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
STATUS OF THE CLAIMS: Claims 1-19 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species in the reply filed on February 10, 2026 is acknowledged. All claims were examined in its entirety.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors and grammatical errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “sanitary insect pest control method”. Examiner suggest, for example, “A method for controlling insect pests….”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuo et al. (WO2017/146226, which corresponds to US Pub. 2019/0045786).
Applicant claims the following methods:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This reference discloses Applicant’s methods in the Abstract and paragraphs [0061]-[0077], [0085]-[0097]-[0031] and [0102]- [0107]. (See Abstract, Table 1, Exp. 3 and entire document). The methods read on the instant claim. Since this reference teaches the exact methods, Applicant’s claims are anticipated, and thus, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yonemura et al. (WO2016/121997, which corresponds to US Pub. 2018/0002347).
Applicant claims the following methods:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This reference discloses Applicant’s methods in the Abstract and paragraphs [0192]-[0209], [0216]-[0221] and [0234]- [0293]. (See Abstract, Exp. 1-3 and entire document). The methods read on the instant claim. Since this reference teaches the exact methods, Applicant’s claims are anticipated, and thus, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nihon Nohyaku et al. (JP2020-117487).
Applicant claims the following methods:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
792
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This reference discloses Applicant’s methods in the Abstract and paragraphs [0018]-[0022], [0069], [0087]-[0097], and [0133]- [0143]. (See Abstract, Exp. 2-4 and entire document). The methods read on the instant claim. Since this reference teaches the exact methods, Applicant’s claims are anticipated, and thus, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Matsuo et al. (WO2017/146226, which corresponds to US Pub. 2019/0045786).
Applicants claim methods for controlling pests comprising heterocyclic compounds of the following formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein all the variables are defined in the claim as the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
120
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Matsuo discloses a generic group of heterocyclic compounds of formula I for controlling pests.
Applicant claims differ from the reference by reciting specific species and a more limited genus than the reference (i.e., replacing R1 and R2 with various substituents such as H, cyano groups, N-oxide, C1-C3 haloalkylsulfonyl groups).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace various substituents of formula I or add various substituents to formula I as taught by the reference, because it is generally known to a person skilled in the art that it would easily obtain other compounds of formula I through the substitution or changing of substituents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed compounds replacing R1 and R2 with various substituents such as H, cyano groups, N-oxide, C1-C3 haloalkylsulfonyl groups since such compounds would have been suggested by the reference as a whole. Further, a prior art disclosed genus of useful compounds is sufficient to render prima facie obvious a species falling within a genus. Thus, Applicant’s claims are obvious, and therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Since Applicant’s claims are prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of Matsuo, Applicant’s claims are obvious, and therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yonemura et al. (WO2016/121997, which corresponds to US Pub. 2018/0002347).
Applicants claim methods for controlling pests comprising heterocyclic compounds of the following formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein all the variables are defined in the claim as the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
120
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Yonemura discloses a generic group of heterocyclic compounds of formula I for controlling pests.
Applicant claims differ from the reference by reciting specific species and a more limited genus than the reference (i.e., replacing R1 and R2 with various substituents such as H, cyano groups, N-oxide, C1-C3 haloalkylsulfonyl groups).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace various substituents of formula I or add various substituents to formula I as taught by the reference, because it is generally known to a person skilled in the art that it would easily obtain other compounds of formula I through the substitution or changing of substituents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed compounds replacing R1 and R2 with various substituents such as H, cyano groups, N-oxide, C1-C3 haloalkylsulfonyl groups since such compounds would have been suggested by the reference as a whole. Further, a prior art disclosed genus of useful compounds is sufficient to render prima facie obvious a species falling within a genus. Thus, Applicant’s claims are obvious, and therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Since Applicant’s claims are prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of Yonemura, Applicant’s claims are obvious, and therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nihon Nohyaku (JP2020-117487).
Applicants claim methods for controlling pests comprising heterocyclic compounds of the following formula 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
192
454
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein all the variables are defined in the claim as the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
120
804
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Nihon Nohyaku (JP2020-117487) discloses a generic group of heterocyclic compounds of formula I for controlling pests.
Applicant claims differ from the reference by reciting specific species and a more limited genus than the reference (i.e., replacing R1 and R2 with various substituents such as H, cyano groups, N-oxide, C1-C3 haloalkylsulfonyl groups).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace various substituents of formula I or add various substituents to formula I as taught by the reference, because it is generally known to a person skilled in the art that it would easily obtain other compounds of formula I through the substitution or changing of substituents. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the claimed compounds replacing R1 and R2 with various substituents such as H, cyano groups, N-oxide, C1-C3 haloalkylsulfonyl groups since such compounds would have been suggested by the reference as a whole. Further, a prior art disclosed genus of useful compounds is sufficient to render prima facie obvious a species falling within a genus. Thus, Applicant’s claims are obvious, and therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Since Applicant’s claims are prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of Nihon Nohyaku (JP2020-117487), Applicant’s claims are obvious, and therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-19 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL V WARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am 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, James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached at 571-272-5548. 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.
/PAUL V WARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1622
Prosecution Insights