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 .
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 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.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 18, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 1-38, 41-42, and 44-46 are cancelled.
Claims 39-40, 43, and 47-53 are pending and are examined on the merits in this prosecution.
CLAIM REJECTIONS
Obviousness Rejection
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1) Claims 39-40, 43, and 47-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wempe (US 2009/0163449 A1, the U.S. equivalent of WO 2009/120182 A2, of record), in view of Williams (US 2006/0058438 A1, of record), Faers (WO 2017/202684 A1, of record), and Klein (“Formulating water-in-oil emulsions: a scary endeavor." Cosmetics and toiletries 118.10 (2003): 24-25).
Wempe teaches an invention comprising packages comprising a sulfo-polyester power, blends thereof, dispersions thereof of the present invention, or any composition comprising a sulfopolyester polymer powder formulation (pg 11, [0051]). Wempe teaches the packages can be in the form of an agricultural product or composition (pg 15, claim 22), and further teaches agricultural use actives that may be added to the claimed package (pgs 8-9, [0037]). Wempe teaches the aforementioned AQ sulfopolyester polymers from Eastman contain 5-sodiosulfoisophthalic acid (5-SSIPA).
Wempe teaches the agriculturally active ingredient can comprise a bactericide, fungicide, herbicide, insecticide, miticide, molluscicide, nematicide, pheromones, or a plant growth regulator (pg 8, [0037]).
For the claim 39 limitation of a water-immiscible solvent, Wempe teaches the composition may contain a solubilizing compound such as an oil in order to dissolve an oil-soluble active agent (pg 2, [0031]).
Regarding the limitation of claims 39 and 40 of the composition containing a sticker or a drift control agent, Wempe teaches that sulfopolyester powders AQ2350 is a sticky solid (pg 13, [0063]), as is AQ1045 (pg 13, Table 1), AQ1350 (pg 12, [0010]), AQ2150 (pg 12, 0062]), AQ1950 (pg 12, [0061]), and AQ2350 (pg 13, [0063]). Wempe also teaches the composition package can contain of emulsifier (pg 11, [0045]).
For claim 43, since Wempe teaches the packages are useful in agricultural applications, one of ordinary skill would expect the invention to be non-toxic to plants.
For the method of making claim 48 and the composition of claim 49, Wempe teaches the inert package comprising a sulfopolyester can be mixed with an agrochemical (pg 15, claim 16).
For claims 50 and 51, Wempe teaches the method can comprise the agricultural pest control agents ziram, thiram, or captan (pg 9, [0037]). It is known in the art that ziram, for example, is used on crops such as almonds and stone fruits.
For claim 52, Wempe teaches carriers present in the composition may be solvents or solubilizing agents, and are useful at increasing the solubility of the composition in water (pg 2, [0031]).
For claim 53, Wempe teaches the composition as a dispersion and in different concentrations (pg 1, [0003], pg 12, [0055]), in the form of an emulsion (pg 5, [0033]), comprising emulsifiers (pg 11, [0045]). Wempe teaches a method of preparation resulting in a flowable powder or pellet concentrate (pg 2, [0025]-[0029]).
Wempe does not teach the claim 39 limitations of an antifoaming agent, the amount of water-immiscible solvent and water, or at least one rosin (also reading on claim 47).
Williams, Faers, and Klein teach the missing elements of Wempe.
Williams teaches a branched sulfopolyester mixture useful in adhesive and personal care product formulations (Abstract). Williams teaches tackifiers such as rosin esters may be added to the sulfopolyester mixture (pg 5, [0066]), reading on claim 47. Williams teaches the rosin esters are terpene polymers (pg 5, [0066]). It is noted that Williams teaches preferred polymers are Eastman branched sulfopolyesters AQ1045, AQ1350, and AQ1950 (pg 1, [0004]), each taught by Wempe as “sticky” ([0060]-[0062]).
Faers teaches antifoam substances are customarily employed in agricultural compositions to reduce foam formation (pg 19: 29 to pg 20: 5).
Kline teaches: “As a general rule the amount of water is approximately 60-80%,” whether the emulsion is an oil-in-water emulsion or a water-in-oil emulsion (pg 24, left column), overlapping the claimed range.
The person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting Williams' rosin ester as a sticking or adhesive agent in Wempe’s crop treatment composition because Wempe teaches that several of the sulfopolyesters are sticky, and will adhere to surfaces, and Williams teaches rosin esters increase the stickiness of the precise sulfopolyesters (AQ1045, AQ1350, and AQ1950) taught by Wempe. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to select Williams' rosin ester as an agent to increase the adhesion of sulfopolyester since Williams teaches the rosin esters increase the adhesion of the sulfopolyester and are safe enough in combination with the sulfopolyester to be used in personal care and cosmetic products (pg 1, [0006]). It is further noted that Faers teaches a motivation to increase the tackiness of the composition since rainfastness as an important factor in the effectiveness of a pesticide (pg 3: 1-12)
The person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting Faers' antifoam agents to suppress the foaming in the composition since Faers teaches antifoam agents are typical ingredients in an agricultural composition to reduce foaming during preparation and administration of the emulsion composition (pg 26-27: Example 2).
And finally, a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in selecting the claimed amount of water-immiscible solvent such as an oil in the composition since Klein teaches a typical amount of water in both an oil-in-water emulsion and a water-in-oil emulsion is from 60-80%, an amount overlapping the claimed range. It is noted that the instant specification discloses the invention as either an oil-in-water emulsion or a water-in-oil emulsion ([0160]).
Examiner’s Reply to Attorney Arguments dated 2/18/2026
1. Rejection of claims 39-40, 43, and 47-53 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wempe, Williams, Faers, and Klein
The applicant argues that “None of the prior art discloses an agricultural composition comprising a sulppolyester [sic.] having moieties of a sulfoisophthalate.”
The Examiner acknowledges the argument presented, but does not consider it persuasive. As set forth above, the prior art of Wempe teaches a sulfopolyesters of the Eastman AQ series comprising 5-sodiosulfoisophthalic acid (5-SSIPA) (see [0002] and [0054], Examples).
The applicant further argues the following:
As outlined in the examples of the present application, compositions according to claim 39 comprise the dispersibility, sticker, drift reduction and spreader characteristic.
and
The problem to be solved over the prior art therefore is to provide an alternative agricultural composition having at least one of those characteristics. None of the prior art guide to the use of an alternative sulfopolymer, especially to a sulfopolyester comprising moieties of sulfoisophtalate.
The Examiner acknowledges the arguments presented but does not consider them persuasive. Wempe teaches AQ polymers comprise a sulfoisophthalate moiety, 5-sodiosulfoisophthalic acid (5-SSIPA), and further teaches AQ polymers such as AQ 1045 and AQ 1350 are sticky solids, reading on the recitation in claim 39 of a “sticker” provided by the applicant (Specification, [0091]).
The applicant argues that Wempe does not cite the exemplary sulfopolyesters used in the instant invention, and further argues that the compositions comprising these polymers have improved levels of stability and dispersibility (page 6 of the Remarks dated 2/18/2026). However, the applicant has not provided a comparison of the instant composition with the closest prior art as required by MPEP 716.02(e).
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHAEL P COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7402. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8:30-5:30; F 9-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frederick Krass can be reached on (571)272-0580. 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.
/MICHAEL P COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights