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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/24/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10/24/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 2-4, 9-11, 15, and 18 in the reply filed on 10/24/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that although these groups share a common technical feature, the Examiner asserts that this feature is not ‘special’ because it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Applicants further argue that claims 21 and 22 merely apply this composition to a process and product respectively, and do not introduce new inventive concepts beyond the elected composition, and that claims 21 and 22 rely entirely on the composition defined in claim 2, which exhibits reduced air entrapment and spontaneous bloom in water. This is not found persuasive because Applicants invention is not novel as the rejection below indicates, and secondarily, the additional steps of claims 21 and 22 are distinct because they are not necessarily required for the composition claim 2. The Examiner also points out that claims 21 and 22 would require the Examiner to consider and search those particular limitations that are not required in claim 2.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-14, 16-17, and 20 have been cancelled in a previous communication. Claim 19 has been cancelled. Claims 2-4, 9-11,15,18 and 21-22 are pending. Claims 21-22 have been withdrawn.
Claims 2-4, 9-11, 15, and 18 are currently under examination.
All rejections not reiterated have been withdrawn.
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.
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 2-4, 9, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur et al. (US20090143447A1, Published 06/04/2009) in view of Mei et al. (CN107279175A, Published 10/24/2017).
Applicant’s Invention
Applicants claims are drawn to an agrochemical suspension concentrate composition comprising:(i) a pesticidal active ingredient at a concentration from about 10 wt% to about 60 wt% selected from the group consisting of chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, tetrachlorantraniliprole, bromoantraniliprole, dichlorantraniliprole, tetraniliprole, cyclaniliprole, cyhalodiamide, flubendiamide, and combinations thereof; (ii) at least one dispersant at a concentration from about 0.1 wt% to about 2 wt% selected from alkyl naphthalene sulfonate condensate sodium salts, alkyl naphthalene sulfonates, alkyl naphthalene sulfonate salts, naphthalene sulfonate salts, naphthalene sulfonate condensates, naphthalene sulfonate-formaldehyde condensates, naphthalenesulfonic acid polymers with formaldehyde and sodium, naphthalene sulfonate condensate sodium salts, alkyl naphthalene sulfonate-formaldehyde condensates, alkyl naphthalene sulfonate- formaldehyde condensate salts, and combinations thereof; (iii) a gemini surfactant, wherein the gemini surfactant 2,4,7,9-tetramethyldec-5-yne-4,7-diol or 2,5,8,11 tetramethyl 6 dodecyn-5,8 diol ethoxylate; and(iv) optionally at least one adjuvant; wherein the weight ratio of the dispersant to the gemini surfactant is from about 1:1 to about 20:1 or from about 1:2 to about 1:20.
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claims 2-4, 9, and 18, Arthur teaches an aqueous seed treatment formulations comprising a pesticidal agent (abstract), wherein Formulations of the present invention can be used to prepare suspension concentrates of insecticides, fungicides, and their mixtures (paragraph [0033]). Arthur also teaches pesticidal agents can be chlorantraniliprole, and flubendiamide (paragraph [0037]), wherein the formulation comprises from about 35 to about 50% by weight of the total formulation of a pesticidal agent (paragraph [0017]). Arthur further teaches the formulation further comprises about 0.1% of the total formulation of a wetting agent (i.e., dispersant) (paragraph [0022]), such as Tersperse 4894, Aerosol OT (paragraph [0088]). Arthur continues to teach defoamers such as Surfynol 104 (i.e., a gemini surfactant; 2,4,7,9-Tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol) (paragraph [0096]). Arthur also teaches in table 1, Example 1, Tersperse 2500 and Tersperse 4894 in the total amount of 0.777+0.070=0.847% (i.e., dispersant), Surfynol 104PG in the amount of 0.065% (i.e., gemini surfactant), clothianidin techn in the amount of 48.253% (i.e., a pesticidal active) (paragraph [0124]), and wherein the weight ratio of the dispersant to the gemini surfactant is 0.847%/0.065%=13.03:1. Arthur also teaches 0.1-to-1.0% by weight of the total formulation of additional formulation modifiers (i.e., adjuvants), such as organic and inorganic thickeners, defoamers, and antifoams (paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claim 11, Arthur teaches the pesticidal agents used in a formulation made in accordance with this invention may be a combination of the insecticides and fungicides selected to control a number of pests, insects and/or fungi, through the use of one formulation (paragraph [0039]). Arthur also teaches abamectin , acrinathrin, bistrifluron, carbaryl, emamectin benzoate, endosulfan, fipronil, hexaflumuron, imidacloprid, methiocarb, and novaluron (paragraph [0037]).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Arthur does not explicitly teach that the dispersant is selected from alkyl naphthalene sulfonate condensate sodium salts, alkyl naphthalene sulfonates, alkyl naphthalene sulfonate salts, naphthalene sulfonate salts, naphthalene sulfonate condensates, naphthalene sulfonate-formaldehyde condensates, naphthalenesulfonic acid polymers with formaldehyde and sodium, naphthalene sulfonate condensate sodium salts, alkyl naphthalene sulfonate-formaldehyde condensates, alkyl naphthalene sulfonate- formaldehyde condensate salts, and combinations thereof. However this deficiency is cured by Mei et al.
