DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 23-43 are currently pending. Claims 23-36 are currently under consideration and are the subject of this Office Action. This is the first Office Action on the merits of the claims. Non-elected claims 37-43 are withdrawn from consideration. 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 Office Action: Non-Final.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the claims of Group I (claims 23-36) in the response filed on January 14, 2026 (to the December 10, 2025 Requirement for Restriction) is acknowledged. In response to applicant’s election, the claims of Group II (claims 37-41) and Group III (claim 42) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant has elected the claims of Group I without traverse.
Accordingly, the December 10, 2025 Requirement for Restriction is made FINAL, and claims 23-36 are examined as follows.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 30 is objected to because the claim should read:
30. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 23, wherein the at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient is selected from at least one of: surfactants, binders, [[or ]]binding agents, wetting agents, emulsifiers, fillers, [[or ]] or carriers, [[or ]]diluents, coating agents, buffers, [[or ]]pH adjusters, [[or ]]neutralizing agents, antifoaming agents , [[or ]]defoamers, penetrants, UV protecting agents, UV absorbents, UV rays scattering agents, stabilizers, pigments, colorants, structuring agents, chelating, [[or ]]complexing, [[or ]]sequestering agent thickeners, suspending agents, [[or ]]suspension aid agents, [[or ]]anticaking agents, [[or ]]anti-settling agents, viscosity modifiers, [[or ]]rheology modifiers, tackifiers, humectants, spreading agents, sticking agents, anti-freezing agents, [[or ]]freeze point depressants, solvents, preservatives, [[or ]]bactericides, [[or ]]anti-fungal agents, [[or ]]biocides, [[or ]]anti-microbial agents, [[or ]]antioxidants, polymers, monomers, cross-linking agents, permeability enhancing agents, protective colloids, and mixtures thereof.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112 - Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 23-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or, for pre-AIA , that applicant regards as the invention.
A. Claim 23 is drawn to:
23. ([…]) A pesticidal composition, comprising:
elemental sulphur in a range of 30% w/w to 90% w/w of the pesticidal composition;
fluxapyroxad in a range of 0.01% w/w to 25% w/w of the pesticidal composition;
prothioconazole in a range of 1% w/w to 20% w/w of the pesticidal composition; and
at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient;
wherein a particle size of the pesticidal composition is in a range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns.
wherein the recitation, “wherein a particle size of the pesticidal composition is in a range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns,” is indefinite because it is unclear as to whether ALL of the previously recited “elemental sulphur,” “fluxapyroxad,” “prothioconazole” and “at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient” are incorporated in the “particle,” or some combination thereof. In this regard, it is noted that the Board has held: “if a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring the applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, as indefinite.” Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211 (BPAI 2008) (expanded panel). Applicant's clarification is respectfully requested. Subsequent claims 24-36 depend on claim 23 and are thus, indefinite as well.
B. Claim 31 is drawn to:
31. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 26, wherein the pesticidal composition in the form of the liquid has a viscosity of 10 cps to 3000 cps. [temperature]
wherein the recitation, “a viscosity of 10 cps to 3000 cps” without a temperature is indefinite because viscosity varies by temperature. In this regard, examiner suggests amending claim 31 to recite a temperature such as “25° C,” as described at par. [0101] of the instant published application, US 2025/0134108 A1.
C. Claim 25 is drawn to:
25. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 24, wherein the pesticidal composition in the form of the solid is in a form of granules, and wherein the form of granules comprises: spheronised granules, extruded granules, water disintegrable granules, wettable powder, water dispersible granules, dustable powder (DP), powder for dry seed treatment (DS), one or more water disintegrable tablets, or water dispersible powders for slurry seed treatment (WS).
wherein the recitation “the solid is in a form of granules” because it is unclear as to whether the “granules” of claim 25 are the same as the “particle” for a “particle size” of claim 23 (from which claim 25 depends), or whether the particles of claim 23 are further compacted to form “granules” of claim 25. Subsequent claims 27-28 depend on claim 25 and are thus, indefinite as well.
D. Claims 27-28 are drawn to:
27. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 25, wherein the form of granules comprises water dispersible granules, and wherein the water dispersible granules are in a size range of 0.05 mm to 3 mm.
28. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 25, wherein the granules are in a size range of 0.05 mm to 6 mm.
wherein the recitation of “water dispersible granules” in the particular size ranges is indefinite because it is unclear as to whether the “water dispersible granules” of claims 27-28 are the same as the “particle” for a “particle size” of claim 23, or whether the particles of claim 23 are further compacted to form “water dispersible granules” of claims 27-28. To the extent the “water dispersible granules” of claims 27-28 are the same as the “particle” for a “particle size” of claim 23, the size ranges recited in claims 27-28 would no be further limiting under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
Further clarification is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 C.F.R. § 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 23-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over FABRI (WO 2018/162999 A1, Publ. Sep. 13, 2018; on 02/09/2024 IDS; hereinafter, “Fabri”), in view of SAWANT (WO 2020/021506 A1, Publ. Jan. 30, 2020; hereinafter, “Sawant”).
Fabri is directed to:
Title: FUNGICIDAL COMBINATIONS
Abstract: A combination comprising a multi-site contact fungicide, a succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicide and a second systemic fungicide and a method using the same.
Fabri, title & abstract. In this regard Fabri teaches a fungicidal combination:
Thus, in an aspect, the present invention provides a fungicidal combination comprising:
(a) at least one multi-site fungicide;
(b) at least one succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicide; and
(c) at least a third fungicide.
(Fabri, p. 5, ln. 19-22), and amounts thereof:
In an embodiment, the total amount of succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor in the composition may typically be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight, preferably 0.2 to 90% 10 by weight. The total amount of multi-site fungicide in the composition may be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight. The total amount of ergostrol biosynthesis inhibitor in the composition may be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight. The total amount of Quinone outside inhibitor in the composition may be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight.
(Fabri, p. 154, ln. 8-13). Also in this regard, Fabri teaches an embodiment containing “at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient”:
In an embodiment, the present invention may provide a composition comprising:
(a) at least one succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicide;
(b) at least one multi-site fungicide;
(c) at least one other fungicide; and
(d) at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient.
Fabri, p. 153, ln. 3-7. Further in this regard, Farbri teaches
the multi-site fungicide may be sulphur (Fabri, p 6, ln 26; also “preferred” at p. 123, ln. 28);
the succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicide may be fluxapyroxad (Fabri, p 7, ln. 1-2); and
the third fungicide may be selected from sterol biosynthesis inhibitors, ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitors such as prothioconazole (Fabri, p. 11, ln. 26; also p. 13, ln 16).
Regarding independent claim 23 and the requirements:
23. ([…]) A pesticidal composition, comprising:
elemental sulphur in a range of 30% w/w to 90% w/w of the pesticidal composition;
fluxapyroxad in a range of 0.01% w/w to 25% w/w of the pesticidal composition;
prothioconazole in a range of 1% w/w to 20% w/w of the pesticidal composition; and
at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient;
wherein a particle size of the pesticidal composition is in a range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns.
Fabri clearly teaches a fungicidal combination (Fabri, p. 5, ln. 19-22), wherein:
the “(a) at least one multi-site fungicide” (Fabri, p. 5, ln. 20) may be sulphur (Fabri, p 6, ln 26; also “preferred” at p. 123, ln. 28), wherein “[t]he total amount of multi-site fungicide in the composition may be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight” (Fabri, p. 154, ln. 10-11) is “elemental sulphur in a range of 30% w/w to 90% w/w of the synergistic pesticidal combination” of claim 23;
the “(b) at least one succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicide” (Fabri, p. 5, ln. 21) may be fluxapyroxad (Fabri, p 7, ln. 1-2), wherein “the total amount of succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor in the composition may typically be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight, preferably 0.2 to 90% 10 by weight” (Fabri, p. 154, ln. 8-9) is “fluxapyroxad in a range of 0.01% w/w to 25% w/w of the synergistic pesticidal combination” of claim 23;
the “(c) at least a third fungicide” (Fabri, p. 5, ln. 22) may be selected from sterol biosynthesis inhibitors, ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitors such as prothioconazole (Fabri, p. 11, ln. 26; also p. 13, ln 16), wherein “[t]he total amount of ergostrol biosynthesis inhibitor in the composition may be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight” (Fabri, p. 154, ln. 11-12) is “prothioconazole in a range of 1% w/w to 20% w/w of the synergistic pesticidal combination” of claim 23; and
“at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient” (Fabri, p. 153, ln. 7) is “at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient” of claim 23.
However it is noted that:
(i) Fabri DOES NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH a specific exemplary embodiment with the particular combination of “elemental sulphur,” “fluxapyroxad” and “prothioconazole” “at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient” per the requirements of claim 23; and
(ii) although Fabri teaches “mixing the actives in the composition with an inert carrier” for formulation into “solid, or liquid formulations” including “wettable powders, granules, dusts, Soluble (liquid) concentrates, suspension concentrates, […]”:
In an embodiment, the compositions of the present invention may typically be produce by mixing the actives in the composition with an inert carrier, and adding surfactants and other adjuvants and carriers as needed and formulated into solid, or liquid formulations, including but not limited to wettable powders, granules, dusts, Soluble (liquid) concentrates, suspension concentrates, oil in water emulsion, water in oil emulsion, emulsifiable concentrates, capsule suspensions, ZC formulations, oil dispersions or other known formulation types
(Fabri, p. 154, ln. 26 to p. 155, ln. 2), Fabri DOES NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH a particular granular or particulate formulation per the requirements of claim 23 for a composition, “wherein a particle size of the pesticidal composition is in a range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns.”
Based on the state of the art, an artisan of ordinary skill would have found each of these features obvious.
Regarding (i), it is noted that a reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP § 2123 [R-5] states: “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the disclosed above cited components of Fabri in order to arrive at a composition, wherein:
the “(a) at least one multi-site fungicide” (Fabri, p. 5, ln. 20) may be sulphur (Fabri, p 6, ln 26; also “preferred” at p. 123, ln. 28), wherein “[t]he total amount of multi-site fungicide in the composition may be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight” (Fabri, p. 154, ln. 10-11);
the “(b) at least one succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor fungicide” (Fabri, p. 5, ln. 21) may be fluxapyroxad (Fabri, p 7, ln. 1-2), wherein “the total amount of succinate dehydrogenase inhibitor in the composition may typically be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight, preferably 0.2 to 90% 10 by weight” (Fabri, p. 154, ln. 8-9);
the “(c) at least a third fungicide” (Fabri, p. 5, ln. 22) may be selected from sterol biosynthesis inhibitors, ergosterol biosynthesis inhibitors such as prothioconazole (Fabri, p. 11, ln. 26; also p. 13, ln 16), wherein “[t]he total amount of ergostrol biosynthesis inhibitor in the composition may be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight” (Fabri, p. 154, ln. 11-12); and
“at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient” (Fabri, p. 153, ln. 7).
Regarding the range requirements of claim 23, it is noted that MPEP § 2144.05 (I), states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d, 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Therefore, Farbri renders (i) obvious.
Regarding (ii), Sawant, for instance, is directed to:
Title: AN AGROCHEMICAL COMPOSITION
Abstract: The invention relates to an agrochemical composition comprising a complex formed with at least one of elemental zinc or its salt or derivative or mixtures thereof and at least one of eugenol or source containing eugenol; with at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient. The agrochemical composition is in the form of wettable powders, aqueous suspensions, suspoemulsions, emulsion in water, emulsifiable concentrate, suspension concentrates, liquid suspension, aqueous dispersion, water dispersible granules, broadcast granules, water disintegrable granules, seed dressings or emulsions for seed treatment and combinations thereof. Further, the agrochemical composition comprises particles in the size range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns. Furthermore, the invention relates to a process of preparing the agrochemical composition and to a method of treating plants, seeds, crops, plant propagation material, locus, parts thereof or soil with the agrochemical composition
Sawant, title & abstract. In this regard, Sawant discloses claim embodiments drawn to an agrochemical composition comprising a zinc/eugenol complex and at least one agrochemical excipient:
1. An agrochemical composition comprising:
i. a complex formed with:
a. at least one of elemental zinc or its salt or derivative thereof, b. at least one of eugenol or a source thereof; and
ii. at least one agrochemical excipient.
