DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 August 2026, has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claim 24 was amended and new claim 27 was submitted in the Amendment After Final submitted on 18 June 2026.
Claims 5-6, 20, 24, and 27 are pending and under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the previously elected agrochemically acceptable excipient species of a surfactant.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Amarnath et al. (WIPO International Patent Publication No. WO 2019/207595 A1, published on 31 October 2019, provided by Applicant in IDS, hereafter referred to as Amarnath).
Amarnath teaches improved preparation procedures of anthranilamide derivates, in particular chloroantraniliprole (Ia) and cyantraniliprole (Ib) (Abstract). Anthranilamide derivatives are taught to be novel insecticides with high efficacy and safety, but known production methods come with disadvantages such as use of the expensive reagent CH3SO2Cl, use of expensive metal catalysts, use of the expensive solvent acetonitrile, and low yields which limit commercial production (pg. 1, lines 10-11, pg. 2, lines 13-17, and pg. 3, lines 15-17). Amarnath teaches their process to use less expensive and readily available reagents and solvents and to produce a reaction product that “is directly isolated from the reaction mass without involving any laborious work-up processes”, making their process suitable for scale-up to commercial levels (pg. 11, lines 18-29).
One improved synthetic process taught by Amarnath to produce cyantraniliprole consists of reacting 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxylic acid with the chlorinating agent SOCl2 in acetonitrile, toluene, or a mixture of the two to obtain 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxylic acid carbonyl chloride (claim 8, step a, see figure below). A synonym for 3-bromo-1-(3-chloro-2-pyridyl)-1H-pyrazole-5-carboxylic acid carbonyl chloride is 5-bromo-2-(3-chloro-pyridin-2-yl)-2H-pyrazole-3 carbonyl chloride. The resulting carbonyl chloride is subsequently reacted with the substituted aminobenzamide 2-amino-5-cyano-3,N-dimethylbenzamide, in the presence of 3-picoline, in acetonitrile, toluene, or a mixture of the two to produce cyantraniliprole of Formula Ib (claim 8, step b, see figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The resulting cyantraniliprole of Formula Ib may optionally be purified in acetonitrile, n-heptane, or a mixture of the two solvents (claim 8, step c).
Para. [00051] of the instant specification discloses a “process for preparing a solid form of Cyantraniliprole which includes starting from an intermediate, 5-Bromo-2-(3-chloro-2-pyridyl)-2H-pyrazole-3-carbonyl chloride, and converting it to a Cyantraniliprole solid state form, by a process, for example, including subjecting a solution of 5-Bromo-2-(3-chloro-2-pyridyl)-2H-pyrazole-3-carbonyl chloride in an aromatic solvent system to a condensation reaction with 2-Amino-5-cyano-N,3-dimethylbenzamide, followed by filtering, washing by an aromatic solvent and drying.”
Comparing para. [00051] of the instant specification and claim 8 of Amarnath, both processes utilize the same reaction steps, the same compounds, and the same aromatic solvent toluene. As a result, the solid form of cyantraniliprole produced by the process taught by claim 8 of Amarnath is interpreted as being the same chemical structure as the solid form of cyantraniliprole produced by the process recited in para. [00051] of the instant specification. Further, the instant specification does not clarify which form of cyantraniliprole is produced from the identical processes detailed above. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the form of cyantraniliprole produced via the processes above is not form F, the process taught by claim 8 of Amarnath is interpreted as producing form F of cyantraniliprole.
Amarnath does not teach the powder XRD pattern of the solid form F cyantraniliprole produced via claim 8. However, the powder X-ray diffraction pattern of crystalline form F of cyantraniliprole is a physical property resulting from the structure. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A specific crystalline structure of a given chemical and its properties cannot be separate, and therefore because Amarnath has taught crystalline form F of cyantraniliprole, the diffraction pattern peaks recited in instant claims 5-6 are inherently the same. Id. See MPEP § 2112.01.
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.
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 5-6, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amarnath (WIPO International Patent Publication No. WO 2019/207595 A1, published on 31 October 2019, provided by Applicant in IDS) in view of Hughes et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,247,647 B2, published on 24 July 2007, hereafter referred to as Hughes).
Amarnath has been described supra.
Amarnath does not teach an agrochemical formulation comprising crystalline form F of cyantraniliprole and a surfactant. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Hughes.
Hughes teaches anthranilamide complexes and methods for controlling an invertebrate pest by contacting said pest, or its environment, with the anthranilamide complex or its salts in a composition comprising a surfactant, a solid diluent, and a liquid diluent (Abstract). Control of invertebrate pests is taught to be “extremely important” in the growth of crops, and while existing pesticides are available, Hughes states that more effective, less toxic, and environmentally safer products are still needed (column 1, lines 14-25). These goals are achieved by using a composition comprising a compound of Formula 1 and at least one additional component chosen from the group of a surfactant, a solid diluent, and a liquid diluent, where Formula 1 is:
PNG
media_image2.png
247
259
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where R1 is Me, Cl, Br or F; R2 is F, Cl, Br, or C1-C4 haloalkoxy; R3 is F, Cl or Br; R4 is H; C1-C4 alkyl, C3-C4 alkenyl, C3-C4 alkynyl, C3-C5 cycloalkyl, or C4-C6 cycloalkylalkyl, each optionally substituted with one substituent selected from the group consisting of halogen, CN, SMe, S(O)Me, S(O)2Me, and OMe; R5 is H or Me; R6 is H, F or Cl; and
R7 is H, F or Cl (claim 1).
When R1=R5=Me, R2=Br, R3=Cl, and R4= R6=R7=H, the compound of Formula 1 is cyantraniliprole. Examples of surfactants suitable for a composition for controlling pests are taught to include polyethoxylated alcohols, alkylphenols, and sorbitan fatty acid esters, among others (column 37, lines 24-30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to use the crystalline form F of cyantraniliprole taught by Amarnath in the composition taught by Hughes because the use of a known product in a known composition to utilize benefits that have been taught by the prior art yields predictable results. Amarnath teaches that cyantraniliprole is an effective insecticide and a method of producing the molecule that has benefits, including lower costs and higher yields. The ordinary artisan would be motivated to use the insecticide cyantraniliprole produced via the method taught by Amarnath in the composition of Hughes because Hughes teaches that compositions comprising anthranilamide complexes and surfactants are more effective, less toxic, and more environmentally safe than other commercially available compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that cyantraniliprole is a species within the anthranilamide complex genus and that its property as an effective insecticide would be useful in the composition taught by Hughes, because it is intended to control agricultural pests. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claims 5-6, 20, and 24 in view of the teachings of Amarnath and Hughes.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed on 8 June 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The declaration filed on 25 August 2026 is acknowledged.
The Applicant argues in para. 2 of the section titled “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 103” on pg. 6 of the remarks filed on 8 June 2026, that no teaching in the Amarnath or Hughes references that would lead to the claimed crystalline form of cyantraniliprole. The Examiner disagrees for the reasons presented in the rejections above. In brief, because para. [00051] of the instant spec. and claim 8 of Amarnath both disclose processes which utilize the same reaction steps, the same compounds, and the same aromatic solvent toluene, the solid form of cyantraniliprole produced by the process taught by claim 8 of Amarnath is interpreted as being the same chemical structure as the solid form of cyantraniliprole produced by the process recited in para. [00051] of the instant specification. Applicant has not pointed to any support in the original disclosure nor provided a declaration or affidavit to demonstrate that the solid forms of cyantraniliprole referenced above are not both form F. Therefore, in the absence of evidence that the form of cyantraniliprole produced via the processes above is not form F, the process taught by claim 8 of Amarnath is interpreted as producing form F of cyantraniliprole and the argument is not found to be persuasive.
In para. 4 of the section titled “Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102 and/or 103” on pg. 6, Applicant repeats their argument (previously presented in the remarks filed on 8 January 2026) that the previous Office Action alleged that polymorphism is a common phenomenon and that “most substances can be crystallized using suitable crystallization solvents and conventional crystallization conditions”. This assertion was not made in the non-final Office Action mailed on 8 September 2025, nor the final Office Action mailed on 6 March 2026, and the argument is still considered moot.
From para. 1 of pg. 7 to the end of pg. 10, Applicant argues that form F of cyantraniliprole “has better properties with regard to morphology, filterability and bulk density” than forms A and B. The declaration filed on 25 August 2026, also asserts the different morphology of form F, the superior filtering ability of form F as compared to forms A and B, and the higher bulk density of form F as compared to forms A and B. This data is acknowledged, but as stated in the previous Office Action, above, and repeated here for convenience, Applicant has not demonstrated that the solid cyantraniliprole taught by claim 8 of the Amarnath reference is not the same as the claimed form F. As stated above, because the solid cyantraniliprole taught by claim 8 of the Amarnath is interpreted as being form F, the reference anticipates the claimed form F. Therefore, Applicant is presenting data characterizing a structure known in the prior art and demonstrating unknown properties in a known structure does not rebut prima facie obviousness. See MPEP § 2145.II. “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention.” In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this section can be found above.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amarnath (WIPO International Patent Publication No. WO 2019/207595 A1, published on 31 October 2019, provided by Applicant in IDS) in view of Hughes (U.S. Patent No. 7,247,647 B2, published on 24 July 2007).
Amarnath has been described supra.
Amarnath does not teach an agrochemical formulation comprising crystalline form F of cyantraniliprole, a surfactant, and one or more biologically active compounds or agents. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Hughes.
Hughes has been described above and particularly relevant to claim 27 teaches that their composition comprises “an effective amount of at least one additional biologically active compound or agent” (col. 2, lines 35-37 and col. 43, lines 38-53). Hughes teaches that these compounds or agents may be insecticides, fungicides, nematicides, or bactericides, among others, and that their inclusion forms “a multi-component pesticide giving an even broader spectrum of agronomic and non-agronomic utility” (col. 43, lines 40-46).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to use the crystalline form F of cyantraniliprole taught by Amarnath in the composition taught by Hughes because the use of a known product in a known composition to utilize benefits that have been taught by the prior art yields predictable results. Amarnath teaches that cyantraniliprole is an effective insecticide and a method of producing the molecule that has benefits, including lower costs and higher yields. The ordinary artisan would be motivated to use the insecticide cyantraniliprole produced via the method taught by Amarnath in the composition of Hughes because Hughes teaches that compositions comprising anthranilamide complexes and surfactants are more effective, less toxic, and more environmentally safe than other commercially available compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that cyantraniliprole is a species within the anthranilamide complex genus and that its property as an effective insecticide would be useful in the composition taught by Hughes, because it is intended to control agricultural pests.
A person of ordinary skill would further be motivated to include additional one or more biologically active compounds or agents in view of the teachings of Hughes because Hughes teaches that the inclusion of these compounds or agents can broaden the spectrum of utility, which the ordinary artisan would recognize as beneficial in a composition that is intended to control pests. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claim 27 in view of the teachings of Amarnath and Hughes.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean J. Steinke, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-3396. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 09:00 - 17:00 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, David Blanchard, can be reached at (571) 272-0827. 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.
/S.J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/TIGABU KASSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
