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 Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 30 recites “ammonium quaternary” which is a minor informality because it is generally written as a “quaternary ammonium”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
Claims 23-43 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “based on” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “based on” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what is meant by the phrase “based on” such that the skilled artisan would reasonably appreciate the metes and bound of what is encompassed by it. It is not clear how far from the base dioxabicycloalkane derivative structure one can deviate and still meet the requirement of the claim.
The term “chloroacetamides (V1), chloroacetamides (V2), chloroacetamides (V3)” in claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The “(V1)”, “(V2)” and “(V3)” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what is meant by the terms “(V1)”, “(V2)” and “(V3)” such that the artisan would reasonably appreciate the metes and bound of what is encompassed by them. It is not clear how far from the base chloroacetamide one can deviate and still meet the requirement of the claim.
Regarding claim 27, the phrases "inorganic (copper), inorganic (sulfur)" in the penultimate line of page 5 and “polypeptide (lectin)” in line 8 on page 6 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in parenthesis are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 27 recites “bacillus sp. and the fungicide lipopeptides produced” and “Trichoderma sp. and the fungicidal metabolites produced” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what produces the lipopeptides and metabolites.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the fungicide lipopeptides produced" and “the fungicidal metabolites produced” in lines 7 and the penultimate line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 28, the phrase, ”phenylpyrazoles (fiproles)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in parenthesis are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 28 recites “inorganic,” in the second line of page 7 which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “inorganic”. For example, it is unclear if any inorganic compound would read on the recited “inorganic”.
Regarding claim 29, the phrase “fluoroalkenyle (-thioether)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in parenthesis are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 -- Improper Dependent Form
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 34 and 35 recite the composition further comprises optional components which is not further limiting because the components are not required to be present in composition. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
1) Claims 23-29, 34, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanmuga (WO 2021/013582 A1, publication date 01/28/2021; cited in IDS 03/13/2024) in view of Fanning (US 2015/0344380 A1, publication date 12/03/2015).
Shanmuga relates to a composition comprising a nitrification and/or urease inhibitors “dissolved in a liquid medium comprising a solvent comprising levoglucosenone or dihydrolevoglucosenone [6,8-Dioxabicyclo[3.2.1]octan-4-one] or a derivative thereof, is useful in making fertilizer compositions and in a method of fertilizing target plants” [abstract]. According to the claims, the composition is a “concentrated liquid fertilizer composition comprising based on weight of the composition (a) up to about 99 pbw, by weight of composition, of one or more nitrogenous fertilizer compounds, (b) at least one of a dicyandiamide and/or an alkyl thiophosphoric triamide, (c) at least one solvent comprising levoglucosenone or dihydrolevoglucosenone or a derivative thereof, and (d) optionally, water” [p. 26, lines 13-18]. “Suitable nitrogenous fertilizers are those containing a nitrogenous compound such as urea” [p. 21, lines 17-18]. According to Shanmuga the composition may further comprise stabilizers [p. 20, line 32], surfactants and dyes/colorants [p. 20, line 35].
Dihydrolevoglucosenone is 6,8-Dioxabicyclo[3.2.1]octan-4-one according to the instant specification at [0074] on page 16.
Shanmuga does not disclose specific surfactants and a pesticidal active ingredient.
Fanning discloses a “liquid fertilizer adjuvant composition is provided that includes a fertilizer, a pH buffering agent, a surfactant, and one or more color indicator that produce a first color change that indicates when an pre-selected first level of field treatment has been achieved” [abstract]. Fanning also discloses that “[t]he composition is particular well suited for inclusion of a urea fertilizer” [abstract]. According to Fanning, suitable surfactants include neutralized polyacrylic acid, neutralized acrylic and methacrylic acid copolymers (i.e., acrylic acid polymers) propylene glycol trisiloxane, alkylphenol ethoxylates (i.e., alkoxylated phenol derivative) or a combination thereof [0012]. Fanning further discloses “the inventive composition is pre-mixed with the herbicides, pesticides, fungicides, or plant growth regulators prior to application to the growing plants” (see last sentence of [0011], page 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have combined the fertilizer of Shanmuga with the fertilizer adjuvant of Fanning, which is pre-mixed with herbicides, pesticides, fungicides or plant growth regulators. One would have been motivated to make this combination to provide the advantage of the color change indicator of Fanning in the fertilizer of Shanmuga. One would have had an expectation of success because Shanmuga discloses the composition may comprise surfactants and colorants. One would have also had an expectation of success because Fanning discloses the fertilizer adjuvant compositions is particularly suited for urea fertilizers, e.g., fertilizers of Shanmuga. Additionally, in combining these elements one would have expected nothing more than predictable results because, when combined, each prior art element would have performed the same function as it had separately. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have formulated a composition comprising a herbicide, pesticide, fungicide, or plant growth regulator, 6,8-dioxabicyclo[3.2.1]octan-4-one (dihydrolevoglucosenone), and an acrylic acid polymer emulsifier. Wherein the composition further comprises water and stabilizers (i.e., instant claim 34). Additionally, because the concentrated fertilizer composition Shanmuga comprises water one or ordinary skill in the art would have considered it a soluble concentrate (i.e., instant claim 38).
Regarding instant claim 26, Fanning discloses “COMMAND (comazone)” (i.e., herbicide of the chemical class isoxazolidinone1) is a suitable active to pre-mix with the inventive fertilizer adjuvant [0011].
Regarding instant claim 27, Fanning discloses benomyl (i.e., fungicide from the class of benzimidazole2) is a suitable active to pre-mix with the inventive fertilizer adjuvant (see [0011] at p. 1, line 5).
Regarding instant claims 28-29, Fanning discloses oxamyl (i.e., a methyl carbamate insecticide, acaricide, miticide, nematicide3) is a suitable pesticide active to pre-mix with the inventive fertilizer adjuvant (see [0011] at page 2, line 1).
2) Claims 23-30 and 32-38 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being patentable over Rowley et al. (US 2016/0270402 A1, publication date 09/22/2016; cited in IDS 02/03/2025) in view of Sherwood et al. (Chem. Commun., 2014, 50, p. 9650-9652; cited in IDS 02/03/2025).
Regarding instant claims 23-25, 27, and 32-38, Rowley relates to emulsifiable concentrates of pesticides and fertilizers “comprising water miscible, organic solvents and water soluble anionic/non-ionic surfactants/emulsifiers that aid in the dissolution of an active substance” [abstract]. In one example Rowley discloses a composition comprising 23% w/w azoxystrobin (i.e., methoxyacrylate analog4; instant claim 27), 37% w/w N-methyl-pyrrolidone (NMP), 27% w/w Jeffsol AG1730 (i.e., solvent selected from chemical class of amides5; instant claim 32) and 13% w/w Stepfac 8180 (an ethoxylated phosphate ester) [0042].
Rowley does not disclose a dioxabicycloalkane solvent.
Sherwood discloses “[d]ihydrolevoglucosenone (Cyrene) is a bio-based molecule, derived in two simple steps from cellulose, which demonstrates significant promise as a dipolar aprotic solvent. The dipolarity of dihydrolevoglucosenone is similar to NMP” [abstract]. Sherwood also discloses that N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) is on the European candidate list of substances of very high concern due to its toxicity [p. 9650, col. 1, end of paragraph 2]. Furthermore, Sherwood discloses that “[d]ihydrolevoglucosenone (Cyrene) is a new and very promising bio-based solvent substitute for widely used dipolar aprotic solvents (e.g. NMP) that are increasingly under threat from chemical legislation such as REACh” [p. 9652, col. 1, para. 1].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have simply substituted the dihydrolevoglucosenone (i.e., 6,8-dioxabicyclo[3.2.1 ]octan-4-one) of Sherwood in place of the NMP of Rowley as the solvent. One would have been motivated to make this substitution because the toxicity and legislative concerns of NMP that Sherwood discloses. One would have had an expectation of success because Sherwood discloses dihydrolevoglucosenone is a suitable substitute for NMP as a solvent. The simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the dihydrolevoglucosenone of Sherwood) in place of another (e.g., the NMP of Rowley) in order to achieve predictable results (solvent) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the present case, the instantly claimed ranges of pesticidal active (0.1-95%w/v and 10-90%w/v; instant claims 33 and 36) and emulsifier (1-25% w/v) would have been expected to overlap with range of the prior art for pesticide active (23% w/w) and emulsifier (13%w/w) and so a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
The amounts of pesticidal actives and emulsifier would have also been obvious through routine optimization. It has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable ranges by routine experimentation where, as is here, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the amounts of pesticidal active and emulsifier in the composition disclosed by Rowley to optimize the composition dosage and solubility, respectively. One would have had an expectation of success because a skilled artisan would have understood that the active agent is responsible for dosage and Rowley discloses emulsifiers aid dissolution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have formulated an emulsifiable concentrate comprising 6,8-dioxabicyclo[3.2.1]octan-4-one (i.e., dihydrolevoglucosenone) and an compound from the class of amides (i.e., JEFFSOL AG-1730) as the solvents, a methoxyacrylic fungicide (azoxystrobin) and a phosphate ester emulsifier (Stepfac 8180). Wherein the pesticidal active and emulsifier are within the instantly claimed amounts. Claims 34 and 35 recite optional ingredients and therefore read on the composition taught by the prior art and discussed above.
Regarding instant claim 26, Rowley discloses suitable actives also include benzoic acid herbicides (see [0026] on page 5, line 5).
Regarding instant claims 28 and 29, Rowley discloses suitable actives also include avermectin insecticides (i.e., nematicide according to instant claim 29; see lines 3-4 of [0022]).
Regarding instant claim 30, Rowley discloses the compositions disclosed therein may further comprise plant growth agents such as fulvic acid [0008].
Regarding instant claims 34 and 35, Rowley discloses that “[i]n some embodiments, the formulation is mixed with a fertilizer composition Such that the formulation makes up anywhere from 20% to 0.1% (by volume or by weight) of the final mixture.” [0034]. Rowley also discloses the example composition comprising azoxystrobin, Jeffsol AG1730, and Stepfac 8180 was mixed with a variety of liquid fertilizer compositions [0042] such as 10-34-0 (10-34-0 comprises 50-70% water6) [p. 8, Table 2].
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). In the present case, the instantly claimed range of water in amounts up to 30% w/v overlaps with the range of the prior art which discloses water in amounts of 0.04-14% w/v (40-70% of 20% to 0.1% w/v) and so a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding instant claim 41, Rowley discloses applying the inventive compositions to a plant, seed or soil [0009].
Given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at, at the time of filling, to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results by following the teachings of Rowley. MPEP 2143 and 2144.06(I).
Therefore it, would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have applied the emulsifiable concentrate composition taught by Rowley and Sherwood to a plant, seed or soil.
3) Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowley et al. (US 2016/0270402 A1, publication date 09/22/2016; cited in IDS 02/03/2025) in view of Sherwood et al. (Chem. Commun., 2014, 50, p. 9650-9652; cited in IDS 02/03/2025), as applied to claims 23-30 and 32-38 and 41 above, and further in view of Capuzzi et al. (WO 2020/193035 A1, publication date 10/01/2020).
Rowley and Sherwood, which are taught above, differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not teach the specifically claimed phytotoxicity-reducing compounds. Rowley discloses the composition may comprise herbicide safeners [0024].
Capuzzi relates to fungicidal formulations comprising azoxystrobin [abstract]. The composition may be in the form of an emulsifiable concentrate [p. 3, line 4] and may also comprise safeners such as benoxacor [p. 4, line 20].
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the present case it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have selected the benoxacor of Capuzzi for the safener desired by Rowley because Capuzzi discloses benoxacor is a suitable safener for emulsifiable concentrates comprising azoxystrobin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to formulated the composition taught by Rowley and Sherwood to further comprise benoxacor.
4) Claims 39, 40, 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowley et al. (US 2016/0270402 A1, publication date 09/22/2016; cited in IDS 02/03/2025) in view of Sherwood et al. (Chem. Commun., 2014, 50, p. 9650-9652; cited in IDS 02/03/2025), as applied to claims 23-30 and 32-38 and 41 above, and further in view of Hazra et al. (Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 2019, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 686-693) and Cao et al. (CN 102599165 A, publication date 07/25/2012; citing machine English translation).
Rowley and Sherwood, which are taught above, differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not teach a capsules. Rowley, however, teaches a chemically and physically stable composition is purpose of the inventive composition insofar as Rowley discloses “mixing them [liquid fertilizers] with liquid pesticides, physical incompatibilities involving the active substances and inert ingredients of a pesticide and a fertilizer can affect the overall mixture become unstable” and that “[w]hat is needed are improved formulations that facilitate the combination of agriculture products (e.g., pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, plant growth regulators (PGRs), seed treatment products, etc.) with fertilizers for co-administration to plants” [0004-5].
Hazra relates to pesticidal formulations [title]. Hazra discloses that ZW formulations, which comprise encapsuled actives, may comprise multiple actives and that “[f]ormulating the active ingredients together eliminates the need for tank mixing, which can lead to incompatibility” [p. 691, col. 1, last para.]. Hazra discloses that such a formulation may be used to “increase the residual biological activity, or reduce the acute toxicity, or to obtain a physical[ly] or chemically stable water-based formulation” [p. 691, col. 2, para. 1].
Cao discloses an azoxystrobin microcapsule composition [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have formulated the composition taught by Rowley and Sherwood as a ZW formulation. One would have been motivated to do so because the intended purpose of Rowley is to provide stable and chemically compatible pesticide/fertilizer compositions and according to Hazra, ZW formulations improve physical and chemical stability. One would have had an expectation of success because Cao discloses azoxystrobin can be formulated as a microcapsule formulation. Additionally, in combining these elements by known methods one would have expected nothing more than predictable results because, when combined, each prior art element would have performed the same function as it had separately. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
Regarding instant claim 39, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (See MPEP 2113.). In this case, the prior art product is the same or obvious as the claimed capsule composition, despite not teaching the claimed step of using a dioxabicycloalkane as the solvent for the polymer system from which the capsules are formed, insofar as the prior art teaches a pesticidal capsule formulation comprising the instantly claimed solvents and emulsifier. Specifically, Rowley, Sherwood, Hazra and Cao teach a composition comprising a capsule suspension (i.e., ZW formulation) of a fungicide, a dioxabicyclo[3.2.1]octane derivative as the solvent and a phosphate ester emulsifier, which is the same product as instantly claimed. The presence of capsules in the prior art suffices as the capsules as per claim 39.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to formulated the composition taught by Rowley and Sherwood as a ZW formulated.
Regarding instant claim 42 and 43, Rowley discloses applying the inventive compositions to a plant, seed or soil [0009].
Given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at, at the time of filling, to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results by following the teachings of Rowley. MPEP 2143 and 2144.06(I).
Therefore it, would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have applied the composition taught by Rowley, Sherwood Hazra and Cao to a plant, seed or soil.
Technological Background
1) The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CornellCals (Command / clomazone, 2026 [retrieved 03/03/2026], https://cals.cornell.edu/weed-science/herbicides/herbicide-reference/command-clomazone). CornellCals is pertinent for teaching COMMAND (clomazone) is a isoxazolidinone herbicide at line 2.
2) The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wikipedia (Benomyl, 2026 [retrieved 3/3/2026], https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benomyl). Wikipedia is pertinent for teaching benomyl is a systemic benzimidazole fungicide at the first paragraph.
3) The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EPA (Oxamyl Summary Document Registration Review, Docket Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2010-0028). EPA is pertinent for teaching Oxamyl is a restricted use N-methyl carbamate insecticide, acaricide, miticide, nematicide, and plant growth regulator, at page 4 paragraph 3.
4) The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. PubChem Azoxystrobin (NCBI PubChem Compound Summary for CID 3034285, Azoxystrobin. Retrieved February 26, 2026 from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Azoxystrobin). PubChem Azoxystrobin is pertinent for teaching Azoxystrobin is a methoxacrylate analog and a strobilurin fungicide (i.e., instant claim 27), at page 2 paragraph 2.
5) The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Huntsman (Huntsman, 2009 [retrieved 2/26/2026], https://www.huntsman.com/about/performance-products/news/detail/12507/huntsmans-jeffsol-ag-1730-solvent-approved-for-use-in). Huntsman is pertinent for teaching JEFFSOL AG-1730 solvent is the morpholine amide of a C8, 10 fatty acid (i.e., solvent selected from chemical class of amides), at the third sentence.
6) The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 10-34-0 SDS (Simplot 10-34-0 Liquid Ammonium Polyphosphate, 2025 [retrieved 2/26/2026], https://sds.simplot.com/datasheets/14090.pdf). 10-34-0 SDS is pertinent for teaching 10-34-0 comprises 50-70% water at section 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLMAN WELLES whose telephone number is (571)272-3843. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:00pm ET.
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 Kaup can be reached at (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.
/C.T.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/WALTER E WEBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
1 Cornell Cals, Cpmmand / clomazone, 2026.
2 Wikipedia, Benomyl.
3 Oxamyl Summary Document Registration Review, EPA, 2010.
4 NCBI PubChem Compound Summary for CID 3034285, Azoxystrobin. Retrieved February 26, 2026
5 Huntsman, 2009 [retrieved 2/26/2026].
6 10-34-0 SDS (Simplot 10-34-0 Liquid Ammonium Polyphosphate.