CTNF 18/682,505 CTNF 101528 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority The instant application, filed on February 9, 2024, is a national stage entry of International Application No. PCT/EP2022/072481, filed August 10, 2022, hereinafter “ PCT’481 ”, which published as WO 2023/017094 A1, hereinafter “ WO’094 ”. PCT’481 claims priority to Indian Application No. IN202111036124, filed on August 10, 2021, hereinafter “ IN’124 ”. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR § 1.55. The examiner finds that compounds P5-P18 lack explicit disclosure in IN’124 . Compare IN’124 at 94-95, Table P , PNG media_image1.png 616 668 media_image1.png Greyscale with WO’094 at 95-97, Table P . PNG media_image2.png 462 646 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 462 646 media_image2.png Greyscale Accordingly, compounds P5-P18 have an effective filing date of August 10, 2022 . Furthermore, the examiner finds that a number of “mixtures of the compounds of formula I with active ingredients” disclosed in the Specification at 97 et seq . lack explicit disclosure in IN’124 . For example, the mixtures with the following biologically active substances were not disclosed in IN’124 ( highlighting added by the examiner in the following figures): PNG media_image3.png 831 606 media_image3.png Greyscale Specification at 110 . These mixtures with antibacterial agents were not disclosed in IN’124 : PNG media_image4.png 542 619 media_image4.png Greyscale Specification at 118-119 . These mixtures with biological fungicides were not disclosed in IN’124 : PNG media_image5.png 105 524 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image5.png 105 524 media_image5.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 27 601 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 27 601 media_image6.png Greyscale PNG media_image6.png 27 601 media_image6.png Greyscale Specification at 119-122 . These mixtures with biological control agents having an effect for improving plant growth and/or plant health were not disclosed in IN’124 : PNG media_image7.png 566 513 media_image7.png Greyscale PNG media_image8.png 508 512 media_image8.png Greyscale Specification at 122-123. These mixtures with insecticidally active biological control agents were not disclosed in IN’124 : PNG media_image9.png 230 553 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 618 512 media_image10.png Greyscale Specification at 123-124. These mixtures with viruses were not disclosed in IN’124 : PNG media_image11.png 102 509 media_image11.png Greyscale Specification at 124. These mixtures with bacteria and fungi which can be added as an “inoculant” to plants or plant parts or plant organs were not disclosed in IN’124 : PNG media_image12.png 190 519 media_image12.png Greyscale Specification at 125 . These mixtures with plant extracts and products formed by microorganism were not disclosed in IN’124 : PNG media_image13.png 266 518 media_image13.png Greyscale Specification at 125 . 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Applicants’ preliminary amendments received February 9, 2024, are acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 16 , and 20 are maintained in their original form. Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9-15, and 17-19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending . Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement received on February 9, 2024, is acknowledged and found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.97. Accordingly, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered. Specification Objections 07-29-04 The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. See, e.g. , Specification at 63, hyperlink to “who”. See also link to “bats” at 62. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 3, 6, 9, and 15 are Indefinite 07-34-01 Claims 3, 6, 9, and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claims 3, 6, 9, and 15 , the phrases “preferably” and/or “more preferably” render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Multiple instances of the phrases “preferably” and/or “more preferably” appear in the claims. For example, claim 3 recites a “compound according to claim 1 , wherein … preferably R 9 and R 10 are, independently from each other, hydrogen or methyl; more preferably R 9 is hydrogen or methyl, and R 10 is methyl.” Likewise, claim 6 recites a “compound according to claim 1 ,wherein … preferably R 9 and R 10 are, independently from each other, hydrogen or methyl, more preferably R 9 is hydrogen or methyl, and R 10 is methyl.” See also , claim 9 which recites a “compound according to claim 1 , wherein … preferably R 11 and R 12 are, independently from each other, hydrogen or methyl; more preferably R 11 is hydrogen or methyl, and R 12 is methyl.” Further see claim 15 , which recites a “compound according to claim 1 , wherein … preferably R 1 is ethyl.” Accordingly, claims 3, 6, 9, and 15 are rejected as indefinite because the scope of the claims are unclear. Claims 4, 7, and 10 are Indefinite 07-34-01 Claims 4, 7, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 4, 7, and 10 each recite “the compounds of formula I-1”, or “I-2”, or “I-3”, however the claims do not provide the structure of these “compounds” or formulas. For example, claim 4 has this following language, indicated with the dashed box below: PNG media_image14.png 219 682 media_image14.png Greyscale There is no antecedent basis for “the compounds” as used in this claim. Further, as used here, “compounds” means that there are multiple individual compounds. These multiple individuals “compounds” are of “formula I-1”. However, as stated, the claim does not set forth the structure for formula I-1, or depend from a claim that provides the structure for formula I-1. The specification however describes many “compounds” of formula I-1, either in general terms, or by providing chemical structure that are encompassed by formula I-1. For example, see Specification at 7-8, shown below. PNG media_image15.png 527 639 media_image15.png Greyscale PNG media_image16.png 495 638 media_image16.png Greyscale Specification at 7-8. It is unclear which “compounds” the claim refers to by its reference to “compounds of formula I-1”, because the specification describes many “compounds”, most of the time in terms of preferences. Accordingly, one cannot derive a consistent meaning of the term “compounds of formula I-1” as used in this claim. The same analysis applies to claims 7 and 10 for the recitations of “compound of formula I-2” and “compounds of formula I-3”. Accordingly, claims 4, 7, and 10 are rejected as indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner provides rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 despite certain claims being rejected as indefinite. The Claims Claim 1 , reproduced below, is directed to an N-linked isoindole which is covalently linked to one of three tunable Q scaffolds, Qa, Qb, or Qc . Applicant states that these compounds are pesticides useful “for controlling animal pests, including arthropods and in particular insects or representatives of the order Acarina.” See Specification at 1. (continued on following page) PNG media_image17.png 527 432 media_image17.png Greyscale Instant claim 1 . Claims 1-4, and 15-20 were Obvious over US’108 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026 and Patani 1996 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’108 1 in view of Lamberth 2017, 2 US’026, 3 and Patani 1996 . 4 A compound that is an embodiment of instant claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 is the compound Applicant designates as P18 : PNG media_image18.png 115 700 media_image18.png Greyscale Specification at 97. US’108 US’108 at col. 1 describes modular agrochemical pesticide based upon the same 2-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl Qa scaffold Applicant uses. US’108 designates this scaffold as “formula (I)”. PNG media_image19.png 14 255 media_image19.png Greyscale US’108 at col. 1. Compare formula (I) of US’108 (left) with instant Qa scaffold ( right ), shown below: PNG media_image19.png 14 255 media_image19.png Greyscale US’108 at col. 1. ( formula (I) of US’108 ). PNG media_image20.png 168 7 media_image20.png Greyscale Instant Qa scaffold. Formula (I) of US’108 may be connected to one of twenty “heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring system[s]” which US’108 designate as “ Q ” variables, one of which is Q20 . See US’108 at cols. 11 and 13: PNG media_image21.png 57 295 media_image21.png Greyscale PNG media_image22.png 90 281 media_image22.png Greyscale US’108 at col. 11 (left), and at col. 13 (right). An exemplary insecticide built in this manner is the compound US’108 designates as I-40. See US’108 at col. 77. PNG media_image23.png 188 284 media_image23.png Greyscale US’108 at col 77 . The pesticide I-40 of US’108 differs from the instant embodiment of the claims, compound P18 , by the “12-membered fused … tricyclic ring system” connected to the 2-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl group. For I-40 , the 12-membered fused ring system is a 2,2-difluoro-1,3-dioxolane fused to a 1H-benzimidazole , whereas for the instant P18 compound, the 12-membered fused ring system is a 2,2-difluoro-1,3-dioxolane fused to a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one . This is shown below: PNG media_image24.png 426 619 media_image24.png Greyscale However, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in preparing an insecticide that exchanged the 2,2-difluoro-1,3-dioxolane fused to a 1H-benzimidazole of I-40 with a 2,2-difluoro-1,3-dioxolane fused to a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one as seen in the instant P18 , because such a compound represents one obtained from ordinary and routine scaffold-hopping and heterocycle swapping used in the agrochemical field to optimize and develop agrochemicals ( Lamberth 2017 ), wherein the 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one heterocycle was known in the art at the time of filing to display “high acaricidal activity” ( US’026 ). Lamberth 2017 Lamberth 2017 reviews the use of scaffold hopping for lead optimization in the agrochemical field. Lamberth 2017 explains that “scaffold hopping” is a technique for “the exchange of a specific portion of a potential active ingredient with another substructure with the aim of finding isofunctional molecular structures with significantly different molecular backbones….” Id. at Abstract. Lamberth 2017 at Abstract states that this technique “often offers the chance in lead discovery or optimization to mitigate problems related to toxicity, intellectual property, and insufficient potency or stability.” Lamberth 2017 further explains that this technique was routine in the field of agrochemistry. See Lamberth 2017 at Abstract (“Scaffold hopping tools … have become a permanent fixture of the innovation and optimization process in crop protection research.”). One method of “scaffold hopping” is a technique Lamberth 2017 at 283-284 describes as the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle”. See, e.g., Lamberth 2017 at 283-284, excepted sections reproduced below: PNG media_image25.png 490 842 media_image25.png Greyscale PNG media_image26.png 381 656 media_image26.png Greyscale Lamberth 2017 at 283-284 (excerpted sections). Another method of “scaffold hopping” is a technique Lamberth 