In the analogous art of a pesticide composition, Mei teaches a cyhalothrin and chlorantraniliprole pesticide composition (abstract). Mei also teaches the lambda-cyhalothrin and chlorantraniliprole pesticide composition, wherein the wetting and dispersing agent is AEROSOL OT-A, Morwet D425, TERSPERSE 2500, TERSPERSE 4894 (paragraph [9]). Mei further teaches the lambda-cyhalothrin and chlorantraniliprole pesticide composition comprises defoamers (paragraph [10]).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have a sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate-formaldehyde condensate such as Morwet D425 in Arthur’s aqueous seed treatment suspension concentrates. Arthur teaches the formulation further comprises about 0.1% of the total formulation of a wetting agent (i.e., dispersant) (paragraph [0022]), such as Tersperse 4894, Aerosol OT (paragraph [0088]). One would have understood in view of Mei that the lambda-cyhalothrin and chlorantraniliprole pesticide composition, wherein the wetting and dispersing agent is AEROSOL OT-A, Morwet D425, TERSPERSE 2500, TERSPERSE 4894 (paragraph [9]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate-formaldehyde condensate such as Morwet D425 in Arthur’s aqueous seed treatment suspension concentrates because Arthur teaches wetting agents (i.e., dispersants) such as Tersperse 4894 and Aerosol OT and Mei teaches wetting agents such as Morwet D425, Aerosol OT and Tersperse 4894 for suspension concentrates, therefore, Morwet D425 is suitable as a wetting agent (i.e., dispersant). See MPEP 2144.06(II).
With regards to claims 2-4 and 18, wherein the pesticidal active ingredient at a concentration from about 10 wt% to about 60 wt%; (ii) the at least one dispersant at a concentration from greater than about 0.1 wt% to about 2 wt%; the weight ratio of the dispersant to the gemini surfactant is from about 1:1 to about 20:1 or from about 1:2 to about 1:20; the pesticidal active ingredient is in a concentration from about 30 wt% to about 60 wt%, or from about 45 wt% to about 55 wt%; the weight ratio of the dispersant to the gemini surfactant is from about 4:1 to about 15:1, or from about 1:4 to about 1:15; and wherein the weight ratio of the pesticidal active ingredient to the dispersant is from about 1:1 to about 25:1, Arthur teaches in table 1, Example 1, Tersperse 2500 and Tersperse 4894 in the total amount of 0.777+0.070=0.847% (i.e., dispersant), Surfynol 104PG in the amount of 0.065% (i.e., gemini surfactant), clothianidin techn in the amount of 48.253% (i.e., a pesticidal active) (paragraph [0124]), and wherein the weight ratio of the dispersant to the gemini surfactant is 0.847%/0.065%=13.03:1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the pesticidal active ingredient and dispersants of Arthur’s example 1 with the instantly claimed pesticidal active and dispersants because Arthur teaches substituting active ingredients within its own teaching, and Mei teaches wetting agents such as Morwet D425, Aerosol OT and Tersperse 4894 for suspension concentrates.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arthur et al. (US20090143447A1, Published 06/04/2009) in view of Mei et al. (CN107279175A, Published 10/24/2017) further in view of Faers et al. (US20180235208A1, Published 08/23/2018; cited in the IDS filed 08/29/2022).
Applicant’s Invention
Arthur and Mei render obvious all the limitations of claim 2. Applicants claim 10 further add the limitation wherein the pesticidal active ingredient is cyantraniliprole.
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claim 10, Arthur teaches an aqueous seed treatment formulations comprising a pesticidal agent (abstract), wherein Formulations of the present invention can be used to prepare suspension concentrates of insecticides, fungicides, and their mixtures (paragraph [0033]). Arthur also teaches pesticidal agents can be chlorantraniliprole, and flubendiamide (paragraph [0037]), wherein the formulation comprises from about 35 to about 50% by weight of the total formulation of a pesticidal agent (paragraph [0017]).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Arthur does not teach wherein the pesticidal active ingredient is cyantraniliprole. However this deficiency is cured by Faers et al.
In the analogous art of suspension concentrates, Faers teaches oil-based suspension concentrates of agrochemical active compounds (abstract), wherein the concentrate comprises (a) 2 to 500g/l of one or more agrochemical compound (i.e., pesticidal active ingredient), (e) 5 to 250 g/l of one or more dispersing aid, (e) 5 to 250 g/l one or more anionic surfactant and (b) one or more rheological modifier (i.e., adjuvant) (paragraph [0016]). Faers also teaches the preferred insecticides chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, tetraniliprole, cyclaniliprole, and flubendiamide, (paragraph [0078]).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have cyantraniliprole as the pesticidal active ingredient in Arthur’s aqueous seed treatment suspension concentrates. Arthur teaches an aqueous seed treatment formulations comprising a pesticidal agent (abstract), wherein Formulations of the present invention can be used to prepare suspension concentrates of insecticides, fungicides, and their mixtures (paragraph [0033]). Arthur also teaches pesticidal agents can be chlorantraniliprole, and flubendiamide (paragraph [0037]). One would have understood in view of Faers that an oil-based suspension concentrates of agrochemical active compounds (abstract), comprises (a) 2 to 500g/l of one or more agrochemical compound (i.e., pesticidal active ingredient), wherein the preferred insecticides chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, tetraniliprole, cyclaniliprole, and flubendiamide, (paragraph [0078]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have cyantraniliprole as the pesticidal active ingredient in Arthur’s aqueous seed treatment suspension concentrates because Arthur teaches pesticidal agents can be chlorantraniliprole, and flubendiamide (paragraph [0037]) and Faers teaches preferred insecticides chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, tetraniliprole, cyclaniliprole, and flubendiamide, (paragraph [0078]) for suspension concentrates, therefore, cyantraniliprole is suitable as a pesticidal active ingredient. See MPEP 2144.06(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10 of Applicants remarks, Applicants argue that Arthur does not teach or suggest the specific gemini surfactants claimed. Applicants also argue that the specification provides data showing that only specific concentrations yield acceptable air entrapment and spontaneous bloom. Applicants further argue that Applicants disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the results presented in table 2 are not unexpected, and that Applicants have met the burden wherein Table 2 of the specification presents a clear side-by-side comparison of multiple formulations.
These arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner points out that Arthur teaches defoamers such as Surfynol 104PG (i.e., a gemini surfactant; 2,4,7,9-Tetramethyl-5-decyne-4,7-diol) (paragraph [0096]). Arthur also teaches in table 1, Example 1, Tersperse 2500 and Tersperse 4894 (i.e., dispersant), Surfynol 104PG (i.e., gemini surfactant), clothianidin techn (i.e., a pesticidal active) (paragraph [0124]), therefore, Arthur teaches the specific gemini surfactant claimed. With regards to Applicants argument that the specification provides data showing that only specific concentrations yield acceptable air entrapment and spontaneous bloom, the Examiner points out that Arthur teaches a composition in Table 1 that has a pesticidal active ingredient in the amount of 48.253% (i.e., Clothianidin Techn), Tersperse 2500 and Tersperse 4894 in the total amount of 0.777+0.070=0.847% (i.e., dispersants), and Surfynol 104PG in the amount of 0.065% (i.e., gemini surfactant) (paragraph 0124]), and wherein the weight ratio of the dispersant to the gemini surfactant is 0.847%/0.065%=13.03:1, therefore the instantly claimed concentrations are taught by Arthur.
Insomuch as this may be an assertion of unexpected results, please refer to MPEP 716.02(b) which details the burden on Applicant to establish that results in a side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art are unexpected and significant. Specifically, Applicant must establish that differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and are of both practical and statistical significance. Additionally, evidence of unexpected properties must be commensurate in scope with the claims. The Examiner has considered Applicants unexpected results as cited in Table 2, however the Examiner points out that the data is not commensurate in scope of with the claims as, Applicants claim a wide variety of dispersants that can be selected for the agrochemical suspension composition, however, the all the data shows just one dispersant Morwet D425. The Examiner also reiterates that the closest prior art which is Arthur teaches a composition in Table 1 that has a pesticidal active ingredient in the amount of 48.253% (i.e., Clothianidin Techn), Tersperse 2500 and Tersperse 4894 in the total amount of 0.777+0.070=0.847% (i.e., dispersants), and Surfynol 104PG in the amount of 0.065% (i.e., gemini surfactant) (paragraph 0124]), and wherein the weight ratio of the dispersant to the gemini surfactant is 0.847%/0.065%=13.03:1, therefore Applicants need to show a side-by-side comparison of their claimed dispersant (i.e., Morwet D425) and their claimed pesticidal active to Arthur’s formulation which comprises a pesticidal active, dispersants, the instantly claimed gemini surfactant, and the weight ratio of dispersant to gemini surfactant all in the instantly claimed ranges. The distinction between Applicants instantly claimed formulation and Arthur’s formulation is not the claimed concentrations but rather are the specific pesticidal active and the specific dispersants, and Applicants have not shown that the substitution of the specific dispersant and pesticidal active results in the unexpected results.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AFUA BAMFOAA BOATENG whose telephone number is (703)756-1358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 on (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.
AFUA BAMFOAA BOATENGExaminer, Art Unit 1617 /ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614