CTNF 18/560,993 CTNF 99476 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I – claims 1-17 and species: Election A: a comb copolymer having recurring units of (i) styrene; (ii) methacrylic acid; and (iii) mPEG 750 methacrylate with a number average molecular weight of 10 to 150 kDa; Election B : mPEG 750 with a number average molecular weight of 750 Da; Election C : metalaxyl in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. Upon further search and consideration, the Species A)Comb copolymer dispersant, specifically the first alkyl-capped polyalkoxylate is expanded to include: mPEG750 and PEGMEMA 475. Upon further search and consideration, the Species B) Second alkyl-capped polyalkoylate is expanded to include: alkyl ethers and alkyl esters of fatty alcohol alkoxylates and OXO alcohol alkoxylates and mPEG750. Upon further search and consideration, the Species C) Agricultural Active is expanded to include: neonicotinoid sulfonylureas to include: amidosulfuron, azimsulfuron, bensulfuron-methyl, chlorimuron-ethyl, chlorsulfuron, cinosulfuron, cyclosulfamuron, ethametsulfuron-methyl, flazasulfuron, halosulfuron-methyl, imazosulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl, nicosulfuron, primisulfuron, prosulfuron, pyrazosulfuron-ethyl, rimsulfuron, sulfometuron-methyl, thifensulfuron-methyl, triasulfuron, tribenuron-methyl, triflusulfuron-methyl, tritosulfuron; carboxamides to include: benalaxyl, benodanil, boscalid, carboxin, mepronil, fenfuram, fenhexamide, flutolanil, furametpyr, metalaxyl, ofurace, oxadixyl, oxycarboxin, penthiopyrad, thifluzamide, tiadinil, N-(4′-bromobiphenyl-2-yl)-4-difluoromethyl-2-methylthiazole-5-carboxamide, N-(4′-(trifluoromethyl)biphenyl-2-yl)-4-difluoromethyl-2-methylthiazole-5-carboxamide, N-(4′-chloro-3′-fluorobiphenyl-2-yl)-4-difluoromethyl-2-methylthiazole-5-carboxamide, N-(3′,4′-dichloro-4-fluorobiphenyl-2-yl)-3-difluoromethyl-1-methylpyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-(3′,4′-dichloro-5-fluorobiphenyl-2-yl)-3-difluoromethyl-1-methylpyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-(2-cyanophenyl)-3,4-dichloroisothiazole-5-carboxamide, benalaxyl-M, bixafen, isotianil, kiralaxyl, tecloftalam, 2-amino-4-methylthiazole-5-carboxanilide, 2-chloro-N-(1,1,3-trimethylindan-4-yl)nicotinamide, N-(3′,4′-dichloro-5-fluorobiphenyl-2-yl)-3-difluoromethyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-(3′,4′-dichloro-5-fluorobiphenyl-2-yl)-3-trifluoromethyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-[2-(1,3-dimethylbutyl)phenyl]-5-fluoro-1,3-dimethyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-(4′-chloro-3′,5-difluorobiphenyl-2-yl)-3-difluoromethyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-(4′-chloro-3′,5-difluorobiphenyl-2-yl)-3-trifluoromethyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-(3′,5-difluoro-4′-methylbiphenyl-2-yl)-3-difluoromethyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-(3′,5-difluoro-4′-methylbiphenyl-2-yl)-3-trifluoromethyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-[2-(bicyclopropyl-2-yl)phenyl]-3-difluoromethyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide, N-[2-(cis-bicyclopropyl-2-yl)phenyl]-3-difluoromethyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide and N-[2-(trans-bicyclopropyl-2-yl)phenyl]-3-difluoromethyl-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole-4-carboxamide. triazoles to include: bitertanol, bromuconazole, cyproconazole, difenoconazole, diniconazole, enilconazole, epoxiconazole, fenbuconazole, flusilazole, fluquinconazole, flutriafol, hexaconazole, imibenconazole, ipconazole, metconazole, myclobutanil, penconazole, propiconazole, prothioconazole, simeconazole, tebuconazole, tetraconazole, triadimenol, triadimefon, triticonazole. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2023 and 01/06/2026 are being considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Many of the foreign patent documents only have English translations of the abstracts, therefore, only the abstracts are considered by the examiner. See annotated IDS forms. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation In regards to claim 1, as to the limitations of “an inhibitor composition”, it is noted that the type of inhibitor is not defined. Therefore, examiner broadly interprets this to mean a kind of inhibitor to include an composition that comprises an inhibitor. In regards to claim 1, as to the limitation of ‘when combined at 0.1 to 5 wt.% with an agricultural active’ it is noted that the instant claim 1 is a composition claims and future intended use, such as combining with an agricultural active is not given patentable weight. Thus any composition comprising (a1) 60-97% of the comb copolymer and (b1) 3 to 40% of a second alkyl-capped polyalkoxylate will meet this limitation. In regards to claim 16, as to the limitations of ‘after storage for 14 days at 54 o C, at least 90 wt.% of the particles have an average diameter less than 50µm as measured by dynamic light scattering’ applicant is reminded this is a composition/product claim and the prior art teaches the composition of claim 8 to include metalaxyl (the elected active), from which claim 16 depends upon, thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches the composition having after storage for 14 days at 54 o C, at least 90 wt.% of the particles have an average diameter less than 50µm as measured by dynamic light scattering. In regards to claim 17 , as to the limitation of 'in the form of an emulsion, suspension concentrate, or suspoemulsion’ it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use, such as using the composition in an emulsion, is not given patentable weight. Thus any composition comprising the composition of claim 8 from which claim 17 dependents upon will meet this limitation. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 8 is 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. Claim 8 recites “(b2) 0.1 to 5%, based on the amount of agricultural active, of the inhibitor composition of claim 1”, however claim 8 or claim 1 from which claim 8 dependents makes no mention of an amount of agricultural active thus rendering the 0.1 to 5% based on the amount of agricultural active indefinite. Further, it is unclear if the “based on the amount of agricultural active” meant to be a ratio of the inhibitor to active or the content of the inhibitor concentration in the composition as a whole. For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, the examiner broadly interprets any concentration of inhibitor composition to meet this requirement. 07-34-01 Claim 14 is 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. Claim 14 recites “the composition of claim 8 comprising 0.2 to 3 wt.% of the inhibitor composition based on the combined amounts of (a2) and (b2)”. Similarly to above, claim 15 nor claim 8 or claim 1 from which claim 15 dependents makes no mention of an amount of (a2) agricultural active thus rendering the 0.2 to 3 wt% of the inhibitor composition based on the combined amounts of (a2) and (b2) indefinite. For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, the examiner broadly interprets any concentration of inhibitor composition to meet this requirement. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) 07-36 AIA 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. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 15 is 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. Claim 15 recites the limitation of “wherein the organic solvent comprises”, however, claim 15 is dependent upon claims 8 and 1 which make no mention of a solvent . 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. For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, the examiner broadly interprets the limitations of the instant claim 8 to meet limitations of the instant claim 15. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-4 and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koltzenburg et al. (US9522970B2, published 12/20/2016, hereafter Koltzenburg), in view of Tuerk et al. (US9426986B2, published 08/30/2016, hereafter Tuerk) . Koltzenburg claims a comb polymer and use thereof for the production of active or effective ingredient formulations (title; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Koltzenburg teaches the invention is used with active substances in plant protection, the active substances used for combating pests, i.e. plant protection active substances, such as insecticides, acaricides, nematicides, fungicides and herbicides but also growth regulators, are frequently formulated and sold as concentrates, e.g. as aqueous concentrates, such as suspensions or emulsions, but also as solid concentrates, such as powders, dusts or granules (column 1, lines 20-31; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 17). Koltzenburg teaches the copolymers can be used as dispersants (column 2, lines 46-49) and the manufacture can be carried out by incorporating the active substance in the dispersion of the comb polymer (column 16, lines 41-45; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Further, Koltzenburg teaches the comb polymers according to the invention are suitable for the manufacture of active substance formulations, in particular peptides and their inhibitors, ACE inhibitors, enzyme inhibitors, and thrombocyte aggregation inhibitors (column 26, lines 31-51; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Koltzenburg claims an active substance composition in solid form