DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks and the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, each filed 02/26/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6 and 8-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Bevinakatti and Rhone-Poulenc have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Xu, further in view of Rhone-Poulenc as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 10-18, and 20; and Xu, further in view of Rhone-Poulenc and Bevinakatti as applied to claims 9 and 19.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 02/26/2026 and 04/29/2026 have been considered.
New 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.
Claim 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "derived from" is a relative phrase which renders the claim indefinite. The term "derived" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Further, the recitation of "microbial/algae" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if these terms are being used interchangeably or if a microbial and an algae source are two different embodiments of the claimed hydrocarbon group.
New 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (WO 2002069718 A2), further in view of Rhone-Poulenc (Translation of WO 9532942 A1; IDS reference, 10/31/2022). Rhone-Poulenc was cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Xu teaches a surfactant (Xu, page 32, lines 24-26) which is a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R2 can be a linear alkyl group and have from 2 to about 18 carbon atoms (Xu, page 43, lines 6-10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize within this range, and it would be reasonable to expect such optimization would result in an alkyl group of 3 carbons as claimed. Xu teaches R1 (i.e., R as claimed) and R3 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydrogen (i.e., Z as claimed; Xu, page 43, line 5) or a hydrocarbyl having from 1-22 carbon atoms, which encompasses the claimed range for R. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Xu teaches R4 and R5 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), but does not specify the hydroxyalkyl to be a glyceryl group as claimed.
Rhone-Poulenc, however, teaches polyglycerolated amidoamine surface-active agents (i.e., surfactants; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract) which can be used in agrochemical formulations (Rhone-Poulenc, page 8, claim 13), wherein the linker between the two nitrogen atoms is (CH2)n and n can be equal to 3 (i.e., m is equal to 1; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract), and wherein the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which lies within the claimed range.
Xu and Rhone-Poulenc are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Xu, Rhone-Poulenc, and the instant invention are in the same field of surfactants for use in agrochemical compositions of similar general structure. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, thereby resulting in a surfactant of structure (I) wherein m is 1 as claimed, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 2, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Rhone-Poulenc teaches the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which lies within the claimed range. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, thereby resulting in a surfactant of structure (I) as claimed, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 3, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Rhone-Poulenc teaches the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, thereby resulting in a surfactant of structure (I) as claimed, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 4, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Xu teaches R4 and R5 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), but does not specify the hydroxyalkyl to be a glyceryl group as claimed. Rhone-Poulenc, however, teaches polyglycerolated amidoamine surface-active agents (i.e., surfactants; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract) which can be used in agrochemical formulations (Rhone-Poulenc, page 8, claim 13), wherein the linker between the two nitrogen atoms is (CH2)n and n can be equal to 3 (i.e., m is equal to 1; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract), and wherein the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which lies within the claimed range. Rhone-Poulenc further teaches the substituents can be cycloalkyl, straight, or branched (Rhone-Poulenc, abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, thereby resulting in a surfactant of structure (I) as claimed, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 5, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Xu teaches a surfactant (Xu, page 32, lines 24-26) which is a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R1 (i.e., R as claimed) can be a hydrocarbyl having from 1-22 carbon atoms, which encompasses the claimed range for R. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Xu teaches a surfactant (Xu, page 32, lines 24-26) which is a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R1 (i.e., R as claimed) can be a hydrocarbyl having from 1-22 carbon atoms, which encompasses the claimed range for R. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 6. As above, Xu teaches a surfactant (Xu, page 32, lines 24-26) which is a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R2 can be a linear alkyl group and have from 2 to about 18 carbon atoms (Xu, page 43, lines 6-10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize within this range, and it would be reasonable to expect such optimization would result in an alkyl group of 3 carbons as claimed. Xu teaches R1 (i.e., R as claimed) and R3 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydrogen (i.e., Z as claimed; Xu, page 43, line 5) or a hydrocarbyl having from 1-22 carbon atoms, which encompasses the claimed range for R. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Xu further teaches substituted hydrocarbyl moieties can comprise an amine oxide (Xu, page 94, lines 14-21). Xu teaches R4 and R5 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), but does not specify the hydroxyalkyl to be a glyceryl group as claimed.