2. The agrochemical composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the composition comprises particles in the size range of from 0.1 micron to 50 microns.
Sawant, claims 1-2.
In light of these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to formulate Fabri’s fungicidal combination (discussed above at (i)), as an “agrochemical composition comprises particles in the size range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns” per Sawant (Sawant, abstract). One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success since both Fabri and Sawant are concerned with similar problems in the art, namely the formulation of agrochemical compositions. Fabri, p. 153, ln. 3-7; Sawant, abstract. Further, it is well within the skill of the ordinary artisan to select a suitable compositional form “including but not limited to wettable powders, granules, dusts.” Fabri, p. 154, ln. 26 to p. 155, ln. 2. Doing so amounts to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, namely the formulation of Fabri’s fungicidal combination as “particles in the size range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns” in order to obtain he advantage of a suitable compositional form for “wettable powders, aqueous suspensions, suspoemulsions, emulsion in water, emulsifiable concentrate, suspension concentrates, liquid suspension, aqueous dispersion, water dispersible granules, broadcast granules, water disintegrable granules, seed dressings or emulsions for seed treatment and combinations thereof” (Fabri, abstract). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) regarding the obviousness of prior art overlapping claimed numerical ranges.
Thus, the prior art renders claim 23 obvious.
Regarding claims 24-26, to the extent Farbi DOES NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH the particular compositional forms per the requirements:
24. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 23, wherein the pesticidal composition is in a form of a solid or a form of a liquid or a form of a gel.
25. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 24, wherein the pesticidal composition in the form of the solid is in a form of granules, and wherein the form of granules comprises: spheronised granules, extruded granules, water disintegrable granules, wettable powder, water dispersible granules, dustable powder (DP), powder for dry seed treatment (DS), one or more water disintegrable tablets, or water dispersible powders for slurry seed treatment (WS).
26. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 24, wherein the pesticidal composition in the form of the liquid is in a form of: liquid suspension, suspension concentrate (SC), suspoemulsion (SE), oil dispersion (OD), flowable concentrate (FC), suspension concentrate for seed treatment (FS), or Ultra-Low-Volume (ULV).
it would be obvious to formulate Fabri’s fungicidal combination (discussed above at (i)), as an “agrochemical composition comprises particles in the size range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns” per Sawant (Sawant, abstract), one would be further to obtain “wettable powders, aqueous suspensions, suspoemulsions, emulsion in water, emulsifiable concentrate, suspension concentrates, liquid suspension, aqueous dispersion, water dispersible granules, broadcast granules, water disintegrable granules, seed dressings or emulsions” (Sawant, abstract).
Thus, the prior art renders claims 24-26 obvious.
Regarding claims 27-28, to the extent Farbi DOES NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH the particular compositional forms per the requirements:
27. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 25, wherein the form of granules comprises water dispersible granules, and wherein the water dispersible granules are in a size range of 0.05 mm to 3 mm.
28. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 25, wherein the granules are in a size range of 0.05 mm to 6 mm.
Sawant discloses claim embodiments drawn to an agrochemical composition formulated as “water dispersible granules” “in the size range of from 0.1 to 6 mm”:
7. The agrochemical composition as claimed in claim 6, wherein the water dispersible granules, water disintegrable granules, broadcast granules are in the size range of from 0.1 to 6 mm.
8. The agrochemical composition as claimed in claim 6, wherein the micro granules are in the size range of from 0.1 to 2.5 mm.
Sawant, claims 7-8. Since it would be obvious to formulate Fabri’s fungicidal combination (discussed above at (i)), as an “agrochemical composition comprises particles in the size range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns” per Sawant (Sawant, abstract), one would be further to obtain “water dispersible granules” “in the size range of from 0.1 to 6 mm” (Sawant, claims 7-8). See MPEP § 2144.05 (I) regarding the obviousness of prior art overlapping claimed numerical ranges.
Thus, the prior art renders claims 27-28 obvious.
Regarding claim 29 and the requirements:
29. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 23, wherein the pesticidal composition further comprises at least one active ingredient selected from: pesticidal actives, fertilizers, macronutrients, micronutrients, biostimulants, organic acids, plant growth regulators, algae, and mixtures thereof.
