CTNF 18/684,750 CTNF 88653 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. Status of the Claims Claims 19 is cancelled. Claims 1-18 and 20 are pending. Claims 9, 10 and 20 are withdrawn. Claims 1-8 and 11-18 are under examination. Priority This application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/073598 filed on 8/24/2022, which claims priority from EP21193037.5 filed on 8/25/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on 04/06/2026 has been considered by the examiner. Election/Restriction Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the groups do not lack unity, however the examiner broke unity by citing a reference (Casero) that provided the prior art does not make a contribution over the prior art for the compound structure, and thus, no inventive shared feature exists currently, which is the compound of formula (I). Note that other references are provided herein that also provide these compounds. Although applicant notes Casero was used, applicant did not argue how Casero does not break unity. Applicant elects the species with traverse, but does not provide an argument to the species election. Upon allowance of claims, groups that share the allowable feature can be rejoined. The non-elected species that are not provided or motivated by the prior art can also be rejoined at the appropriate time for allowance. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL . 08-05 AIA Claim s 9, 10 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/7/2026 . Applicant’s elected species of compound was free of the prior art, and thus, next species that would read on the compound were searched and considered. See the prior art cited below . Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to for missing an “or” between the last two items found at the end of the claim. Claim 15 is objected to for having an unnecessary recitation of the compound structures after the period in the claim. Note this claim is dependent on claim 14, which already has those structures. Claim 16 is objected to for the recitation of “claim=” which should just be “claim”. Appropriate corrections are required. 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-8 and 11-18 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 is indefinite as the claim carries two different groups for “m radicals”. One group as found in R7 has “fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, hydroxyl, and cyano” while another group for m radicals found in the definition for R10 and 11 has “fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, cyano, and (C1-C2)-alkoxy” and another group in the definitions of Y and Z is “R b , R c , R e , and R f ”. Ra’s definition has a group of “fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, cyano, hydroxy, and (C1-C3)-alkoxy”. Also, note that there are groups for m radicals in Rc, Rd and Rh. This use of different groups for the same apparent item “m radicals” makes it unclear how m radicals should be considered and whether any definition can apply or if one particular definition should apply for the definition where it is found. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider m radicals for the definitions where they appear. Applicant may consider using m, m', m’’, etc where an “m radicals” presents a different group of items in the claim. Claims 2-8 and 11-18 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim. Claim 1 is indefinite for the recitation of “including agriculturally acceptable salts, stereoisomers, and tautomers” it is unclear if the applicant means to say “or agriculturally acceptable salts, stereoisomers, or tautomers thereof (thereof referring to the compound of formula (I))” or if applicant means to make this claim to a compound a composition that also includes agriculturally acceptable salts, stereoisomers and tautomers that are not necessarily of the recited compound. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examine will consider the limitation as “or agriculturally acceptable salts, stereoisomers, or tautomers thereof”. Claims 2-8 and 11-18 are rejected as being dependent on an indefinite claim. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “R³ is hydrogen, halogen, (C₁-C₃)-alkyl, (C₁-C₃)-haloalkyl, (C₁-C₃)-alkoxy or (Cr-C₃)-haloalkoxy; and R⁵ is hydrogen, halogen, (C₁-C₃)-alkyl, (C₁-C₃)-haloalkyl, (C₁-C₃)-alkoxy or (C₁-C₃)-haloalkoxy” and the claim also recites “where preferably R³ and R⁵, independently of each other, are hydrogen or halogen” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “R7 is (C1-C6)-alkyl or (C3-C6)-cycloalkyl” and the claim also recites “preferably (C1-C6)-alkyl” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “Re is hydrogen, (C1-C6)-alkyl, …. or (C3-C6)-cycloalkyl” and the claim also recites “preferably (C1-C4)-alkyl” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Chemcats, Registry Number 2649882-65-3, entered on STN on July 07, 2021 . Chemcats provides the compound of structure, which meets structural limitations of claims 1-5 - PNG media_image1.png 174 407 media_image1.png Greyscale . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-103 AIA The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manning WO1987005898A2 . Manning teaches a method for retarding plant growth by applying to the plant an effective amount of malonic acid derivative compound (abstract). Manning teaches the compound- PNG media_image2.png 109 401 media_image2.png Greyscale (see pages 2-8). Manning teaches a compound - PNG media_image3.png 168 447 media_image3.png Greyscale in claim 14 of Manning wherein: R' 17 is a substituted or unsubstituted heterocyclic ring system selected from a monocyclic aromatic or nonaromatic ring system, a bicyclic aromatic or nonaromatic ring system, or polycyclic aromatic or nonaromatic ring system, and a bridged ring system which may be saturated or unsaturated; Y' 35 is O, S, N or N (alkyl); Y' 36 and Y' 37 are independently hydrogen, or substituted or unsubstituted halogen, cycloalkyl, isocyano, alkylsulfonyl, alkylsulfinyl, alkylamino, dialkylamino, alkoxycarbonyl, alkenyl, alkynyl, alkyl, alkoxy, alkylthio, cyano, nitro, formyl, amino, hydroxy, alkylcarbonyl, dialkoxyalkyl, alkylcarbonylamino, formylamino, hydroxyalkyl, polyhaloalkyl or haloalkyl; and Y48 is O, S, N or N(alkyl) and R’18 can be Z as defined in claim 1 (also table 2) (claims 1 and 14 of Manning). In table 11, R’17 has 5 member rings. Claim 43 of Manning also has a compound of formula PNG media_image4.png 149 477 media_image4.png Greyscale (the attachment to the phenyl can be construed to be the phenyl ring of applicant’s compound of formula I and the Y14-R8 side construed to be the portion of the N-X-Y group) with Manning allowing Y15 and Y16 to be H