DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 are currently pending. Claims 1-11 ae currently under examination.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has stated that the election is with traverse but has presented no substantive arguments thus the restriction is maintained for reasons of record.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 12-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/27/2026.
Applicant’s election of chlorantraniliprole, sodium alkylnaphthalene sulfonate and sodium lignosulfonate and bifenthrin in the reply filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
No claims are withdrawn as a result of the species election.
Priority
The instant application is a national stage entry of PCT/IB2022/050938, filed 02/03/2022, which claims priority to IN202121005077, filed 02/05/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s Informational Disclosure Statement, filed on 07/31/2023 has been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 102960354.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of an agrochemical comprising at least one diamide insecticide and an integrity retaining system comprising a disintegrant and at least two anionic surfactants is met by the ‘354 publication teaching 20% chlorantraniliprole, 60% lufenuron, 13% sodium methylene dithionate sulfonate, 3% sodium dodecyl sulfonate and ammoniums sulfate as the remainer [0112] wherein the instant specification evidences alkyl or aryl sulfonates as anionic surfactants [0077].
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of wherein the diamide insecticide comprises chlorantraniliprole is met by the ‘354 publication teaching chlorantraniliprole [0112].
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of wherein the disintegrant comprises ammonium sulfate is met by the ‘354 publication teaching ammonium sulfate [0112].
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of wherein the composition is in solid form is met by the ‘354 publication teaching wettable powder [0111].
Regarding claims 8-9, the limitation of further comprise at least one additional insecticide is met by the ‘354 publication teaching lufenuron [0112] wherein lufenuron is a substituted urea insecticide [0011], wherein the instant specification evidences lufenuron is a benzoylphenyl urea insecticide [0106].
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 107593728.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of an agrochemical composition comprising at least one diamide insecticide and an integrity retaining system comprising a disintegrant and at least two anionic surfactants is met by the ‘728 publication teaching Milbemycin 2%, Chlorantraniliprole 20%, Sodium lignosulfonate 7%, Sodium lauryl sulfate 2%, Lactose, to 100% [0162].
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of wherein the diamide insecticide comprises chlorantraniliprole is met by the ‘728 publication teaching chlorantraniliprole [0162].
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of wherein the disintegrant comprise lactose is met by the ‘728 publication teaching lactose [0162].
Regarding clam 7, the limitation of wherein the composition is a solid formulation is met by the ‘728 publication teaching wettable powder [0161].
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of comprising at least one additional insecticide is met by the ‘728 publication teaching milbemycin is a broad spectrum insecticide [0008].
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107593728.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation of an agrochemical composition comprising at least one diamide insecticide and an integrity retaining system comprising a disintegrant and at least two anionic surfactants is met by the ‘728 publication teaching Milbemycin 2%, Chlorantraniliprole 20%, Sodium lignosulfonate 7%, Sodium lauryl sulfate 2%, Lactose, to 100% [0162].
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of wherein the diamide insecticide comprises chlorantraniliprole is met by the ‘728 publication teaching chlorantraniliprole [0162].
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of wherein the disintegrant comprise lactose is met by the ‘728 publication teaching lactose [0162].
Regarding claim 4, the limitation of wherein the at least two anionic surfactants comprise at least two of a sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonate and sodium lignosulfonate is met by the ‘728 publication teaching sodium alkyl aryl sulfonate, naphthalene sulfonate polymers and lignosulfonate including sodium lignosulfonate [0053].