Fabri teaches a composition comprising “(d) at least one other agrochemical active” (Fabri, claim 13), wherein “the agrochemical active may be selected from herbicides, insecticides, miticides, acaricide, fertilizers, plant growth regulators, biocides and the like” (Fabri, claim 14). See MPEP § 2123 [R-5] regarding the obviousness of rearranging a reference according to the teachings of that same reference.
Thus, the prior art renders claim 29 obvious.
Regarding claim 30 and the requirements:
30. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 23, wherein the at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient is selected from at least one of: surfactants, binders or binding agents, wetting agents, emulsifiers, fillers or carriers or diluents, coating agents, buffers or pH adjusters or neutralizing agents, antifoaming agents or defoamers, penetrants, UV protecting agents, UV absorbents, UV rays scattering agents, stabilizers, pigments, colorants, structuring agents, chelating or complexing or sequestering agent thickeners, suspending agents or suspension aid agents or anticaking agents or anti-settling agents, viscosity modifiers or rheology modifiers, tackifiers, humectants, spreading agents, sticking agents, anti-freezing agent or freeze point depressants, solvents, preservatives or bactericides or anti-fungal agents or biocides or anti-microbial agents or antioxidants, polymers, monomers, cross-linking agents, permeability enhancing agents, protective colloids, and mixtures thereof.
Fabri teaches “at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient” (Fabri, p. 153, ln. 7), e.g., “the compositions of the present invention may typically be produce[d] by mixing the actives in the composition with an inert carrier, and adding surfactants and other adjuvants and carriers as needed” (Fabri, p. 154, ln. 26-28), which at least encompasses “surfactants” of claim 30. See MPEP § 2123 [R-5] regarding the obviousness of rearranging a reference according to the teachings of that same reference.
Thus, the prior art renders claim 30 obvious.
Regarding claim 31, to the extent Farbi DOES NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH a particular viscosity per the requirements:
31. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 26, wherein the pesticidal composition in the form of the liquid has a viscosity of 10 cps to 3000 cps.
Sawant teaches the incorporation of “viscosity modifiers” (Sawant, p. 12, ln. 7), and “an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a viscosity at 25° C. of about 10 cps to about 3000 cps”:
According to an embodiment, viscosity of the liquid composition is determined as per CIPAC MT-192. A sample is transferred to a standard measuring system. The measurement is carried out under different shear conditions and the apparent viscosities are determined. During the test, the temperature of the liquid is kept constant. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a viscosity at 25° C. of about 10 cps to about 3000 cps. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a viscosity at 25° C. of about 10 cps to about 2500 cps. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a viscosity at 25° C. of about 10 cps to about 2000 cps. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a viscosity at 25° C. of about 10 cps to about 1500 cps. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a viscosity at 25° C. of about 10 cps to about 1200 cps. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has viscosity at 25° C. of about 10 cps to about 500 cps. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a viscosity at 25° C. of about less than 500 cps. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has viscosity at 25° C. of about 10 cps to about 400 cps. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has viscosity at 25° C. of about 10 cps to about 300 cps.
(Sawant, p. 38, ln. 13-31). Since it would be obvious to formulate Fabri’s fungicidal combination (discussed above at (i)), as an “agrochemical composition comprises particles in the size range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns” per Sawant (Sawant, abstract), one would be further to incorporate “viscosity modifiers” (Sawant, p. 12, ln. 7) in order to obtain a “agrochemical composition [that] has a viscosity at 25° C. of about 10 cps to about 3000 cps” Sawant, p. 38, ln. 13-31). See MPEP § 2123 [R-5] regarding the obviousness of rearranging a reference according to the teachings of that same reference; see also MPEP § 2144.05 (I) regarding the obviousness of prior art overlapping claimed numerical ranges.
Thus, the prior art renders claim 31 obvious.
Regarding claim 32, to the extent Farbi DOES NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH a particular viscosity per the requirements:
32. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 26, wherein the pesticidal composition in the form of the liquid has a pourability of less than 5% residue.
