DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Amendment filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 12-17 are amended. Claims 18-20 are new.
Claims 1, 4-9, and 12-20 pending, and being examined on merits herein.
Priority
This instant application 18256654 is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/085553, filed on 12/13/2021, which claims foreign priority of European Patent Office (EPO) 202113679.2, filed on 12/14/2020.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
All previous claim Objection(s) / Rejection(s) as set forth in the previous Office action (mailed 10/21/2025) that are not repeated and/or maintained in the instant Office action are withdrawn, in light of applicant’s amendment and remark filed on 01/21/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 f) recites “Me end-capped” and “EO units”, wherein the acronyms require full definitions.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1, 4-9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 c) recites “c1) and optionally at least one … c2) and/or at least one third …c3)” in c). The claim is considered indefinite because it is unclear whether “optionally” defines c2) and/or c3), or only defines c2); it is also unclear whether “and/or” means “c2) and/or c3)” as the alternative options, or means among all three “c1), c2), and/or c3)”. Also it is confusing of the designation “first”, “second” and “third” when they are alternative options: if the third c3) is comprised, but not the second c2), then this c3) cannot be designated as “third”; similarly, if c1) is the only one comprised, it does not mean “first” or “last” because it is the only one. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as “c1)” is required; optionally “c2), and/or c3)”, in other words, the crystal inhibiting carrier is c1) with one or two additional carriers.
Claim 1 e) recites “dispersant different from d) and f)”. Because f) is penetration enhancer, not dispersant, it is unclear whether f) is considered another dispersant, in addition to be penetration enhancer, or it is meant to be another dispersant in addition to d). The claim scope is indefinite. For the purpose of compact prosecution, e) is interpreted as at least one emulsifier and/or at least one further dispersant different from d).
Claim 8 recites “the sum of a) and b) and the optionally at least one pesticide is …”. It is unclear whether the sum contains a), b) and the optionally at least one pesticide, or it only contains a) and b) while the optionally at least one pesticide can be independently present at 15-80% by weight. Because in claim 1 “the optionally at least one pesticide” is designated as h), when a) and b) herein uses letters a) and b), however, h) uses definition instead of letter, it causes confusion of whether the sum does not include h).
Claims 4-7, 9 and 12-20 are directly or indirectly depending on claim 1, and they do not fully resolve the indefiniteness issues in claim 1 as addressed above, and therefore they are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1, 4-9, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (CN109380232, 02/26/2019, IDS of 06/09/2023, machine translation replied upon below; attached, in record of 10/21/2025), in view of Luo and Bristol (CN108522517, hereafter “LuoBristol”, 09/14/2018, IDS of 06/09/202, machine translation replied upon below; attached, in record of 10/21/2025).
Luo directs to a composition or product comprising active components isopyrazam and fluopyram and method of applying the composition in effective amount, e.g., in a weight ratio of 50:1 to 1: 50, to to-be-controlled sites in soil or cultivation mediums for controlling harmful fungi and bacteria on cereals, vegetables, fruits, ornamental plants and vines, and treatment of seeds (e.g. Abstract) (corresponding to instant claims 16-20).
