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
Claims 3-4, 9-10, 14-15, and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-2,5-8,11-13 and 16-18 are pending and currently under examination.
All rejections not reiterated have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 16 and 17 are 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.
Claims 16 and 17 are indefinite because they depend from cancelled claim 15, therefore it is unclear what additional limitations are required. In the interest of compact prosecution, the claims has been interpreted to depend from claim 13.
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 103 obviousness have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection made over Bristol in view of Lewis has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dookhith et al. in view of Bristol et al. has been applied as set forth below.
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 1-2, 5-8, 11-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dookhith et al. (US5206021A, Published 04/27/1993) in view of Bristol et al. (CN110651782A, Published 01/07/2020; cited in IDS filed 07/07/2022).
Applicant’s invention
Applicants claims are drawn to a process of preparing stable agrochemical composition in a microreactor processing system comprising: a) charging a pre-formulated oil phase comprising at least one pesticide to the microreactor; b) charging a pre-formulated aqueous phase comprising at least one another pesticide to the microreactor; and c) allowing mixing of the oil phase and the aqueous phase in a reaction vessel of the microreactor to obtain an agrochemical composition, wherein said composition has a particle size distribution ranging from 200nm to 350nm.
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Dookhith teaches the invention relates to a stabilized pesticidal emulsion of the oil-in-water type (O/W), comprising: a. an oil phase containing a lipophilic pesticidal substance, optionally dissolved in an organic solvent; b. a water phase, optionally containing a compatible water-soluble pesticidal substance (column 5, lines 48-54).
Regarding claim 2, Dookhith teaches lipophilic pesticidal substances are numerous and diverse namely have a melting point below 100° C. or a melting point within the region of temperature variation such fenoxaprop, haloxyfop, metazachlor, quizalofop, and oxyfluorfen (column 9, fourth paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Dookhith teaches water soluble pesticidal substances or salts thereof may include fosamine, glufosinate, glyphosate, imazapyr, imazaquin (column 11).
Regarding claim 13, Dookhith teaches the invention relates to a stabilized pesticidal emulsion of the oil-in-water type (O/W), comprising: a. an oil phase containing a lipophilic pesticidal substance, optionally dissolved in an organic solvent; b. a water phase, optionally containing a compatible water-soluble pesticidal substance (column 5, lines 48-54). Dookhith also teaches lipophilic pesticidal substances are numerous and diverse namely have a melting point below 100° C. or a melting point within the region of temperature variation such oxyfluorfen (column 9, fourth paragraph). Dookhith further teaches water soluble pesticidal substances or salts thereof may include glufosinate (column 11).
Regarding claim 16, the examiner notes that instant claim 16 uses product by process language that wherein said agrochemical composition is prepared in a microreactor processing system. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113 (I).
Regarding claim 18, Dookhith teaches applying the pesticidal emulsion according to the invention for the control of pest by spray mixtures to crops (i.e., plants) (column 15, third paragraph). Dookhith also teaches that these pesticidal substances may exist as plant growth regulators (column 8, lines 59-62). Dookhith further teaches lipophilic pesticidal substances are numerous and diverse namely have a melting point below 100° C. or a melting point within the region of temperature variation such oxyfluorfen (column 9, fourth paragraph) and teaches water soluble pesticidal substances or salts thereof may include glufosinate (column 11).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Dookhith does not teach a process of preparing stable agrochemical composition in a microreactor processing system comprising: a) charging a pre-formulated oil phase comprising at least one pesticide to the microreactor; b) charging a pre-formulated aqueous phase comprising at least one other pesticide to the microreactor; and c) allowing mixing of the oil phase and the aqueous phase in a reaction vessel of the microreactor to obtain an agrochemical composition, wherein said composition has a particle size distribution ranging from 200 nm to 350 nm (instant claim 1). Dookhith also does not teach wherein the pre-formulated aqueous phase is obtained by dissolving the at least one pesticide in the oil phase in a solvent under continuous mixing; and optionally adding non-ionic and anionic surfactant and customary adjuvants (instant claim 7). Dookhith further does not teach wherein the pre-formulated aqueous phase is obtained by dissolving at least one herbicide in the aqueous phase in water under continuous mixing to obtain the pre- formulated aqueous phase (instant claim 7); wherein said process is carried in a microreactor selected from the group consisting of a Plug Flow Reactor (PFR), a Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor (CSTR), a Loop reactor, a Packed Bed Reactor (PBR), and combinations thereof (instant claim 8); wherein the pre-formulated oil phase is charged to the reactor at flow rate in the range from about 0.1 g/min to about 10 g/min (instant claim 11); and wherein the pre- formulated aqueous phase is charged to the reactor at flow rate in a range from about 0.1 g/min to about 4000 g/min (instant claim 12). However, these deficiencies is cured by Bristol et al.
In the analogous art of pesticidal emulsions, Bristol teaches the present invention provides a pesticide aqueous emulsion prepared by a micro-reaction system, which comprises a dispersed oil phase and a continuous water phase (paragraph [0014]); wherein the dispersed oil phase comprises an active ingredient, one or more agriculturally acceptable hydrophobic adjuvants (paragraph [0015]) and the continuous aqueous phase comprises one or more agriculturally acceptable hydrophilic adjuvants, optionally one or more hydrophilic liquid carriers, and water (paragraph [0016]). Bristol further teaches the dispersed oil phase and the continuous water phase are respectively pumped into the micro mixer (i.e., reaction vessel) through the liquid tank and the constant flow pump connected thereto, and after rapid and uniform mixing, the feed liquid enters the storage tank to obtain the pesticide aqueous emulsion (i.e., agrochemical composition) (paragraph [0112]). Bristol continues to teach that the content of emulsion particles below 0.6 μm (i.e., 600nm) can reach more than 92.7%, so that the prepared pesticide aqueous emulsion has the characteristics of narrower particle size distribution, better stability and smaller particle size (paragraph [0255]). Bristol also teaches the time required for complete mixing of fluids is proportional to the square of the mass transfer distance. The smaller the channel size of the micro-mixing, the shorter the time required for complete mixing of the fluids, and the better the mass transfer effect (paragraph [0108]). Bristol continues to teach the mixing temperature is 10°C-100°C (paragraph [0122]). Bristol further teaches the micro mixer can achieve nano-level emulsion fineness through the design of the internal channel structure and the input of high-energy pump pressure. The pressure of the pump is adjustable from 0.1 to 50 MPa (i.e., 1 bar to 500 bar) (paragraph [0109]). Bristol teaches preparation of dispersed oil phase: mixing the active ingredient, one or more agriculturally acceptable hydrophobic adjuvants and optionally one or more hydrophobic liquid carriers (paragraph [0030]), wherein the hydrophobic liquid carrier includes an organic diluent or solvent (paragraph [0027]). Bristol also teaches preparation of the continuous aqueous phase: adding one or more agriculturally acceptable hydrophilic adjuvants or optionally one or more hydrophilic liquid carriers into deionized water and stirring to form a continuous aqueous phase (paragraph [0037]). Bristol further teaches the micro-reaction system is mainly composed of a feeding device, a micro-mixing device 3, a residence time distribution device 4 and a storage tank 12; the feeding device is connected to the feeding port of the micro-mixing device 3, the discharge port of the micro-mixing device 3 is connected to the feeding port of the residence time distribution device 4, and the discharge port of the residence time distribution device 4 is connected to the storage tank 12. In the micro-reaction system, the micro-mixing device 3 is used to mix the dispersed oil phase and the continuous water phase; the micro-mixing device 3 includes a micro-mixer, and the micro-mixer is provided with a T-shaped mixing unit internal, and its micro-channel diameter is 600μm; the feeding device is composed of a liquid tank 1 connected to a constant flow pump 2 (i.e., Continuous Stirred Tank Reactor) (paragraphs [0201-0202]). Bristol also teaches that the micro-mixing device is used for rapid and uniform mixing of the dispersed oil phase and the continuous water phase (paragraph [0046]). Bristol continues to teach in a micromixer, the flow rate is a key factor affecting the emulsification effect. The greater the flow rate, the higher the input energy, the better the emulsification effect, and the shorter the time required for complete mixing. The total flow rate of the micromixer can be controlled at 40-400 mL/min, for example 40 mL/min, 50 mL/min, 70 mL/min, 90 mL/min, 100 mL/min, 120 mL/min, 150 mL/min, 200 mL/min, 220 mL/min, 250 mL/min, 300 mL/min, 400 mL/min, preferably 50-380 mL/min, more preferably 80-320 mL/min, more preferably 100-300 mL/min, more preferably 120-280 mL/min, more preferably 150-260 mL/min (paragraph [0111]).
