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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s response to the restriction/ election requirement from 9/4/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has made the following species election with traverse. The stated reasons for the traverse are the following: In response, the Examiner first clarifies that she did not make a group restriction, which would have required establishing a lack of unity and breaking this unity with a reference . To the contrary, the fungicidal composition claims 1-3, and the method of controlling or preventing phytopathogenic diseases claims 14 and 15, have all been kept together. The Examiner solely made a species election requirement. The same attorney has contemporaneously made a similar argument in co-pending application 18/000,014, which elucidates further that what the attorney has in mind is slide 50 from the following USPTO link for support of its position : https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/unity_of_invention.pptx . Further, t he Examiner did not do a mere identification of species, as alleged by Applicant, but did do unity of invention analysis for the species , as explained further in the slides. Slide 51 goes on to explain the election of species procedure . The Examiner used and applied in her analysis in her restriction/ election requirement exactly form paragraphs FP 18.20 and 18.18 that are referred to in slide 51. FP 18.20 can be found on p. 2 of the restriction/ election requirement in the paragraphs “ This application contains . . .Currently all claims are generic.”. FP 18.18 can be found on p. 3-4 of the restriction/ election requirement in the paragraphs “ REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION . . . Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).” Applicant’s attention is specifically directed to FP 18.18, which explicitly provide s that the identified species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. T he claimed mixture of components (A) and (B) encompasses an enormous variety of combinations of compounds, whic h have completely different structure s. For the foregoing reasons, the restriction is still deemed to be proper and is maintained. On further consideration of the art of record, and in the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner further expands the election of species requirement to encompass the compound of Formula (I) wherein in formula (I) X is CH , R4 is H and R5 is trifluoromethyl. The restriction/ election requirement is hereby MADE FINAL. Claims 1-15 are pending, and have been examined herewith to the extent of Applicant’s elected species. Note to File The structure of Applicant’s elected species of compound (A) of formula (I) is noted for the record. . m ethyl (Z)-3-methoxy-2-[ 2- methyl-5-(3-propylpyrazol-1-yl)phenoxy]prop-2-enoate Specification The title of the invention “Fungicidal Compositions” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 12,043,600 to Bou Hamdan (“Bou Hamdan”) (filing date 2019-10-17). The applied reference has a common inventor and assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. Bou Hamdan claims the following specific compounds of Applicant’s claims: methyl (Z)-3-methoxy-2-[2-methyl-5-(3-propylpyrazol-1-yl)phenoxy]prop-2-enoate (compound X.01) methyl (Z)-3-methoxy-2-[2-methyl-5-(3-sec-butylpyrazol-1-yl)phenoxy]prop-2-enoate (compound X.02) methyl (Z)-2-[5-(3-isopropoxypyrazol-1-yl)-2-methyl-phenoxy]-3-methoxy-prop-2-enoate (compound X.03) methyl (Z)-2-[5-(3-cyclobutylpyrazol-1-yl)-2-methyl-phenoxy]-3-methoxy-prop-2-enoate (compound X.04) methyl (Z)-2-[5-(3-isobutylpyrazol-1-yl)-2-methyl-phenoxy]-3-methoxy-prop-2-enoate (compound X.05) methyl (Z)-2-[5-(3-isopropylpyrazol-1-yl)-2-methyl-phenoxy]-3-methoxy-prop-2-enoate (compound X.0 6 ) methyl (Z)-3-methoxy-2-[2-methyl-5-(4-propyltriazol-2-yl)phenoxy]prop-2-enoate (compound X.09) methyl (Z)-3-methoxy-2-[2-methyl-5-[4-(trifluoromethyl)triazol-2-yl]phenoxy]prop-2-enoate (compound X.010) methyl (Z)-2-[5-(4-cyclopropyltriazol-2-yl)-2-methyl-phenoxy]-3-methoxy-prop-2-enoate (compound X.011) (claim 1). Claim 6 of Bou Hamdan is directed to an agrochemical composition comprising a fungicidally effective amount of a compound according to claim 1 and an agrochemically-acceptable diluent or carrier. Claim 7 recites the