DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 08/10/2026.
3. Claims 1-19 are pending. Claims 1-19 are under examination on the merits. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 16-19 are newly added.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, thus claims 1-15 stand rejected as set forth in Office action dated 05/20/2026 and further discussed in the Response to Arguments below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claim 17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites the term “the antioxidant”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For the purpose of examination against the prior art, claim 17 is construed to recite “The at least one antioxidant”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-5, 9-15,17,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. (US Pub. No.2018/0139954 A1, hereinafter “’954”) in view of Maekawa et al. (JP 2002097103 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’103”).
Regarding claims 1-3: ‘954 teaches a method of use of an agrochemical oil-based suspension, (Page 1, [0006]; Page 1, [0009]; Page 39, [0260]), wherein the-agrochemical oil-based suspension comprising filled in the resin made agrochemical container contains (1) an agrochemical active ingredient (Page 8, [0057]; Page 9, [0058]), (2) an oil component (Page 18, [0128]) and (3) at least one antioxidant selected from the group consisting of a phenol derivative Page 17, [0121]). ‘954 does not expressly teach a method for preventing deformation of a resin-made agrochemical container filled with an agrochemical oil-based suspension, the method comprising: filling a resin-made agrochemical container with the agrochemical oil-based suspension.
However, ‘103 teaches the deformation of the plastic vessel with the lapse of time can be surely prevented by filling the plastic vessel with the liquid chemical of which the concentration of oxygen dissolved in the liquid chemical is equal to or lower than the 30 ppm, more preferably, the liquid chemical of which the concentration of oxygen dissolved in the liquid chemical measured according to the method specified in the JIS K 0102 is equal to or lower than the detection limit. In addition, the method is particularly effective when the liquid chemical contains a surfactant and can be suitably used when the liquid chemical is an agrochemical formulation using water and/ or an organic solvent as a solvent (Page 2/8. Abstract).
In an analogous art of the agrochemical oil-based suspension, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply an agrochemical oil-based suspension by ‘’954, so as to include a method for preventing deformation of a resin-made agrochemical container filled with an agrochemical oil-based suspension as taught by ‘103, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the deformation of a plastic container is caused by dissolved oxygen contained in a liquid drug, and the deformation of the container can be prevented by adjusting the concentration of dissolved oxygen (Page 4/8, [0005]).
Regarding claims 4,9: The disclosure of ‘954 in view of ‘103 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘954 teaches a transparent, homogeneous liquid or liquiform fertilizer and agrochemical formulation includes an agrochemical and a fertilizer together with glycol ether (Page 1, lines [0011]). ‘954 teaches additives can be incorporated as necessary in the fertilizer and agrochemical composition in addition to the aforementioned incorporated components (Page 17, [0121]. ‘954 teaches antioxidants such as dibutylhydroxytoluene can be incorporated at an incorporation ratio of 0.001 part by weight to 1 part by weight, and preferably 0.005 parts by weight to 0.5 parts by weight. Antifoaming agents such as acetylcholine-based antifoaming agents, silicone-based antifoaming agents, fluorine-based antifoaming agents or fatty acid-based antifoaming agents can be incorporated at an incorporation ratio of 0.001 part by weight to 5 parts by weight, and preferably 0.01 part by weight to 2 parts by weight (Page 17, [0121]).
It is submitted that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since discovery of an optimum value ration of antioxidant to oil component variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In reAller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 5: The disclosure of ‘954 in view of ‘103 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ’954 teaches the oil component is at least one member selected from the group consisting of a mineral oil (Page 18, [0128]).
Regarding claim 10: The disclosure of ‘954 in view of ‘103 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘103 teaches after the resin-made agrochemical container is filled with the agrochemical oil-based suspension, a gas in a space in the container is replaced with a nitrogen gas (Page 6/8, [0014]; Page 7/8, [0015]).
Regarding claims 11-12: The disclosure of ‘648 in view of ‘103 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘954 teaches a method of use of an agrochemical oil-based suspension, (Page 1, [0006]; Page 1, [0009]; Page 39, [0260]), wherein the-agrochemical oil-based suspension comprising filled in the resin made agrochemical container contains (1) an agrochemical active ingredient (Page 8, [0057]; Page 9, [0058]), (2) an oil component (Page 18, [0128]) and (3) at least one antioxidant selected from the group consisting of a phenol derivative Page 17, [0121]). ‘954 does not expressly teach having oxidation of the oil component which occurs in the resin-made agrochemical container filled with the agrochemical oil-based suspension suppressed.
However, ‘103 teaches the deformation of the plastic vessel with the lapse of time can be surely prevented by filling the plastic vessel with the liquid chemical of which the concentration of oxygen dissolved in the liquid chemical is equal to or lower than the 30 ppm, more preferably, the liquid chemical of which the concentration of oxygen dissolved in the liquid chemical measured according to the method specified in the JIS K 0102 is equal to or lower than the detection limit. In addition, the method is particularly effective when the liquid chemical contains a surfactant and can be suitably used when the liquid chemical is an agrochemical formulation using water and/ or an organic solvent as a solvent (Page 2/8. Abstract).
In an analogous art of the agrochemical oil-based suspension, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply an agrochemical oil-based suspension by ‘954, so as to include a method for preventing deformation of a resin-made agrochemical container filled with an agrochemical oil-based suspension as taught by ‘103, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the deformation of a plastic container is caused by dissolved oxygen contained in a liquid drug, and the deformation of the container can be prevented by adjusting the concentration of dissolved oxygen (Page 4/8, [0005]).
It is submitted that the limitation “for preventing deformation of a resin-made agrochemical container,” is interpreted as an intended use since there is no apparent structural difference required by the composition other than that recited in the body of the claim (see MPEP 2111.02, II).
Regarding claims 13-14: ‘954 teaches a method of use of an agrochemical oil-based suspension, (Page 1, [0006]; Page 1, [0009]; Page 39, [0260]), wherein the-agrochemical oil-based suspension comprising filled in the resin made agrochemical container contains (1) an agrochemical active ingredient (Page 8, [0057]; Page 9, [0058]), (2) an oil component (Page 18, [0128]) and (3) at least one antioxidant selected from the group consisting of a phenol derivative Page 17, [0121]). ‘954 does not expressly teach filling a resin-made agrochemical container with the agrochemical oil-based suspension, to suppress pressure reduction in the resin-made agrochemical container caused by consumption of oxygen in the resin-made agrochemical container filled with the agrochemical oil-based suspension.
However, ‘103 teaches the deformation of the plastic vessel with the lapse of time can be surely prevented by filling the plastic vessel with the liquid chemical of which the concentration of oxygen dissolved in the liquid chemical is equal to or lower than the 30 ppm, more preferably, the liquid chemical of which the concentration of oxygen dissolved in the liquid chemical measured according to the method specified in the JIS K 0102 is equal to or lower than the detection limit. In addition, the method is particularly effective when the liquid chemical contains a surfactant and can be suitably used when the liquid chemical is an agrochemical formulation using water and/ or an organic solvent as a solvent (Page 2/8. Abstract).
In an analogous art of the agrochemical oil-based suspension, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply an agrochemical oil-based suspension by ‘648, so as to include a method for preventing deformation of a resin-made agrochemical container filled with an agrochemical oil-based suspension as taught by ‘103, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the deformation of a plastic container is caused by dissolved oxygen contained in a liquid drug, and the deformation of the container can be prevented by adjusting the concentration of dissolved oxygen (Page 4/8, [0005]).
Regarding claim 15: The disclosure of ‘954 in view of ‘103 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘103 teaches after the resin-made agrochemical container is filled with the agrochemical oil-based suspension, a gas in a space in the container is replaced with a nitrogen gas (Page 6/8, [0014]; Page 7/8, [0015]).
Regarding claim 17: The disclosure of ‘954 in view of ‘103 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘954 teaches the antioxidant is lipophilic such as dibutylhydroxytoluene (Page 17, [0121]).
Regarding claim 19: The disclosure of ‘954 in view of ‘103 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘954 teaches the agrochemical active ingredient is selected from the group consisting of nicosulfuron, flazasulfuron, atrazine (Page 9, [0058]), and fluazinam (Page 8, [0057]).
10. Claims 6-8,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. (US Pub. No.2018/0139954 A1, hereinafter “’954”) in view of Maekawa et al. (JP 2002097103 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’103”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arianna Martelletti (US Pub. No.2021/0307321 A1, hereinafter “’321”).
Regarding claims 6-8: The disclosure of ‘954 in view of ‘103 is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘954 in view of ‘103 does not expressly teach the oil component is a fatty acid glyceride, and the fatty acid glyceride is a glyceride of at least one fatty acid selected from the group consisting of caprylic acid, capric acid, and wherein the fatty acid glyceride is a monoglyceride, a diglyceride, a triglyceride, or a mixture thereof, and wherein the oil component contains an unsaturated hydrocarbon.
However, ‘321 teaches capsule suspensions of agrochemical active ingredients, which are difficult to formulate, i.e. which either lack solubility or chemical stability when formulated in such agrochemical formulations (Page 1, [0001[). ‘321 teaches capsule suspensions comprising an agrochemical active ingredient comprising a polyurea-shell and a core (Page 1, [0007]), wherein the core contains the active ingredient selected from the group of diflufenican and isoxaflutole (Page 1, [0008]). ‘321 teaches the core comprises, along with the active ingredient, a water-immiscible liquid carrier, which more preferably is selected from the group comprising aromatic hydrocarbons, mineral oil, naphthaline free mineral oil, fatty acids glycerides, caprylic or capric triglycerides (i.e., unsaturated hydrocarbon) and neutral vegetable oil, as well as mixtures thereof (Page 1, [0012]; Page 1, [0017]; Page 1, [0033]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since it is held that prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from there having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 18: The disclosure of ‘954 in view of ‘103, and ‘321 is adequately set forth in paragraph above and is incorporated herein by reference. ’321 teaches the oil component contains an unsaturated hydrocarbon such as Rapeseed oil methyl ester which is rapeseed oil methyl ester, C16-18 and C18-unsaturated (Syskem) (Page 3, [0082]; Page 8, [0131]).
11. Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. (US Pub. No.2018/0139954 A1, hereinafter “’954”) in view of Maekawa et al. (JP 2002097103 A, machine translation, hereinafter “’103”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishaque et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0111957 A1, hereinafter “’957”).
Regarding claims 16-18: The disclosure of ‘954 in view of ‘103 is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘954 in view of ‘103 does not expressly teach the at least one antioxidant is selected from the group consisting of a gallic acid ester and ethoxyquin, wherein the antioxidant is lipophilic, and wherein the oil component contains an unsaturated hydrocarbon.
However, ‘957 teaches an agrochemical formulation (Page 1, [001]) comprising lipophilic antioxidant such as gallic esters (e.g. propyl, octyl and dodecyl gallate) (Page 3, [0047]), and unsaturated fatty acids and derivatives thereof (e.g. γ-linolenic acid, linoleic acid, arachidonic acid, oleic acid) (Page 3, [0047]).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made, since the selection of a known material such as antioxidants 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)
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant's arguments filed 08/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive,
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Bell’648 does not teach a phenol antioxidant.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant's argument is rendered moot since the claim rejection under Bell’648 is deemed withdrawn.
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Examiner Information
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
08/27/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights