CTFR 18/262,429 CTFR 99696 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-2, 6-7, and 9-16 are pending in the instant application. 12-151-10 AIA 12-51-10 Claim s 3-5 and 8 have been canceled. Withdrawn Objections/Rejections Applicant’s cancellation of Claim 8 renders the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. 101 moot. This rejection is hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the rejection of Claims 1-4 and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). Applicant’s cancellation of Claims 3-4 renders the rejection thereof moot. This rejection is hereby withdrawn. Applicant’s cancellation of Claim 5 renders the rejection thereof under 35 U.S.C. 103 moot. This rejection is hereby withdrawn. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure statement filed on May 5 th , 2026 has been fully considered by the examiner, except where marked with a strikethrough. The following rejections are necessitated by amendment: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 11-16 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. Claims 11-16 are rendered indefinite because each of Claims 11-16 specifies a limitation of “the useful plant part is” tomato, rice, and zinnia. This limitation is indefinite because a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize tomato, rice, and zinnia as whole plants. Not enough information has been provided to direct a person having ordinary skill of the art to understand which plant part(s) are attempted to be encompassed by this limitation. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajan et. al. (WO 2010/063700; cited in non-final office action mailed February 5 th , 2026; cited on Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement filed July 21 st , 2023; hereinafter referred to as Rajan) as evidenced by CAS Registry File 1228284-64-7 (entered into STN June 24 th , 2010; cited in non-final office action mailed February 5 th , 2026; hereinafter referred to as CAS Registry File) . Claims 1 and 2 now recite limitations previously presented in the now canceled Claim 5. In addition to the amendment to Claims 1-2 to incorporate this subject matter, Applicant traversed the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 previously raised over Claim 5 as being obvious in view of Rajan as evidenced by CAS Registry File. Specifically, Applicant states at Page 5, Fifth Paragraph of the remarks filed May 5 th , 2026, that, “The Examiner concedes that Rajan does not teach controlling or suppressing Xanthomonas campestris, Xanthomonas orycea, or Xanthomonas perforans in particular…” but acknowledges the reasoning presented by the examiner in the previous office action that the instantly recited compound was known in the art to be effective against the Xanthomonas genus. Applicant further asserts that the genus Xanthomonas is highly diverse, and beginning at the second paragraph of Page 6 of the remarks, notes the Applicant’s view that the ‘obvious to try’ analysis is impermissible because “… the person of ordinary skill in the art is left to vary all parameters or try every available option until one succeeds. Rajan provides no direction as to which compounds might be successful against which species of Xanthomonas , and as discussed above, each species presents unique challenges and unpredictable interactions with potential treatments.” Finally, Applicant points to alleged unexpected results beginning at the last paragraph of Page 6 of the remarks received May 5 th , 2026, citing data from the specification specifically directed to controlling or suppressing particular Xanthomonas species on plants such as tomato, rice and zinnia. The examiner does not find these arguments persuasive. In view of the breadth of Claims 1-2, the method is obviated by Rajan as evidenced by CAS Registry File. At Page 15, First Paragraph, Rajan teaches a method of controlling or preventing infestation of useful plants by phytopathogenic microorganisms, including phytopathogenic bacteria, by applying a compound of Formula I. At Page 23, under Example P3, Rajan teaches the following compound as a compound of Formula I: PNG media_image1.png 126 233 media_image1.png Greyscale As evidenced by CAS Registry File, this compound is 3-(difluoromethyl)- N -methoxy-1-methyl- N -[1-methyl-2-(2,4,6-trichloro-phenyl)ethyl]-1 H -pyrazole-4-carboxamide, as recited, for example at instant Claim 1. Regarding instant Claim 2, at Page 18, Second Paragraph, Rajan teaches, “Therefore the invention also relates to compositions for controlling and protecting against phytopathogenic microorganisms, comprising a compound of formula I and an inert carrier,” thereby reading on the limitation of applying a composition as recited at instant Claim 2. At Page 15, Last Paragraph, Rajan states, “Furthermore, the novel compounds of formula I are effective against phytopathogenic bacteria and viruses (e.g. against Xanthomonas spp, Pseudomonas spp, …” At Page 19, Fifth Paragraph, Rajan teaches “Advantageous rates of application are normally from 5g to 2kg of active ingredient (a.i.) per hectare (ha), preferably from 10g to 1kg a.i/ha, most preferably from 20g to 600g ai.i/ha.” This “most preferably” range reads on the range instantly recited at Claim 7. Rajan does not teach controlling or suppressing Xanthomonas campestris, Xanthomonas orycea, or Xanthomonas perforans . Applying KSR exemplary rationale E, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to try controlling or suppressing these species of the genus Xanthomonas spp. , as it was known in the art at the time of filing that application of 3-(difluoromethyl)- N -methoxy-1-methyl- N -[1-methyl-2-(2,4,6-trichloro-phenyl)ethyl]-1 H -pyrazole-4-carboxamide was effective against the genus. Applicant’s argument that this is an impermissible “obvious to try” analysis is not persuasive. Applicant has asserted a person having ordinary skill in the art must “vary all parameters or try every available option until one succeeds.” This is not the case. A person having ordinary skill in the art must simply select a single compound of formula I from the disclosed examples and apply the amount taught by Rajan (20g to 600g per hectare), motivated by the teaching that compounds of formula I are effective against bacteria of the species Xanthomonas . As the breadth of the instant claim is drawn to a method of controlling or suppressing phytopathogenic bacteria on any useful plant, and Rajan teaches a specific range of a compound of formula I to apply, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have practiced the methods recited at Claims 1, 2, and 7 with reasonable expectation of success. Applicant’s assertion of unexpected results are directed to examples specifically in suppressing or controlling phytobacteria on tomatoes, rice, and zinnia. These specific examples are insufficient to support a finding of unexpected results commensurate in scope of the claim, which is directed to the suppression or control of the recited bacteria species on any useful plant . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 6 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Claims 1-2, 7, and 11-16 are rejected. Claims 6 and 9-10 are objected to. No claim is allowed. 07-40 AIA 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 DANIEL JOHN BURKETT whose telephone number is (703)756-5390. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday. 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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached at (571) 272-9023. 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. /D.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1624 /JEFFREY H MURRAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/262,429 Page 2 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/262,429 Page 3 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/262,429 Page 4 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/262,429 Page 5 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/262,429 Page 6 Art Unit: 1624 Application/Control Number: 18/262,429 Page 7 Art Unit: 1624
Prosecution Insights