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. Detailed Action Restriction/Election Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 11-14 in the reply filed on 12/03/25 is acknowledged. Applicant’s election of Oryza sativa is also acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the reference used during restriction requirement to break the unity does not teach the claimed invention but rather teaches treatment of fungal infection for preventive treatment and is silent with respect to curative diseases. This is not found persuasive because as discussed in detail below, the reference by DE Saegher et al. (WO 2020/104645A1) in view of Coleman et al. (WO 03/059063A1) makes obvious the claimed invention wherein De Saegher et al. teaches that the compositions comprising choline pelargonate, are suitable to control Rhizoctania diseases ( see page 14, lines 23, 28 and 33). Thus, a method of controlling sheath blight in rice falls within the general teachings of De Saegher et al. The bridging paragraph of pages 14-15 describes certain embodiments of the pathogenic fungus to be controlled, which includes "Magnaporthe grisea (rice blast disease )", see page 15, line 2. Coleman et al. shows the inhibition of Rhizoctania solani by using the closely related caprylic acid ( see example 16) and Coleman et al . justifiably treats pelargonic acid as a functional equivalent ( see , example 17 and claim 5). The teachings of Coleman et al . are that choline pelargonate has the same activity of pelargonic acid while being less phytotoxic. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to have applied the choline pelargonate to treat blast disease or sheath blight ( Rhizoctania diseases as discussed above) based on the guidance provided by De Saegher et al. and Coleman et al. to the rice plant and expect increase in plant health or rice yield with the treated plant. Therefore, there exists lack of unity amongst the inventions. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 15-24 and 26-29 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention/election, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/03/25. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, indefiniteness The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): 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 s 2, 6-8 and 12-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims 2 , 6-7 and 13 recite the limitation “preferably” and “more preferably” which make the claims indefinite because t he recitation of "preferably" in this context improperly provides for preferences within the subject claims and thereby renders confusion over the intended scope of the claim term. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Applicant should amend to remove all occurrences of improper preferences throughout the claims. Regarding claim s 8 and 12 , the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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. Claims 1 , 3 -9 , 11- 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE Saegher et al. (WO 2020/104645A1 , presented in IDS ) in view of Coleman et al. ( WO 03/059063A1 , presented in IDS ) . De Saegher et al. discloses composition comprising a choline salt of a fatty acid and its use as a fungicide, see title. The reference teaches a method for controlling or preventing a fungal infection on a plant or plant part, the method comprising applying a composition comprising a choline salt of a C8-C10 fatty acid, such as choline pelargonate, to the plant, plant part, or locus of growth of the plant. The invention also provides the use of a composition comprising a choline salt of a C8-C10 fatty acid as a fungicide on a plant or plant part , see abstract and claim 9 . The composition is formulated as a spray or sprayable liquid, or as a concentrate, see claim 3. The composition comprises between 0.00001% (w/v) and 70% (w/v) of a choline salt of a C8-C10 fatty acid, see claim 4. The concentrate comprises between 5%(w/v) and 70% (w/v) of a choline salt, see claim 5. The composition is a sprayable liquid comprising 0.00001% (w/v) and 5% (w/v) of a choline salt of a C8-C10 fatty acid, see claim 6. The composition comprises further additive s and/or auxiliary agent s , such a s solvent, a carrier, a surfactant and an antioxidant, see claim 7. The plant is agricultural or horticultural crop, see claim 12. The composition was sprayed on to the plant, plant part, or locus of growth of the plant, see claim 14. The composition can be diluted and dissolved, see claim 19. De Saegher et al. teaches that the compositions comprising choline pelargonate, are suitable to control Rhizoctania diseases ( see page 14, lines 23, 28 and 33). Thus, a method of controlling sheath blight in rice falls within the general teachings of De Saegher et al. The bridging paragraph of pages 14-15 describes certain embodiments of the pathogenic fungus to be controlled, which includes "Magnaporthe grisea (rice blast disease )", see page 15, line 2. Coleman et al. shows the inhibition of Rhizoctania solani by using the closely related caprylic acid ( see example 16) and Coleman et al . justifiably treats pelargonic acid as a functional equivalent ( see , example 17 and claim 5). The teachings of Coleman et al . are that choline pelargonate has the same activity of pelargonic acid while being less phytotoxic. From the teachings of Coleman et al and De Saegher et al. , the skilled person would expect