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 .
Response to Amendments
Status of Claims
The amendment, filed on 8 January 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 5-6, 18, 20, 22, 24, and 26 have been amended.
Claims 1-4, 7-19, 21-23, and 25-26 were withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention in the non-final Office Action mailed on 8 September 2025.
Claims 5-6, 20, and 24 are pending and under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the previously elected agrochemically acceptable excipient species of a surfactant.
Objections Withdrawn
Objections to Drawings
Applicant’s newly submitted Figure 3, submitted on 8 January 2026, has overcome the objection to the drawing set forth in the Office Action mailed on 8 September 2025. Accordingly, the relevant objection is withdrawn.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112
The rejection of claims 20 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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).
PNG
media_image1.png
395
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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).
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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed on 8 January 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In para. 1 of pg. 12, Applicant argues that form F of Cyantraniliprole is distinct from the structure taught by Amarnath because “claim 5 specifically and additionally recites Cyantraniliprole form F, which according to at least paragraphs [0071] – [0071] of the present application includes numerous steps in addition to the allegedly shared reaction steps, compounds, and aromatic solvent taught by Amarnath”. Instant claim 5 recites diffraction peaks that are observed in the XRPD pattern which are properties of the claimed product, not further limitations. Further, para. [0071] of the instant specification discloses a method of preparing form D of Cyantraniliprole from form F, which does not provide further information regarding form F of Cyantraniliprole. For these reasons, the argument is found unpersuasive.
Also in this para., Applicant argues that claim 5 and para. [0070-0071] recite additional elements that distinguish the production of form F from the procedure detailed in para. [0051] of the instant specification. As stated above, neither claim 5 nor para. [0071] provide further information that distinguishes the claimed structure from the teachings of Amarnath, and para. [0070] appears to differ from para. [0071] only in the temperature at which the product is dried. In the absence of information clarifying which form is produced using the procedure disclosed in instant para. [0051], it is interpreted as producing form F. Because the procedure is also taught by Amarnath, form F of Cyantraniliprole is still considered to be anticipated by the teachings of Amarnath and Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
In the para. that spans the bottom of pg. 12 and the majority of pg. 13, Applicant argues that the Amarnath reference does not teach the same structure as Cyantraniliprole form F. Applicant claims that the Amarnath reference does not “teach or even suggest the formation of various crystallized forms of chlorantraniliprole”, that Amarnath distinguishes between two separate “chemical” forms of “Chlorantraniliprol”, and that a teaching of an identical chemical structure does not necessarily equate to a teaching of a given crystal structure because a given chemical structure can crystallize into numerous crystal structures based on crystal growth conditions. Regarding Applicant’s reference to forms of “Chlorantraniliprol” and Chlorantraniliprole, which are regarded as equivalent for the sake of this argument, it is noted that Amarnath focuses on two anthranilamide derivatives – Chlorantraniliprole, which they label “Formula Ia”, and Cyantraniliprole, which they label “Formula Ib”. The teaching of Chlorantraniliprole, its synthesis, and its purification does not obviate the teachings of Cyantraniliprole. Regarding the crystal structure of Cyantraniliprole, particularly form F, the argument from the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) above is restated in brief: the synthetic method taught by the Amarnath reference in claim 8 is the same as the method disclosed in instant specification para. [0051]. Because the instant specification does not clarify which form of Cyantraniliprole is formed by this method, in the absence of additional clarifying information it is interpreted as producing form F. Amarnath does teach Cyantraniliprole in the solid state (e.g. Examples 4-5), therefore Amarnath does teach the crystalline form F of Cyantraniliprole and Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
In the para. that spans the bottom of pg. 13 and top of pg. 14, Applicant argues that instant claim 5 is directed to a novel form of Cyantraniliprole, form F, which is characterized by a specific diffractogram. As stated in the maintained rejection above, the XRPD peaks in instant claims 5 and 6 are properties resulting from the structure of Cyantraniliprole and cannot be separated from the chemical structure itself. Therefore, because Amarnath has taught form F of Cyantraniliprole, the diffraction pattern peaks recited in instant claims 5-6 would necessarily be present.
In para. 2 of pg. 14, Applicant states that the Office asserted 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, and the argument is therefore considered moot.
From the final para. of pg. 14 to para. 2 of pg. 16, Applicant argues that form F of Cyantraniliprole produces new and unexpected results due to its “morphology, filterability and bulk density” and provides detail for each characteristic. Guidelines on determining whether results are expected or unexpected are provided in MPEP § 716.02. To demonstrate that results are unexpected and significant, the Applicant has the responsibility of presenting evidence that establishes “that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance.” Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). However, because the invention of instant claims 5-6 is anticipated by the teachings of Amarnath, the discovery of properties of the invention cannot be unexpected. Indeed, the discovery of new properties does not render something old patentable. See MPEP § 2112.I-III. "[J]ust as the discovery of properties of a known material does not make it novel, the identification and characterization of a prior art material also does not make it novel." In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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
PNG
media_image2.png
247
259
media_image2.png
Greyscale
of a surfactant, a solid diluent, and a liquid diluent, where Formula 1 is:
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 January 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
In the penultimate para. of pg. 18, Applicant argues that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not proper because the Hughes reference “does not make up for the deficiencies of Amarnath”. As argued above, claims 5-6 are still anticipated by the Amarnath reference and this argument is therefore not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619