Luo teaches that the fungicide composition can be in the dosage forms of aerosol, capsule suspension, emulsifiable concentrate, oil-in-water emulsion, suspension concentrate, soluble concentrate, suspension, emulsion in water, suspoemulsion, and other forms (e.g., [0029]). Luo teaches the suspension can be an aqueous suspension such as in Example 4 that the suspension concentrate can comprise components corresponding to instant claims a) pyraclostrobin 18%, b) fluopyram 10%, c2) xanthan gum 0.3%, d) sodium methylnaphthalenesulfonate formaldehyde condensate 5%, g) glycerol 5% or defoaming agent 0.6%, i) water to 100% ([0205-0213], and example 9 [0257-0278] a water suspension concentrate containing [0299-0304], corresponding to aqueous suspension in instant claim 1. Further, regarding the phrase “aqueous suspension concentrate” in instant claim 1, it is interpreted as property or “intended use” of the composition, because it does not structurally contribute to the composition. MPEP 2144.01 points out "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Luo discloses in Example 8 a suspension with water comprising components corresponding to instant claims 1 and 5-7 as the following: a) fluopyram 32.7 % (overlapping with 2-80% in instant claim 1a) and h) pyraclostrobin 12.3 %, c1) bentonite 1 % (overlapping with 0.1-10% in instant claim 1c1), c2) PVP K30 1 % or xanthan gum 1% (taught as auxiliary agent to disperse, stabilize, attach and/or bind active ingredients, similar function as silicate, starch, polyvinyl alcohol, e.g., [0157]), d) modified calcium lignosulfonate 5 % (overlapping with 0.2-5% in instant claim 1d), e) fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether sulfosuccinate monosodium disodium salt 5 % (overlapping with 0.5-10% in instant claim 1e), f) soybean oil 34%, g) glycerol 5 % (taught as antifreeze, [0158]), i) water 3 % ([0244-0255], Example 8). The composition may further comprise active ingredient including picoxystrobin, b) difenoconazole (e.g., [0166]), and other auxiliary agents including c3) cellulose methyl ether [0157]). Luo also exemplifies using f) ethoxylated castor oil 10% in aqueous suspension in example 14 [0306-0312] (overlapping with concentration range from 3-25% in instant claim 1f).
Regarding instant claims 8 and 12-15, Luo exemplifies the component amounts in multiple examples resulting ranges of a) 2% ([0179], Example 1) to 70% ([0320], Example 16) (overlapping with 10-30% in instant claims 14-15a), while total amount a) 2% ([0283], Example 11) to 100% (e.g., [0315], Example 15), overlapping with the sum as 15-80% as recited in instant claim 8; c1) 1%, c2) 1% shown above in Example 8, overlapping with c2) as 0.1-8% as recited in instant claims 12-13 c2), overlapping with 0.4-1.5% as recited in instant claim 14 c1) and c2), and overlapping with c1) as 0.4-1.5%, c2) as 0.4-1.5% and c3) as 0.1-1% as recited in instant claim 15 c1), c2) and c3); g) 5% shown above in Example 8 falling within the ranges of g) 0-12%, 0.1-10%, and 1-6% as recited in instant claims 12 g), 13 g), and 14 g) -15 g) respectively; g) 12.3% in Example 8, falling within 0-20% and 0-15% in instant claims 12 h) and 13-15 h), i) to 100% corresponding to instant claims 12-15 i). Luo teaches d) modified calcium lignin sulfonate 1% in Example 3 [0197-0202] (falling within 0.8-2% in instant claims 14-15 d), e) emulsifiers emulsogen 1%, Plurafac LF1312 3% in Example 9 [0257-0275] (overlapping with 2-4% in instant claims 14-15 e); Luo also teaches f) ethoxylated castor oil 10% in aqueous suspension in example 14 [0306-0312], overlapping with 7-11% in instant claims 14-15 f).
MPEP 2112.01.II states "[p]roducts 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 chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, as indicated in MPEP 2112.01.II. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."). For this instance, prior art teaches a) fluopyram, b) difenoconazole, c1) bentonite as clay, c2 as polymeric surfactants, and the instantly claimed properties of fluopyram as SDHI, difenoconazole as DMI, and bentonite and polymeric surfactants as crystal growth inhibiting carriers would necessarily present in the components that have been taught by prior art. Especially Luo teaches that to disperse and stabilize active ingredient compounds, addition of auxiliary agents such as polymeric materials xanthan gum, silicate, cellulose methyl ether, polyvinyl alcohol, bentonite, sodium lignin sulfonate, etc., [0157] can be solutions for make the active ingredients disperse well and stabilize the compositions (e.g., aqueous suspension concentrate).
Luo teaches that when the combination ratio of pyraclostrobin and fluopyram is within the range of 50:1 -1:50, the co-toxicity coefficient against Botrytis cinerea is greater than 120, showing a synergistic effect [0341].
Luo does not explicitly teach components a) SDHI fungicide and b) DMI fungicide in one embodiment, e.g., Example 8, as shown above, and it does not teach components a) and b) have a combined melting point of 50-90 C as recited in instant claim 4, and compounds a) and b) are present in a ratio of 4:1 to 1:2 as recited in instant claim 9, and component b) amount range 8-20% in instant claims 14-15.
