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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of an amendment filed on 07/10/2026.
Withdrawn Rejection(s)
The rejection of claims 2, 11 and 40 under 35 USC 112, second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s cancellation of those claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 11, and 15 over WO 2012/025912 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s cancellation of those claims.
Maintained Objection(s) and Rejection(s)
The objection to the drawings was not addressed in applicant’s reply.
The rejection of claims 57-66 under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over US Patent Application no. 17/725,998 is maintained in this action in view of the lack of arguments presented by applicant in the response filed 07/10/2026.
New Rejection(s) Based on Amendment
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 62-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. 0/2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claims 62-66 fail to further limit the claims because claim 57 sets out “applying a combination of an amount of phthalimide fungicide selected from the group consisting of Captan and Folpet”. However, the new claims set out fungicides which do not include these primary fungicides. These include the herbicidal combinations listed at claim 62, claim 63 iii, claim 63 xvi, claim 64, vi, and claim 65, xxii, xxxiv, xl, xll, xci, xciii, xcix, c,ci, ciii, cv, cvi, cxii, cxvii, clxxxv, clxxxvi. Claim 66 vi, , x,xx, xxii, xlx,xli, l xxxv, lxxxix . This is not an exhaustive list of all the parts of the claims which fail to properly further limit the invention. Claims 62-66 fail to properly limit the invention.
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) 57-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2013/079334 A1 (WO’334).
WO’334 discloses a method for controlling fungi in plants by applying a multi-site contact fungicide in combination with at least one systemic fungicide. The multi0site fungicide is expressly defined to include phthalimide fungicides such as captain , folpet and captafol. The systemic fungicide is selected from well known fungicide classes including Qol, DMI, SDHI and other systemic groups.(see claims 1 and 4). Claims 2 and 3 address the fungicide penetration and translocation, as well as improved efficacy through combined use. Claim 5 disclosed treatment of plant disease, while claim 6 discloses broad fungicide class combination. Plant diseases are further outlined in claims 7-9. And claim 10 sets out application methodology. Differences according to “bioavailability” are considered functional language since applicant has not provided evidence of increased bioavailability. Claims 57-62 are anticipated by WO’334.
Claim(s) 57-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2019/186359 A1 (WO’359).
WO’359 discloses fungicidal combinations comprising (I) an azole fungicide, (ii) a multisite contact fungicide, and (iii) a third systemic fungicide. The patent discloses multisite fungicide as explicitly to include phthalimides. The third fungicide spans multiple classes including Qol, SDHI, nucleic acid synthesis inhibitors. The document combines Phthalimide fungicides with multiple systemic fungicides with primary fungicides across several classes. Claims 1 and 4 sets out multiple fungicide (phthalimide) in conjunction with multiple systemic fungicides. Broad fungicide class coverage is set out in claim 6. Plant disease control using these combinations is listed in claims 5, 7-9. Multi-component systems are set out in claims 6 and 9. Composition ratios and formulations are disclosed in claim 10. Differences according to “bioavailability” are considered functional language since applicant has not provided evidence of increased bioavailability. Claims 57-62 are anticipated by WO’359.
Claim(s) 57-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2018/62999A1 (WO’999).
WO’999 discloses compositions and methods comprising at least one SHI fungicide, and at least one multi-site fungicide (which includes phthalimides, with optional additional fungicides. This document also includes composition and method claims for treating plants. WO’999 specifically teaches combining phthalimide fungicides with systemic fungicides such as SDHIs as established practice. The addition of further fungicides demonstrates that the art had already moved towards complex systems for improved efficacy and resistance management. Claim 1 specifically disclose the combination phthalimides with SZDHI fungicides. Multi-component fungicide systems are outlines in claims 1 and 6 The enhanced efficacy of these combinations are set out in claim 3. SDHI fungicide class is set out in claim 4. Plant treatment and crop disease applications are set out in claims 5, and 7-9. While formulations are set out in claim 10. Differences according to “bioavailability” are considered functional language since applicant has not provided evidence of increased bioavailability. Claims 57-62 are anticipated by WO’999.
Claim(s) 57-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2020/141512 A1 (WO’512).
WO’512 discloses fungicidal mixtures comprising folpet (a phthalimide fungicide) and SDHI fungicides including specific SDHIs such as fluxapyroxad, bixafen, and defined ratios and combined active ingredients. It provides direct disclosure of phthalimide fungicides with systemic fungicides . Additional fungicides demonstrates complex systems for improved efficacy and resistance improvement. Claim 1 discloses folpet and SDHI fungicide combinations. Specific SDHI fungicides class are listed at claims 4 and 6. Ratio and compositions are found at claim 10. Improved efficacy through combinations of fungicides is set out at claim 3. Plant diseases control is set out in claims 7-9. Differences according to “bioavailability” are considered functional language since applicant has not provided evidence of increased bioavailability. Claims 57-62 are anticipated by WO’512.
Claim(s) 57-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN105766952B (CN’962).
