Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/002,617

METHOD OF CONTROLLING SOYBEAN RUST FUNGUS HAVING RESISTANCE TO QoI FUNGICIDE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 20, 2022
Examiner
HOLT, ANDRIAE M
Art Unit
1614
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
48%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 48% of resolved cases
48%
Career Allow Rate
354 granted / 731 resolved
-11.6% vs TC avg
Strong +21% interview lift
Without
With
+21.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
785
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.0%
-39.0% vs TC avg
§103
48.5%
+8.5% vs TC avg
§102
15.9%
-24.1% vs TC avg
§112
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 731 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Claims 1-3 are pending in the application. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of the election of compound of PNG media_image1.png 153 220 media_image1.png Greyscale in the reply filed on July 17, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that if the search and examination of all the claims in an application can be made without serious burden, the examiner must examine them on merits, even though they include claims to independent or distinct inventions. This is not found persuasive because the election of species was issued under lack of unity of invention of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1, not under U.S. practice. As indicated in the election of species requirement, although the chemical compounds of formula I share a common structure of, PNG media_image2.png 92 244 media_image2.png Greyscale , the common structure is not a significant structural element because it represents only a small portion of the compound structures and does not constitute a structurally distinctive portion in view of constituents R1, Q, J, and E. Further, the compounds of these groups do not belong to a recognized class of chemical compounds. There are multiple alternatives for substituents R1, Q, J, and E. This is illustrated by compounds in the original specification: Compound 2, PNG media_image3.png 107 173 media_image3.png Greyscale (page 97, line 9), Compound 3, PNG media_image4.png 106 184 media_image4.png Greyscale (page 98, line 5), and Compound 6 PNG media_image5.png 112 169 media_image5.png Greyscale (page 99, line 19). In addition, there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as they would require a different field of search (including searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries) and the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. No claims are withdrawn from examination. Claims 1-3 will be examined. Priority This application is a National Stage Entry of PCT/JP2021/024490 filed June 29, 2021, which claims benefit to Japanese Foreign Application No. 2020-112466 filed June 30, 2020. Information Disclosure Statement Receipt of Information Disclosure Statement filed March 10, 2023 is acknowledged. 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 1-3 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. Regarding Applicant’s elected species of the compound PNG media_image1.png 153 220 media_image1.png Greyscale , this compound is not currently claimed. This specifically is related to substituent J. Applicant elected J as J1, specifically J1-7. Independent claim 1 claims PNG media_image6.png 109 303 media_image6.png Greyscale , wherein PNG media_image7.png 68 613 media_image7.png Greyscale and PNG media_image8.png 35 254 media_image8.png Greyscale . The definitions of Y1 and Y2 for J1 do not embrace a phenyl ring that is present in the elected compound. While the original specification does provide support for present compound 8, compound 8 is not currently claimed. Limitations from the specification cannot be imported into the claims. To advance prosecution, the species search will be expanded. Claim 1, lines 5-124 is surrounded by brackets [ ]. These brackets are treated as parentheses. The use of brackets/parentheses renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations between the brackets/parentheses are part of the claimed invention. Claim 1, lines 6-8; 17-18; 30-32; 34-35; 39-41; 42-44; 54-55; 61-63; 67-69; 70-72; 79-81; 84-86; 88-90; 91-92; 94-96; 98-99; 102-104; 104-106; 110-115; 116-118; and 119-121 use brackets { }. These brackets are treated as parentheses. The use of brackets/parentheses renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations between the brackets/parentheses are part of the claimed invention. For example, in lines 6-8, it cannot be determined if “wherein said C1-C4 alkyl group and said C1-C4 alkoxy group are optionally substituted with one or more halogen atom(s)” is part of the claimed invention. Claim 3, lines 3-5 and 6-8 use { }. These brackets are treated as parentheses. The use of brackets/parentheses renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations between the brackets/parentheses are part of the claimed invention. For example, in lines 3-5, it cannot be determined if “wherein said C3-C6 cycloalkyl group is optionally substituted with one or more substituent(s) selected from the group consisting of a C1-C3 alkyl group and a halogen atom” is part of the claimed invention. Claim 2 is dependent from claim 1. As such, claim 2 is also rejected. Regarding the election of species, since Applicant’s elected species is not currently claimed, as indicated hereinabove, the search has been expanded to a compound the reads on the compound represented by formula (I). In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. 