Rhone-Poulenc, however, teaches polyglycerolated amidoamine surface-active agents (i.e., surfactants; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract) which can be used in agrochemical formulations (Rhone-Poulenc, page 8, claim 13), wherein the linker between the two nitrogen atoms is (CH2)n and n can be equal to 3 (i.e., m is equal to 1; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract), and wherein the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which lies within the claimed range. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, thereby resulting in a surfactant of structure (III) wherein m is 1 as claimed, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 10, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. This claim is considered to be a product-by-process type claim. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP § 2113(I). As above, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach a surfactant of formula (I), which represents the claimed reaction product. Rhone-Poulenc further teaches polyglycerolated amidoamines can be prepared by condensation of an epoxidized derivative of glycerol which is preferably glycidol with an amidoamine (Rhone-Poulenc, page 12, paragraph 0009). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have synthesized the structure taught by Xu and Rhone-Poulenc by using the starting materials taught by Rhone-Poulenc as a reasonable method of preparation of polyglycerolated amine surfactants (Rhone, Poulenc, page 12, paragraph 0009).
Regarding claim 11, Xu teaches a pesticidal (i.e., agrochemical) composition comprising a pesticide and a surfactant (Xu, claim 1), and teaches a surfactant (Xu, page 32, lines 24-26) which is a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R2 can be a linear alkyl group and have from 2 to about 18 carbon atoms (Xu, page 43, lines 6-10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize within this range, and it would be reasonable to expect such optimization would result in an alkyl group of 3 carbons as claimed. Xu teaches R1 (i.e., R as claimed) and R3 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydrogen (i.e., Z as claimed; Xu, page 43, line 5) or a hydrocarbyl having from 1-22 carbon atoms, which encompasses the claimed range for R. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Xu teaches R4 and R5 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), but does not specify the hydroxyalkyl to be a glyceryl group as claimed.
Rhone-Poulenc, however, teaches polyglycerolated amidoamine surface-active agents (i.e., surfactants; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract) which can be used in agrochemical formulations (Rhone-Poulenc, page 8, claim 13), wherein the linker between the two nitrogen atoms is (CH2)n and n can be equal to 3 (i.e., m is equal to 1; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract), and wherein the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which lies within the claimed range.
As above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, thereby resulting in a surfactant of structure (I) wherein m is 1 as claimed, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 12, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. As above, Rhone-Poulenc teaches the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which lies within the claimed range. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, thereby resulting in a surfactant of structure (I) as claimed, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 13, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. As above, Rhone-Poulenc teaches the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, thereby resulting in a surfactant of structure (I) as claimed, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 14, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. As above, Xu teaches R4 and R5 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), but does not specify the hydroxyalkyl to be a glyceryl group as claimed. Rhone-Poulenc, however, teaches polyglycerolated amidoamine surface-active agents (i.e., surfactants; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract) which can be used in agrochemical formulations (Rhone-Poulenc, page 8, claim 13), wherein the linker between the two nitrogen atoms is (CH2)n and n can be equal to 3 (i.e., m is equal to 1; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract), and wherein the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which lies within the claimed range. Rhone-Poulenc further teaches the substituents can be cycloalkyl, straight, or branched (Rhone-Poulenc, abstract). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, thereby resulting in a surfactant of structure (I) as claimed, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 15, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. As above, Xu teaches a surfactant (Xu, page 32, lines 24-26) which is a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R1 (i.e., R as claimed) can be a hydrocarbyl having from 1-22 carbon atoms, which encompasses the claimed range for R. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 16, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. As above, Xu teaches a surfactant (Xu, page 32, lines 24-26) which is a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R1 (i.e., R as claimed) can be a hydrocarbyl having from 1-22 carbon atoms, which encompasses the claimed range for R. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. As above, Xu teaches a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R2 can be a linear alkyl group and have from 2 to about 18 carbon atoms (Xu, page 43, lines 6-10). Xu further teaches a surfactant having an R group which comprises alkyl chains derived from tallow (i.e., a hydrocarbon group derived from an animal source; Xu, page 301, lines 30-31). Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize alkyl chains derived from an animal source in the di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine structure as the R2 linear alkyl group.
