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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 3-17 are currently amended. Claim 2 is original. Claims 1-17 are pending and under examination.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/072416, filed on 08/10/2022. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 21190962.7, filed on 08/12/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9, 10, 11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eggebert et al. (USPGPub 20190313637A1 making citations from its corresponding Patent US11540513B2).
Eggebert et al. discloses aqueous compositions comprising particles coated with at least one non-amphoteric, quaternizable polymer which is water soluble at 20°C, and at least one dispersing component, wherein the dispersing component comprises a dispersing agent selected from an amphiphilic graft polymer based on water-soluble polyalkylene oxides (A) as a graft base (or backbone) and side chains formed by polymerization of a vinyl ester component (B), said polymer having an average of ≤ 1 graft site per 50 alkylene oxide units and mean molar masses Mw of from 3,000 to 100,000 g/mol (abstract). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition relates to agrochemical compositions (column 3, lines 27 to 30). Eggebert et al. teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymer has (A) from 20 to 70 wt.-% of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base, and (B) side chains formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30 to 80 wt.-% of a vinyl ester component, composed of (B1) from 70 to 100 wt.-% of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate, and (B2) from 0 to 30 wt.-% of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer in the presence of (A) (column 2, lines 25-32). Eggebert et al. teaches that preferably, the composition comprises from 25% to 60 wt.-% of the graft base (A) and from 40 to 75 wt.-% of the polyvinyl ester component (B) (column 9, 48-50). Eggebert et al. teaches that the polyalkylene oxide backbone preferably contains units of ethylene oxide, propylene oxide and/or butylene oxide, with polyethylene oxide (known as PEG) being the most preferred polyalkylene oxide (column 10, lines 64-68). Eggebert teaches preparation of an agrochemical in claim 13 of Eggebert. Eggebert teaches “wherein the amphiphilic graft polymer has: (A) from 20 to 70 wt % of the water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as the graft base; and (B) side chains formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30 to 80 wt % of the vinyl ester component, composed of: (B1) from 70 to 100% wt % of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate; and (B2) from 0 to 30 wt % of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer in the presence of (A) (claim 4 of Eggebert). Eggebert et al. teaches that a preferred dispersing agent of the present invention is an amphiphilic graft polymer obtained from the reaction of polyethylene oxide 6000 (equivalent to about 136 ethylene oxide units) with vinyl acetate with a weight ratio of PEG 6000 to vinyl acetate of 40 to 60, or about 3 parts by weight of vinyl acetate units per 1 part by weight of polyethylene oxide (column 11, lines 8-14). Eggebert teaches polymer backbone can be capped at one or both ends (column 9, lines 60-64 and column 10). In a single embodiment (column 22, table 1, inventive example IE1), Azoxystrobin was used as an active ingredient formulated with an example of the above dispersing agent (composed of said graft polymer: Pluriol® E 6000 (40 wt.-%) (PEG 6000, BASF SE)/Vinyl Acetate (60 wt.-%)) ––with Azoxystrobin being at 25% w/w, and the dispersing component being at 2.5% w/w, which gives them a ratio of 10:1, and thus overlaps with the claimed drug-to-graft polymer weight ratio of 1:1 to 30:1. The above embodiment (column 22, table 1, inventive example IE1) also inherently possesses the claimed function of biodegradation of the graft polymer to be at least 30 wt.-% by solids, within 28 days according to OECD 301 F, as it possesses all the limitation of its independent claim (see MPEP 2112). The formulation was also stated to be in the form of an aqueous suspension concentrate (column 21, lines 41-46). Eggebert teaches amphiphilic graft copolymer having a polydispersity of less than 3 (claim 2 of Eggebert).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eggebert et al. (USPGPub 20190313637A1 making citations from its corresponding Patent US11540513B2).
Eggebert et al. discloses aqueous compositions comprising particles coated with at least one non-amphoteric, quaternizable polymer which is water soluble at 20°C, and at least one dispersing component, wherein the dispersing component comprises a dispersing agent selected from an amphiphilic graft polymer based on water-soluble polyalkylene oxides (A) as a graft base (or backbone) and side chains formed by polymerization of a vinyl ester component (B), said polymer having an average of ≤ 1 graft site per 50 alkylene oxide units and mean molar masses Mw of from 3,000 to 100,000 g/mol (abstract). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition relates to agrochemical compositions (column 3, lines 27 to 30). Eggebert et al. teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymer has (A) from 20 to 70 wt.-% of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base, and (B) side chains formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30 to 80 wt.-% of a vinyl ester component, composed of (B1) from 70 to 100 wt.-% of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate, and (B2) from 0 to 30 wt.-% of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer in the presence of (A) (column 2, lines 25-30). Eggebert et al. teaches that the inventive graft polymers feature a narrow molar mass distribution and hence a polydispersity Mw/Mn of generally ≤3 (column 9, lines 9-13). Eggebert et al. teaches that the polyalkylene oxide backbone preferably contains units of ethylene oxide, propylene oxide and/or butylene oxide, with polyethylene oxide (known as PEG) being the most preferred polyalkylene oxide (column 10, lines 64-68). Eggebert et al. teaches that the especially preferred are graft polymers derived from polyethylene oxide (backbone) having a molecular weight 2,000 to 50,000 g/mol (column 11, lines 5-7), which presents an overlapping range of backbone molecular weight. Eggebert et al. teaches that the polyalkylene oxides (A) may be the corresponding polyalkylene glycols in free form, and they may also be capped at one or both end groups (column 10, lines 59-61). Eggebert et al. teaches that the mean molecular weight Mw of the inventive graft polymers is from 3,000 to 100,000 g/mol (column 9, lines 17-19). Eggebert et al. teaches that the vinyl ester component (B) may consist advantageously of (B1) vinyl acetate or vinyl propionate or of mixtures of vinyl acetate and vinyl propionate (column 10, lines 24-28). Eggebert et al. teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymers have preferably (A) from 20% to 70 wt.-% of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and (B) side chains formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30% to 80 wt.-% of a vinyl ester component, based on the total weight of the amphiphilic graft polymer––wherein the vinyl ester component (B) is composed of (B1) from 70% to 100 wt.-% of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate and (B2) from 0% to 30 wt.-% of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer, based on the total amount of the vinyl ester component (B) (column 9, lines 38-47). More preferably, they comprise from 25% to 60 wt.-% of the graft base (A) and from 40 to 75 wt.-% of the polyvinyl ester component (B) (column 9, 48-50). Eggebert et al. teaches that the agrochemical composition may include pesticides (column 1, lines 25-28), which is described to be an active ingredient (column 1, lines 42-43). Eggebert et al. teaches that the term “pesticide” refers to fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides (column 18, lines 4-7). Eggebert et al. teaches that the pesticide for the agrochemical composition can be selected from azoxystrobin, fluxapyroxad, chlorothalonil, and mefentrifluconazole (column 2, lines 52-56). Eggebert et al. teaches that the agrochemical composition can be formulated in the form of wettable powders, wettable dusts, or wettable granules (column 19, lines 23-26). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition can also be formulated in the form of all possible types of suspensions (column 19, lines 23-24). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition can be used as powder or granules, preferably the coated particles can be stored and applied as aqueous suspensions (dispersions), preferably suspension concentrates (column 19, lines 19-22). In a single embodiment (column 22, table 1, inventive example IE1), the Azoxystrobin was used as an active ingredient formulated with an example of the above dispersing component (composed of said graft polymer: Pluriol® E 6000 (40 wt.-%) (PEG 6000, BASF SE)/Vinyl Acetate (60 wt.-%)) ––with Azoxystrobin being at 25% w/w, and the dispersing component being at 2.5% w/w, which gives them a ratio of 10:1, and thus overlaps with the claimed drug-to-graft polymer weight ratio of 1:1 to 30:1. The above embodiment (column 22, table 1, inventive example IE1) also inherently possesses or be capable of the claimed biodegradation of the graft polymer to be at least 30 wt.