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 .
This application is in response to Applicant’s request for reconsideration filed September 26, 2025. Claims 7-22 are pending in the Application. Claims 7-15 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species. Claims 16-17 and 19-22 will presently be examined to the extent they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Status of the Claims
The rejection of claims 16, 17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieder (US 4,487,625) and Schott et al. (DE3640879) in view of Weiss (DE2757586) is maintained.
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.
Initially, the Examiner searched for Applicant’s elected species sodium acetylcyanamide. However, since no prior art was found which could be used to reject the claims, the search was expanded to the species, sodium formylcyanamide. The search was not further expanded because prior art was found to reject sodium formylcyanamide.
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.
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 CFR 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 16, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieder (US 4,487,625) and Schott et al. (DE3640879) in view of Weiss (DE2757586). Rieder, Schott et al., and Weiss cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 6/17/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a method for regulating the generative growth of plants or for breaking the dormancy of fruit trees comprising application by dipping, brushing, or spraying of the branches, sprouts or buds of the plants with an aqueous solution comprising at least one active ingredient from the group of acylcyanamides or a salt thereof according to formula (I) or formula (II), during dormancy of the plants, wherein the following applies to formula (I) and formula (II)
PNG
media_image1.png
196
333
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, as claimed.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Rieder teaches a method and a composition for interrupting bud dormancy of perennial crop-bearing plants, comprising an aqueous cyanamide solution which is applied to the plants and/or plant parts to be treated until they are completely wetted (Abstract).
Regarding claim 16 and 22, Rieder teaches surprisingly, it has been found that such a solution produces a bud-dormancy-interrupting effect (col. 2, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 21, Rieder teaches in addition to its ease of applicability, it also has the advantage of being suitable for field cultures, especially grapes and fruit. Rieder teaches the aqueous solutions are suitable for treating all kinds of plants, especially fruit trees and grapevines (col. 2, lines 41-54).
Rieder teaches in example 1, grapevines of the Perlett variety are sprayed immediately after pruning with a 2.5% aqueous cyanamide solution. For evaluation, the number of buds and the number of growing buds were counted (col. 3, lines 1-17).
Schott et al. teach it is known to use cyanamides of structure I or a monovalent metal cation, e.g. B. Na+, K+, Li+ to calculate the bud dormancy in fruit and grapevines (page 1, paragraph [0002]).
Schott et al. teach improving sprouting of vegetatively propagated Gramineae, which is characterized in that the parts capable of propagation treated with hydrogen cyanamide in small amount. Salts of (weakly acidic) hydrogen cyanamide are also suitable, e.g. sodium (page 2, paragraph [0005]).
Schott et al. teach the agent is in the form of directly sprayable solution, emulsions, oil dispersions by spraying, nebulizing, dusting, brushing, scattering, or pouring (page 2, paragraph [0008]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Rieder and Schott et al. do not specifically disclose the compound of formula (II). It is for this reason Weiss is added as a secondary reference.
Regarding claims 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22, Weiss teaches sodium formylcyanamide and a process for preparation (page 1, paragraphs [0001-0002]). Weiss teaches the use of sodium formylcyanamide for the production of crop protection products and pesticides (Claims, page 1, claim 5). Sodium formyl cyanamide is a compound of formula (II), wherein R1 is hydrogen and M1 is NA.
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Rieder, Schott et al., and Weiss and try or substitute sodium formylcyanamide to regulate the generative growth or break dormancy of fruit trees with the cyanamide compounds taught by Rieder and Schott et al. Rieder teaches a method and a composition for interrupting bud dormancy of perennial crop-bearing plants, comprising an aqueous cyanamide solution which is applied to the plants and/or plant parts to be treated until they are completely wetted. Rieder teaches the cyanamide solution is applied to fruit trees with an example of application to grapevines. Schott et al. teach it is known to use cyanamides of structure I or a monovalent metal cation, e.g. B. Na+, K+, Li+ to calculate the bud dormancy in fruit and grapevines. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try a different cyanamide compound, especially one that is known to be used in crop protection and pesticides, such as sodium formylcyanamide. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect any cyanamide compound to have similar properties, including breaking dormancy of fruit trees and regulating the generative growth of plants, without evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that cyanamide is structurally different from acylcyanamides of formula (I) and formula (II) and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect acylcyanamides to be effective for regulating the generative growth of plants or for breaking the dormancy of fruit trees based on Rieder or Schott. Applicant argues that Weiss fails to cure the deficiencies of Rieder and Schott. Applicant argues that Weiss does not describe the compound of sodium formylcyanamide as a plant protection agent or a pesticide. In response to Applicant’s arguments, while the compounds have different structures each has the cyanamide core and one would expect the compounds to have the same properties without evidence to the contrary. While the claims are drawn to a method for regulating the generative growth of plants or for breaking the dormancy of fruit trees, the application steps are application to branches, sprouts or buds of plants with the aqueous solution. The regulation of the generative growth of plants or for breaking the dormancy of fruit trees is the intended purpose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try a different cyanamide compound, especially one that is known to be used in crop protection and pesticides, such as sodium formylcyanamide. The examiner maintains that Rieder teaches the cyanamide solution is applied to fruit trees with an example of application to grapevines. Schott et al. teach it is known to use cyanamides of structure I or a monovalent metal cation, e.g. B. Na+, K+, Li+ to calculate the bud dormancy in fruit and grapevines. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect any cyanamide compound applied to plants would have similar properties, including breaking dormancy of fruit trees and regulating the generative growth of plants, without evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues that none of the cited references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests that acylcyanamides would be effective at regulating the generative growth of plants or breaking the dormancy of fruit tree plants without the side effects of the cyanamide taught in Rieder and Schott. In response to Applicant’s argument, the limitations of “without side effects of cyanamide” is not currently claimed. In reviewing Applicant’s data, there is data on the storage stability (Table 3); dormancy-breaking (Tables 4-6); dormancy-breaking in table grapes from various countries (Tables 7-9). There is no data supporting Applicant’s assertion of no side effects seen with the use of cyanamide. However, the data provided on dormancy-breaking, a limited number of acylcyanamide compounds were tested, when compared to the number of compounds of Formula (I), Formula (II), Formula (III) and Formula (IV), as currently claimed. The claims remain rejected for reasons of record.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614