56DETAILED 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 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “8.000” which is understood to be a typo of “8,000”.
Claim 11 recite “is free unit from strong acid derivatives” which is understood to by a typo of “is free [[unit]] from strong acid derivatives”.
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 12 and 16 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said monomers a), b), c) and optionally d)" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for monomer d) in the claim.
The term “adjacent” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjacent” 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 this term such that the artisan would reasonably appreciate the metes and bound of what is encompassed by it. It is not clear how far from the plant the composition may be applied and still meet the limitation of “adjacent to a plant”.
The term “adapted to” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adapted to” 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 this term such that the artisan would reasonably appreciate the metes and bound of what is encompassed by it. It is not clear how far from the base soil or seed one can deviate and still meet the limitations of the claim. Additionally, it is unclear what limitations “adapted to” impose on the soil and seed. For the purposes of examination these limitations will be interpreted as soil and seed capable of growing a plant.
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.
Claim 12 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 12 recites that the copolymer is obtainable by controlled radical polymerization and therefore does not require of the limitations that follow. Additionally, claim 12 only recites monomer d) as optional. Therefore, claim 12 fails to limit the claims from which it depends. 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knight et al. (WO 2019/185851, publication date 10/03/2019; cited in IDS 11/27/23) in view of Matyjaszewski (Radical Polymerization. In Controlled and Living Polymerizations, 2009, Wiley-VCH, p. 103-166).
Regarding instant claims 1, 2, 5-8, and 11-13, Knight discloses a “copolymer dispersant having acrylic acid, hydrophobic monomer, [and] alkylacrylate of a monoalkyl polyethylene glycol” which is “combined with agrochemical active and/or nutrient and/or biostimulant to form a formulation” (i.e., instant claim 13) [abstract]. “[W]herein the copolymer molecular weight is in the range from 5,000 to 75,000 Daltons” [p. 35, claim 6]. According to Knight the copolymer comprises 10-90 wt.% or 20-50 wt. % acrylic acid monomer, 10-90 wt. % or 15-40 wt. % vinyl aromatic monomer (i.e., styrene), and 10-90 wt. % or 20-50 wt. % alkylacrylate of a polyethylene glycol monomer [p. 7, lines 4-14]. Knight exemplifies one copolymer dispersant, C3, as a “copolymer of acrylic acid/styrene/methoxy (polyethylene glycol) methacrylate (MW 500)” (i.e., acrylic monomer/vinyl aromatic hydrophobic monomer/(C1-C4)alkoxy polyethylene glycol methacrylate; instant claims 5 and 7) [p. 30, line 20]. Finally, Knight discloses that “[t]he copolymer may be formed by any suitable method, and this may include free radical solution polymerisation or controlled living polymerization” [p. 6, lines 31-32].
Knight does not anticipate the instant claims because knight does not disclose one example or embodiment with the instantly claimed molecular weights, mol. % ranges and method of polymerization.
Matyjaszewski discloses that “[t]he commercial success of RP [radical polymerization] can be attributed to the large range of radically polymerizable monomers, their facile copolymerization, the convenient reaction conditions employed (typically room temperature to 100 ◦C, ambient pressure), and very minimal requirements for purification of monomers and solvents” [p. 103, para. 1]. Matyjaszewski also discloses that “high molecular weight (MW) polymers are formed at the early stages of the [radical] polymerization, and neither long reaction times nor high conversions are required” [p. 103, para. 1]. However, according to Matyjaszewski “it has not been possible to prepare well-defined (co)polymers via conventional RP. However, new approaches that exploit equilibria between growing radicals and dormant species were recently developed to minimize the proportion of terminated chains in RP. Such controlled radical polymerizations (CRPs) with reversible deactivation (IUPAC recommends a term controlled reversible-deactivation radical polymerization) are mechanistically similar to conventional RP methods and proceed through the same intermediates” [p. 104, para. 2]. Furthermore, Matyjaszewski discloses that in controlled radical polymerization, “the degree of control is often sufficient to attain many desirable material properties” [p. 104, para. 2]. Of the degenerative transfer controlled radical polymerization methods, RAFT polymerization is among the most successful [p. 127, para. 2]. “RAFT employs various dithioesters, dithiocarbamates, trithiocarbonates, and xanthates as TAs [transfer agents] leading to polymers with low polydispersities and various controlled architectures (Scheme 3.12) for a broad range of monomers” (i.e., radical control agents) [p. 127, para. 2]. Additionally, Matyjaszewski discloses that “[i]n principle, there is no limitation for the radical initiators but peroxides may oxidize RAFT reagents” [p. 128, para. 3].