-% by solids, within 28 days according to OECD 301 F, as it possesses all the limitation of its independent claim. Eggebert teaches various other species of pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides (columns 17-19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed compositions solely in view of the teachings of Eggebert et al. This is because Eggebert teaches agrochemical compositions comprising a pesticide active ingredient and a dispersing component selected from amphiphilic graft polymers based on a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide backbone and vinyl ester side-chains––formed by free-radical polymerization in the presence of the backbone, with overlapping molecular weight ranges, backbone/sidechain weight ratios, monomer selections, and additional structural features that also overlap with the present claims. Eggebert further teaches that such compositions are directed to agrochemical uses, defines pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides, lists overlapping active ingredients, and describes overlapping formulation types, which therefore establishes substantial characteristics that squarely overlap with all of the above claims. Any of the claimed limitation not expressly recited in Eggebert, including biodegradation property, is considered inherent to Egbert’s formulation example (IE1), as its elements possess all the limitations of the present independent claim. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the graft polymers disclosed by Eggebert in agrochemical compositions to achieve stable, effective dispersions of pesticide actives, as Eggebert explicitly teaches these polymers as dispersing agents for such compositions. Furthermore, because such graft polymers are taught as conventional dispersing agents for agrochemical applications, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention, as its use represents a predictable application of known materials for their intended use.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, and 10-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of US Patent 11540513: claims 1, 9, 10, and 14 (for present claim 1, 2, 7, 8); 2 (for present claim 3); 4, 5, and 6 (for present claim 5); 4 (for present claims 10); 4 (for present claim 11); 1 and 4 (for present claim 12); 4, 5, 6 (for claim 13); 9 and 10 (for present claim 14); claim 10 (for present claim 15). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘513 teach all limitations of their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application, and are thus obvious variations of each other, which renders them patentably indistinct.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of US Patent 11540513: claims 1, 9, 10, and 14 (for present claim 1, 2, 7, 8); 2 (for present claim 3); 4, 5, and 6 (for present claim 5); 4 (for present claims 10); 4 (for present claim 11); 1 and 4 (for present claim 12); 4, 5, 6 (for claim 13); 9 and 10 (for present claim 14); claim 10 (for present claim 15) in view of Eggebert et al. (USPGPub 20190313637A1 making citations from its corresponding Patent US11540513B2).
Eggebert et al. discloses aqueous compositions comprising particles coated with at least one non-amphoteric, quaternizable polymer which is water soluble at 20°C, and at least one dispersing component, wherein the dispersing component comprises a dispersing agent selected from an amphiphilic graft polymer based on water-soluble polyalkylene oxides (A) as a graft base (or backbone) and side chains formed by polymerization of a vinyl ester component (B), said polymer having an average of ≤ 1 graft site per 50 alkylene oxide units and mean molar masses Mw of from 3,000 to 100,000 g/mol (abstract). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition relates to agrochemical compositions (column 3, lines 27 to 30). Eggebert et al. teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymer has (A) from 20 to 70 wt.-% of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base, and (B) side chains formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30 to 80 wt.-% of a vinyl ester component, composed of (B1) from 70 to 100 wt.-% of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate, and (B2) from 0 to 30 wt.-% of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer in the presence of (A) (column 2, lines 25-30). Eggebert et al. teaches that the inventive graft polymers feature a narrow molar mass distribution and hence a polydispersity Mw/Mn of generally ≤3 (column 9, lines 9-13). Eggebert et al. teaches that the polyalkylene oxide backbone preferably contains units of ethylene oxide, propylene oxide and/or butylene oxide, with polyethylene oxide (known as PEG) being the most preferred polyalkylene oxide (column 10, lines 64-68). Eggebert et al. teaches that the especially preferred are graft polymers derived from polyethylene oxide (backbone) having a molecular weight 2,000 to 50,000 g/mol (column 11, lines 5-7), which presents an overlapping range of backbone molecular weight. Eggebert et al. teaches that the polyalkylene oxides (A) may be the corresponding polyalkylene glycols in free form, and they may also be capped at one or both end groups (column 10, lines 59-61). Eggebert et al. teaches that the mean molecular weight Mw of the inventive graft polymers is from 3,000 to 100,000 g/mol (column 9, lines 17-19). Eggebert et al. teaches that the vinyl ester component (B) may consist advantageously of (B1) vinyl acetate or vinyl propionate or of mixtures of vinyl acetate and vinyl propionate (column 10, lines 24-28). Eggebert et al. teaches that the amphiphilic graft polymers have preferably (A) from 20% to 70 wt.-% of a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide as a graft base and (B) side chains formed by free-radical polymerization of from 30% to 80 wt.-% of a vinyl ester component, based on the total weight of the amphiphilic graft polymer––wherein the vinyl ester component (B) is composed of (B1) from 70% to 100 wt.-% of vinyl acetate and/or vinyl propionate and (B2) from 0% to 30 wt.-% of a further ethylenically unsaturated monomer, based on the total amount of the vinyl ester component (B) (column 9, lines 38-47). More preferably, they comprise from 25% to 60 wt.-% of the graft base (A) and from 40 to 75 wt.-% of the polyvinyl ester component (B) (column 9, 48-50). Eggebert et al. teaches that the agrochemical composition may include pesticides (column 1, lines 25-28), which is described to be an active ingredient (column 1, lines 42-43). Eggebert et al. teaches that the term “pesticide” refers to fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides (column 18, lines 4-7). Eggebert et al. teaches that the pesticide for the agrochemical composition can be selected from azoxystrobin, fluxapyroxad, chlorothalonil, and mefentrifluconazole (column 2, lines 52-56). Eggebert et al. teaches that the agrochemical composition can be formulated in the form of wettable powders, wettable dusts, or wettable granules (column 19, lines 23-26). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition can also be formulated in the form of all possible types of suspensions (column 19, lines 23-24). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition can be used as powder or granules, preferably the coated particles can be stored and applied as aqueous suspensions (dispersions), preferably suspension concentrates (column 19, lines 19-22). In a single embodiment (column 22, table 1, inventive example IE1), the Azoxystrobin was used as an active ingredient formulated with an example of the above dispersing component (composed of said graft polymer: Pluriol® E 6000 (40 wt.-%) (PEG 6000, BASF SE)/Vinyl Acetate (60 wt.-%)) ––with Azoxystrobin being at 25% w/w, and the dispersing component being at 2.5% w/w, which gives them a ratio of 10:1, and thus overlaps with the claimed drug-to-graft polymer weight ratio of 1:1 to 30:1. The above embodiment (column 22, table 1, inventive example IE1) also inherently possesses or be capable of the claimed biodegradation of the graft polymer to be at least 30 wt.-% by solids, within 28 days according to OECD 301 F, as it possesses all the limitation of its independent claim. Eggebert teaches various other species of pesticides, insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides (columns 17-19).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claimed compositions with’ 513 in view of the teachings of Eggebert et al. This is because Eggebert teaches agrochemical compositions comprising a pesticide active ingredient and a dispersing component selected from amphiphilic graft polymers based on a water-soluble polyalkylene oxide backbone and vinyl ester side-chains––formed by free-radical polymerization in the presence of the backbone, with overlapping molecular weight ranges, backbone/sidechain weight ratios, monomer selections, and additional structural features that also overlap with the present claims. Eggebert further teaches that such compositions are directed to agrochemical uses, defines pesticides, fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides, lists overlapping active ingredients, and describes overlapping formulation types, which therefore establishes substantial characteristics that squarely overlap with all of the above claims. Any of the claimed limitation not expressly recited in Eggebert, including biodegradation property, is considered inherent to Egbert’s formulation example (IE1), as its elements possess all the limitations of the present independent claim. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize the graft polymers disclosed by Eggebert in agrochemical compositions to achieve stable, effective dispersions of pesticide actives, as Eggebert explicitly teaches these polymers as dispersing agents for such compositions. Furthermore, because such graft polymers are taught as conventional dispersing agents for agrochemical applications, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention, as its use represents a predictable application of known materials for their intended use.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘513 teach all limitations of their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application, and are thus obvious variations of each other, which renders them patentably indistinct.
Claims 1-7, 9, and 10-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S Application No. 18/682,592 (referred to as co-pending ‘592): 20, 32 and 34 (for present claims 1, 5, 6, 7); 22 (for present claim 3, 9); 25 (for present claim 4); and 23 (for present claim 10) ––In view of Eggebert et al. (USPGPub 20190313637A1 making citations from its corresponding Patent US11540513B2).
