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 .
Status of the Claims
The status identifiers listed in the claims filed 8/21/2025 are incorrect, and Applicant’s “Status of the claims” section on page 5 of Remarks filed 8/21/2025 does not appear consistent with the claims in this Application, Application No. 17/753,830. The examiner requests clarification and/or correction in any subsequent communication.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 17, 19-22, 24-26, 28, 29, 33-42, and 37-54 have been canceled. Of these, claims 5 and 9 are newly canceled. Claims 18, 23, 27, 30-32, 43, and 44 are withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 2, 7, 10, 14-16, 45, and 46 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments and Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/21/2025 (hereafter, “Remarks”) have been fully considered and are addressed as follows. All rejections of newly canceled claims 5 and 9 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancelation of these claims. The amendment to claim 2 presenting Markush style alternative components which may meet the claimed sulfopolymer composition component is noted, and previously issued rejections are withdrawn and newly presented as modified below, in order to address the new claim language.
Regarding previously issued rejections of claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Wempe, Applicant’s citation of MPEP guidance and case law excerpts outlined on pages 5 and 6 of Remarks are noted. Applicant argues that claim 2 as amended is not taught in the prior art. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 is withdrawn and newly presented as modified below in order to address the new claim language.
Regarding the previously issued rejections of claims 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 14-16, 45, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wempe in view of Crosby, Applicant asserts that the prior art does not teach all limitations of claim 2 as amended, and Applicant’s citations to MPEP guidance, case law, and Applicant’s general understanding of the Examiner’s burden as outlined primarily on page 7 of Remarks are noted. Applicant concludes in the last sentence on page 7 of Remarks that “In the present case, these requirements of a prima facie case of obviousness simply have not been satisfied.” Applicant continues on page 8 of Remarks, “Therefore, the examiner has not provided an articulated reason” supported by “rationale underpinning” adequate to establish a proper…”. In reply, Applicant’s assertions and conclusory statements have been considered, however Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Nevertheless, the previously applied rejections are not applicable here in view of the new claim language filed 8/21/2205. Accordingly, modified grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments of 8/21/2025 are presented below in order to address the claim language as amended.
Modified Rejections As Necessitated by Amendments filed 8/21/2025
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 7, 10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2009/0163449A1 (“Wempe”).
The instant claims are drawn to an agrochemical composition comprising a sulfopolymer and one or more active agents, wherein the composition comprises the sulfopolymer in an amount effective to improve a spreader and/or a surfactant characteristic of the composition. It is noted in regard to claim 5 that paragraph [0050] of the specification as filed defines the “control” formulation referenced in the claim.
Wempe teaches a sulfo-polymer powder and blends thereof with carriers and/or additives (see title, in particular); Wempe’s compositions may be agricultural compositions (see [0015])(“an agrochemical composition”) and may comprise an active agent component (see [0004]) and may be in the form of a solvent dispersion (see [0004], [0005], [0008] in particular)(limitations of claims 2 and 7). Since a product and its properties are inseparable and since Wempe’s compositions are used for the same or substantially the same purpose, Wempe’s products are considered to comprise “the sulfopolymer in an amount effective to improve a spreader and/or surfactant characteristic of the composition” as recited in claim 2 and further as described in claim 5 (limitations of claims 2 and 5). Further regarding the particular sulfo-polymer, Wempe defines the sulfopolyesters as composed of 5-sodiosulfoisophthalic acid and additional components (see [0002])(limitation of claims 9 and 10). Wempe specifies fungicides (see [0037], line 4)(limitation of claims 14 and 15) among active agents which may be included Wempe teaches preservatives may be included (see [0045])(limitation of claim 16). As to the average molecular weight instantly claimed being at least 2 kDa, it is noted that Wempe teaches an alternative sulfopolymer to the sulfopolyester by its teaching of sulfoisophthalic salt. Furthermore and in addition to Wempe’s sulfoisophthatlic moiety salt sulfopolymer which meets the claim requirement as a sulfopolymer Markush alternative, Wempe Eastman AQ polymers disclosed have characteristic average molecular weights meeting the range of at least 2 kDa and would be considered a sulfopolyester as in claim 10.
Accordingly, Wempe teaches each and every limitation of claims 2, 7, 10, and 14-16.
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.
Claims 2, 7, 10, 14-16, 45, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2009/0163449A1 (“Wempe”) in view of US 2014/0018240A1 (“Crosby”).
The instant claims are drawn to an agrochemical composition comprising a sulfopolymer and one or more active agents, wherein the composition comprises the sulfopolymer in an amount effective to improve a spreader and/or a surfactant characteristic of the composition.
Wempe teaches a sulfo-polymer powder and blends thereof with carriers and/or additives (see title, in particular); Wempe’s compositions may be agricultural compositions (see [0015])(“an agrochemical composition”) and may comprise an active agent component (see [0004]) and may be in the form of a solvent dispersion (see [0004], [0005], [0008] in particular)(limitations of claims 2 and 7). Since a product and its properties are inseparable and since Wempe’s compositions are used for the same or substantially the same purpose, Wempe’s products are considered to comprise “the sulfopolymer in an amount effective to improve a spreader and/or surfactant characteristic of the composition” as recited in claim 2 and further as described in claim 5 (limitations of claims 2 and 5). Further regarding the particular sulfo-polymer, Wempe defines the sulfopolyesters as composed of 5-sodiosulfoisophthalic acid and additional components (see [0002])(limitation of claims 9 and 10). Wempe specifies fungicides (see [0037], line 4)(limitation of claims 14 and 15) among active agents which may be included Wempe teaches preservatives may be included (see [0045])(limitation of claim 16). As to the average molecular weight instantly claimed being at least 2 kDa, it is noted that Wempe teaches an alternative sulfopolymer to the sulfopolyester by its teaching of sulfoisophthalic salt. Furthermore and in addition to Wempe’s sulfoisophthatlic moiety salt sulfopolymer which meets the claim requirement as a sulfopolymer Markush alternative, Wempe Eastman AQ polymers disclosed have characteristic average molecular weights meeting the range of at least 2 kDa and would be considered a sulfopolyester as in claim 10.
Accordingly, Wempe teaches each and every limitation of claims 2, 7, 10, and 14-16. It is established that when a reference anticipates an invention, it necessarily renders such invention obvious as well. Anticipation is the “epitome of Obviousness”, In re Kalm, 378 F.2d 959, 962 (CCPA 1967).
Further regarding claims 45 and 46, Wempe does not specify rosin or a rosin ester to be further included. Crosby cures this deficiency.
Crosby teaches compositions for inhibiting spray drift (see abstract, in particular) in formulations applied by spraying including fungicidal, insecticidal, formulations (see [0005]). Crosby teaches agrochemical compositions including a resin which may be a rosin ester for preventing drift (see [0009] and [0015] and Table 1 for instance).
Both Wempe and Crosby pertain to agrochemical formulations for instance including an active agent which may be an insecticide or fungicide. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to add a rosin ester as taught by Crosby to the formulations of Wempe. One would have been motivated to do so to prevent undesired drift in order to increase effective application and reduce waste and undesired treatment areas as generally taught by Crosby (see [0006] and [0007] in particular).
Conclusion
No claim is 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 AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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 at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617