In regard to the controlled radical polymerization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have substituted the free radical polymerization of Knight for the RAFT controlled radical polymerization disclosed by Matyjaszewski. One would have been motivated to make this substitution to achieve the degree of control afforded by controlled radical polymerization while maintaining the robustness of radical polymerization reactions generally, as taught by Matyjaszewski. One would have had an expectation of success because Knight desires any suitable method, such as free radical solution polymerization, and Matyjaszewski discloses radical polymerization and controlled radical polymerization are mechanistically similar. The simple substitution of one known element (e.g., the controlled radical polymerization of Matyjaszewski) in place of another (e.g., the free radical polymerization of Knight) in order to achieve predictable results (polymerize monomers) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
In regard to the molecular weight of the copolymer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have combined the teachings of Knight by known methods to modify the molecular weight copolymer C3 of knight to between 5,000 to 75,000 Daltons. One would have been motivated to and had an expectation of success in making this combination because Knight discloses the copolymers may have a molecular weight between 5,000 and 75,000 Daltons. 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.
In regard to the mol. % of the monomers, Table 1 demonstrates the mol percent of each monomer in copolymer C3 based on the monomer weight percents of Knight.
Table 1. Weight percent and molar percent of monomers in a copolymer C3, wherein copolymer C3 has an exemplary molecular weight of 8,000.
Monomer
Molecular Weight (g/mol)
Monomer Weight Percent, per Knight (%w/w)
Monomer Weight Range
Monomer mol Range
Range mol. %
Acrylic acid
72.01
20 - 50
1,600 – 4,000
22.2 – 55.5
37.4 - 79.7
Styrene
104.12
15 - 40
1,200 – 3,200
11.5 – 30.7
15.6 – 55.3
Methoxy polyethylene glycol methacrylate
500 (PEG) + 116.1 (methoxy3 and methacrylate4)
20 - 50
1,600 – 4,000
2.6 – 6.5
2.9 – 16.1
One would have expected a copolymer represented by the mol. % ranges of Table 1 to be within the scope of Knight because Knight encompasses copolymers comprise 10-90 wt. % of each of the three types of monomers taught above.
In regard to the instantly claimed ranges, 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).
The ranges of instant claim 1 for molecular weight (8,000 – 17,000 g/mol), acrylic monomer (up to 50 mol. %), hydrophobic non-acrylic monomer (at least 35 mol. %) and alkoxy PEG methacrylate (at least 10 mol. %) overlap with the ranges of the prior art (5,000 – 75,000 g/mol, 37.4 - 79.7 mol. %, 15.6 – 55.3 mol. %, 2.9 – 16.1 mol. %, respectively) and so a prima facie case of obviousness exists for each.
Additionally, the instantly claimed ranges of acrylic monomer of up to 45 mol. % (i.e., instant claim 2), hydrophobic non-acrylic monomer of at least 40 mol. % (i.e., instant claim 6) and alkoxy PEG methacrylate of at least 10 - 30 mol. % (i.e., instant claim 8) overlap with the ranges of the prior art (37.4 - 79.7 mol. %, 15.6 – 55.3 mol. %, 2.9 – 16.1 mol. %, respectively) and so a prima facie case of obviousness also exists for each range in the dependent claims.
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 copolymer dispersant and a biostimulant as an agricultural material. Wherein the copolymer dispersant comprises an acrylic acid monomer (acrylic acid), a vinyl aromatic hydrophobic non-acrylic monomer (styrene) and a (C1-C4)alkyloxy polyethylene glycol (meth)acrylate monomer (methoxy polyethylene glycol (meth)acrylate). Wherein the copolymer is formed by controlled radical polymerization with a radical polymerization control agent and a free radical polymerization initiator. Wherein the molecular weight of the copolymer and mol. % of each monomer in the copolymer is within the instantly claimed ranges. Wherein the composition does not comprise strong acid derivatives of (meth)acrylic acid monomers (i.e., instant claim 11). Finally, instant claim 12 reads on the copolymer of Knight and Matyjaszewski because it is obtainable of controlled radical polymerization of the three monomers discussed above.
Regarding instant claims 3 and 4, Knight discloses the copolymer may also comprise other monomers such as “acrylic esters which may be alkyl esters particularly C1 to C6 alkyl esters, such as methyl methacrylate” (i.e., a (C1-C12)alkyl (meth)acrylate monomer) [p. 7, lines 22-23].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have combined the methyl methacrylate with the copolymer C3 taught by Knight and discussed above. One would have been motivated to, and had an expectation of success in combining these elements because Knight teaches the copolymers may further comprise methyl methacrylate. 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.