LuoBristol teaches a fungicide composition containing a) or h) picoxystrobin, and b) difenoconazole in reducing or preventing peanuts from fungal diseases, e.g., peanut leaf spot (e.g., [0003], [0005]). LuoBristol indicates that the ratio of picoxystrobin to difenoconazole is preferably 20:1 -1:20, more preferably 15:1 -1:15, more preferably 10:1 -1:10, and more preferably 5:1 -1:5 (e.g, [0028], [0029]) (overlapping with ratio range 4:1 to 1:2 as recited in instant claim 9). LuoBristol shows difenoconazole as low as 2.5% ([0153], Example 8) to as high as 50% ([0213], Example 13) (overlapping with ranges in instant claims 14-15).
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments." Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and "Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments." In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Since Luo and LuoBristol teaches the fungicide composition can be aqueous suspension concentrate with many examples showing variations of ingredients and composition forms, one with ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to combine and optimize components for reasonable expectation of success. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate component b) DMI fungicide, e.g., difenoconazole, into the composition of Luo and adjust ratio of components a) and b) taught by LuoBristol to arrive at current invention, especially because Luo points out that difenoconazole is a suitable fungicide for the composition. Luo emphasizes that fungicides containing a single active ingredient often have certain defects in the prevention and control of agricultural diseases, and continuous and repeated use not only makes pathogens more likely to develop drug resistance, but also easily causes pollution to food and the environment, and the solution to these shortcomings can be overcome by rationally mixing active ingredients of fungicides (e.g., [0004]). Since difenoconazole (DMI fungicide), pyraclostrobin and picoxystrobin, fluopyram and isoflucypram (SDHI fungicides) belong to different classes of fungicides, it provides motivation for artisans to select and combine different fungicide compounds to generate an effective fungicide composition. This renders obviousness as “use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way” or as “applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. See MPEP §2143. (I)(C) and (I)(D).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding the melting point 50-90 C as recited in instant claim 4, since Luo and LuoBristol together teaches the components a) and b) as SDHI fungicide fluopyram and DMI difenoconazole, the melting point would flow naturally from the combined SDHI and DMI fungicides taught by prior art. MPEP 2145 II. states that “prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present but not recognized in the prior art”, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (Appellant argued that the presence of DEHP as the plasticizer in a blood collection bag unexpectedly suppressed hemolysis and therefore rebutted any prima facie showing of obviousness. However, the closest prior art utilizing a DEHP plasticized blood collection bag inherently achieved same result, although this fact was unknown in the prior art.).
Further, MPEP §2144.05(I) states that “[A] prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). For this instance, the sum of fungicide weight, the component amounts a)-i), the ratio of a) and b), all overlap with those in prior art. MPEP 2131.03.I states “[W]hen, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is ‘anticipated' if one of them is in the prior art." Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)). For this instance, the other component amount ranges therefore are obviously anticipated by prior art. Furthermore, “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize additive amount through nothing more than “routine experimentation,” because of a reasonable expectation of success resulting from the optimization for desirable features of intended use of the composition (MPEP §2144.05 (II)). See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 01/21/2026 have been fully considered, the argument regarding art rejection is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that instant invention is an aqueous suspension concentrate, which can solubilize the active ingredients and improve shelf life, while Luo Example 8 is a dispersible oil suspension.
