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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This application is a 371 of PCT/CN2020/125753 11/02/2020. FOREIGN APPLICATIONS: CHINA 201911082204.3 11/07/2019 and CHINA 202010045084.6 01/16/2020.
Claims 6-7, 9, 12, 15, 17 are pending.
Request for Continued Examination
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 2, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
3. The rejection of claim(s) 1, 5, 8, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meazza WO 2004056785 A2 in view of Jeschke AND Wang is withdrawn based upon the amendments, arguments and evidence of unexpected results. Applicants have deleted claim 1 to the genus and have an amendment to claim 15 which is now drawn to small group of species. The previously closest compound in claim 15 was compound 2-2, which is the fluorinated analog of compound 156 differing only by the presence of a fluorine atom on the phenyl ring in the 2-position. This compound is canceled from the claims. The most similar claimed compound to the prior art is compound 1-2, the first compound in claim 15 and 17. As applicants’ representative points out, the compound differs in at least two ways from the prior art compound 156 which is the closest compound [Remarks of September 2, 2026 on page 6 of 11]. The compound differs by both the substitution pattern on the thiazole as well as the fluorination of the 2 position. Compound 131 is also similar but also differs in at least two respects, the fluorination and a methyl group. Finally the applicant discusses the data in the specification and the additional declaration from inventor Cui of April 28, 2026, which shows that the compound has superior activity against specific agricultural pests as comparted to both compound 156 and 131 [Remarks of September 2, 2026 on pages 7-8]. The closest prior art has been compared (See MPEP 716.02(e)). As per MPEP 716.02(a) II:
Evidence of unobvious or unexpected advantageous properties, such as superiority in a property the claimed compound shares with the prior art, can rebut prima facie obviousness. "Evidence that a compound is unexpectedly superior in one of a spectrum of common properties... can be enough to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness." No set number of examples of superiority is required. In re Chupp, 816 F.2d 643, 646, 2 USPQ2d 1437, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Evidence showing that the claimed herbicidal compound was more effective than the closest prior art compound in controlling quackgrass and yellow nutsedge weeds in corn and soybean crops was sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, even though the specification indicated the claimed compound was an average performer on crops other than corn and soybean.).
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.
4. Claims 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "Q, Y and M" in claim 15 there are no such variables. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
5. Claims 15, 17 are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID K O'DELL whose telephone number is (571)272-9071. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30 - 7:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Brooks can be reached on 571-270-7682. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/DAVID K O'DELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621