Regarding instant claim 9, Knight discloses “[p]referably the acrylic acid monomer may be acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, crotonic acid, or a mixture thereof” [p. 4, lines 22-23]. Knight discloses the copolymer comprises 10-90 wt.% or 20-50 wt. % acrylic acid monomer [p. 7, lines 4-14]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have simply combined a methacrylic acid monomer with the copolymer C3 disclosed by Knight. One would have been motivated to, and had an expectation of success in combining these elements because Knight teaches the acrylic acid monomer of the copolymers may comprise a mixture of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid. 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.
In regard to the instantly claimed mol.% range, a skilled artisan would have understood that Knight desires the total amount of acrylic monomers to be present in amounts from 20-50 wt. %. Therefore, the acrylic acid monomer encompasses mixtures of acrylic acid and methacrylic acid monomers wherein the methacrylic acid is present in amounts of 20 wt. % or less, as long as the total weight percent of the acrylic acid monomers remains within the desired range of 20-50 wt. %. Accordingly, one would have expected the mol. % of the prior art to overlap with the instantly claimed mol. % (0.1 to 20 mol. %) and so a prima facie case of obviousness exist.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to formulated the composition of Knight and Matyjaszewski wherein the copolymer further comprises methacrylic acid in amounts within the instantly claimed range.
Regarding instant claim 10, Matyjaszewski discloses RAFT polymerization can lead to polymers with low polydispersities [p. 127, para. 2, line 5] and exemplifies a low polydispersity as less than or equal to 1.2 (see [p. 128, para. 5, line 4] i.e., Section 3.5.6.2).
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 1-3.5 overlaps with the range of the prior art (less than or equal to 1.2) and so a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding instant claim 14, Knight discloses the copolymer dispersant may be formulated in “[a]grochemical concentrates are agrochemical compositions, which may be aqueous” [p. 10, line 13].
Regarding instant claim 15, Knight discloses the copolymer “dispersant is suitable for use in agrochemical formulations” [abstract]. Knight also discloses the compositions may comprise a biostumulant (i.e., agricultural material according to instant claim 13) [abstract].
That is to say, Knight disclose the polymer is suitable as a dispersant in agrochemical formulations and that the copolymer may be combined with a biostumulant. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have developed a method comprising dispersing the copolymer in an agrochemical composition comprising an agricultural material. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
Regarding instant claim 16, Knight discloses a method comprising applying a composition comprising the copolymer and a biostumulant to vegetation [p. 36, claim 10]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to developed a method comprising applying a composition comprising an agricultural active (biostimulant) and the copolymer taught by Knight and Matyjaszewski to at least one plant.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
1) Claims 1-16 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/564,406 in view of Knight et al. (WO 2019/185851, publication date 10/03/2019, cited in IDS 11/27/23) and Matyjaszewski (Radical Polymerization. In Controlled and Living Polymerizations, 2009, Wiley-VCH, p. 103-166).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application and instant application claim a dispersant copolymer [claim 18], wherein the monomers of the copolymer comprise acrylic acid, a C1-C12alkyl methacrylate, a hydrophobic non acrylic monomer and a (C1-C12)alkyloxy polyethylene glycol (meth)acrylate [claim 1]. Wherein the copolymer is obtained by radical polymerization [claim 1]. Furthermore, the copending claims disclose ranges for the monomer which overlap with the instantly claimed mol. % ranges: 0.1-15 mol.% acrylic acid [claim 2], 5-40 mol. % of C1-C12alkyl methacrylate [claim 6], 30-60 mol. % of the hydrophobic non-acrylic monomer [claim 8], and 1-30 mol. % of the (C1-C12)alkyloxy polyethylene glycol (meth)acrylate monomer [claim 9]. The copending claims also disclose overlapping molecular weights for the copolymer dispersant; less than or equal 20,000 g/mol [claim 13].
The copending claims do not disclose an agricultural material and controlled radical polymerization.
Knight discloses that similar copolymers are useful in agrochemical compositions [abstract].
