 2009 – of record in IDS dated 08/04/2022) and evidenced by Jackson (US 5,916,678 A Date Published June 29, 1999).
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).
Koskan and Keipe do not teach a sulfopolyester. However, sulfopolyesters and their use with agriculturally active agents was known from Wempe. Wempe teaches embodiments of compositions comprising at least one active agent and a sulfopolyester (paragraphs 0005 and 0020). The purpose of the composition is to increase the bioavailability of the active agent when administered to a subject such as a plant (paragraph 0006 and claims 8 and 11). Active agents include plant growth regulators, fungicides, and herbicides among others (paragraph 0035). The compositions contain 0.1-90% by weight of the active (paragraph 0044). The compositions contain one or more additional components including diluents, carriers, binders, surfactants, and stabilizers (paragraph 0045). The compositions contain up to 90 wt. % carrier, surfactant, and/or active (paragraph 049). The formulations are prepared by combining a sulfopolyester dispersion or a dispersion blend with carriers and/or actives. The corresponding dispersion is frozen and lyophilized to afford powders and solids (paragraph 0070). Table 3 teaches examples of formulations 2-10 and it is apparent that the concentration of the sulfopolyesters AQ55 ranges from 60 wt. % to 99.1 wt. %.
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 a sulfopolymer that comprises a salt of a sulfoisophthalic acid and Cu2+, which is a known fungicide.
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.
It would have been further obvious to have added a sulfopolyester such as AQ38 to Koskan’s formulation in order to improve the bioavailability of the fungicide, with a reasonable expectation of success because it was known from Wempe that sulfopolyesters such as AQ38 improve bioavailability of active agents such as agricultural active agents including fungicides when applied to a plant. 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), which provides motivation to add AQ38 to Koskan’s composition because the modification would have improved the composition by increasing the bioavailability of the fungicide. It would have been obvious to have added AQ38 in a concentration of at least 10 wt. % because Wempe teaches that the compositions contain active agent in a concentration of up to 90 wt. %, thus the sulfopolyester would have been present in a concentration of 10 wt. % and greater. The claimed concentration range is obvious because it overlaps with 10 wt. % and greater. As evidenced by Jackson, AQ38 is a sulfonated polyester synthesized from isophthalic acid, sodium sulfoisophthalic acid, diethylene glycol, and 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol; and it has a nominal molecular weight of 14,000 Da (column 6 lines 57-66). AQ38 meets all of the structural requirements of instantly claimed sufopolymer.
The phrase "wherein the composition exhibits improved sticker characteristic as
compared to the composition without the sulfopolyester" 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.
Claim 4 describes a property of the composition in claim 1. 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(+,-)0.1, 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, Keipen, and Wempe, as evidenced by Jackson 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 1 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 3 8-64). 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.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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. 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 US PTO Customer Service
Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALMA PIPIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights