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 60, 69, and 71-87 are pending in this application.
Claims 60, 69, and 71-87 will presently be examined to the extent that they read on the elected invention group I, i.e., composition comprising a compound of formula I, wherein Y and Z are both O (see the Office action of 5/8/2025).
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.
Withdrawn grounds of rejection
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Loughran et al. (US 3,135,694; hereinafter, Loughran) is withdrawn in view the amendment to the claims filed on 1/15/2026, which requires a solid composition. However, Applicant is advised that Loughran is applied in a new ground of rejection under 35 USC 103 as set forth hereinbelow.
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Loughran is withdrawn in view the amendment to the claims filed on 1/15/2026, which requires a solid composition. However, Applicant is advised that Loughran is applied in a new ground of rejection under 35 USC 103 as set forth hereinbelow.
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Osborn et al. (US 2,841,486; hereinafter, Osborn) is withdrawn in view the amendment to the claims filed on 1/15/2026, which requires a solid composition.
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 USC 103 over Osborn in view of Willms et al. (US 2012/0077677)1 and Baur et al. (US 2018/0055045) is withdrawn in view of amendment to the claims filed on 1/15/2026, which requires a solid composition. However, Applicant is advised that Osborn is applied in a new ground of rejection under 35 USC 103 as set forth hereinbelow.
Prior art-based grounds of rejection
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.
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.
102 rejection: CN 110668879
Claims 60, 69, 71-72, 75-76, 80-82, 84-85, and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110668879.2
CN 110668879 discloses a rice cadmium reducing and yield increasing composition comprising:
(A) one or a combination of cyclodextrins;
(B) one or a combination of any two of zinc sulfate, manganese sulfate, ferrous sulfate, and copper sulfate; and
(C) one or a combination of any two of dialkyl dithiophosphates.
See claim 1. Suitable dialkyl dithiophosphates include dibutyl sodium dithiophosphate, dipropyl potassium dithiophosphate, diisopropyl sodium dithiophosphate, diisobutyl sodium dithiophosphate, and dipentyl sodium dithiophosphate (claims 3-4). The composition is produced by weighing (A), (B), and (C), crushing, stirring, and packaging as a finished product (claim 6). The composition of Example 1 contains 18 kg of (A), 38 kg of (B), and 44 kg of sodium diisopropyl dithiophosphate; composition of Example 2 contains 28 kg of (A), 48 kg of (B), and 24 kg of sodium diisobutyl dithiophosphate; and composition Example 3 contains 2 kg of (A), 70 kg of (B), and 28 kg of sodium dipentyl dithiophosphate (paragraphs 33-54).
Independent claim 60 has been amended to recite a solid composition. The compositions disclosed by CN 110668879 contain no liquids and all the ingredients are solids. For example, (A) the carrier cyclodextrins have melting points well above room temperature (see Kubin, US 2021/0145791, paragraph 57)3; (B) metal sulfates are solids; and (C) dialkyl dithiophosphates are solids. In the absence of any liquid component, the compositions disclosed by CN 110668879 are solid because they are composed of solid components. The crushing step of claim 6 is further evidence of a solid composition.
New claim 87 requires the composition to further comprise a fertilizer or a pesticide. CN 110668879 discloses their invention as a “micro-fertilizer” (paragraph 2) and includes one or two sulfates selected from zinc sulfate, manganese sulfate, ferrous sulfate, and copper sulfate. These sulfates necessarily function as fertilizers or micronutrients, thereby satisfying the requirement of claim 87. See for example Leatherman et al. (US 2007/0086968, paragraph 22)4.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 1/5/2026 have been given due consideration but they were deemed unpersuasive. Applicant asserts that the “Examiner has not identified any portion of the cited translation that clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed solid composition.” The Examiner cannot agree. Since the composition of CN 110668879 contains only solid ingredients and no liquids, the resulting composition is a solid.
102 rejection: CN 108719315
Claims 60, 69, 71, 75, 81, 83, 85, and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 108719315.5
While the previous Office action of 10/16/2025 relied only on a partial human translation of abstract of CN 108719315, this Office action relies on the full disclosure to address the amended claims. Accordingly, the following translations are now applied:
human translation of the abstract (previously provided with the Office action of 10/16/2025 and cited on PTO-892 of 10/16/2025);
human translation of original document description paragraph 10 and all the claims (previously provided with the Office action of 10/16/2025 but was not cited on PTO-892; cited now on the attached PTO-892);
machine translation of all description pages and human translation of description paragraphs 134 and 135 (cited on the attached PTO-892).
CN 108719315 discloses a germicide composition for controlling phytopathogens, wherein the active ingredient comprises ammonium O,O-diethyl sulfanidylphosphonothioate6 and zinc thiazole (abstract; claims 1-2). Zinc thiazole can control bacterial diseases and ammonium O,O-diethyl sulfanidylphosphonothioate can control fungal diseases and stimulate growth and yield of wheat, rice, and vegetables (machine translation paragraph 10). See also claim 16 for plant health improvement and claim 18 for yield increase. The composition is synergistic (USPTO human translation of paragraph 10; machine translation paragraphs 13, 15-16). The composition of CN 108719315 can be in the form of, inter alia, powder, microcapsule, granule, or tablet (claim 3; machine translation paragraphs 40, 104, 130, 141). A composition comprising the active ingredient is applied to the plant, plant parts, plant reproduction materials, soil, and materials to control phytopathogens (abstract; claim 5-12). It is noted that ammonium O,O-diethyl sulfanidylphosphonothioate is a synonym for ammonium diethyl dithiophosphate, which has the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
120
196
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
CN 108719315 also discloses adding fertilizers and other pesticides to the composition (machine translation paragraphs 147, 157).
Example 15 of CN 108719315 discloses water dispersible granules comprising:
5% O,O-diethyl phosphordithiooic acid7
50% zinc thiazole
5% modified calcium lignosulfonate
5% sodium dodecyl sulfate
5% urea
q.s. kaolin clay.
The active ingredients and agricultural carriers/excipients are blended, pulverized, extruded, and dried to provide the granules. See human translation of description paragraph 134. Example 16 discloses a wettable powder that contains the same active ingredients and similar carriers/excipients, which are mixed, ground, and pulverized to provide a wettable powder. See human translation of description paragraph 135.
The claims are thereby anticipated. Applicant argues in the response filed on 1/5/2026 that the Examiner has not identified a disclosure of a solid composition, but the above discussion shows otherwise. Clearly, Examples 15 and 16 disclose a solid composition comprising a compound of Applicant’s formula I. Applicant further argues that new claim 87, which can further comprises a “pesticide” is novel over the cited document, but zinc thiazole of Examples 15 and 16 is a pesticide because it controls bacterial diseases. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
103 rejection: Loughran in view of Hazra et al.
Claims 60, 69, 79, 81, 83-85, and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loughran in view of Hazra et al. (hereinafter, Hazra).
Loughran discloses the following cyclic dithiophosphate compounds as having antioxidant and “good insecticidal properties” and use in concentrated or solvent-diluted form (see from column 1, line 15 to column 2, line 5):
PNG
media_image2.png
134
190
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, wherein
R0, R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 can be H, alkyl, aryl, alkaryl, cycloalkyl; and Z is H, any salt forming radical such as ammonium, alkali or alkaline earth metal. Loughran’s Example 1 discloses the following cyclic dithiophosphoric acid, which is also prepared as its ammonium salt, potassium salt, and zinc salts (columns 1-2):
PNG
media_image3.png
126
230
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The ammonium salt melted at 209-210 °C (column 2, lines 45-46). Loughran’s Example 2 discloses another specific cyclic dithiophosphoric acid and its ammonium, potassium, and zinc salts (columns 3-4):
PNG
media_image4.png
156
184
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
The ammonium salt melted at 206-207 °C (column 3, lines 51-52).
Hazra discloses various formulations that are suitable for pesticides, including dusts, granules, wettable powders, and water dispersible granules (sections 2.3.1, 2.3.1.1, 2.3.1.2, 2.3.1.7, 4). Dustable powders are disclosed as ready-to-use pesticides with inert mineral carriers, which permit delivery of insecticides into cracks and crevices (section 2.3.1.1). Wettable powders are disclosed as “the oldest and very common type of formulations” (section 2.3.1.2). Water dispersible granules are disclosed as being easier to handle and capable of high active ingredient concentration, 50-90% (section 2.3.1.5).
Loughran does not explicitly exemplify his insecticidal compounds in a solid composition form with an agricultural carrier. However, solid compositions with carriers are common and well known in the pesticidal field, and it would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan to formulate Loughran’s insecticides as a solid composition, in particular for the advantages of delivery into cracks and crevices, ease of handling, and/or high active ingredient concentration.
Instant claims 81 and 85 recite the following compounds, among others:
PNG
media_image5.png
84
83
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
96
96
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 81 Claim 85
Although Loughran does not explicitly exemplify such compounds, the generic formula disclosed in Loughran’s columns 1-2 clearly encompasses the same compounds. For example, the compound of instant claim 85 noted above is disclosed by Loughran’s cyclic dithiophosphate formula, wherein R0, R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 are H, and Z is potassium. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to arrive at the claimed cyclic dithiophosphates and compositions comprising the same with an expectation of obtaining insecticidal properties.
New claim 87 requires additional pesticide or fertilizer. It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan to incorporate another pesticide to broaden the spectrum of control and/or incorporate a fertilizer to feed valuable crop plants while controlling insect pests.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited references.
Applicant argues in the response filed on 1/5/2026 that the Examiner has not identified disclosure of a solid composition in Loughran. In this ground of rejection under 35 USC 103, the Examiner has set forth a rationale for the obviousness of formulating Loughran’s insecticides as powders or water dispersible granules, in particular when delivery into cracks and crevices, ease of handling, and/or high active ingredient concentration is needed. For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive.
103 rejection: Osborn in view of secondary references
Claims 60, 69, 71-78, and 80-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osborn (US 2,841,486) in view of Elliott8, Willms et al. (US 2012/0077677)9, and Baur et al. (US 2018/0055045).
Osborn teaches plant defoliants that have the following formula (1):
PNG
media_image7.png
84
96
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein X can be O or S, with at least 2 X’s being S, and
R can be H, alkyl, aryl, cycloalkyl, with not more than one R being H.
See columns 1-2 and claims 3, 4, 5, and 7. Salts, including alkali metal salts, can be used to solubilize in water (column 3, lines 19-21). Zinc di-n-hexyl dithiophosphate, potassium diisopropyl dithiophosphate, and zinc ditetradecyl dithiophosphate are disclosed (column 4). Dilauryl dithiophosphoric acid (i.e., di-C12 alkyl), dicyclohexyl dithiophosphoric acid, zinc diphenyl dithiophosphate, ditolyl dithiophosphroic acid (i.e., di-alkyl substituted phenyl), and zinc dihexadecyl dithiophosphate are also disclosed (column 2, lines 44-61). These compounds are used to expedite harvest of cotton, tomatoes, beans, and other crops, prevent or reduce boll rot, and aid in insect control (column 1, lines 28-48). Formulation as a dust composition (column 3, lines 6-8) and carriers for preparing dusts are disclosed, including talc, kieselguhr, and other inert carriers (column 3, lines 32-35).
Elliott discloses that cotton defoliants are known to be used in the dust form, including tributyl phosphorotrithioite (second page).
The PGPUB by Willms et al. (US 2012/0077677) is cited to establish that sodium, potassium, ammonium, and triethyl ammonium are counter ions known to be suitable in the field of plant growth regulation (paragraphs 16, 47-48; claims 1-2).
Similarly, the PGPUB by Baur et al. (US 2018/0055045) is cited to establish that sodium, potassium, and triethyl ammonium counter cations are known to be suitable in the field of agriculture. See paragraphs 10-13, claims 1-3.
Osborn teaches specific compounds of formula I as set forth in the rejected claims, in addition to broader teaching of formula (1), wherein R can be aryl or cycloalkyl.
With respect to the new amendatory solid composition feature, Osborn teaches formulation as dusts, with talc or kieselguhr as carrier (same solid carriers are disclosed in the instant specification at page 11, line 15). Taken with the known use of cotton defoliants in the dust form (Elliott), the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious to formulate Osborn’s cotton defoliants as dusts.
With respect to dependent claims that recite X as including potassium, sodium, ammonium, or triethyl ammonium as the counter ion to the claimed dithiophosphates, the ordinary skilled artisan has been taught that potassium, sodium, ammonium, and triethyl ammonium ions are suitable and interchangeable counter ions in this field –
see Osborn, Willms et al., and Baur et al.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited references.
Applicant argues in the response filed with the amendment of 1/5/2026 that “Osborn does not render the amended claims prima facie obvious” because the amendment requires a solid composition. The Examiner cannot agree for the reasons set forth above. As fully discussed above, Osborn clearly teaches formulation as dusts, which are solid compositions; moreover, selection of dusts as a formulation type for Osborn’s cotton defoliants would have been obvious from the known use of dusts for cotton defoliation.