Regarding claim 5, the limitation of wherein the weight ratio of disintegrant to the at least two anionic surfactants from about 0.5:1 to about 5:1 is met by the ‘728 publication teaching 69% lactose and 9% anionic surfactants [0162] leading to a ratio of 7.6:1. The insecticides are taught at multiple concentrations [0048], wherein the lactose is a result of the concentration of the other ingredients in the composition, and thus is an optimizable parameter. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, the limitation of from about 0.1-50 w/w% diamide insecticide, from 10-80 w/w% disintegrant and from about 0.1 – 40 w/w% at least two anionic surfactants and wherein the weight ratio of disintegrant to at least two antibiotics is from 0.5:1 to about 5:1 is met by the ‘728 publication teaching Milbemycin 2%, Chlorantraniliprole 20%, Sodium lignosulfonate 7%, Sodium lauryl sulfate 2%, Lactose, to 100% [0162]. The ‘728 publication teaching 69% lactose and 9% anionic surfactants [0162] leading to a ratio of 7.6:1. The insecticides are taught at multiple concentrations [0048], wherein the lactose is a result of the concentration of the other ingredients in the composition, and thus is an optimizable parameter. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
Regarding clam 7, the limitation of wherein the composition is a solid formulation is met by the ‘728 publication teaching wettable powder [0161].
Regarding claim 8, the limitation of comprising at least one additional insecticide is met by the ‘728 publication teaching milbemycin is a broad-spectrum insecticide [0008].
It must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742.
Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been obvious to have selected various combinations of disclosed ingredients (for example, insecticide, additional insecticide, disintegrant and at two anionics surfactants including sodium butyl naphthalene sulfonate and sodium lignin sulfonate as combinations of surfactants in salt forms are taught in the claimed range) from within the prior art disclosure of the ‘728 publication, to arrive at the instantly claimed agrochemical composition “yielding no more than one would have expected from such an arrangement”.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107593728 as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11 above, and further in view of CN 108541710.
As mentioned in the above 103 rejections, all the limitations of claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11 are taught by the ‘728 publication.
The ‘728 publication does not specifically teach benzoylphenyl urea group insecticide (claim 9) specifically bifenthrin (claim 10).
The ‘710 publication teaches the invention in the fields of pesticides and control of plane diseases and pests ([0002], [0005]). The active ingredient is taught to be chlorantraniliprole mixed with agents such as bifenthrin to provide actual activity is greater than the expected activity indicating that the mixture of active a and b has synergistic effect ([0145], [0168]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use bifenthrin in the compositions of the ‘728 publication as the ‘710 publication teaches synergistic results in the use of chlorantraniliprole and bifenthrin and the ‘728 publication teaches a composition including chlorantraniliprole. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectations of success and motivation to use the combination of chlorantraniliprole and bifenthrin as the ‘728 publication teaches composition including chlorantraniliprole and a second active ingredient used as an insecticide and the ‘710 publication teaches the combination of chlorantraniliprole and bifenthrin as synergistic combination for use as an insecticide.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107593728 as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11 above, and further in view of EP0297000.
As mentioned in the above 103 rejections, all the limitations of claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11 are taught by the ‘728 publication.
The ‘728 does not teach the specific combination of the elected sodium alkylnaphthalene and sodium lignosulfonate.
The ‘000 publication teaches herbacides [0001] wherein the specific combination of sodium alkylnaphthalene sulfonate and sodium lignosulfonate [0044].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific combination of sodium alkylnaphthalene sulfonate and sodium lignosulfonate in the composition taught by the ‘728 publication because the ‘728 publication teaches the use of two anionic surfactants including sodium alkyl aryl sulfonate, naphthalene sulfonate polymers and lignosulfonate including sodium lignosulfonate and the ‘000 publication teaches the specific combination of sodium alkylnaphthalene sulfonate and sodium lignosulfonate. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific combination of surfactants taught by the ‘000 publication for the anionic surfactants taught by the ‘728 publication as they are both taught to contain two anionic surfactants wherein the specific surfactants of the ‘000 publication falls into genera taught by the ‘728 publication, rending it obvious to use the specific known combination for the combination of surfactants taught by the ‘728 publication.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Examiner Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDSEY MARIE BECKHARDT whose telephone number is (571)270-7676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 4pm and Friday 9am to 2pm.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/LYNDSEY M BECKHARDT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights