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
Priority and Status of Claims
1. This application is a 371 of PCT/IN2022/050432 05/05/2022, which claims benefit of the foreign applications: INDIA IN202111020722 05/06/2021.
2. Claims 1-10 are pending in the application.
3. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being obvious over Hellwege
et al. US 2015/0296773 A1 and Khan et al. Pest Management Science, 2017, 73(12):
2465-2472.
Applicants claim a synergistic insecticidal composition comprising of: a. Chlorantraniliprole; b. Spirotetramat; c. at least one compound selected from Buprofezin, Bifenthrin, Propargite or Pyriproxyfen; and d. one or more excipients, see claim 1. Dependent claims 6 and 8 further limit the scope of compositions, i.e., specific excipient including wetting agent, emulsifier, ant-freeze agent including glycerol, defoamer, biocide, thickener and solvent, formulation as suspension concentrate (SC) and suspo-emulsion (SE). Dependent claims 2-5, 7 and 9-10 further limit the scope of compositions, i.e., specific amount of Chlorantraniliprole, Spirotetramat, Buprofezin, Bifenthrin, Propargite and Pyriproxyfen in the compositions.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
Hellwege et al. ‘773 discloses a synergistic insecticidal composition comprising
Chlorantraniliprole, Spirotetramat, Buprofezin, Bifenthrin, emulsier, dispersant,
thickener, glycerol (anti-freeze agent), solvent, biocides, and defoamer. Hellwege et al.
‘773 compositions can be formulated as suspension concentrates(SC or SE), see
columns 12-14 and 30-31.
Khan et al. disclose a pesticide composition comprising buprofezin,
chlorantraniliprole, Spirotetramat, flonicamid, and miticides selected from spiromesifen
or cyflumetofen. Khan et al. compositions demonstrate lethal effect against a number of
insects.
Determination of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between instant claims and Hellwege et al. ‘773 and Khan et al. is that the instant claims are embraced within the scope of Hellwege et al. ‘773 and Khan et al. Hellwege et al. ‘773 and Khan et al. compositions read on the instant claims 1-10.
Finding of prima facie obviousness-rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2143)
One having ordinary skill in the art would find the claims 1-10 prima facie obvious because one would be motivated to employ the compositions of Hellwege et al. ‘773 and Khan et al. to obtain instant invention.
Moreover, the amount of a specific amount of ingredient Chlorantraniliprole,
Spirotetramat, Buprofezin, Bifenthrin, dispersing agent, emulsifier of the instant
composition is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would routinely optimize, optimization of parameters (dose, amounts, administration
strategy) from known compositions of Hellwege et al. ‘773 and Khan et al. is a routine
practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and
reasonably would expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of
ordinary skill to determine the optimal amount of each ingredient to add in order to best
achieve the desired results based on factors such as the severity of the condition being
treated for treating insects, see MPEP 2144.05. Therefore Hellwege et al. ‘773 and Khan
et al. render obviousness over the instant invention.
The motivation to make the claimed compositions of use derived from the known
compositions of Hellwege et al. ‘773 and Khan et al. would possess similar activity to that
which is claimed in the reference.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REI TSANG SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-0707. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Renee Claytor can be reached on 571-272-8394. 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.
/REI TSANG SHIAO/
Rei-tsang Shiao, Ph.D.Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
February 09, 2026