composition according to claim 6, further comprising at least one additional active ingredient. Claim 8 recites a method of controlling or preventing infestation of useful plants by phytopathogenic microorganisms, comprising applying a fungicidally effective amount of a compound according to claim 1, or a composition comprising this compound as active ingredient, to the plants, to parts thereof or the locus thereof. A review of the Specification of Bou Hamdan clarifies what Claim 7 contemplates as further comprising at least one additional active ingredient. “ Thus, compounds of formula (I) can be used in combination with one or more other active ingredients to provide various fungicidal mixtures. Specific examples of such mixtures include (wherein “I” represents a compound of formula (I)): a compound selected from the group of substances consisting of . . . difenoconazole . . . mancozeb . . .” (col. 43, ll. 28 et seq.). Bou Hamdan further teaches wherein the composition components (A) and (B) are applied in a sequential manner. (col. 50, ll. 19-27). Per Bou Hamdan, t he active ingredient mixture of the compounds of formula (I) and an active ingredient as described above are preferably in a mixing ratio of from 100:1 to 1:6000, especially from 50:1 to 1:50, more especially in a ratio of from 20:1 to 1:20, even more especially from 10:1 to 1:10, very especially from 5:1 and 1:5, special preference being given to a ratio of from 2:1 to 1:2, and a ratio of from 4:1 to 2:1 being likewise preferred, above all in a ratio of 1:1, or 5:1, or 5:2, or 5:3, or 5:4, or 4:1, or 4:2, or 4:3, or 3:1, or 3:2, or 2:1, or 1:5, or 2:5, or 3:5, or 4:5, or 1:4, or 2:4, or 3:4, or 1:3, or 2:3, or 1:2, or 1:600, or 1:300, or 1:150, or 1:35, or 2:35, or 4:35, or 1:75, or 2:75, or 4:75, or 1:6000, or 1:3000, or 1:1500, or 1:350, or 2:350, or 4:350, or 1:750, or 2:750, or 4:750. Those mixing ratios are by weight. (col. 49, l. 63-col. 50, l. 9). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CA 3 105 798 A1 to Matsuzaki et al. (“Matsuzaki” , of record ). Matsuzaki discloses and claims compounds according to formula (II) (claim 4). A disclosed species is compound 4 ([0076], which is according to Applicant’s formula (I), wherein X is CH, R4 is H, and R5 is trifluoromethyl. . Matsuzaki discloses and claims an agricultural composition comprising the compound according to claim 4 or 5, or its N-oxide, or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof, an inert carrier (claim 6) . Matsuzaki discloses and claims that the compound of the invention can be in combination with one or more ingredients, as disclosed in [0037], and further claimed in claim 7. Matsuzaki discloses that ingredients of Group (b) include difenoconazole and mancozeb ([0042], p. 83-83). Matsuzaki discloses and claims a method for fungicidal control with a compound represented by formula (I) (claim 1). Matsuzaki discloses that the ratios of the claimed compound and additional compound can be the following, which encompasses overlapping ranges with Applicant’s claims. 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. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 3 105 798 A1 to Matsuzaki et al. (“Matsuzaki” , of record ) , as applied to c laims 1-14 in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection above. Matsuzaki is discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection above. Matsuzaki does not explicitly disclose wherein components (A) and (B) are applied in a sequential manner. However, where Matsuzaki discloses the use of components (A) and (B) in Applicant’s claimed method, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the two components either together or in a sequential manner with a reasonable expectation of success. Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex , 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id . at 1742 . “Where the result accomplished is substantially the same, steps taken concurrently or simultaneously are the equivalent of and not patentable over steps taken successively” New Wrinkle, Inc. v. Watson, Comr. Pats. , 96 USPQ 436, 437 (D.C. Cir. 1953) . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1- 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1 and 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,043,600 to Bou Hamdan (“Bou Hamdan”) (filing date 2019-10-17) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose overlapping compositions and methods of treatment . The claims of the instant application are directed to a fungicidal composition comprising a mixture of components (A) an (B) as active ingredients, wherein component (A) is compound of formula (I): and component B is a compound selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, difenoconazole. Specific compounds of claim 2 include compounds X.01- compounds X.12. Claim 12 recites one or more further pesticides selected from the group, consisting of, inter alia, man cozeb. Bou Hamdan claims the following specific compounds of Applicant’s claims: methyl (Z)-3-methoxy-2-[2-methyl-5-(3-propylpyrazol-1-yl)phenoxy]prop-2-enoate (compound X.01) methyl (Z)-3-methoxy-2-[2-methyl-5-(3-sec-butylpyrazol-1-yl)phenoxy]prop-2-enoate (compound X.02) methyl (Z)-2-[5-(3-isopropoxypyrazol-1-yl)-2-methyl-phenoxy]-3-methoxy-prop-2-enoate (compound X.03) methyl (Z)-2-[5-(3-cyclobutylpyrazol-1-yl)-2-methyl-phenoxy]-3-methoxy-prop-2-enoate (compound X.04) methyl (Z)-2-[5-(3-isobutylpyrazol-1-yl)-2-methyl-phenoxy]-3-methoxy-prop-2-enoate (compound X.05) methyl (Z)-2-[5-(3-isopropylpyrazol-1-yl)-2-methyl-phenoxy]-3-methoxy-prop-2-enoate (compound X.0 6 ) methyl (Z)-3-methoxy-2-[2-methyl-5-(4-propyltriazol-2-yl)phenoxy]prop-2-enoate (compound X.09) methyl (Z)-3-methoxy-2-[2-methyl-5-[4-(trifluoromethyl)triazol-2-yl]phenoxy]prop-2-enoate (compound X.010) methyl (Z)-2-[5-(4-cyclopropyltriazol-2-yl)-2-methyl-phenoxy]-3-methoxy-prop-2-enoate (compound X.011) (claim 1). Claim 6 of Bou Hamdan is directed to an agrochemical composition comprising a fungicidally effective amount of a compound according to claim 1 and an agrochemically-acceptable diluent or carrier. Claim 7 recites the composition according to claim 6, further comprising at least one additional active ingredient. Claim 8 recites a method of controlling or preventing infestation of useful plants by phytopathogenic microorganisms, comprising applying a fungicidally effective amount of a compound according to claim 1, or a composition comprising this compound as active ingredient, to the plants, to parts thereof or the locus thereof. A review of the Specification of Bou Hamdan clarifies what Claim 7 contemplates as further comprising at least one additional active ingredient. “ Thus, compounds of formula (I) can be used in combination with one or more other active ingredients to provide various fungicidal mixtures. Specific examples of such mixtures include (wherein “I” represents a compound of formula (I)): a compound selected from the group of substances consisting of . . . difenoconazole . . . mancozeb . . .” (col. 43, ll. 28 et seq.). A review of the specification clarifies how the method of application is practiced, namely, wherein the composition components (A) and (B) are applied in a sequential manner. (col. 50, ll. 19-27). A review of the specification of Per Bou Hamdan clarifies what fungicidal amounts of components (A) and (B) are in terms of ratios. Per Bou Hamdan, t he active ingredient mixture of the compounds of formula (I) and an active ingredient as described above are preferably in a mixing ratio of from 100:1 to 1:6000, especially from 50:1 to 1:50, more especially in a ratio of from 20:1 to 1:20, even more especially from 10:1 to 1:10, very especially from 5:1 and 1:5, special preference being given to a ratio of from 2:1 to 1:2, and a ratio of from 4:1 to 2:1 being likewise preferred, above all in a ratio of 1:1, or 5:1, or 5:2, or 5:3, or 5:4, or 4:1, or 4:2, or 4:3, or 3:1, or 3:2, or 2:1, or 1:5, or 2:5, or 3:5, or 4:5, or 1:4, or 2:4, or 3:4, or 1:3, or 2:3, or 1:2, or 1:600, or 1:300, or 1:150, or 1:35, or 2:35, or 4:35, or 1:75, or 2:75, or 4:75, or 1:6000, or 1:3000, or 1:1500, or 1:350, or 2:350, or 4:350, or 1:750, or 2:750, or 4:750. Those mixing ratios are by weight. (col. 49, l. 63-col. 50, l. 9). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SVETLANA M IVANOVA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3277 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30-5:00 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kortney L. Klinkel can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5239 . 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. /SVETLANA M IVANOVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627