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 60, 69, 71-72, 75-76, and 80-87 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,016,336 (‘336 patent) in view of Chan et al. (US 2014/0148341; hereinafter, Chan). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Claims 1-18 of the ‘336 patent are directed to methods wherein compounds of formula I are provided to a plant or seed for increased growth or yield, wherein said compounds degrade to provide hydrogen sulfide. The formula I compounds of the instant application claims encompass the compounds of the ‘336 patent when R1 and R2 are C3-10 alkyl. See for example patented claims 9, 14, 15, 1617, 18, and suitable cations such as potassium, sodium, ammonium, or triethyl ammonium in patented claims 10-13.
Chan (US 2014/0148341) discloses modulating transpiration of a plant such as crop plant, which includes maximizing yield (claims 46, 48), by contacting the plant with a hydrogen sulfide “prodrug or salt thereof” (claim 47). Hydrogen sulfide prodrugs are defined as precursors of hydrogen sulfide, such as hydrogen sulfide releasing compounds (paragraph 45). Solid form is disclosed (paragraphs 42, 45, 62, 65) with solid excipients (paragraph 48).
Amended claims require a solid composition. Although claims of the ‘336 patent do not specify that the compounds of formula I are in a solid composition with a suitable agricultural carrier, such solid form would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan. Delivery of an active ingredient that release hydrogen sulfide, wherein the active ingredient is in the form of a solid composition, is taught by Chan.
New claim 87 further requires a fertilizer or pesticide in a solid composition. Adding a fertilizer for plant growth and yield and/or adding a pesticide for improved yield due to reduced damage would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan.
Therefore, the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized that the instant claimed invention is an obvious variation of the invention set forth in claims 1-18 of the ‘336 patent.
Applicant argues in the response filed on 1/5/2026 that “the Office determined that the instant composition claims are patentably distinct from the method claims 1-18 of the ‘336 patent” during the prosecution of the application that led to the ‘336 patent. This argument is not persuasive. 35 USC 121 is copied below to address Applicant’s argument (emphasis added):
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
The safe harbor protection of 35 USC 121 requires that the patent application under examination was filed as a result of requirement for restriction; even voluntary filing of several applications does not obtain the benefit of 35 USC 121. MPEP 804.01. This application was separately filed and thus was not filed as a result of the requirement for restriction in the application that led to the ‘336 patent. MPEP 804.01 clearly states that protection of 35 USC 121 “does not extend to all types of continuing applications.” Moreover, even if this application were filed as a result of requirement for restriction in the application that led to the ‘336 patent, the claims under examination here are not consonant with the claims that were restricted in said application since the claims here are of significantly different scope. In summary, the double patenting ground of rejection is not improper in this situation for these reasons.
For the foregoing reasons, all claims are rejected. No claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JOHN PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0620. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's SPE, Fereydoun Sajjadi, can be reached on (571)272-3311. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JOHN PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
1 See the IDS of 10/11/2023.
2 CN 110668879 in the Chinese language. A machine translation is of record. All paragraph references are to the paragraph numbers indicated in the machine translation.
3 This is a proper reference to another prior art document in a rejection under 35 USC 102 to show that a characteristic not explicitly disclosed in CN 110668879 is inherent. MPEP 2131.01.
4 See footnote 3.
5 A typo is noted in the Office action of 10/16/2025 at page 5, where the CN number is written as 108719316 instead of the last digit being 5. However, the PTO-892 (Non-Patent Document V) and partial translation provided with said Office action all correctly identified the document as CN 108719315.
6 Translated by USPTO human translator as its IUPAC name, ammonium O,O-diethyl sulfanidylphosphonothioate. Original document and machine translation translated this substance as “Kejunzhuang” or O,O-diethyl phosphordithiooic acid ammonium (see paragraph 6 of the original CN document). Because ammonium O,O-diethyl sulfanidylphosphonothioate is a synonym for ammonium diethyl dithiophosphate, the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized the machine translation (“Kejunzhuang” or O,O-diethyl phosphordithiooic acid ammonium) to correspond to ammonium diethyl dithiophosphate.
7 See footnote 6. See also translator’s note. In short, O,O-diethyl phosphordithiooic acid is synonymous with ammonium diethyl dithiophosphate and ammonium O,O-diethyl sulfanidylphosphonothioate.
8 See the attached PTO-892, Non-Patent Document X.
9 See the IDS of 10/11/2023.
Prosecution Insights