Regarding claim 18, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 16. As above, Xu teaches a surfactant (Xu, page 32, lines 24-26) which is a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R2 can be a linear alkyl group and have from 2 to about 18 carbon atoms (Xu, page 43, lines 6-10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize within this range, and it would be reasonable to expect such optimization would result in an alkyl group of 3 carbons as claimed. Xu teaches R1 (i.e., R as claimed) and R3 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydrogen (i.e., Z as claimed; Xu, page 43, line 5) or a hydrocarbyl having from 1-22 carbon atoms, which encompasses the claimed range for R. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Xu further teaches substituted hydrocarbyl moieties can comprise an amine oxide (Xu, page 94, lines 14-21). Xu teaches R4 and R5 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), but does not specify the hydroxyalkyl to be a glyceryl group as claimed.
Rhone-Poulenc, however, teaches polyglycerolated amidoamine surface-active agents (i.e., surfactants; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract) which can be used in agrochemical formulations (Rhone-Poulenc, page 8, claim 13), wherein the linker between the two nitrogen atoms is (CH2)n and n can be equal to 3 (i.e., m is equal to 1; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract), and wherein the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which lies within the claimed range. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, thereby resulting in a surfactant of structure (III) wherein m is 1 as claimed, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 20, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. Xu teaches the pesticide comprises a herbicide (i.e., an agrochemical from the claimed list; Xu, claim 2).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (WO 2002069718 A2) and Rhone-Poulenc (Translation of WO 9532942 A1; IDS reference, 10/31/2022) as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 10-18, and 20, further in view of Bevinakatti (WO 03068377 A1). Rhone-Poulenc and Bevinakatti were cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 9, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 8. As above, Xu teaches a surfactant (Xu, page 32, lines 24-26) which is a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R2 can be a linear alkyl group and have from 2 to about 18 carbon atoms (Xu, page 43, lines 6-10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize within this range, and it would be reasonable to expect such optimization would result in an alkyl group of 3 carbons as claimed. Xu teaches R1 (i.e., R as claimed) and R3 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydrogen (i.e., Z as claimed; Xu, page 43, line 5) or a hydrocarbyl having from 1-22 carbon atoms, which encompasses the claimed range for R. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Xu further teaches the poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine can be a quaternary salt, wherein the anion can be an agriculturally acceptable anion (Xu, page 44, lines 13-19). Xu teaches R4 and R5 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), but does not specify the hydroxyalkyl to be a glyceryl group as claimed.
Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated amidoamine surface-active agents (i.e., surfactants; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract) which can be used in agrochemical formulations (Rhone-Poulenc, page 8, claim 13), wherein the linker between the two nitrogen atoms is (CH2)n and n can be equal to 3 (i.e., m is equal to 1; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract), and wherein the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which lies within the claimed range.
Bevinakatti teaches a surfactant of formula (I) which is represented by R1R2X1-Link-R3 (Bevinakatti, page 1, line 6) wherein R1 (i.e., “R” as claimed) can be a hydrocarbyl (Bevinakatti, page 1, line 13) and hydrocarbyls preferably have 10-22 carbons (Bevinakatti, page 4, line 33); R2 (i.e., “Z” as claimed) is a polyhydroxy hydrocarbyl or H (Bevinakatti, page 1, lines 14-15); X1 is N+R5An- (i.e., B- or R1X- as claimed) and R5 is a C1-C6 alkyl group (i.e., R1 can be a methyl group; Bevinakatti, page 6, line 11) and An- is particularly a chloride (i.e., X-, as in the claimed structure (V); Bevinakatti, page 6, line 17); and R3 is NR7R8 (Bevinakatti, page 1, line 21), wherein R7 (i.e., “Z” as claimed) is a polyhydroxy hydrocarbyl and R8 (i.e., “Z” as claimed) is a polyhydroxy hydrocarbyl or H (Bevinakatti, page 1, lines 25-26).
Xu, Rhone-Poulenc, and Bevinakatti are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because all are in the same field of surfactants for use in agrochemical compositions of similar general structure. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023). Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Xu and Rhone-Poulenc to include an anion as taught by Bevinakatti, because Xu teaches the anion can be an agriculturally acceptable anion (Xu, page 44, lines 13-19) without specifying any particular group, while Bevinakatti teaches an anion as claimed to be known in the field for use with similar compounds.
Regarding claim 19, Xu and Rhone-Poulenc together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 18. As above, Xu teaches a surfactant (Xu, page 32, lines 24-26) which is a di-poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine preferably having a formula
PNG
media_image1.png
69
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Xu, page 43, formula 23), wherein R2 can be a linear alkyl group and have from 2 to about 18 carbon atoms (Xu, page 43, lines 6-10). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize within this range, and it would be reasonable to expect such optimization would result in an alkyl group of 3 carbons as claimed. Xu teaches R1 (i.e., R as claimed) and R3 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydrogen (i.e., Z as claimed; Xu, page 43, line 5) or a hydrocarbyl having from 1-22 carbon atoms, which encompasses the claimed range for R. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Xu further teaches the poly(hydroxyalkyl)amine can be a quaternary salt, wherein the anion can be an agriculturally acceptable anion (Xu, page 44, lines 13-19). Xu teaches R4 and R5 (i.e., Z as claimed) can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), but does not specify the hydroxyalkyl to be a glyceryl group as claimed.
Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated amidoamine surface-active agents (i.e., surfactants; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract) which can be used in agrochemical formulations (Rhone-Poulenc, page 8, claim 13), wherein the linker between the two nitrogen atoms is (CH2)n and n can be equal to 3 (i.e., m is equal to 1; Rhone-Poulenc, page 105, abstract), and wherein the number of glycerols (i.e., a as claimed) is preferably 2-5 (Rhone-Poulenc, claims 2-3), which lies within the claimed range.
Bevinakatti teaches a surfactant of formula (I) which is represented by R1R2X1-Link-R3 (Bevinakatti, page 1, line 6) wherein R1 (i.e., “R” as claimed) can be a hydrocarbyl (Bevinakatti, page 1, line 13) and hydrocarbyls preferably have 10-22 carbons (Bevinakatti, page 4, line 33); R2 (i.e., “Z” as claimed) is a polyhydroxy hydrocarbyl or H (Bevinakatti, page 1, lines 14-15); X1 is N+R5An- (i.e., B- or R1X- as claimed) and R5 is a C1-C6 alkyl group (i.e., R1 can be a methyl group; Bevinakatti, page 6, line 11) and An- is particularly a chloride (i.e., X-, as in the claimed structure (V); Bevinakatti, page 6, line 17); and R3 is NR7R8 (Bevinakatti, page 1, line 21), wherein R7 (i.e., “Z” as claimed) is a polyhydroxy hydrocarbyl and R8 (i.e., “Z” as claimed) is a polyhydroxy hydrocarbyl or H (Bevinakatti, page 1, lines 25-26).
Xu, Rhone-Poulenc, and Bevinakatti are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because all are in the same field of surfactants for use in agrochemical compositions of similar general structure. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Xu to include a polyglycerol substituent as taught by Rhone-Poulenc, because Xu teaches that the substituent can be a hydroxyalkyl (Xu, page 43, lines 7-8), and that the invention is not limited to the shown embodiments and can be variously modified (Xu, page 285, 3rd paragraph), while Rhone-Poulenc teaches polyglycerolated (i.e., a specific type of hydroxyalkyl modified) surfactants are known to be very well tolerated by biological systems and exhibit beneficial properties (Rhone-Poulenc, page 9, paragraph 0023). Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the structure of Xu and Rhone-Poulenc to include an anion as taught by Bevinakatti, because Xu teaches the anion can be an agriculturally acceptable anion (Xu, page 44, lines 13-19) without specifying any particular group, while Bevinakatti teaches an anion as claimed to be known in the field for use with similar compounds.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 ET.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