CN’952 discloses a fungicidal comprising a fluxapyroxad (a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicide) in conjunction with folpet ( a phthalimide fungicide),along with their use in treating a wide range of fugal diseases. Fluxapyroxad is a systemic fungicide with broad spectrum activity while folpet is a multi-site contact fungicide widely used in crop. He composition is defined over a broad range of ratios, including a mass ratio of fluxapyroxad to folpet embodiments disclosed. Data is presented to support efficacy showing that fluxapyroxad and folpet exhibits synergistic fungicidal activity across the composition is also shown to be effective against various fungicidal diseases across multiple ratios and crops.CN’962 discloses composition, ratio, formulation, and an application of a phthalimide combined with a systemic fungicide belonging to the SDHI class. CN’992 clearly exhibits improved efficacy and synergistic performance in its disclosed fungicidal combinations. Claim 1 discloses folpet (phthalimide fungicide) an fluxapyroxad (SDHI fungicide) in combination. Claims 4 and 6 recite specific SDHI fungicides with fluxapyroxad explicitly disclosed. The synergistic efficacy is set out in claim 3. Broad ratio ranges (as well as preferred ranges), and multiple formulations are set out in claim 10. The use of the combination in treating various plant diseases is found in claims 5, 7-9. Differences according to “bioavailability” are considered functional language since applicant has not provided evidence of increased bioavailability. Claims 57-62 are anticipated by CN’992.
Claim(s) 57-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 101019535B (CN’535).
CN’535 discloses a fungicidal composition comprising captan (a phthalimide fungicide) in combination with at least one triazole fungicide which belongs the class of demethylation inhibitor (DMI) fungicides. The document discloses that captan is a broad spectrum contact fungicide, while triazole fungicides act systemically by inhibiting ergosterol biosynthesis in fungi. The combination is defined over a wide range of weight ratios. A broad genus of triazole fungicides including tebuconazole, difenoconazole, epoxiconazole, hexaconazole and penconazole are among those disclosed as systemic fungicides. Experimental evidence is disclosed of the synergistic effects of the combinations, including reductions in EC50 and synergy ratios exceeding unity thresholds. The compositions are shown to exhibit improved fungicidal activity, broader spectrum of control, and enhanced resistance management compared to individual fungicides. The compositions are disclosed for use in a wide range of plant diseases. CN’535 discloses captain in combination with DMI fungicides at claim 1. The broad class of triazole fungicides intended for combination with captain are listed at claims 4-6. Synergistic efficacy is disclosed at claim 3. Wide ratios re disclosed for the composition at claim 10. Application to plant disease control on multiple crops is found in claims 5, 7-9. Multiple formulations are found in claim 10. Differences according to “bioavailability” are considered functional language since applicant has not provided evidence of increased bioavailability. Claims 57-62 are anticipated by CN’535.
Claim(s) 57-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 102696646B (CN’646).
CN’646 discloses a fungicidal composition comprising captan ( a phthalimide fungicide) in combination with strobilurin fungicides such pyractostrobin, trifloxystrobin or coumoxystrobin, which belongs to the class of quinone outside inhibitor (Qol) fungicides. CN’646 discloses he combination of captan with Qol fungicides for controlling plant diseases. The compositions are defined over a broad range of weight ratios. The combinations exhibit synergistic effects and enhanced fungicidal performance as shown by experimental data. CN’6464 demonstrates improved efficacy and synergistic performance for the disclosed combinations .Captan in combination with Qol fungicides are found in claims 1 and 2. Qol fungicides are listed at claims 4 and 6. Demonstrated synergy across combinations are set out in claim 3. Very broad ratio ranges for the combination are found at claim 10. The method of using the combination to plant diseases and crops is set out at claims 5, 7-9. Multiple formulations are listed at claim 10. Differences according to “bioavailability” are considered functional language since applicant has not provided evidence of increased bioavailability. Claims 57-62 are anticipated by CN’646.
Claim(s) 57-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 1-2150674 A (CN’674).
CN’674 discloses a fungicidal composition comprising captan in combination with a wide range of fungicides including proaocarb, metalaxyl, cymoxanil, fisetyl-Al, dimethomorph and others. The disclosure incudes ratio ranges, formulation types, and disease-control applications. CN’674 explicitly states that the compositions exhibit synergistic activity and plant absorption and translocation over a wide range of ratios and plant pathogens. The composition has enhanced fungicidal efficacy, improved disease control, reduced dosage , expanded spectrum of activity and delay in resistance. Claim1 sets out the combination of captan and broad fungicide classes. Absorption and translocation is disclosed in claims 2 and 3, Synergistic efficacy is found in claim 3. Multiple fungicide class for combination with captan is set out in claim 4. Specific combinations are listed at claim 6. Broad diseases are disclosed for treatment in claims 7-9. Dosages and ratio ranges are disclosed at claim 10. Differences according to “bioavailability” are considered functional language since applicant has not provided evidence of increased bioavailability. Claims 57-62 are anticipated by CN’674.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 07/10/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS A AZPURU whose telephone number is (571)272-0588. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am- 3 pm, 4 pm-8pm.
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/CARLOS A AZPURU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617 caz
Prosecution Insights