In response to applicant’s claim amendment and remarks/arguments, the office action has updated art rejection as presented above in detail. Regarding the composition forms, Luo teaches the composition can be all kinds of forms including aqueous suspension concentrate; the aqueous suspension concentrate is interpreted as property of the composition or “intended use” of the composition, because the phrase does not provide structural contribution to the composition; furthermore, Luo’s teaching is not limited to the exemplified embodiments. The most relevant paragraphs are copied below for reference:
Luo teaches that the fungicide composition can be in the dosage forms of aerosol, capsule suspension, emulsifiable concentrate, oil-in-water emulsion, suspension concentrate, soluble concentrate, suspension, emulsion in water, suspoemulsion, and other forms (e.g., [0029]). Luo teaches the suspension can be an aqueous suspension such as in Example 4 that the suspension concentrate can comprise components corresponding to instant claims a) pyraclostrobin 18%, b) fluopyram 10%, c2) xanthan gum 0.3%, d) sodium methylnaphthalenesulfonate formaldehyde condensate 5%, g) glycerol 5% or defoaming agent 0.6%, i) water to 100% ([0205-0213], and example 9 [0257-0278] a water suspension concentrate containing [0299-0304], corresponding to aqueous suspension in instant claim 1. Further, regarding the phrase “aqueous suspension concentrate” in instant claim 1, it is interpreted as property or “intended use” of the composition, because it does not structurally contribute to the composition. MPEP 2144.01 points out "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments." Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and "Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments." In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Since Luo and LuoBristol teaches the fungicide composition can be aqueous suspension concentrate with many examples showing variations of ingredients and composition forms, one with ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to combine and optimize components for reasonable expectation of success. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., improve shelf life, solubilize the active ingredients) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant asserts that Luo does not mention crystallization of aqueous suspension or solutions to address this problem, and one skilled in the art attempting to develop a stable aqueous suspension concentrate composition exhibiting reduced crystal growth would learn nothing from Luo’s disclosure of an oil-dispersible composition.
Luo teaches the same crystallization inhibiting components in the compositions, and Luo specifies that “[I]n order to disperse, stabilize, attach and/or bind the active ingredient compounds, auxiliary agents such as xanthan gum, magnesium aluminum silicate, gelatin, starch, cellulose methyl ether, polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl acetate and natural phospholipids (such as cephalin and lecithin) as well as synthetic phospholipids, bentonite, sodium lignin sulfonate, etc. can be used” (e.g., [0157]). Therefore, Luo address the solubility and dispensability of active ingredients, as well as stability of the compositions; moreover, as presented in office action above, Luo teaches the same ingredients used as in instant invention in the formulation. Office action addresses applicant’s assertion in detail as presented above, and the most relevant paragraph is copied below for refence:
MPEP 2112.01.II states "[p]roducts 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 chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, as indicated in MPEP 2112.01.II. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."). For this instance, prior art teaches a) fluopyram, b) difenoconazole, c1) bentonite as clay, c2 as polymeric surfactants, and the instantly claimed properties of fluopyram as SDHI, difenoconazole as DMI, and bentonite and polymeric surfactants as crystal growth inhibiting carriers would necessarily present in the components that have been taught by prior art. Especially Luo teaches that to disperse and stabilize active ingredient compounds, addition of auxiliary agents such as polymeric materials xanthan gum, silicate, cellulose methyl ether, polyvinyl alcohol, bentonite, sodium lignin sulfonate, etc., [0157] can be solutions for make the active ingredients disperse well and stabilize the compositions (e.g., aqueous suspension concentrate).
Applicant asserts Luo or LuoBristol each does not teach or suggest combination of a SDHI fungicide and DMI fungicide, and one would not arrive at the claimed composition from the disclosure of Luo, LuoBristol, or the combination thereof.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The most relevant paragraph of the reasoning of combination of the prior art references, wherein the suggestion and motivation based on the prior art is addressed, is copied below for reference:
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate component b) DMI fungicide, e.g., difenoconazole, into the composition of Luo and adjust ratio of components a) and b) taught by LuoBristol to arrive at current invention, especially because Luo points out that difenoconazole is a suitable fungicide for the composition. Luo emphasizes that fungicides containing a single active ingredient often have certain defects in the prevention and control of agricultural diseases, and continuous and repeated use not only makes pathogens more likely to develop drug resistance, but also easily causes pollution to food and the environment, and the solution to these shortcomings can be overcome by rationally mixing active ingredients of fungicides (e.g., [0004]). Since difenoconazole (DMI fungicide), pyraclostrobin and picoxystrobin, fluopyram and isoflucypram (SDHI fungicides) belong to different classes of fungicides, it provides motivation for artisans to select and combine different fungicide compounds to generate an effective fungicide composition. This renders obviousness as “use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way” or as “applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. See MPEP §2143. (I)(C) and (I)(D).
In conclusion, the argument is not persuasive. Prior art teaches the instant invention.
Please refer to the entire office action presented above as a complete response to the remarks/arguments.
Conclusion
No claim is 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 DONGXIU ZHANG SPIERING whose telephone number is (703)756-4796. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm (Except for Fridays).
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, SUE X. LIU can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/DX.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616