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 .
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.
Claims 1, 10-14, 20, 21 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. CN-118613162-A, in view of JP 4864023 B2 (JP 023).
Kim teaches a pesticide tablet comprising a pesticide active ingredient, a disintegrant, a surfactant, a lubricant, and biner, and more. See abstract and claims. Pesticide active agent including chlorantraniliprole is found in claim 1. The claimed disintegrant can be found in claim 5. The claimed amount of the components can be found throughout the teachings and in the Examples and claims. Surfactant including dialkyl sulfosuccinate to enhance the strength of the pesticide composition is found in pages 4-5. Binder is found in page 5.
Kim does not expressly teach component (b), e.g., salt of dialkylsulfosuccinate.
JP 023 reference teaches an agrochemical solid preparation to be applied to paddy fields in order to control pests, weeds and the like that occur in paddy fields. More specifically, the present invention relates to a water-floating pesticide solid preparation having excellent diffusibility of an agrochemical active ingredient and saving pesticide application. Solid preparation includes tablet products. A powdery or granular material containing a glassy hollow body and in which the weight ratio of the addition amount of the polycarboxylic acid type polymer activator and the dialkyl sulfosuccinate sodium is 1: 1 to 1: 4. It is a solid preparation of a tablet product. If necessary, they can be packaged with a water-soluble polymer film. In addition, the agricultural chemical solid preparation of the present invention floats and diffuses on the surface of the water when sprayed in paddy water. If necessary, they can be packaged with a water-soluble polymer film. In addition, the agricultural chemical solid preparation of the present invention floats and diffuses on the surface of the water when sprayed in paddy water. See Abstract, and Best-Mode section.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at to, by routine experimentation include sodium dialkylsulfosuccinate in view of the teaching in the JP 023 reference with the expectation to obtain an insecticide/pesticide composition useful in agriculture art, namely, composition having excellent bactericidal, insecticidal and herbicidal activity effects. This is because the JP 023 reference teaches the use of sodium dialkylsulfosuccinate at a predetermined amount will improve the release rate of pesticide from the solid preparation and thus improve solid preparation diffuses uniformly into the paddy water in a short time to provide excellent bactericidal, insecticidal and herbicidal activity effects, and this is because Kim teaches the desirability to include two or more surfactant such as polycarboxylate and dialkyl sulfosuccinate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Kim's compressed tablet formulation with JP '023's floating solid preparation. JP '023 addresses floating and diffusion properties, not tablet integrity or disintegration. Kim's formulation is optimized for mechanical strength and rapid disintegration; introducing sodium dialkylsulfosuccinate would compromise these properties. The Examiner's rationale relies on general expectations of improvement, which is insufficient under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) and MPEP
" Kim et al. teaches dry granulation for compressed tablets. JP '023 teaches floating solid preparations, often packaged in water-soluble films. Incorporating sodium dialkylsulfosuccinate into Kim's matrix would require non-routine reformulation of binders and lubricants to address hygroscopicity and friability. These changes go beyond routine optimization. Neither reference demonstrates compatibility of sodium dialkylsulfosuccinate with Kim's excipient system. Surfactant behavior may interfere with disintegrant function, altering water uptake and dissolution profile. The prior art lacks data showing predictable improvement in tablet performance. Kim emphasizes excipient balance for chlorantraniliprole's low solubility. Introducing an anionic surfactant like sodium dialkylsulfosuccinate risks destabilizing the matrix-contrary to Kim's design principles.
However, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the following reasons:
First, in response to Applicant’s argument that the cited references do not provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Kim's compressed tablet formulation with JP '023's floating solid preparation. JP '023 addresses floating and diffusion properties, not tablet integrity or disintegration. Kim's formulation is optimized for mechanical strength and rapid disintegration; introducing sodium dialkylsulfosuccinate would compromise these properties, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Kim teaches the use of dialkyl sulfosuccinate. The only deficiency here in the Kim reference is the use of salt of dialkyl sulfosuccinate, namely, dialkyl sulfosuccinate sodium. JP ‘023 teaches the use of dialkyl sufosuccinate sodium as a surfactant in a pesticide composition. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to, by routine experimentation select dialkyl sulfosuccinate sodium as a surfactant given the teaching of Kim in view of JP ‘023 reference because both references teach the use of surfactant including dialkyl sulfosuccinate and dialkyl sulfosuccinate sodium, respectively;
In response to Applicant’s argument that JP '023 teaches floating solid preparations, often packaged in water-soluble films. Incorporating sodium dialkylsulfosuccinate into Kim's matrix would require non-routine reformulation of binders and lubricants to address hygroscopicity and friability, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here, the JP reference is cited solely for the teaching of and dialkyl sulfosuccinate sodium as a surfactant is known in the art. Let alone, the Kim reference teaches the use of surfactant such as dialkyl sulfosuccinate, therefore, the combined teachings of the references would have motivated to one of ordinary skill in the art to select dialkyl sulfosuccinate or dialkyl sulfosuccinate sodium as a surfactant; and
Lastly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the prior art lacks data showing predictable improvement in tablet performance) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Thus, for at least the above reasons, the 103 rejection of record is maintained.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSAN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0606. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 am-5:30 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, ROBERT A. WAX can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/SUSAN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights