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 1-7 are pending. Claim 1 is independent. Species Election Applicants’ election with traverse of species compound azoxystrobin ( A.1.1 ) in the reply filed October 24 , 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that examination of all species can be made without serious burden . Applicant’s argument has been considered but was found unpersuasive for the following reasons: Claim 1 requires a combination composition of mefentrifluconazole , inpyrfluxam and at least one compound from a list that spans 9 pages of compound names. That is hundreds of compounds, of which many differ in the mode of action, and which the examiner would have to search and examine if a species election would not be required. An undue burden will be imposed on the examiner if a species election would not be required. In addition, t his application is a National Stage Application submitted under 35 USC 371, and as such unity of invention (not restriction practice pursuant Rule 1.488 ) is applicable. See MPEP 1893.03(d). Arguments that the search would not impose a serious burden on the Office are not germane to the showing of Lack of Unity. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL . Examination Examination will begin with the elected species. In accordance with MPEP 803.02, the Markush claim will be examined fully with respect to the elected species and further to the extent necessary to determine patentability. Note that where a claim reads on multiple species, only one species needs to be taught or suggested by the prior art in order for the claim to be anticipated or rendered obvious. If on examination the elected species is found to be anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art, the Markush claim and claims to the elected species will be rejected, and claims to the nonelected species will be held withdrawn from further consideration. Should applicant, in response to a rejection of a Markush claim, overcome the rejection by amending the Markush claim to exclude the species anticipated or rendered obvious by the prior art, the amended Markush claim will be examined again. The examination will then be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush claim. It should be noted that the prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all non-elected species. Pursuant to MPEP 803.02, the elected species of compound (azoxystrobin) was searched and found unpatentable over the art as detailed below. Therefore, examination was stopped and art has been applied against the claims. The claims have only been searched and examined regarding azoxystrobin as component (III) . No other component (III) was searched. Subject matter outside of the examined scope of azoxystrobin is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the election requirement in the reply filed on October 24 , 2025. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected. It ends with a letter p instead of a period. 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 . Claims 1- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahmen et al . ( US 2020/013802 6 A1 or its counterpart US2018/0098540 ) in view of Lohmann et al. ( US 2015/0344445) . Applicant claims a combination comprising mefentrifluconazole , inpyrfluxam and a third component selected from A to L . I n this case applicant elected azoxystrobin (A.1.1) as the third component . Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art (MPEP §2141.01) Teachings of Dahmen Dahmen taught improved fungicidal mixtures comprising a compound of formula (I) , a compound from the group of azole s (B) and a compound from the group of inhibitors of the respiratory chain at complex III (C). Particularly, a treat ment of Puccinia triticina with a combination of inpyrfluxam (I-1), prothioconazole (B) and azoxystrobin (C) , showed that the observed activity “is greater than the calculated activity, i.e. a synergistic effect is present.” See paragraph [0350] and Table. At the example at page 92, a suitable preparation was produced with an emulsifier or solvent (auxiliary). The reference teaches that the weight ratio of component (I) to component (II) is between (paragraph [0084]). Dahmen also disclosed: [0043 ] Since the ecological and economic demands made on modern active ingredients , for example fungicides , are increasing constantly , for example with respect to activity spectrum , toxicity , selectivity , application rate , formation of residues and favourable manufacture , and there can also be problems , for example , with resistances , there is a constant need to develop novel fungicidal compositions which have advantages over the known compositions at least in some areas. [ 0044 ] It has now surprisingly found out that mixtures comprising at least one compound of the above - shown formula ( I ) and two further fungicides have a superior efficiency as those mixtures known from prior art . [ 0045 ] The mixtures according to the present invention show a superior efficiency against harmful microorganisms , in particular phytopathogenic fungi as compared with the compositions known from prior art . [ 004 7 ] In particular , the mixtures according to the present invention possess a superior synergistic effect as compared with the known mixtures of the prior art against harmful microorganisms , in particular phytopathogenic fungi. Dahmen further disclosed seed treatment in at least [0132-0133] and [0219]-[ 0239]. Seeds are treated with the ternary mixture to control fungi. For application rates, [0325 ] in the case of seed treatment : from 2 to 200 g per 100 kg of seed , preferably from 3 to 150 g per 100 kg of seed , more preferably from 2.5 to 25 g per 100 kg of seed, even more preferably from 2.5 to 12.5 g per 100 kg of seed. Teachings of Lohmann Lohmann taught synergistic fungicidal combinations comprising as component I a compound of formula I and as component II at least one active ingredient from the groups A) to O) , for the control of pathogens, such as Puccinia triticina or recondite (at least paragraphs [0267]-[0274]) . Compound I-3 is mefentrifluconazole . Component II may be selected from [0008] inhibitors of complex II (e.g. carboxamides) such as fluxapyroxad or 3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(1,1,3-trimethylindan-4-yl)pyrazole-4-carboxamide ( inpyrfluxam ) . When mefentrifluconazole was combined with azoxystrobin, or fluxapyroxad or prothioconazole , synergistic effects were obtained. See the Tables. For example, ratios between component I and fluxapyroxad as component II are “ a weight ratio of 20:1 to 1:20, more specifically 5:1 to 1:5, in particular 3:1 to 1:3, more specifically 2:1 to 1:2. Surprisingly, this composition shows synergistical effects and the components are in particular used in synergistically effective amounts. ” (per paragraph [0217]). Lohmann additionally taught ternary compositions wherein component I is of formula I , component II is selected from the group consisting of azoxystrobin , dimoxystrobin , fluoxastrobin , kresoxim -methyl, orysastrobin, picoxystrobin, pyraclostrobin and trifloxystrobin and component III is selected from the group of the carboxamides, in particular selected from benodanil, benzovindiflupyr , bixafen, boscalid , carboxin, fenfuram, fluopyram , flutolanil, fluxapyroxad, furametpyr, isopyrazam , mepronil, oxycarboxin, penflufen , penthiopyrad, sedaxane , tecloftalam, thifluzamide, N-(4′-trifluoromethylthiobiphenyl-2-yl)-3-difluoromethyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-(2-(1,3,3-trimethyl-butyl)-phenyl)-1,3-d imethyl-5-fluoro-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, 3-(difluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(1,1,3-trimethylindan-4-yl)pyrazole-4-carboxamide ( inpyrfluxam ) , 3-(trifluoromethyl)-1-methyl-N-(1,1,3-trimet hylindan -4-yl)pyrazole-4-carboxamide, 1,3-dimethyl-N-(1,1,3-trimethyl indan -4-yl)pyrazole-4-carboxamide, 3-(trifluoromethyl)-1,5-dimethyl-N-(1,1,3-trimethyl indan -4-yl)pyrazole-4-carboxamide, 3-(difluoromethyl)-1,5-dimethyl-N-(1,1,3-trimethyl indan -4-yl)pyrazole-4-carboxamide and 1,3,5-trimethyl-N-(1,1,3-trimethy lindan -4-yl)pyrazole-4-carboxamide. See paragraph [0259]. Ascertainment of the Difference Between the Prior Art and the Claims (MPEP §2141.012) Dahmen used inpyrfluxam , prothioconazole and azoxystrobin, and did not teach mefentrifluconazole as the azole in the ternary mixture. Lohmann taught ternary fungicidal mixtures of Compound I-3 ( mefentrifluconazole ) , component II azoxystrobin , and component III inpyrfluxam , but did not exemplify the m. Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413) A ll of the claimed fungicidal components were already known in this field for controlling phytopathogenic fungi . I t would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan to combine the actions of multiple fungicides to at least obtain the advantages of their combination that were taught in the field . Particularly, t he ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to further add mefentrifluconazole to the ternary fungicidal mixture of Dahmen discussed above, because of its synergism when used with azoxystrobin or prothioconazole (per Lohmann). Particularly , the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to further add inpyrfluxam to the particular synergistic mixtures of Compound I-3 ( mefentrifluconazole ) + azoxystrobin of Lohmann, for its synergism when used with azoxystrobin, in addition to that Lohmann suggested the ternary mixture claimed . Both references teach the claimed weight ratio of components a nd activity that is higher than the sum of the individual activities , thus, the artisan would have reasonably expected similar results with the obvious claimed combinations. Conclusion Claims 1-7 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VALERIE RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5865 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:30am-4:30pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Clinton Brooks can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7682 . 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. /VALERIE RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621