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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 08-027133 (English translation). JP 08-027133 cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 3/10/2025. Applicant’s Invention Applicant claims a method for controlling a soybean rust fungus having an amino acid substitution of F129L in a mitochondrial cytochrome b protein, which comprises applying an effective amount of a compound represented by formula (I) PNG media_image9.png 100 237 media_image9.png Greyscale or an N-oxide or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof to a soybean or soil for cultivating a soybean. Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01) JP 08-027133 teaches a compound capable of manifesting excellent controlling effects of plant disease injury (page 2, Purpose, translation). Regarding claims 1 and 3, JP 08-027133 teaches the compound of the general chemical formula 1 PNG media_image10.png 70 191 media_image10.png Greyscale (page 3, Claim 1, translation). JP 08-027133 teaches in Table 1, compound 1 PNG media_image11.png 63 355 media_image11.png Greyscale , . Substituents W and X correspond to Q1 of the instant invention, wherein X1 is N and X2 represents -C(O)OCH3. Substituent Y corresponds to J=J2 of the instant invention, wherein Y3 is N and Y4 is O. R1 corresponds to substituent E of the instant invention, wherein E is a phenyl group. Substituent (R1)n of the instant invention, wherein n is 0. JP 08-027133 teaches the compound has control of rust disease and soybean pupura (page 8, paragraph [004], translation). Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) JP 08-027133 does not specifically disclose the method for controlling a soybean rust fungus having an amino acid substitution of F129L in a mitochondrial cytochrome b protein. Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143) It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of JP 08-027133 to control a soybean rust fungus having an amino acid substitution of F129L in a mitochondrial cytochrome b protein. JP 08-027133 teaches the compound of the general chemical formula 1 PNG media_image10.png 70 191 media_image10.png Greyscale (page 3, Claim 1, translation). JP 08-027133 teaches in Table 1, compound 1 PNG media_image11.png 63 355 media_image11.png Greyscale , . Substituents W and X correspond to Q1 of the instant invention, wherein X1 is N and X2 represents -C(O)OCH3. Substituent Y corresponds to J=J2 of the instant invention, wherein Y3 is N and Y4 is O. R1 corresponds to substituent E of the instant invention, wherein E is a phenyl group. Substituent (R1)n of the instant invention, wherein n is 0. JP 08-027133 further teaches control of rust disease and soybean purpura. Compound 1 taught by JP 08-027133 is a compound of the instantly claimed compound of formula (I). Controlling a soybean rust fungus having an amino acid substitution of F129L in a mitochondrial cytochrome b protein is the intended use. As such, following the prior art teaching that if the same compound is taught in the prior art, the skilled artisan would expect to obtain a result that necessarily flows with the intended purpose and properties, i.e., controlling a soybean rust fungus having an amino acid substitution of F129Lin a mitochondrial cytochrome b protein, without evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent No. 4,877,811 (Anthony et al). Anthony et al. discloses Applicant’s elected compound that is useful in agricultural, especially fungicides. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST. 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. /ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614 /ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 20, 2022
Application Filed
Oct 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588677
Herbicidal compositions comprising topramezone
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582132
GERMINATION/SPROUTING AND FRUIT RIPENING REGULATORS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583826
[(1,5-DIPHENYL-1H-1,2,4-TRIAZOL-3-YL)OXY]ACETIC ACID DERIVATIVES AND SALTS THEREOF, CROP PROTECTION COMPOSITIONS COMPRISING THEM, METHODS FOR PRODUCING THEM AND USE THEREOF AS SAFENERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582122
Herbicidal compositions comprising clethodim
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12570657
MESYLATE SALTS OF HETEROCYCLIC CYTOKININS, COMPOSITIONS CONTAINING THESE DERIVATIVES AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
48%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+21.2%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 731 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month