Sawant teaches the incorporation of “disintegrating agents” (Sawant, p. 12, ln. 2), and “Disintegration” as “the complete breakdown exhibited by the granules on coming in contact with soil moisture or water” to a point of “absence of a residue” that “indicates complete disintegration of the tablet”:
Disintegration is defined as the complete breakdown exhibited by the granules on coming in contact with soil moisture or water. The Samples can be tested for disintegration time as per the CIPAC Handbook, “MT 197 for Disintegration of tablets”. To carry out the test one entire water disintegrable granule is added to a defined volume of CIPAC standard water and mixed by gentle stirring for the specified disintegration time of the tablet. The suspension is then passed through a 2000pm sieve. The absence of a residue on the screen indicates complete disintegration of the tablet.
(Sawant, p. 34, ln. 30 to p. 35, ln. 6). Since it would be obvious to formulate Fabri’s fungicidal combination (discussed above at (i)), as an “agrochemical composition comprises particles in the size range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns” per Sawant (Sawant, abstract), one would be further to incorporate “disintegrating agents” (Sawant, p. 12, ln. 2) in order to obtain “the complete breakdown exhibited by the granules on coming in contact with soil moisture or water” to a point of “absence of a residue” for “complete disintegration of the tablet” (Sawant, p. 34, ln. 30 to p. 35, ln. 6), which is “pourability of less than 5% residue” of claim 32. See MPEP § 2123 [R-5] regarding the obviousness of rearranging a reference according to the teachings of that same reference; see also MPEP § 2144.05 (I) regarding the obviousness of prior art overlapping claimed numerical ranges.
Thus, the prior art renders claim 32 obvious.
Regarding claims 33-36, to the extent Farbi DOES NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH a particular dispersibility or suspendability per the requirements:
33. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 25, wherein a dispersibility of the pesticidal composition is at least 30%.
34. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 25, wherein a suspensibility of the pesticidal composition is at least 30%.
35. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 25, wherein a dispersibility of the pesticidal composition is at least 30% under accelerated storage conditions.
36. ([…]) The pesticidal composition of claim 25, wherein a suspensibility of the pesticidal composition is at least 30% under accelerated storage conditions.
Sawant teaches “suspensibility under accelerated storage condition (ATS),” wherein the agrochemical composition demonstrates suspensibility of more than 90% under ATS”:
According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition demonstrates superior stability in terms of suspensibility under accelerated storage condition (ATS). According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition demonstrates suspensibility of more than 90% under ATS. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition demonstrates suspensibility of more than 80% under ATS. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition demonstrates suspensibility of more than 70% under ATS. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition demonstrates suspensibility of more than 60% under ATS. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition demonstrates suspensibility of more than 50% under ATS. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition demonstrates suspensibility of more than 40% under ATS. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition demonstrates suspensibility of more than 30% under ATS.
(Sawant, p. 39, ln. 1-14) and a “dispersibility of at least 30%”:
According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a dispersibility of at least 30%. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a dispersibility of at least 40%. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a dispersibility of at least 50%. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a dispersibility of at least 60%. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a dispersibility of at least 70%. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a dispersibility of at least 80%. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a dispersibility of at least 90%. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a dispersibility of at least 99%. According to an embodiment, the agrochemical composition has a dispersibility of 100%.
(Sawant, p. 34, ln. 18-28). Since it would be obvious to formulate Fabri’s fungicidal combination (discussed above at (i)), as an “agrochemical composition comprises particles in the size range of 0.1 micron to 50 microns” per Sawant (Sawant, abstract), one would be further to obtain a composition exhibiting “suspensibility under accelerated storage condition (ATS),” wherein the agrochemical composition demonstrates suspensibility of more than 90% under ATS” (Sawant, p. 39, ln. 1-14) and a “dispersibility of at least 30%” (Sawant, p. 34, ln. 18-28). See MPEP § 2123 [R-5] regarding the obviousness of rearranging a reference according to the teachings of that same reference; see also MPEP § 2144.05 (I) regarding the obviousness of prior art overlapping claimed numerical ranges.
Thus, the prior art renders claims 33-36 obvious.
Conclusion
Claims 23-36 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-2845. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30am to 5:00pm EST; alternating Fridays out.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BETHANY BARHAM can be reached on (571)272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOMINIC LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611