2017 at 283-285 describes as “ring isosterism” through the “conversion of a cyclic imine to a cyclic amide (lactam) or vise versa”. See, e.g., Lamberth 2017 at 283, and at 285, Figure 3, excerpted sections shown below: PNG media_image27.png 343 663 media_image27.png Greyscale PNG media_image28.png 522 651 media_image28.png Greyscale Lamberth 2017 at 283 (left), and at 285, Figure 3 (right). US’026 US’026 discloses a family of agricultural acaracides built upon a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one scaffold. See, e.g. , US’026 at Abstract: PNG media_image29.png 223 253 media_image29.png Greyscale US’026 at Abstract. US’026 discloses that “the compound of the general formula (I) of the present invention has unexpectedly high acaricidal activity….” US’026 at 6, paragraph [0022]. Patani 1996 Patani 1996 reviews the application of bioisosterism in the field of drug design. As Patani 1996 at 3148 explains, “[t]he critical component for bioisosterism is that bioisosteres affect the same pharmacological target as agonists or antagonists and, thereby, have biological properties which are related to each other.” See Patani 1996 at 3148, reproduced below: PNG media_image30.png 335 474 media_image30.png Greyscale Patani 1996 at 3148. Patani 1996 at 3148-3149 explains that bioisosteres may be either “classical” or “nonclassical” bioisosteres, and that “Grimm’s Hydride Displacement Law … outline[s] a series of replacements which have been referred to as “classical bioisosteres.” See Patani 1996 at 3148-3149, reproduced below: PNG media_image31.png 153 473 media_image31.png Greyscale PNG media_image32.png 66 482 media_image32.png Greyscale Patani 1996 at 3148-3149 Patani 1996 at 3148 explains that NH and CH 2 are considered isosteres “according to Grimm”: PNG media_image33.png 368 464 media_image33.png Greyscale Patani 1996 at 3148. Patani 1996 at 3158-3159 provides examples showing ordinary and routine NH-CH 2 divalent ring equivalent exchanges in drug development. See, e.g. , Patani 1996 at 3158-3159, discussion of SAR studies of amrinone: PNG media_image34.png 802 489 media_image34.png Greyscale PNG media_image35.png 112 476 media_image35.png Greyscale Patani 1996 at 3158-3159. Claims 1-4 and 15-17 were Obvious at the time of Filing PNG media_image36.png 288 1511 media_image36.png Greyscale One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to exchange the 1H-benzimidazole of the pesticide I-40 of US’108 with a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one group because such an exchange represents ordinary and routine “scaffold hopping” including ring isosterism via cyclic imine to cyclic amide followed by NH-CH 2 divalent ring exchange. As explained by Lamberth 2017 at Abstract, agrochemists at the time of filing were motivated to utilize “[s]caffold hopping … with the aim of finding isofunctional molecular structures with significantly different molecular backbones, [which] often offers the chance in lead discovery or optimization to mitigate problems related to toxicity, intellectual property, and insufficient potency or stability.” Lamberth 2017 further explains that this technique was routine in the field of agrochemistry. See Lamberth 2017 at Abstract (“Scaffold hopping tools … have become a permanent fixture of the innovation and optimization process in crop protection research.”). As further explained by Lamberth 2017 at 283, a common method of “scaffold hopping” is the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle”, which Lamberth 2017 characterizes as “ often successful ” ( emphasis added ). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the agrochemicals disclosed in US’108 were suitable for such a “scaffold hopping” approach, because US’108 discloses that formula (I) of US’108 may be connected to one of twenty “heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring system[s]” which US’108 designate as “ Q ” variables. Therefore, US’108 already exhibited a platform primed for “scaffold hopping”, wherein the disclosed heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring systems each represented the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle” under Lamberth 2017 . Such a replacement would require only ordinary and routine “conversion of a cyclic imine to a cyclic amide”, as explained in Lamberth 2017 , followed by an ordinary and routine divalent NH-CH 2 ring exchange, as explained in Patani 1996 . As explained in Lamberth 2017 at 283, such “a cyclic imine to a cyclic amide” conversion results in compounds that “share similar … activity”, and provides examples of this occurring against insects and fungal rice pathogens. See Lamberth 2017 at 283. Furthermore, “[a]n important requirement for this scaffold hopping operation is that the ring carbon and the ring nitrogen, which form the cyclic imine, change places in the lactam.” Id. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that I-40 was a compound which could be modified in such a way, because the resulting ring nitrogen could be further functionalized while maintaining the same the same 2-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl scaffold. The following subsequent divalent NH-CH 2 ring exchange was considered at the time of filing an ordinary and routine classical bioisosteric exchange as depicted in Patani 1996 at 3158-3159, which by definition in Patani 1996 results in a compounds that “affect the same pharmacological target as agonists or antagonists and, thereby, have biological properties which are related to each other”. Patani 1996 at 3148. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be motivated to make this exchange to capture the “unexpectedly high acaricidal activity” of the 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one scaffold exhibited by the compounds disclosed in US’026 . Furthermore, US’026 taught methods of synthesizing such N-linked 3-(H)-isoindol-1-ones 5 that one of ordinary skill in the art of time could use its skills as an ordinary chemist to modify in such a way to incorporate the 2-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl scaffold of US’108 . Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would reasonably expect the “often successful” replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle, through simple cyclic imine to a cyclic amide conversion followed by divalent NH-CH 2 ring exchange to result in compounds that “share similar [pesticidal] activity”, and “have biological properties which are related to each other”. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in exchanging the 1H-benzimidazole of I-40 of US’108 with a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one group because such a replacement represents the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle” which Lamberth 2017 states is “often successful”. Because one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in exchanging the 1H-benzimidazole of I-40 of US’108 with a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one group, and that such an exchange directly results in the instant compound P18 , which is encompassed by claims 1-4 and 15-17 , claims 1-4 and 15-17 were obvious at the time of filing. Claim 18 was Obvious at the Time of Filing Claim 18 recites a composition comprising an insecticidally, acaricidally, nematicidally or molluscicidally effective amount of a compound of formula (I) as defined in claim 1 , or an agrochemically acceptable salt, stereoisomer, enantiomer, tautomer or N-oxide thereof and, optionally, an auxiliary or diluent. The above rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’108 6 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026, and Patani 1996 is incorporated herein. US’108 at cols. 100-105 describes in the “Use Examples” section preparations comprising an active amount of compound, dissolved with solvent (diluent) and/or emulsifier (auxiliary). See, e.g. , US’108 at cols 103-104, excerpted below, showing an example of such a preparation using the compound I-40 as the active compound. PNG media_image37.png 279 410 media_image37.png Greyscale PNG media_image38.png 168 393 media_image38.png Greyscale US’108 at cols. 103-104. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in using their ordinary skills as a chemist to adapt the preparations disclosed in US’108 , with a compound such as the instant P18 , and therefore arrive at the instantly claimed compositions. Accordingly, claim 18 was obvious at the time of filing. Claims 19-20 were Obvious at the Time of Filing Claims 19 and 20 are directed to various methods. The examiner interprets claim 19 as being a method directed to protecting plants, and claim 20 as a method of protecting plant seed. Claim 19 recites a method of combating and controlling insects, acarines, nematodes or molluscs which comprises applying to a pest, to a locus of a pest, or to a plant susceptible to attack by a pest an insecticidally, acaricidally, nematicidally or molluscicidally effective amount of a compound of formula (I), or an agrochemically acceptable salt, stereoisomer, enantiomer, tautomer or N-oxide thereof, as defined in claim 1 or a composition as defined claim 18 . The examiner interprets this as a method for protecting plants . Claim 20 recites a method for the protection of plant propagation material from the attack by insects, acarines, nematodes or molluscs, which comprises treating the propagation material or the site, where the propagation material is planted, with a composition according to claim 18 . The examiner interprets this as a method for protecting plant seeds . The above rejections of claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’108 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026, and Patani 1996 are incorporated herein. US’108 at col. 67 explains that the compounds of its invention can be used by themselves or with a mixing component in methods for protection of seed and germinating plants from attack by pests: (continued on following page) PNG media_image39.png 198 408 media_image39.png Greyscale US’108 at col 67. Further, an example of a method for protecting plants was the example referenced in US’108 at cols 103-104 for compound I-40 . Further see US’108 at col 40, section “Methods of Uses”: PNG media_image40.png 185 390 media_image40.png Greyscale US’108 at col 40. The examiner interprets US’108 ’s “method for the protection of … germinating plants from attack by pests …” as analogous to the method claimed in claim 19 . The examiner interprets US’108 ’s “method for the protection of seed … from attack by pests …” as analogous to the method claimed in claim 20 . One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could use its ordinary skills as a chemist and their ordinary knowledge of methods of using pesticides to develop the instantly claimed methods using a compound such as P18 , or a composition comprising P18 , because of the isosterism between the two compounds I-40 and P18. This isosterism, as explained previously, would lead one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to reasonably expect that the compounds would share similar pesticidal activity. Accordingly, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in using a compound such as P18 in such a way as explained by US’108 to protect plants (claim 19 ) and to protect plant seeds (claim 20 ). Accordingly, claims 19-20 were obvious at the time of filing. Claims 1, 5-7, and 15-17 were Obvious over US’108 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026, Patani 1996, and AU’186 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 5-7 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’108 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026, Patani 1996 , and AU’186. 7 These claims are directed to compounds wherein the Qb scaffold is used. Compound P4 is an embodiment of all of these claims, which has the following structure from the Specification at 95: PNG media_image41.png 103 717 media_image41.png Greyscale Specification at 95. The entire rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over US’108 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026, and Patani 1996 is incorporated herein . AU’186 AU’186 at 1 describes modular agrochemical pesticide based upon the same 2-pyrazolo[1,5-a]pyridinyl Qb scaffold Applicant uses. AU’186 designates this scaffold as “formula (I)”. PNG media_image42.png 243 635 media_image42.png Greyscale AU’186 at 1, PNG media_image43.png 131 196 media_image43.png Greyscale AU’186 at 1 ( formula (I) of AU’186 ). PNG media_image20.png 168 7 media_image20.png Greyscale Instant Qb scaffold. Formula (I) of AU’186 may be connected to one of five “9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring system[s]” which AU’186 designate as “ Q ” variables, one of which is Q5 . PNG media_image44.png 118 200 media_image44.png Greyscale AU’186 at 2-3. In Q5 above, the variable A may be N or CH, and R 4 does not permit H. See AU’186 at 3. An exemplary insecticide built in this manner is the compound designated as I-4 (using N for the variable A ) . See AU’186 at 85. PNG media_image45.png 113 635 media_image45.png Greyscale AU’186 at 85. Claims 1, 5-7, and 15-17 were Obvious at the Time of Filing As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over US’108 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026, and Patani 1996 , one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the discussed heteroaromatic 12-membered fused ring system – the 2,2-difluoro-1,3-dioxolane fused to a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one – represented a heterocycle useful for “scaffold hopping” through the strategy of “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle”. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would therefore be highly motivated to utilize this heterocycle in “scaffold hopping” through the strategy of “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle” for other agrochemicals suitable for such an approach. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the agrochemicals disclosed in AU’186 were suitable for such a “scaffold hopping” approach, because AU’186 discloses that formula (I) of AU’186 may be connected to one of five “heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring system[s]” which AU’186 designate as “ Q ” variables. Therefore, AU’186 already exhibited a platform primed for “scaffold hopping”, wherein the disclosed heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring systems each represented the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle” under Lamberth 2017 . Such a replacement would require only ordinary and routine experimentation to achieve synthetically using the synthetic guides set forth in AU’186 and US’026 , and the skills of an ordinary chemist at the time of filing. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be further motivated to incorporate this heterocycle into the agrochemicals of AU’186 to capture the “unexpectedly high acaricidal activity” of the 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one scaffold exhibited by the compounds disclosed in US’026 , as previously discussed. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in exchanging the Q heterocycle of a compound such as I-4 of AU’186 with the 2,2-difluoro-1,3-dioxolane fused to a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one group because such a replacement represents the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle” which Lamberth 2017 states is “often successful”. PNG media_image46.png 276 881 media_image46.png Greyscale Because one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in exchanging the 12-membered fused ring system of I-4 of AU’186 with the 2,2-difluoro-1,3-dioxolane fused to a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one heterocycle, and that such an exchange directly results in a compound which is encompassed by the instant claims 1, 5-7, and 15-16 , claims 1, 5-7, and 15-16 were obvious at the time of filing. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in performing the exact same scaffold hopping replacement wherein the starting material omitted the cyano group of the cyclopropyl ring of I-4 in order to drive down synthetic costs of the starting materials and thus arrive at the instant compound designated P4 . PNG media_image41.png 103 717 media_image41.png Greyscale Because one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instant compound designated P4 for the reasons stated above, claim 17 was obvious at the time of filing. Claims 1 and 8-17 were Obvious over US’108 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026, Patani 1996, and CA’888 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1 and 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’108 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026, Patani 1996 , and CA’888. 8 These claims are directed to compounds wherein the Qc scaffold is used. Compound P2 is an embodiment of most of these claims, which has the following structure from the Specification at 95: PNG media_image47.png 125 711 media_image47.png Greyscale Specification at 95. The entire rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over US’108 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026, and Patani 1996 is incorporated herein . CA’888 CA’888 at 1 describes modular agrochemical pesticide based upon the same 2-quinolyl-type Qc scaffold Applicant uses. CA’888 designates this scaffold as “formula (I)”. PNG media_image48.png 86 501 media_image48.png Greyscale CA’888 at 1, PNG media_image49.png 154 146 media_image49.png Greyscale CA’888 at 1 ( formula (I) of CA’888 ). In the above formula, the A variables may be CH or N. PNG media_image20.png 168 7 media_image20.png Greyscale Instant Qc scaffold. In Applicant’s Qc , the A variables may be CH or N. Formula (I) of CA’888 may be connected to one of twenty “heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring system[s]” which CA’888 designate as “ Q ” variables, one of which is Q20 . PNG media_image50.png 114 167 media_image50.png Greyscale CA’888 at 12-14. Exemplary insecticides built in this manner are taught in CA’888 at 106-108: PNG media_image51.png 98 170 media_image51.png Greyscale I-16 (page 128) PNG media_image52.png 101 183 media_image52.png Greyscale I-15 PNG media_image53.png 93 177 media_image53.png Greyscale I-36 CA’888 at 106-108. Claims 1 and 8-17 were Obvious at the Time of Filing As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable over US’108 in view of Lamberth 2017, US’026, and Patani 1996 , one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the discussed heteroaromatic 12-membered fused ring system – the 2,2-difluoro-1,3-dioxolane fused to a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one – represented a heterocycle useful for “scaffold hopping” through the strategy of “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle”. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would therefore be highly motivated to utilize this heterocycle in “scaffold hopping” through the strategy of “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle” for other agrochemicals suitable for such an approach. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the agrochemicals disclosed in CA’888 were suitable for such a “scaffold hopping” approach, because CA’888 discloses that formula (I) of CA’8886 may be connected to one of twenty “heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring system[s]” which CA’888 designate as “ Q ” variables. Therefore, CA’888 already exhibited a platform primed for “scaffold hopping”, wherein the disclosed heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring systems each represented the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle” under Lamberth 2017 . Such a replacement would require only ordinary and routine experimentation to achieve synthetically using the synthetic guides set forth in CA’888 and US’026 , and the skills of an ordinary chemist at the time of filing. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would be further motivated to incorporate this heterocycle into the agrochemicals of CA’888 to capture the “unexpectedly high acaricidal activity” of the 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one scaffold exhibited by the compounds disclosed in US’026 , as previously discussed. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in exchanging the Q heterocycle of a compound such as I-15 of CA’888 with the 2,2-difluoro-1,3-dioxolane fused to a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one group because such a replacement represents the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle” which Lamberth 2017 states is “often successful”. PNG media_image54.png 219 696 media_image54.png Greyscale Because one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in exchanging the 12-membered fused ring system of I-15 of CA’888 with the 2,2-difluoro-1,3-dioxolane fused to a 3-(H)-isoindol-1-one heterocycle, and that such an exchange directly results in a compound which is encompassed by the instant claims 1, 8-12, and 15-17, claims 1, 8-12, and 15-17 were obvious at the time of filing. Furthermore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in performing the exact same scaffold hopping replacement wherein the starting material exchanged the Ab and Ae variables of formula (I) of CA’888 with nitrogen atoms as permitted by CA’888 in order to tune efficacy of the resulting pesticide. Accordingly, starting with the 2-quinolyl-scaffold of CA’888 , and using Ab and Ae variables as N, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a pesticide that would be encompassed by the instant claim 13 – see formula (I) permitting the variant A13, CA’888 at 23, shown below. The same result applies using either Ab = N, and Ae = CH (variant A2), or Ab=CH, and Ae = N (variant A11), which yield pesticides encompassed by claim 14 . PNG media_image55.png 346 851 media_image55.png Greyscale PNG media_image56.png 183 209 media_image56.png Greyscale PNG media_image57.png 178 203 media_image57.png Greyscale PNG media_image58.png 170 206 media_image58.png Greyscale Because one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at other analogs bearing nitrogen heteroatoms about the 2-quinolyl-scaffold as discussed above, claims 13 and 14 were obvious at the time of filing . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. NSDP to US’266 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-4 and 15-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,595,266 B2, hereinafter “ US’266 ” , in view of US’108 and Lamberth 2017 . US’266 and the instant application are commonly owned by Applicant and share inventors . Claim 1 of US’266 claims a modular compound built from connecting an identical N-linked isoindole of formula (I) to three separate Q scaffolds, Qa , Qb , and Qc . Claim 1 of US’266 is shown below (left) next to the instant claim 1 (from the PG-PUB 9 ). PNG media_image59.png 574 294 media_image59.png Greyscale PNG media_image60.png 657 302 media_image60.png Greyscale Further, both claims are directed compounds that share the common utility as pesticides. See US’266 at Title: “ Pesticidally Active Heterocyclic Derivatives With Sulfur Containing Substituents ”. See Instant Application at Title: “ 2,2-DIFLUORO-5H-[1,3]DIOXOLO[4,5-F]ISOINDOL-7-ONE DERIVATIVES AS PESTICIDES ”. Accordingly, claim 1 of US’266 claims a modular pesticidal compound built from connecting an N-linked isoindole to the Qa , Qb , and Qc scaffolds of US’266 . However, claim 1 does not claim such modular pesticidal compounds built from connecting the N-linked isoindole to the instant Qa , Qb , and Qc scaffolds. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in preparing the instantly claimed modular pesticidal compounds built from connecting the N-linked isoindole to the instant Qa scaffolds, because such compounds represents routine scaffold-hopping and heterocycle swapping used in the agrochemical field to optimize and develop agrochemicals. US’108 US’108 at col. 1 describes modular agrochemical pesticide based upon the same 2-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridinyl Qa scaffold Applicant uses. US’108 designates this scaffold as “formula (I)”. PNG media_image19.png 14 255 media_image19.png Greyscale US’108 at col. 1. Compare formula (I) of US’108 (left) with instant Qa scaffold ( right ), shown below: PNG media_image19.png 14 255 media_image19.png Greyscale US’108 at col. 1. ( formula (I) of US’108 ). PNG media_image20.png 168 7 media_image20.png Greyscale Instant Qa scaffold. Formula (I) of US’108 may be connected to one of twenty “heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring system[s]” which US’108 designate as “ Q ” variables, one of which is Q20 . See US’108 at cols. 11 and 13: PNG media_image21.png 57 295 media_image21.png Greyscale PNG media_image22.png 90 281 media_image22.png Greyscale US’108 at col. 11 (left), and at col. 13 (right). An exemplary insecticide built in this manner is the compound US’108 designates as I-40. See US’108 at col. 77. PNG media_image23.png 188 284 media_image23.png Greyscale US’108 at col 77 . Lamberth 2017 Lamberth 2017 reviews the use of scaffold hopping for lead optimization in the agrochemical field. Lamberth 2017 explains that “scaffold hopping” is a technique for “the exchange of a specific portion of a potential active ingredient with another substructure with the aim of finding isofunctional molecular structures with significantly different molecular backbones….” Id. at Abstract. Lamberth 2017 at Abstract states that this technique “often offers the chance in lead discovery or optimization to mitigate problems related to toxicity, intellectual property, and insufficient potency or stability.” Lamberth 2017 further explains that this technique was routine in the field of agrochemistry. See Lamberth 2017 at Abstract (“Scaffold hopping tools … have become a permanent fixture of the innovation and optimization process in crop protection research.”). One method of “scaffold hopping” is a technique Lamberth 2017 at 283-284 describes as the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle”. See, e.g., Lamberth 2017 at 283-284, excepted sections reproduced below: PNG media_image25.png 490 842 media_image25.png Greyscale PNG media_image26.png 381 656 media_image26.png Greyscale Lamberth 2017 at 283-284 (excerpted sections). Another method of “scaffold hopping” is a technique Lamberth 2017 at 283-285 describes as “ring isosterism” through the “conversion of a cyclic imine to a cyclic amide (lactam) or vise versa”. See, e.g., Lamberth 2017 at 283, and at 285, Figure 3, excerpted sections shown below: PNG media_image27.png 343 663 media_image27.png Greyscale PNG media_image28.png 522 651 media_image28.png Greyscale Lamberth 2017 at 283 (left), and at 285, Figure 3 (right). Instant claims 1-4 and 15-17 unpatentable over claim 1 of US’266, in view of US’108 and Lamberth 2017 One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, in possession of a pesticide bearing the N-linked isoindole as depicted in claim 1 of US’266 , would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the subject matter of the instant claim 1 , because such an exchange represents ordinary and routine “scaffold hopping” including ring isosterism via cyclic imine to cyclic amide followed by NH-CH 2 divalent ring exchange. As explained by Lamberth 2017 at Abstract, agrochemists at the time of filing were motivated to utilize “[s]caffold hopping … with the aim of finding isofunctional molecular structures with significantly different molecular backbones, [which] often offers the chance in lead discovery or optimization to mitigate problems related to toxicity, intellectual property, and insufficient potency or stability.” Lamberth 2017 further explains that this technique was routine in the field of agrochemistry. See Lamberth 2017 at Abstract (“Scaffold hopping tools … have become a permanent fixture of the innovation and optimization process in crop protection research.”). As further explained by Lamberth 2017 at 283, a common method of “scaffold hopping” is the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle”, which Lamberth 2017 characterizes as “ often successful ” ( emphasis added ). One having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would recognize that the agrochemicals disclosed in US’108 were suitable for such a “scaffold hopping” approach, because US’108 discloses that formula (I) of US’108 may be connected to one of twenty “heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring system[s]” which US’108 designate as “ Q ” variables. Therefore, US’108 already exhibited a platform primed for “scaffold hopping”, wherein the disclosed heteroaromatic 9-membered or 12-membered fused bicyclic or tricyclic ring systems each represented the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle” under Lamberth 2017 . Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in exchanging the heteroaromatic 12-membered fused ring system of I-40 of US’108 with the heteroaromatic 12-membered fused ring system of claim 1 of US’266 that it was in possession of, because such a replacement represents the “replacement of a heterocycle by another heterocycle” which Lamberth 2017 states is “often successful”. Because one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have a reasonable expectation of success in exchanging the heteroaromatic 12-membered fused ring system of I-40 of US’108 with the heteroaromatic 12-membered fused ring system of claim 1 of US’266 , and that such an exchange directly results in the instant compound P18 named in the instant claim 17 , instant claims 1-4 and 15-17 which encompass this compound are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of US’266 in view of US’108 and Lamberth 2017 . Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher Evan Redwood whose telephone number is (571) 272-8882. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 6:15 AM - 4:45 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, Jeffrey S. Lundgren can be reached at 571-272-5541. 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.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1629 /JEFFREY S LUNDGREN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 2 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 3 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 4 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 5 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 6 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 7 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 8 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 9 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 10 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 11 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 12 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 13 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 14 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 15 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 16 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 17 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 18 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 19 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 20 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 21 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 22 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 23 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 24 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 25 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 26 Art Unit: 1629 Application/Control Number: 18/682,505 Page 27 Art Unit: 1629 1 Fischer; Rüdiger, et al. , “Fused Bicyclic Heterocycle Derivatives As Pesticides”, U.S. Pat. No. US 10,188,108 B2, BAYER CROPSCIENCE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Assignee, published/patented January 29, 2019, hereinafter “ US’108 ”. US’108 is the national stage entry PCT/EP2016/057389, which published as International Publication No. WO 2016162318 A1 in German on October 13, 2016. 2 Clemens Lamberth, “Agrochemical lead optimization by scaffold hopping”, Advances in Pesticide Discovery , vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 282-292 ( 2017 ), hereinafter “ Lamberth 2017 ”. 3 Lixin Zhang et al. , “TRIFLUOROETHYL THIOETHER (SULFOXIDE) SUBSTITUTED BENZENE COMPOUND AND USE THEREOF”, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20210244026 A1, published August 12, 2021, filed May 29, 2019, assigned to SHENYANG UNIVERSITY OF CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, hereinafter “ US’026 ”. 4 George A. Patani and Edmond J. LaVoie, “Bioisosterism: A Rational Approach in Drug Design”, Chem. Rev. , vol. 96, no. 8, pp. 3147-3176 ( 1996 ), hereinafter “ Patani 1996 ”. 5 See, e.g. , US’026 at 4-5, paragraph [0015]. 6 Fischer; Rüdiger, et al. , “Fused Bicyclic Heterocycle Derivatives As Pesticides”, U.S. Pat. No. US 10,188,108 B2, BAYER CROPSCIENCE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT Assignee, published/patented January 29, 2019, hereinafter “ US’108 ”. US’108 is the national stage entry PCT/EP2016/057389, which published as International Publication No. WO 2016162318 A1 in German on October 13, 2016. 7 Fischer; Rüdiger, et al. , “Heterocyclene Derivatives As Pest Control Agents”, Australian Patent Application No. AU 2019339186 A1, BAYER AG Applicant, published March 25, 2021, hereinafter “ AU’186 ”. AU’186 is the national stage entry PCT/EP2019/074234, which published as International Publication No. WO 2020053282 A1 in German on March 19, 2020. 8 Fischer; Rüdiger, et al. , “CONDENSED BICYCLIC HETEROCYCLE DERIVATIVES AS PEST CONTROL AGENTS”, Canadian Patent Application No. CA 3002888 A1, BAYER CROPSCIENCE AG Applicant, published May 4, 2017, hereinafter “ CA’888 ”. CA’888 is the national stage entry of PCT/EP2016/075365, which published as International Publication No. WO 2017072039 A1 in German on May 4, 2017. 9 U.S. Pat. Application Pub. No. US 2025/0145640 A1. The instant claim 1 has not been amended since publication of the instant application.
Prosecution Insights