Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/551,238

MOLECULES HAVING PESTICIDAL UTILITY AND INTERMEDIATES AND PROCESSES RELATED THERETO

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 19, 2023
Examiner
LIU, SUE XU
Art Unit
1616
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Corteva Agriscience LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
21%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
5y 0m
To Grant
34%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 21% of cases
21%
Career Allow Rate
46 granted / 221 resolved
-39.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
5y 0m
Avg Prosecution
53 currently pending
Career history
274
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.3%
-37.7% vs TC avg
§103
42.5%
+2.5% vs TC avg
§102
13.7%
-26.3% vs TC avg
§112
26.1%
-13.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 221 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pahutski et al.(WO 2020112390 A1; 06/04/2020). Pahutski et al. prior art Table 1 compounds 79 through 220 render instantly claimed compounds for Formula One in instant claim 1 including instant specific compounds instantly claimed 8 compounds F1 through F121 obvious. Pahutski et al. teach specifically compounds: PNG media_image1.png 554 821 media_image1.png Greyscale while instant claim 8 make claim to compounds: PNG media_image2.png 634 630 media_image2.png Greyscale WO 2020112390 teach PNG media_image3.png 218 560 media_image3.png Greyscale where L is -CH2- or -CH2CH2- is bonded between the aromatic ring and the N atom of the chemical compound rendering the instant obvious. While instantly claimed invention there exist a direct single bond between the phenyl ring and nitrogen atom. In the absence of a showing of an unexpected result for instant compounds differing only in the lack of a single -CH2- group would render instant claims obvious over prior art: WO 2020112390 A1 due to chemical structure similarity differing entirely only by a single “methylene” group. Pahutski et al.’s abstract teach that their compounds are used in methods of controlling pests. Pahutski et al. at pages 5,83-84 teach that the pesticidal compounds can be combined with diluents, carriers. Pahutski et al. at page 5 lines 23 – page 6 line 4. teach the compounds are applied to plants, seeds to control pest. Pahutski et al. at page 26 lines 17- 33 teach the compounds are applied to soil. MPEP 2144.09 Close Structural Similarity Between Chemical Compounds (Homologs, Analogues, Isomers) [R-01.2024] “In the context of US patent law and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), a methylene group is part of the prior art analysis and does not, by itself, make a single bond obvious. Its significance depends on the specific chemical structure and whether one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify a known compound to include it, with a reasonable expectation of success. What is a methylene group? A methylene group is a part of a molecule that consists of a carbon atom bonded to two hydrogen atoms and connected to the rest of the molecule by two single bonds. The formula is written as −CH2−negative cap C cap H sub 2 minus −𝐶𝐻2−. The obviousness test An obviousness rejection is made when a claimed invention, including a chemical compound, would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) at the time of the invention. For chemical compounds, a prima facie case of obviousness is often established when there are very close structural similarities between the claimed compound and prior art compounds, and they share similar utilities. How a methylene group fits into the obviousness test Motivation to modify: The key to obviousness is whether a POSA would have had a motivation or rationale to modify a known prior art compound to arrive at the claimed invention. Adding or removing a methylene group is a common structural variation in organic chemistry. Predictable results: The rejection is supported if the modification would have yielded a predictable result. This is often the case when a methylene group is simply added to extend an alkyl chain, for example. Unexpected results can counter a rejection: An applicant can overcome an obviousness rejection by showing that the modification produced an unexpected and improved result. This is the argument that a methylene group substitution was not obvious. For example, in In re Lamberti (1976), the court considered whether a prior art reference disclosing a compound with "at least one methylene group" attached to a sulfur atom would make it obvious to a POSA to create compounds with multiple or asymmetrical alkyl groups. “ Telephonic Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALTON NATHANIEL PRYOR whose telephone number is (571)272-0621. The examiner can normally be reached 7-4:00 M-F. 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, Liu, Sue 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. /ALTON N PRYOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 19, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 24, 2025
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 31, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599568
SOFTGEL CAPSULES HAVING A FILL COMPOSITION COMPRISING MAGNESIUM OXIDE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12577319
Anti-trop2 Antibody
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570763
AEROSOLIZED MUCUS-TETHERING NANOBODIES TO PROTECT AGAINST VIRAL AND MICROBIAL CONTAMINATION IN CLOSED AND SEMI-ENCLOSED SPACES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12565528
LAG-3 ANTAGONIST THERAPY FOR LUNG CANCER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12522666
CD22 TARGETING-MOIETY FOR THE TREATMENT OF B-CELL ACUTE LYMPHOBLASTIC LEUKEMIA (B-ALL)
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
21%
Grant Probability
34%
With Interview (+12.9%)
5y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 221 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month