Matyjaszewski teaches that controlled radical polymerization allows for greater control than free radical polymerization and proceeds through similar mechanisms [p. 104, para. 2].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have applied the copending copolymer dispersant to agrochemical formulations because Knight discloses that similar copolymers are used in agrichemical compositions. One would have had an expectation of success because the copolymer of the copending claims is disclosed as a dispersant. 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.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have simply substituted the radical polymerization of the copending claims for the controlled radical polymerization of Matyjaszewski. On would have been motivated to, and had an expectation of success in making this substitution because Matyjaszewski teaches that controlled radical polymerization affords greater control and proceeds through similar mechanisms as free radical polymerization. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
In regard to the ranges, 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).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
2) Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/564,482 in view of Knight et al. (WO 2019/185851, publication date 10/03/2019, cited in IDS 11/27/23) and Matyjaszewski (Radical Polymerization. In Controlled and Living Polymerizations, 2009, Wiley-VCH, p. 103-166).
The copending and instant claims disclose a agrochemical composition comprising a copolymer and an agricultural material [claim 1]. Wherein the copolymer is a dispersant [claim 17], has a molecular weight less than 20,000 g/mol [claim 13] and is obtained by radical polymerization [claim 1]. Where the copolymer comprises 0.1-15 mol. % acrylic acid [claim 2], 5-40 mol. % (C1-C12)alkyl methacrylate [claim 6], 30-60 mol. % hydrophobic non-acrylic acid monomer [claim 8] and 1-30 mol.% (C1-C12) alkyloxy polyethylene glycol (meth)acrylate [claim 9].
The copending claims do not disclose controlled radical polymerization.
Knight discloses an agrochemical “copolymer dispersant having acrylic acid, hydrophobic monomer, [and] alkylacrylate of a monoalkyl polyethylene glycol” [abstract]. According to Knight “[t]he copolymer may be formed by any suitable method, and this may include free radical solution polymerisation or controlled living polymerization” [p. 6, lines 31-32].
Matyjaszewski teaches that controlled radical polymerization allows for greater control than free radical polymerization and proceeds through similar mechanisms [p. 104, para. 2].
In regard to the polymerization, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have simply substituted the free radical polymerization of the copending claims for the controlled radical polymerization of Matyjaszewski. On would have been motivated to, and had an expectation of success in making this substitution because Matyjaszewski teaches that controlled radical polymerization affords greater control and proceeds through similar mechanisms.
In regard to the ranges, 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).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
3) Claims 1-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/563,697 in view of Knight et al. (WO 2019/185851, publication date 10/03/2019, cited in IDS 11/27/23) and Matyjaszewski (Radical Polymerization. In Controlled and Living Polymerizations, 2009, Wiley-VCH, p. 103-166).
The copending claims disclose a copolymer dispersant [claim 16] with a molecular weight from 2,000 to 17,000 g/mol and comprising up to 50 mol. % acrylic acid, (c1-C12) alkyl (meth)acrylate or a mixture thereof, at least 35 mol. % hydrophobic non-acrylic monomers and at least 10 mol. % (C1-C12) alkyloxy polyethylene glycol (meth)acrylate monomer [claim 1]. Wherein the copolymer is obtained by controlled radical polymerization with a radical initiator and radical control agent [claim 1].
The copening claims do not disclose an agricultural material.
Knight discloses that similar copolymers are useful in agrochemical compositions [abstract].
In regard to the agricultural material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have applied the copending copolymer dispersant to agrochemical formulations because Knight discloses that similar copolymers are used in agrichemical compositions. One would have had an expectation of success because the copolymer of the copending claims is disclosed as a dispersant. 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.
In regard to the instantly claimed ranges, 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).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Technological Background
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NCBI, PubChem Compound Summary for CID 6581, Acrylic Acid. Retrieved March 17, 2026, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Acrylic-Acid. PubChem Acrylic Acid is pertinent for teaching the molecular weight of the acrylic acid monomer.
NCBI, PubChem Compound Summary for CID 7501, Styrene. Retrieved March 17, 2026 https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Styrene. PubChem Styrene is pertinent for teaching the molecular weight of the styrene monomer.
NCBI, PubChem Compound Summary for CID 123146, Methoxy. Retrieved March 17, 2026, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Methoxy. PubChem Methoxy is pertinent for teaching the molecular weight of the methoxy monomer.
NCBI, PubChem Compound Summary for CID 87595, Methacrylate. Retrieved March 17, 2026, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Methacrylate. PubChem Methacrylate is pertinent for teaching the molecular weight of the methacrylate monomer.
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 PubChem Compound Summary for CID 6581, Acrylic Acid. Retrieved March 17, 2026
2 PubChem Compound Summary for CID 7501, Styrene. Retrieved March 17, 2026
3 PubChem Compound Summary for CID 123146, Methoxy. Retrieved March 17, 2026
4 PubChem Compound Summary for CID 87595, Methacrylate. Retrieved March 17, 2026