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 before the time of filing to use a microreactor processing system for Dookhith’s stabilized pesticidal emulsion of the oil-in-water type (O/W). The artisan would have been motivated to do so because Dookhith teaches the invention relates to a stabilized pesticidal emulsion of the oil-in-water type (O/W), comprising: a. an oil phase containing a lipophilic pesticidal substance, optionally dissolved in an organic solvent; b. a water phase, optionally containing a compatible water-soluble pesticidal substance (column 5, lines 48-54). narrower particle size distribution, better stability and smaller particle size (paragraph [0255]). Bristol teaches a pesticide aqueous emulsion prepared by a micro-reaction system, which comprises a dispersed oil phase and a continuous water phase (paragraph [0014]); wherein the dispersed oil phase comprises an active ingredient, one or more agriculturally acceptable hydrophobic adjuvants (paragraph [0015]) and the continuous aqueous phase comprises one or more agriculturally acceptable hydrophilic adjuvants, optionally one or more hydrophilic liquid carriers, and water (paragraph [0016]); wherein the content of emulsion particles below 0.6 μm (i.e., 600nm) can reach more than 92.7%, so that the prepared pesticide aqueous emulsion has the characteristics of The skill artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success of using a microreactor processing system for Dookhith’s stabilized pesticidal emulsion of the oil-in-water type (O/W) because Dookhith teaches having an oil in water type stabilized pesticidal emulsion and Bristol teaches a pesticide aqueous emulsion prepared by a micro-reaction system, which comprises a dispersed oil phase and a continuous water phase (i.e., oil in water type emulsion) (paragraph [0014]).
With regards to claim 1, wherein said composition has a particle size distribution ranging from 200 nm to 350 nm, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have said particle size distribution ranging from 200 nm to 350 nm in Dookhith’s stabilized pesticidal emulsion of the oil-in-water type (O/W). The artisan would have been motivated to do so because Bristol teaches a pesticide aqueous emulsion prepared by a micro-reaction system, which comprises a dispersed oil phase and a continuous water phase (paragraph [0014]); wherein the content of emulsion particles below 0.6 μm (i.e., 600nm) can reach more than 92.7%, so that the prepared pesticide aqueous emulsion has the characteristics of The skill artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success of having said particle size distribution ranging from 200 nm to 350 nm in Dookhith’s stabilized pesticidal emulsion of the oil-in-water type (O/W) because Dookhith teaches having an oil in water type stabilized pesticidal emulsion and Bristol teaches a pesticide aqueous emulsion prepared by a micro-reaction system, which comprises a dispersed oil phase and a continuous water phase (i.e., oil in water type emulsion) (paragraph [0014]).
With regards to claims 11 and 12 wherein the preformulated oil phase is charged to the reactor at flow rate in the range from about 0.1g/min to about 10g/min and wherein the preformulated aqueous phase is charged to the reactor at flow rate in a range from about 0.1 g/min to about 4000 g/min, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the flow rate of the oil phase and the aqueous phase. One would have understood in view of Bristol that in a micromixer, the flow rate is a key factor affecting the emulsification effect. The greater the flow rate, the higher the input energy, the better the emulsification effect, and the shorter the time required for complete mixing. The total flow rate of the micromixer can be controlled at 40-400 mL/min (paragraph [0111]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use routine optimization in order to achieve the desired flow rates of the oil and aqueous phases because Bristol teaches that the greater the flow rate, the higher the input energy, and the total flow rate of the micromixer can be controlled at 40-400mL/min, therefore, the total flow rates taught by Bristol can be used as a starting point for routine optimization of the flow rate of each phase for the desired results of the pesticide aqueous emulsion. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In addition, according to the MPEP, “It is to be presumed also that skilled workers would as a matter of course, if they do not immediately obtain desired results, make certain experiments and adaptations, within the skill of the competent worker.” (MPEP 716.07). The Examiner also points out that absent unexpected results the flow rate would not be a patentable distinctive feature.
With regards to claim 18, the method for controlling undesired plants or to influence the growth of plants comprising applying to the plants or to their locus an effective amount of the composition of claim 13, it would have been obvious to apply Dookhith’s stabilized pesticidal emulsion of the oil-in-water type (O/W). One would have understood in view of Dookhith that all of these emulsions can be applied for the control of pests, as stable O/W emulsified spray mixtures, etc., whereby the concentrated emulsion is diluted from about 10 to about 200 fold with water. For application to crops for example, a final spray mixture may be generally applied at a rate in the range of about 100 to about 1200 liters per hectare, but may be higher or lower (e.g. low or ultra-low volume) depending upon the need or application technique (column 15, third paragraph). It would have been obvious to apply Dookhith’s stabilized pesticidal emulsion of the oil-in-water type (O/W) to control undesired plants or to influence the growth of plants because Dookhith teaches applying the emulsion as a spray mixture to control pest and spray to crops therefore, the active method steps of controlling undesired plants or to influence the growth of plants are taught by Dookhith.
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 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.
AFUA BAMFOAA BOATENGExaminer, Art Unit 1617
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614