comprising: i)at least one comb polymer in which the comb polymer is obtained by copolymerization and ii) at least one agrochemical active substance (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 8). Koltzenburg claims the comb polymer has an average molecular weight of 2,000 to 500,000 Daltons (claim 9; according to the claim limitation of the instant claims 1 and 2). Further, Koltzenburg claims the concentration of the comb polymer is from 20 to 95% of the composition (claim 16; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 8, and 14). Koltzenburg claims the amount of active substance is from 5 to 70% (claim 17; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 8 and 14). Koltzenburg teaches the addition of surfactants, specifically those with a molecular weight of 2000 Daltons or less, preferably 1000 Daltons (column 29, lines 60-65; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, and 13). Further, Koltzenburg teaches the surfactant to be for example: fatty alcohol alkoxylates and OXO alcohol alkoxylates, in particular ethoxylates and propoxylates with degrees of alkoxylation of usually 2 to 100 and in particular 3 to 50, e.g. alkoxylates of Cs-Co-alkanols or alk(adi)enols, e.g. of isotridecyl alcohol, lauryl alcohol, oleyl alcohol or stearyl alcohol, and the C-C-alkyl ethers and C-C-alkyl esters thereof, e.g. the acetates thereof; alkoxylated animal and/or vegetable fats and/or oils, for example corn oil ethoxylates, castor oil ethoxylates or tallow fat ethoxylates, glycerol esters, such as, for example, glycerol monostearate (column 30 lines 22-33; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 4, and 13). Koltzenburg teaches the surfactant/surface-active agent to be presents in about amount of 0.1 to 60%, preferably 0.5 to 50% and the comb polymer to be in an amount of 0.1 to 60% (column 31, lines 1-6; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 8, and 13-14). Further, Koltzenburg teaches the use of copolymers as crystallization inhibitors for plant protection (column 2, lines 62-65; according to the claim limitation of the instant claim 1). Koltzenburg teaches the active ingredients to include carboxamides (see election expansion above for full list), specifically teaching metalaxyl (columns 18-19, lines 36-67 and 1-5 respectively; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 8, 10, and 16). Further, Koltzenburg teaches the active substance to include sulfonylureas (see list from election expansion above; column 21, line 27; according to the claim limitation of the instant claims 8-9). Koltzenburg further teaches the active to be a neonicotinoid (column 26, lines 14-26) and to be triazoles (see list from election expansion above; column 19, lines 23-30) (according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 8). Koltzenburg teaches the formulations can be achieved by diluting the formulation with water (column 5, lines 28-65; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 13). Further, Koltzenburg teaches the addition of an aqueous medium to include water and an organic solvent (column 5, lines 11-15; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 13). Further, Koltzenburg teaches example suspoemulsions that comprise a biocide (column 37, table 3; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 13). Koltzenburg teaches the surface-active substances include wetting properties (column 29, lines 54-56; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 13). Koltzenburg teaches the composition has other auxiliaries (additives) to include thickeners, antifoam agents, preservatives, anti-freeze agents, stabilizers, anticaking agents, or free-flow aids, and buffers (column 29, lines 56-59; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 13). Lastly, Koltzenburg teaches the organic substances can include aromatic hydrocarbons and mixtures, for example xylenes or Solvesso 100, 150 or 200 (column 31, lines 10-22; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 13 and 15). Koltzenburg fails to teach the comb polymer of the instant claim 1 to include the first alkyl capped polyalkoxylate has a number average molecular weight within the range of 350 to 2000 Da as claimed by instant claim 3. Tuerk teaches an amphiphile, specifically a comb-polymer agricultural composition comprising reoccurring units of styrene and of methacrylate ester of an alkyl-capped polyalkoxylate (example 7, column 28, lines 40-67 and claim 1). Tuerk teaches the amphiphile is water-dispersible (column 2, lines 21-22; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Tuerk teaches the amphiphile for controlling phytopathogenic fungi and/or unwanted plant growth and/or unwanted insect or mite infestation and/or for regulating the growth of plants (column 1, lines 20-24; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Tuerk further teaches the example 7 to have 180.2g methyl methacrylate (MMA), 70.3g styrene, and 214.0g of PEGMEMA 475 (example 7, column 28, lines 40-67; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 3). Furthermore, Tuerk provides a list of example copolymers usable to include styrene, (meth)acrylic acid, polyethylene glycol monomethyl ether (meth)acrylate, and methyl methacrylate (columns 15-16, lines 30-67 and 1-6; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Tuerk teaches the comb-type polymer preferably comprises polyalkylene glycol mono(meth)acrylate or allyl alcohol alkoxylate (such as polyethylene glycol allyl ether) in polymerized form, preferably polyethylene glycol monoalkyl ether (meth)acrylate with a molar mass M, of 100 to 5000 g/mol (columns 16-17, lines 58-57 and 1 respectively). Tuerk teaches the addition of nonionic surfactants, specifically alkoxylates and even more specifically alkoxylation of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide (columns 21-22, lines 58-67 and lines 1-14 respectively; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Tuerk teaches the concentration of surfactant to be from 0.1-40% (column 22, lines 15-20; according to the claim limitation of the instant claim 1). Lastly, Tuerk teaches the addition of various inhibitors to include platelet aggregation inhibitors, peptide inhibitors, enzyme inhibitors, and ACE inhibitors (column 3, lines 4-28; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim a comb polymer composition comprising a comb polymer a surfactant and an active ingredient as outlined by Koltzenburg with the simple substitution of a comb polymer comprising styrene, methacrylic acid, and PEGMEMA 475 as outlined by Tuerk. Simple substitution of one comb polymer used in a plant growth composition for another is within the purview of the skilled artisan and would yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim( s) 1 and 5 are r ejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over K oltzenburg et al. (US9522970B2, published 12/20/2016, hereafter Koltzenburg), in view of Tuerk et al. (US9426986B2, published 08/30/2016, hereafter Tuerk), and in view of Wurn et al. (US8497303B2, published 07/30/2013, hereafter Wurn). A s outlined above, Koltzenburg in view of Tuerk teaches an inhibitor composition comprising the comb polymer of instant claim 1 to include PEGMEMA and a second alkyl-capped polyalkoylate to include nonionic surfactants, specifically alkyl ethers and alkyl esters of fatty alcohol alkoxylates and OXO alcohol alkoxylates. However, Koltzenburg in view of Tuerk does not explicitly teaches the second alkyl-capped polyalkoylate is a monomethyl—terminated polyethylene glycol, or more specifically the elected mPEG 750. Wurn teaches that methoxypolyethylene glycol (MPEG) increases the solubility of active compounds, specifically in agricultural products (abstract). Further, Wurn teaches MPEG as a surfactant (column 2, lines 18-19). Wurn teaches that using MPEG at a molecular weight of about 750 advantageously results in a clear, low viscosity liquid and/or a white solid of paster-like consistency in a variety of formulations with active compounds such as: gels, soft gels, capsules, tablets, granules, liquids, foams, and the like (column 4, lines 34-42). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify an agricultural inhibitor composition comprising a comb polymer, a surfactant, and an active ingredient as outlined by Koltzenburg in view of Tuerk by the use of MPEG, specifically MPEG 750 as outlined by Wurn under TSM, see MPEP 2143(G). As outlined by Wurn, utizling MPEG 750 as the surfactant in an agricultural composition advantageously results in the desired consistency in various formulations which would motivate someone skilled in the art to advantageously combine MPEG 750 with the composition of Koltzenburg in view of Tuerk as it would have a reasonable expectation of success . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koltzenburg et al. (US9522970B2, published 12/20/2016, hereafter Koltzenburg), in view of Tuerk et al. (US9426986B2, published 08/30/2016, hereafter Tuerk), and in view of Chen et al. (CN112592437A, published 04/02/2021, Google English translation, hereafter Chen) . As outlined above, Koltzenburg in view of Tuerk teaches an inhibitor composition comprising the comb polymer of instant claim 1 to include styrene. However, Koltzenburg in view of Tuerk does not explicitly teach the concentration of styrene as claimed by instant claim 6. Chen teaches a wetting dispersant comb polymer that can be used in the agrochemical industry (abstract). Chen claims the comb polymer comprises a block copolymer with an average molecular weight of 600 to 2000, methacrylic acid, and one of monomers to include styrene (abstract or claim 1). Chen teaches the molecular weight of the comb polymer is a polymer with a weight of up to 10000 (page 2, paragraph 5). Chen claims the concentration of styrene to be 10 to 30% (page 4, paragraph 4) or 20 to 30% (claim 3). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim an inhibitor composition comprising the comb polymer of styrene , methacrylic acid, and a methacrylate ester of a first alkyl capped polyalkoxylate, along with a surfactant and active as outlined by Koltzenburg in view of Tuerk with the ready for improvement with the known technique of adjusting the concentration of the styrene within the comb polymer as outlined by Chen. Adjusting the forementioned components of an agricultural composition comprising a comb polymer of a copolymer, methacrylic acid, and styrene as claimed by instant claim 6 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koltzenburg et al. (US9522970B2, published 12/20/2016, hereafter Koltzenburg), in view of Tuerk et al. (US9426986B2, published 08/30/2016, hereafter Tuerk), and in view of Lau et al. (US6716915B2, published 04/06/2004, hereafter Lau) . As outlined above, Koltzenburg in view of Tuerk teaches an inhibitor composition comprising the comb polymer of instant claim 1. However, Koltzenburg in view of Tuerk does not teach the residual acidic groups of the comb polymer are unneutralized as claimed by instant claim 7. Lau teaches shaping and curing polymers, specifically comb polymers, can result in the polymers being brittle (column 1, lines 8-12). Lau claims the comb polymer is formed from at least one monomer and at least one unsaturated monomer in an aqueous emulsion with a macromonomer (claim 1). Further, Lau teaches an aqueous dispersion of a comb copolymer (column 5, lines 34-38). Lau teaches the unsaturated monomer to be styrene (columns 8-9, lines 60-67 and 1-3 respectively). Further Lau teaches suitable monomers include, for example, methacrylate esters, Such as C. to Cs normal, branched, or cyclic alkyl esters of meth acrylic acid, including methyl methacrylate, ethyl methacrylate, butyl methacrylate, 2-ethylhexyl methacrylate, cyclohexyl methacrylate, isobornyl methacrylate, lauryl methacrylate, or Stearyl methacrylate; hydroxyalkyl methacrylates such as hydroxyethyl methacrylate; glycidylmethacrylate; phenyl methacrylate; methacrylamide; methacrylonitrile, or combinations thereof (column 10, lines 23-31). Lau teaches the monomer can include an acid containing monomer, specifically methacrylic acid (column 9, lines 37-60). Lastly, Lau teaches preferably, the process of the present invention does not require neutralization of the monomer, or resulting aqueous graft copolymer composition (column 17, lines33-35). Lau furthers this by teaching these components preferably remain in unneutralized form (e.g., no neutralization with a base if acid functional groups are present) (column 17, lines 35-37). It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim an inhibitor composition comprising a comb polymer comprising styrene, methacrylic acid, and PEGMEMA (a macromonomer) as outlined by Koltzenburg in view of Tuerk with the ready for improvement with the known technique of leaving the residual acidic groups in their unneutralized form as outlined by Lau. Not neutralizing the residual acidic groups in a comb polymer comprising styrene, methacrylic acid, and a macromonomer as claimed by instant claim 7 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan. Conclusion No claims allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST. 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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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. /BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611 /A.N.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 2 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 3 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 4 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 5 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 6 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 7 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 8 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 9 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 10 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 11 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 12 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 13 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 14 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 15 Art Unit: 1611 Application/Control Number: 18/560,993 Page 16 Art Unit: 1611