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 .
Applicants’ arguments, filed 06/23/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
Maintained
1) 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, only and without sodium methallyl sulphonate, sodium styrene sulphonate, AMPS and (meth)acrylic acid isethionate; instant claims 5, 7, 11 and 12) [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 1-45 mol. % (i.e., instant claim 2), hydrophobic non-acrylic monomer of 40-60 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 sodium methallyl sulphonate, sodium styrene sulphonate, acylamido methyl propyl sulphonate (AMPS) and (meth)acrylic acid isethionate (i.e., instant claim 11). Wherein the copolymer is obtained by a controlled radical polymerization (RAFT polymerization) of only the three monomers discussed above (instant claim 12).
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 exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filling, to have 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 have 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.
New by Amendment
2) Claims 17-18 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) as applied to claims 1-16 above, and in further view of Shirley et al. (US20090069186A1, publication date 03/12/2009) and Gobelt et al. (US20100168316A1, publication date 01/07/2010)
.
Knight and Matyjaszewski, which are taught above, differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not teach polydispersity of 1.5-3.5 and number average molecular weight.
Shirley relates to “a polymeric dispersant having a segment soluble in the continuous phase and a segment insoluble in the continuous phase” [abstract]. In one example the dispersant comprises mono-methoxy poly(ethyleneglycol) mono-methacrylate (PEGMA) and methyl methacrylate (MMA) [Example A1 of Table 1, page 5]. According to Shirley “[m]olecular weight of the polymeric dispersant is also an important factor. If the molecular weight is too high the polymer will be excessively viscous in solution and difficult to use, if it is too low it will not have a homogenous chemical composition and if it is too broadly distributed it will be difficult to predict its behaviour. One skilled in the art will be able to select the appropriate materials and conditions to prepare the desired copolymer structure of an appropriate molecular weight” [0040].
Gobelt “relates to compositions comprising two structured linear copolymers selected from the group consisting of block copolymers and gradient copolymers” [abstract]. According to Gobelt “[t]he individual polymers of the blend of the invention preferably possess a number-average molecular weight Mn of 1000 to 20 000 g/mol, more preferably 2000 to 20 000 g/mol and very preferably 2000 to 15000 g/mol. Furthermore, the individual polymers in the copolymer blend of the invention are distinguished by a different molecular weight distribution Mw/Mn which ranges preferably from 1.05 to 4.0” [0014-0015]. Suitable polymerization methods include RAFT [p. 9, claim 12].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have combined the number average molecular weight and the molecular weight distribution (polydispersity) of Gobelt with the polymers taught by Knight and Matyjaszewski. One would have been motivated to make this combination because Shirley discloses molecular weights are an important parameter for polymeric dispersants and Gobelt discloses molecular weights and a range of polydispersity suitable for polymeric dispersants. One would have had an expectation of success because Gobelt discloses the polymeric dispersants may be synthesized via RAFT. Additionally, in combining these elements one would have expected nothing more than predictable results because, when combined by known methods, each prior art element would have performed the same function as it had separately. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
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 for polydispersity (1.5-3.5) and number average molecular weight less than 10,000 g/mol overlap with the ranges of the prior art of 1.05-4 and 2000 to 15000 g/mol, respectively, and so a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have formulated the copolymer dispersants taught by Knight and Matyjaszewski, as discussed above, wherein the number average molecular weight and the polydispersity are within the instantly claimed ranges.
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 1-18 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 an 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.
2) Claims 1-18 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.
Response to Arguments
1) On pages 8-9 of their Remarks, Applicant argues that a skilled artisan would not have had an expectation of success in combining the RAFT polymerization of Matyjaszewski with the polymers disclosed by Knight because the copolymer made with the thiol transfer agent in standard radical polymerization results in a weight average molecular weight outside of the claimed range. Applicant cites Examples E and H at the Tables on paragraphs [0322] and [0353] of the instant application’s Pre-Grant Publication (US 2024/0260570 A1; hereinafter “Instant PGPub”).
This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that a skilled artisan would not have expect RAFT employed transfer agents to synthesize a copolymer as instantly claimed. In fact, the comparison of molecular weights between standard radical polymerization and RAFT polymerization that applicant cites at the Tables in paragraphs [0322] and [0353] appears to be expected in view of Matyjaszewski. Specifically, Matyjaszewski discloses “[i]n conventional RP, high molecular weight (MW) polymers are formed at the early stages of the polymerization, and neither long reaction times nor high conversions are required” [p. 103, first paragraph] and that “it has not been possible to prepare well-defined (co)polymers via conventional RP” [p. 104, para. 2] but that controlled radical polymerization provides a higher degree of control of the polymer properties [p. 104, para. 2]. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have expected the standard (conventional) radical polymerization method of instant Example H to produce copolymers with molecular weights higher than the target molecular weight as compared to the examples that employ controlled radical polymerization techniques because controlled radical polymerization offers a greater degree of control, i.e., Examples A, and C at Tables at paragraphs [0315-6], [0322] and [0353]. The Examiner is comparing Examples A, C and H because they have the same target number average molecular weight of Mn 5000g/mol (see [0316] of the instant PGPub).
With respect to the initiator, even though Matyjaszewski discloses dithiocarbamate type transfer agents, Matyjaszewski nevertheless discloses that xanthates are suitable transfer agents [p. 127, para. 2]. Accordingly, as skilled artisan would have still expected xanthate-based RAFT polymerization to be a suitable polymerization technique. “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)” (see MPEP 2144.07).
Furthermore, it is not surprising that Example E which had a higher Mn target (11000g/mol) than the inventive Examples A and C (5000g/mol) produced copolymers with higher molecular weights. In fact, Examples C produced a copolymer with an Mn of 7800 g/mol which is about 56% higher than the target of 5000 g/mol, whereas comparative Example E produced a copolymer with a molecular weight of 14800 g/mol which is only about 34% higher than the 11000 g/mol target.
2) On pages 9-11 of their Remarks, Applicant asserts “dispersant polymers with enhanced crystal-growth inhibition properties which are highly effective at reduced dosage, and dispersant polymers that are tolerant to high ionic strength systems, for example in presence of soluble active salts, compositions with these properties and advantages would not have been reasonably expected from the teachings of Knight in view of Matyjaszewski” [page 9]. Specifically, Applicant asserts the instantly claimed molecular weight is critical to the invention. Applicant cites Table 4(a) for support.
This argument is not persuasive. The cited Table 4(a) compares the effect of inventive Examples A and C, comparative Example E and comparative Example F on Metribuzin crystal growth and suspensibility over 2 weeks. Examples A, C and E are copolymers obtained “controlled radical polymerization technology in the presence of the RAFT (Madix) type transfer agent” (i.e., xanthate) (see Instant PGPub at paragraph 0315) with the following structure by mol% (see page 15 of the Instant PGPub).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
1223
media_image1.png
Greyscale
“The polymer F corresponds to the dispersant sold under the reference Geropon® Da 1349 by the company Solvay” [0357].
With respect to the comparison of inventive Examples A and C and comparative Example E, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). (MPEP 716.02(d)). In the present case, applicant does not disclose any examples having a molecular weight below the claimed range. Additionally, the Examiner respectfully notes that it is not clear how the criticality of the claimed upper limit, Mw=17000 g/mol, is established with the two points of 15600 g/mol of Example C and 32500 g/mol of Example E, especially when considering the crystal growth as represented by a percentage change in particle size. Specifically, it appears that the impact of molecular weight on crystal growth diminishes as molecular weight increases. The graph below represents the percent change in particle size of Metribuzin in compositions comprising Examples A, C and E (i.e., 13900 g/mol, 15600g/mol and 32500g/mol), as disclosed in Table 4(a) (see above).
[Chart]
Accordingly, the Examiner is not able to determine if the claimed ranges are truly critical to the function of the invention.
Regarding the comparison of the inventive examples of comparative Example F, structure and molecular weight of Example F (Geropon® Da 1349) is not disclosed and so it is not clear what this comparison is meant to demonstrate.
Furthermore, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support" (see MPEP 716.02(d) quoting In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)). In the present case, the examples only disclose copolymers comprising acrylic acid, styrene, 2-ethy hexyl acrylate and methoxy polyethylene glycol methacrylate (MPEGMA 750) and applicant has not provided an explanation as to how these specific monomers represent the broadly claimed monomers (e.g., monomer structure, molecular weight of monomers, and amount of monomers). Additionally, the narrow showing of an aqueous composition of Metribuzin comprising dispersants at a specific ratio to active does not reasonably represent any formulation with any active agent in any amount, as instantly claimed.
3) On page 12 of their Remarks, Applicant argues that the double patenting rejections should be withdrawn for the reasons above.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons above and of record. The instant claims continue to read on the conflicting claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights