DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2025 and 08/04/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
The claims filed 08/04/2023 are under consideration.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Rejections not reiterated herein have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: “and/or” in the last line should be changed to “and” to conform with Markush language. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 103999865 B (Hou) as evidenced by Adnan, Plant Disease, 2018, cyflufenamid, AgData, 2026, and zoxamide, AgData, 2026 and CN 103999865 B, Scifinder entry, 2026.
Hou teaches compositions comprising a combination of cyflufenamid and zoxamide which are present in ratio ranging from 1:20-1:2 (Hou, e.g., claim 1). The composition is applied to agricultural plants, e.g., wheat (cereals), watermelon and cucumber are named (Hou, e.g., claim 4). The composition may be in the form of granules, aqueous dispersion or aqueous emulsion (Hou, e.g., claim 3). Aqueous emulsion is a liquid solvent and/or diluent.
Hou’s method is necessarily effective to control phytopathogenic fungi as claimed.
In the original document, e.g., table at ¶ 0034, the final row lists the combination:
PNG
media_image1.png
96
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first compound is cyflufenamid (环氟菌胺), and the second compound is zoxamide
(苯酰菌胺) as evidenced by the cyflufenamid and zoxamide documents respectively.
PNG
media_image2.png
414
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
412
566
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the CN 103999865 B Scifinder entry indexes the reference as teaching the claimed combination. See, e.g., pg. 2, CAS # 1447822-34-5:
PNG
media_image4.png
572
362
media_image4.png
Greyscale
To the extent that claims 3-4 and 10-11 refer to an effect of practicing the method of claim 1: it is noted that at least zoxamide was known to control Botrytis cinerea, and Venturia inaequalis. See Adnan, e.g., Abstract and pg. 1299. Thus, control of the named species is an inherent feature of Hou’s method.
Hou anticipates the subject matter of instant claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-18.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hou, CN 103999865 B (Hou) evidenced by cyflufenamid, AgData, 2026, and zoxamide, AgData, 2026, and CN 103999865 B, Scifinder entry, 2026 in view of Bayer, WO 2015189110 (cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 06/03/2025).
The teachings of Hou enumerated above are reiterated here.
Hou teaches a method according to claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the composition further comprises at least one active ingredient selected from: fungicides other than components (A) and (B), insecticides, plant growth regulators, antibiotics, herbicides, fertilizers and/or mixtures thereof.
However, Bayer teaches fungicides which are synergistic with cyflufenamid such as biaxafen, spiroxamine and optionally prothioconazole (Bayer, e.g., Title, Abstract, claims, examples). The synergistic compositions are effective for controlling Venturia inaequalis (Bayer, e.g., pg. 12:22) and Botrytis cinerea (Bayer, e.g., pg. 13:5, and 14:3). Further, Bayer teaches fungicidal compositions may further comprise preservatives, e.g., dichlorophene or benzyl alcohol hemiformal (Bayer, e.g., pg. 21:29-31). Additionally, Bayer teaches fungicidal compositions may further comprise fertilizers (Bayer, e.g., pg. 7:16-25).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify compositions comprising a synergistic mixture of cyflufenamid and zoxamide used in Hou’s method by including additional fungicides or fertilizers as suggested by Bayer with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Hou employs synergistic combinations of cyflufenamid with zoxamide, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to include other fungicides known to be synergistic with cyflufenamid to practice the method with a reasonable expectation of success. Since Bayer suggests similar synergistic combinations of cyflufenamid benefit from the addition of fertilizers, the skilled artisan would have had motivation to practice Hou’s method with a composition further comprising a fertilizer in the same way with a reasonable expectation of success. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both documents teach methods for protecting crops using synergistic cyflufenamid combinations.
To the extent that Hou does not expressly teach practicing the method for controlling Botrytis cinerea, and Venturia inaequalis:
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to practice Hou’s method to control Botrytis cinerea and Venturia inaequalis fungi with a reasonable expectation of success. Hou’s composition contains a synergistic combination of cyflufenamid fungicides. Bayer provides a teaching which would have prompted the skilled artisan to use synergistic fungicide combinations containing cyflufenamid to control Botrytis cinerea and Venturia inaequalis fungi on similar crops. Thus, Bayer provided a teaching which would have prompted the skilled artisan to practice Hou’s method to control Botrytis cinerea and Venturia inaequalis fungi with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 1-18 would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A CRAIGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1347. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am - 6pm, PDT.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A WAX can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILLIAM CRAIGO/Examiner, Art Unit 1615