Each of the above claims of co-pending ‘592 teach all limitations of their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application, except for the following difference: Claim 1 of the present application lists the addition of an agrochemical active ingredient, which is not taught by co-pending ‘592. Eggebert et al. remedies this deficiency by teaching that agrochemical ingredients such as azoxystrobin, fluxapyroxad, chlorothalonil, and mefentrifluconazole can be added to such compositions for pesticidal effects (column 2, lines 52-56), thus making such additions to the claimed composition conventional. Eggebert et al. discloses aqueous compositions comprising particles coated with at least one non-amphoteric, quaternizable polymer which is water soluble at 20°C, and at least one dispersing component, wherein the dispersing component comprises a dispersing agent selected from an amphiphilic graft polymer based on water-soluble polyalkylene oxides (A) as a graft base (or backbone) and side chains formed by polymerization of a vinyl ester component (B), said polymer having an average of ≤ 1 graft site per 50 alkylene oxide units and mean molar masses Mw of from 3,000 to 100,000 g/mol (abstract). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition relates to agrochemical compositions (column 3, lines 27 to 30). The selection, inclusion, or exclusion of agrochemical active ingredients to agrochemical compositions is a routine formulation choice that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention, since agrochemical active ingredients are well-known to be interchangeable based on many factors such as pesticidal purpose. Thus, adjusting an agrochemical composition by adding or omitting a conventional active agent represents no more than a routine and predictable variation using known components for their established functions, made with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘592 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct co-pending ‘592 claims have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S Application No. 18/682,540 (referred to as co-pending ‘540): 20, 34 and 35 (for present claims 1, 10, and 11); 22 (for present claims 3 and 9); 25 (for present claim 4); 20 and 24 (for present claims 5 and 6); 20 and 21 (for present claims 7 and 8); 20, 21, and 24 (for present claims 12 and 13)––In view of Eggebert et al. (USPGPub 20190313637A1 making citations from its corresponding Patent US11540513B2). Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘540 teach all limitations of their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application, except for the following difference: Claim 1 of the present application lists the addition of an agrochemical active ingredient, which is not taught by co-pending ‘540. Eggebert et al. remedies this deficiency by teaching that agrochemical ingredients such as azoxystrobin, fluxapyroxad, chlorothalonil, and mefentrifluconazole can be added to such compositions for pesticidal effects (column 2, lines 52-56), thus making such additions to the claimed composition conventional. Eggebert et al. discloses aqueous compositions comprising particles coated with at least one non-amphoteric, quaternizable polymer which is water soluble at 20°C, and at least one dispersing component, wherein the dispersing component comprises a dispersing agent selected from an amphiphilic graft polymer based on water-soluble polyalkylene oxides (A) as a graft base (or backbone) and side chains formed by polymerization of a vinyl ester component (B), said polymer having an average of ≤ 1 graft site per 50 alkylene oxide units and mean molar masses Mw of from 3,000 to 100,000 g/mol (abstract). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition relates to agrochemical compositions (column 3, lines 27 to 30). The selection, inclusion, or exclusion of agrochemical active ingredients to agrochemical compositions is a routine formulation choice that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention, since agrochemical active ingredients are well-known to be interchangeable based on many factors such as pesticidal purpose. Thus, adjusting an agrochemical composition by adding or omitting a conventional active agent represents no more than a routine and predictable variation using known components for their established functions, made with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘540 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct co-pending ‘540 claims have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-10, and 12-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S Application No. 18/438,576 (referred to as co-pending ‘576): 1 (for present claims 1 and 7); 5 (for present claim 3); 10 (for present claim 4); 1 and 17 (for present claim 5); 14, 15, and 18 (for present claim 6); 1, 2, 3, and 9 (for present claim 8); 5 (for present claim 9); 6 and 7 (for present claim 10); 18 (for present claim 12); and 17 (for present claim 13)–In view of Eggebert et al. (USPGPub 20190313637A1 making citations from its corresponding Patent US11540513B2).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘576 teach all limitations of their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application, except for the following difference: Claim 1 of the present application lists the addition of an agrochemical active ingredient, which is not taught by co-pending ‘576. Eggebert et al. remedies this deficiency by teaching that agrochemical ingredients such as azoxystrobin, fluxapyroxad, chlorothalonil, and mefentrifluconazole can be added to such compositions for pesticidal effects (column 2, lines 52-56), thus making such additions to the claimed composition conventional. Eggebert et al. discloses aqueous compositions comprising particles coated with at least one non-amphoteric, quaternizable polymer which is water soluble at 20°C, and at least one dispersing component, wherein the dispersing component comprises a dispersing agent selected from an amphiphilic graft polymer based on water-soluble polyalkylene oxides (A) as a graft base (or backbone) and side chains formed by polymerization of a vinyl ester component (B), said polymer having an average of ≤ 1 graft site per 50 alkylene oxide units and mean molar masses Mw of from 3,000 to 100,000 g/mol (abstract). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition relates to agrochemical compositions (column 3, lines 27 to 30). The selection, inclusion, or exclusion of agrochemical active ingredients to agrochemical compositions is a routine formulation choice that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention, since agrochemical active ingredients are well-known to be interchangeable based on many factors such as pesticidal purpose. Thus, adjusting an agrochemical composition by adding or omitting a conventional active agent represents no more than a routine and predictable variation using known components for their established functions, made with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘576 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct co-pending ‘576 claims have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7, and 9-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of US Patent 12129453: 1 (for present claims 1, 5 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13); 3 (for present claim 3); 5 (for present claim 4); 3 (for present claim 9); 4 (for present claim 10)–In view of Eggebert et al. (USPGPub 20190313637A1 making citations from its corresponding Patent US11540513B2).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘606 teach all limitations of their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application, except for the following difference: Claim 1 of the present application lists the addition of an agrochemical active ingredient, which is not taught by co-pending ‘606. Eggebert et al. remedies this deficiency by teaching that agrochemical ingredients such as azoxystrobin, fluxapyroxad, chlorothalonil, and mefentrifluconazole can be added to such compositions for pesticidal effects (column 2, lines 52-56), thus making such additions to the claimed composition conventional. Eggebert et al. discloses aqueous compositions comprising particles coated with at least one non-amphoteric, quaternizable polymer which is water soluble at 20°C, and at least one dispersing component, wherein the dispersing component comprises a dispersing agent selected from an amphiphilic graft polymer based on water-soluble polyalkylene oxides (A) as a graft base (or backbone) and side chains formed by polymerization of a vinyl ester component (B), said polymer having an average of ≤ 1 graft site per 50 alkylene oxide units and mean molar masses Mw of from 3,000 to 100,000 g/mol (abstract). Eggebert et al. teaches that the composition relates to agrochemical compositions (column 3, lines 27 to 30). The selection, inclusion, or exclusion of agrochemical active ingredients to agrochemical compositions is a routine formulation choice that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention, since agrochemical active ingredients are well-known to be interchangeable based on many factors such as pesticidal purpose. Thus, adjusting an agrochemical composition by adding or omitting a conventional active agent represents no more than a routine and predictable variation using known components for their established functions, made with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of ‘453 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S Application No. 17/886,561 (referred to as co-pending ‘561): 1, 15 and 16 (for present claim 1); 9 (for present claim 2, 3, and 9); 5 (for present claim 5); 6 and 7 (for present claim 7); 6 (for present claim 8); 12 (for present claim 10); 11 (for present claim 11)–In view of Eggebert et al. (USPGPub 20190313637A1 making citations from its corresponding Patent US11540513B2).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘561 teach all limitations of their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application, except for the following difference: Claim 1 of the present application lists the addition of an agrochemical active ingredient, which is not taught by co-pending ‘561. Eggebert et al. remedies this deficiency by teaching that agrochemical ingredients such as azoxystrobin, fluxapyroxad, chlorothalonil, and mefentrifluconazole can be added to such compositions for pesticidal effects (column 2, lines 52-56), thus making such additions to the claimed composition conventional. The selection, inclusion, or exclusion of agrochemical active ingredients to agrochemical compositions is a routine formulation choice that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention, since agrochemical active ingredients are well-known to be interchangeable based on many factors such as pesticidal purpose. Thus, adjusting an agrochemical composition by adding or omitting a conventional active agent represents no more than a routine and predictable variation using known components for their established functions, made with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘561 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction. Claims 15 and 16 of the copending contain calcium cation and bactericide which can be agrochemicals.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct co-pending ‘561 claims have not yet in fact been patented.
Conclusions
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYA AHMADI BAZARGANI whose telephone number is (571)272-0211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571) 272-0581. 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.
Arya A. Bazargani, Ph.D.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1613
/MARK V STEVENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613