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/ 18 /2025 is acknowledged. Applicant has made the following species election with traverse. The stated reasons for the traverse are the following: In response, first of all the Examiner notes that Applicant’s statement that the claims were restricted under 35 USC 121- i.e. under US restriction practice-- is erroneous on its face, and at odds with the remainder of the argument. Rather, the claims were restricted under PCT Rule 13.1 for not being so linked as to form a single general inventive practice. ( see Restriction, p. 2) Next, the Examiner 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- 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. As to that, slide 51 from the same slides goes on to explain the following: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/unity_of_invention.pptx . The Examiner used and applied in her analysis in her restriction/ election requirement exactly form paragraphs that are referred to in slide 51. FP 18.20 can be found on p. 2 -3 of the restriction/ election requirement in the paragraphs “ This application contains . . .Currently all claims are generic.”. Applicant’s attention is specifically directed to the part of FP 18.18, which explicitly provides 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. The claimed mixture of components (A) and (B) encompasses an enormous variety of combinations of compounds, which have completely different structures. Formula (I) further does not have a single core structure. For instance, R1 can be as a simple as H or a short chain alkyl group, or it can add additional rings to the structure, e.g. phenyl, benzyl, phenoxy, byzyloxyC1-C2 alkyl, or heterorings , such as furanyl . R3 can be as varied as a C3-C6 cycloalkyl, or be even a 6-10 membered non-aromatic spirocyclic carbon-cyclic ring . On further consideration of the art, however, the restriction/ election requirement is hereby withdrawn. The restriction/ election requirement is hereby MADE FINAL. Claims 1-15 are pending, and have been examined herewith across their breadth. 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. Claim s 1-6 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2020/109511 A1 to Burns et al. (“Burns”, of record) . 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. Burns discloses and claims compounds of the formula (I): wherein the substituents are as defined in claim 1, useful as pesticides, and especially fungicides. This discloses overlapping compounds with Applicant’s claims. For instance, a specific species of the claimed compounds of Burns, noted as I.c.813, corresponds to compound X.37 of Applicant’s claims. (p. 48) Burns further claims an agrochemical composition comprising a fungicidally effective amount of a compound of formula (I) according to any one of claims 1 to 1 1 (claim 12), the composition further comprising at least one additional active ingredient and/or an agrochemically -acceptable diluent or carrier (claim 13). Burns further claims a method of controlling or preventing infestation of useful plants by phytopathogenic microorganisms, wherein a fungicidally effective amount of a compound of formula (I) according to any of claims 1 to 11, or a composition comprising this compound as active ingredient, is applied to the plants, to parts thereof or the locus thereof. The Specification provides further information on the additional active ingredient(s) of claim 13, disclosing such to include e.g. azoxystrobin etridiadazole , etc., the addition of which is noted to result in some cases in synergistic activities. (p. 22, l. 16 et seq. ). 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 s 7-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/109511 A1 to Burns et al. (“Burns”, of record), as applied to c laim s 1-6 and 12-14 in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection above. Burns is discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection above. Burns does not specifically disclose the ratios of component (A) to component (B) of Applicant’s claims 7-11. However, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratios of the two components with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve fungicidal efficacy, and balance it against plant toxicity. Motivation to do so is found in Burns itself, which discloses that the amounts of the compounds need to by in amounts effective for controlling or preventing infestation of plants, e.g. useful plants such as crop plants, propagation material thereof, e.g. seeds, harvested crops, e.g., harvested food crops, or non-living materials by insects or by phytopathogenic microorganisms, preferably fungal organisms. Further motivation do so is found in the explicit disclosure that the amounts in combination may be synergistically effective. Burns further does not specifically disclose that components are applied in a sequential manner, per Applicant’s claim 15. However, where Burns 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) . 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 s 1- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/207362 A1 to Jeanmart (“ Jeanmart ” , of record) ) (filing date 201 7 -1 2 - 0 7). 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. Jeanmart discloses and claims compounds of the formula (I): wherein the substituents are as defined in claim 1, useful as pesticides, and especially fungicides. (Abstract, claim 1). The claimed compounds of the formula (I) overlap with compounds of Applicant’s formula (I). For example, let’s take as an example Applicant’s claimed compounds X.36 and X.37. They specifically correspond to specific compounds in Jeanmart , e.g. compound 40, wherein in Jeanmart X is N, R1 is F, R2 is CH3 and R3 is CH3 of Table 1. ( p. 40 ) Table 1 does not further list / exemplify R4 and R 5. Per Jeanmart , R4 can be H, and in a more preferred embodiment R5 can be C4 cycloalkylC2alkyl (p. 9, ll. 1-8), e.g. as in Applicant’s claim compound X.36. Per Jeanmart , alternatively, R4 can be H, and R5 can be a spirocyclic ring system, selected from (p. 10, l. 1), e.g. as in Applicant’s claim ed compound X.37. Jeanmart provides even further guidance, where it specifically limits the claimed genera of compounds to very small genera of lead compounds with a very small number of specifically identified preferred solutions for the substituents, as per Applicant’s claims . For instance, let’s take as an example Applicant’s claimed compound X.37, and analyze for further specific disclosure in Jeanmart . In the below disclosure from p. 15, Jeanmart identifies a very small, and specifically identified as more preferred, sub-genus of compounds, wherein all substituents are defined exactly as in Applicant’s claimed compound X.37 . In this disclosure, there is very limited possibility for variability, e.g. R3 can be one of two options- Br or methyl, wherein me thyl is exactly as in Applicant’s claimed compound X.37, and R5 can be either a C1-C6 alkyl, or one of 4 specific spirorings , of which one of the spirorings is exactly as in Applicant’s claimed compound X.37. (p. 15) This lead compound disclosure can be found elsewhere in Jeanmart as well, e.g. in the follow up disclosure on p. 16. In the below disclosure from p. 16, Jeanmart identifies a very small, and specifically identified as preferable embodiment, sub-genus of compounds, wherein all substituents are defined exactly as in Applicant’s claimed compound X.37. In this disclosure, there is a very limited possibility for variability, e.g. R3 can one of two options- Br or methyl, wherein methyl is exactly as in Applicant’s claimed compound X.37, and R5 can be either a C1-C6 alkyl, or one of 4 specific spirorings , of which one of the spirorings is exactly as in Applicant’s claimed compound X.37. (p. 16). This disclosure of Jeanmart provides lead compound disclosure with a very small number of identified predictable solutions for specific compounds . Per Jeanmart , the compound of formula (I) may be the sole active ingredient of a composition or it may be admixed with one or more additional active ingredients such as a pesticide, fungicide, synergist, herbicide or plant growth regulator where appropriate. An additional active ingredient may, in some cases, result in unexpected synergistic activities. Examples of suitable additional active ingredients include , inter alia , azoxystrobin , etridiadazole , etc . (p. 30, l. 4 et seq., p.31, l. 38 , p. 32, l. 17 ). Jeanmart further discloses use of a compound of formula (I) or of a preferred individual compound as above-defined, of a composition comprising at least one compound of formula (I) or at least one preferred individual compound as above- defined, or of a fungicidal or insecticidal mixture comprising at least one compound of formula (I) or at least one preferred individual compound as above-defined, in admixture with other fungicides or insecticides as described above, for controlling or preventing infestation of plants, e.g. useful plants such as crop plants, propagation material thereof, e.g. seeds, harvested crops, e.g., harvested food crops, or non-living materials by insects or by phytopathogenic microorganisms, preferably fungal organisms. Per Jeanmart , the method comprises the application of a compound of formula (I) or of a preferred individual compound as above-defined as active ingredient to the plants, to parts of the plants or to the locus thereof, to the propagation material thereof, or to any part of the non-living materials. Jeanmart discloses the use of suitable carriers and adjuvants. (p. 23, p. 24, p. 29, l. 15-p. 30, l. 3). Jeanmart does not specifically disclose the ratios of component (A) to component (B) of Applicant’s claims 7-11. However, it would have been obvious to a person of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratios of the two components with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve fungicidal efficacy, and balance it against plant toxicity. Motivation to do so is found in Jeanmart itself, which discloses that the amounts of the compounds need to by in amounts effective for controlling or preventing infestation of plants, e.g. useful plants such as crop plants, propagation material thereof, e.g. seeds, harvested crops, e.g., harvested food crops, or non-living materials by insects or by phytopathogenic microorganisms, preferably fungal organisms. Further motivation do so is found in the explicit disclosure that the amounts in combination may be synergistically effective. Jeanmart further does not specifically disclose that components are applied in a sequential manner , per Applicant’s claim 15 . However, where Jeanmart 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 claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,662,182 (“the ‘182 patent”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose overlapping subject matter. The claims of the instant application are directed to: [. . .] and [. . .]. The claims of the ‘182 patent are directed to: [. . .]. The claimed formula (I) compounds have overlapping structures. Further, at least one additional active ingredient of claim 12 of the ‘182 patent, encompasses, based on review of the specification, specific active ingredients, which are component (B) of Applicant’s claims , e.g. azoxystrobin etridiadazole , etc. ( see, e.g., col. 31-33). Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 11-13 and 16-20 of copending Application No. 17/296,620 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they disclose overlapping subject matter. The claims of the instant application are directed to: [. . .] and [. . .]. The claims of the co-pending application are directed to: [. . .] [. . .] This discloses overlapping genera and compounds. For instance, the first compound of claim 17 of the co-pending application is the same as compound X.37 of Applicant’s claims. The Specification sheds light on what the additional active ingredients of claim 20 of Burns are. They encompass, inter alia , azoxystrobin etridiadazole , etc. ([0162]) of the published application), i.e. component (B) of Applicant’s claims. It is further necessary to have possession of the composition in order to practice the method. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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