and/or alkyl, Y13 and Y14 can be NH, (Z2)n can be halogens, haloalkyls among other groups and R8 is defined in claim 39 where it can be groups such as “alkoxycarbonylalkyl, alkylaminoalkyl, dialkylaminoalkyl, aryl, mercaptoalkyl, alkylthioalkyl, arylthioalkyl, aryloxyalkyl, alkylsulfonylalkyl, alkylsulfinylalkyl, acylalkyl, aroylalkyl, dialkoxyphosphinylalkyl, diaryloxyphosphinylalkyl, hydroxyalkylthioalkyl, hydroxyalkylsulfonylalkyl, alkoxyalkylthioalkyl, alkoxyalkylsulfonylalkyl, poly(oxyalkylene)alkyl, cyanoalkyl, nitroalkyl, alkylideneamino, carbamoylalkyl, alkylcarbamoylalkyl, dialkylcarbamoylalkyl, aminoalkyl, acylaminoalkyl, acyloxyalkyl, alkoxycarbonylaminoalkyl, cyanoaminoalkyl, carbamoyloxyalkyl, alkylcarbamoyloxyalkyl, dialkylcarbamoyloxyalkyl, alkoxycarbonyloxyalkyl, alkoxycarbonylthioalkyl, aminosulfonylalkyl, alkylaminosulfonylalkyl or dialkylaminosulfonylalkyl”. Manning teaches other biologically active ingredients including herbicidal compounds (English translation). Manning teaches “Suitable liquid diluents or carriers include water, petroleum distillates, or other liquid carriers with or without surface active agents” (English translation). Table G provides for compounds terminating with a ethyl ester group and Table A also provides for such ester groups. Although Manning does not teach a species of compound, it provides for a genus and the teachings of structure with options of atoms in the same positions, a phenyl group that can have substitutions, and terminal groups such as alkyl esters that overlaps with applicant’s claims. The similar subgenus structures of Manning also allow for production of malonamide compounds that retard plant growth (are herbicidal) (see MPEP 2144.09 – close structural similarity between chemical compounds), and thus, there is a reasonable expectation of success in providing new compounds that will have plant retarding effects when one of ordinary skill in the art works to make compounds with the teachings of Manning . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN109232429A and Muller US 5977378 . CN ‘429 teaches a bisamide compound containing a 1,3-dialkyl substituted pyrazole and a preparation method and application thereof. Its structural formula is the following formula Ia or formula Ib, wherein, R1 is H, F or methoxy; R2 is H, halogen, cyano, trifluoromethyl, C 1 -C 6 alkyl or various substitutions C 1 -C 6 alkyl; R3 is C 1 -C 6 alkyl; R4 is C 1 -C 6 alkyl; R5 is C 1 -C 6 alkyl, C 1 -C 6 alkene or C 1 -C 6 alkyne; Y is methoxy or C 1 -C 6 alkyl (abstract and English translation). CN ‘429 teaches use as agrochemicals (abstract). CN ‘429 teaches compounds - PNG media_image5.png 245 445 media_image5.png Greyscale (also see paragraphs 4-15). CN ‘429 allows for auxiliary agents acceptable for agriculture (English translation). CN ‘429 allows for broad substitution of the R2 group on the 5 member ring, but does not provide for p radical substitutions of applicant’s claims. Muller teaches making of alkyl-pyrazole carboxylic acid esters (abstract, also see columns 5 and 6). Muller teaches use of the process for preparation of pesticides having insecticidal and acaricidal action (paragraph before examples, column 7). Column 2 of Muller provides for PNG media_image6.png 267 305 media_image6.png Greyscale . One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have modified compounds of CN ‘429 to incorporate ester groups on their alkyl pyrazole group by teachings of known techniques of Muller and would have provided new esters forms of insecticidal compounds as both reference provide for compounds with insecticidal activity (CN ‘429 recognizes its compounds having insecticidal activity while Muller provides for modifying active compounds including those with insecticidal activity. Non-Statutory 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. 08-35 Claim 1-8 and 11-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-8 and 11-18 of copending Application No. 18/684872 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides for a similar compound besides the copending having an additional alkyl group (e.g. methyl) at the R7/R8 position. The addition of a short alkyl group on the same compound is expected to provide a similar effective compound. See MPEP 2144.09 (Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder , 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977).) . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 AIA Claim 1-8 and 11-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-7 and 9-13 of copending Application No. 18/280,408 (reference application) in view of Phys.org (When changing one atom makes molecules better, University of Vienna, March 2019, https://phys.org/news/2019-03-atom-molecules.html) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because each claim set provides for a similar compound besides the copending having a fluorine near its R7 position. Phys.org provides that “While hydrogen and fluorine are distinctly different in some respects, their sizes are comparable, and the replacement of H with F can therefore often be assumed to have only minimal effect on the structure of the key (pharmaceutical).”. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have replaced the fluorine with a similarly sized hydrogen expecting minimal effect on the compound structure due to comparable sizes. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in using hydrogen instead of fluorine at that position in the compound of ‘408 and obtaining compounds that also have herbicidal properties . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusions No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK V STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7080. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm EST. 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. /MARK V STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 2 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 3 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 4 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 5 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 6 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 7 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 8 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 9 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 10 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 11 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 12 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 13 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 14 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 15 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/684,750 Page 16 Art Unit: 1613
Prosecution Insights