pelargonic acid and its choline salt to have activity against Rhizoctania solani, with the latter being less phytotoxic. While the references do not explicitly teach increasing rice yield, however the references teach treatment of blast disease or sheath blight ( Rhizoctania diseases as discussed above). Therefore, it would have be en obvious to one of ordinary skill to have applied the choline pelargonate to treat blast disease or sheath blight ( Rhizoctania diseases as discussed above) based on the guidance provided by De Saegher et al. and Coleman et al. to the rice plant and expect increase in plant health or rice yiel d with the treated plant since Coleman teaches less phytotoxicity due to t he use of choline pelargonate. Since the reference teaches the generic amount of choline pelargonate for fungicidal effect in plants, it would be within skill of an artisan to manipulate the amount for optimum fungicidal effect thereby leading to optimum plant growth or rice yield of a rice plant. Thus, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results of treating fungal disease in a rice plant (thereby leading to increased rice yield of a rice plant) , see MPEP 2143 part (I)(A). Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE Saegher et al. (WO 2020/104645A1) in view of Coleman et al. (WO 03/059063A1) and further in view of Wright et al. (US PG Pub. 2006/0063678A1). While De Saegher et al. teaches pathogenic activity of pelargonate towards "Magnaporthe grisea (rice blast disease ) , the reference does not explicitly name that the rice plant is O ryza sativa as claimed. Wright et al. while teaching an herbicidal composition disclose that the herbicidal composition comprise salts of fatty acid such as potassium pelargonate and such are useful for controlling annual monocotyledonous plant species including rice O ryza sativa, see [0026] and [0062]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Oryza sativa as specific rice plant species and use it in the method for controlling or preventing a fungal infection on a plant or plant part, wherein the method compris es applying a composition comprising a choline salt of a C8-C10 fatty acid, such as choline pelargonate, to the plant, plant part, or locus of growth of the plant wherein the plant can be rice plant, as taught by De Saegher et al. in order to reduce fungal disease and (thus increase the yield of the rice plant). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Wright et al. teach es that pelargonate salt control Oryza sativa rice plant and De Saegher et al. teach a method for controlling or preventing a fungal infection on a plant including rice plant. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE Saegher et al. (WO 2020/104645A1) in view of Coleman et al. (WO 03/059063A1) and further in view of Bandur et al. (WO 2012/150550A1). The references discussed above do not teach the concentration of choline pelargonate applied to rice plant as claimed. Bandur et al. teaches that t he rates of application of active compound are from 0.001 to 3.0, preferably 0.01 to 1.0, kg/ha of active substance (a.s), depending on the control target, the season, the target plants and the growth stage. To treat the seed, the compounds I are generally employed in amounts of from 0.001 to 10 kg per 100 kg of seed , see page 32, lines 6-14. Suitable absorption-promoting substances are, for example, DMSO, spreading oils such as isopropyl myristate, dipropylene glycol pelargonate , silicone oils and copolymers thereof with polyethers , see page 35, lines 30-35. The compounds of the present invention and the compositions comprising them are particularly important in the control of a multitude of insects on various cultivated plants, such as cereal, root crops, oil crops, vegetables, spices, ornamentals, for example seed of durum and other wheat, barley, oats, rye, maize (fodder maize and sugar maize / sweet and field corn), soybeans, oil crops, crucifers, cotton, sunflowers, bananas, rice, oilseed rape, turnip rape, sugar beet , fodder beet, eggplants, potatoes, grass, lawn, turf, fodder grass, tomatoes, leeks, pumpkin/squash, cabbage, iceberg lettuce, pepper, cucumbers, melons, Brassica species, melons, beans, peas, garlic, onions, carrots, tuberous plants such as potatoes, sugar cane, tobacco, grapes, petunias, geranium/pelargoniums, pansies and impatiens , see page 41, lines 28-31 and page 49, lines 15-20. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the guidance provided by Bandur et al. in terms of applied concentration of pelargonate comprising composition and use it in the method of controlling fungus ( thereby increasing yield of a rice plant) as taught by DE Saegher et al. as modified by Coleman , because Bandur et al. teaches that t he rates of application of active compound are from 0.001 to 3.0, preferably 0.01 to 1.0, kg/ha of active substance , depending on the control target, the season, the target plants and the growth stage. Thus, one of ordinary skill would look to the guidance provided by Bandur et al. in terms of the amount and concentration of active ingredient. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6197 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM . 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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached on 571-272-6897. 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. /SNIGDHA MAEWALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612