Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Applicant’s response, filed 13 Jul 2026 has been entered.
Claims 20-28 and 31-36 remain pending in the application.
Claim 23 is amended.
Claims 1-19 and 29-30 are cancelled.
Claims 24, 26 and 31-36 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 20-23, 25, 27, and 28 are under consideration to the extent of the elected species, i.e., that the compositional form is water dispersible granules.
Objections Withdrawn
Objections to the Specification
The specification objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 16 Apr 2026 are hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments of the specification.
Objections to the Claims
The claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 16 Apr 2026 are hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments of the claims.
Rejections Withdrawn
Rejections Pursuant to 35 USC § 112
The rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d) set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 16 Apr 2026 are hereby withdrawn in light of applicants amendment and cancelation of the claims.
Objections/Rejections Maintained
Specification
The use of the terms such as Span, Tween, Atlas, Soprophor, Solutol, Arlacel, Hypermer, Atlox, Croduret, Etocas, Rokacet, Cetomacrogol, Rokacet (e.g. pages 18 and 23), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 Jul 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has provided an amended specification to correct page 19. However, other instances of the terms remain. See, for example, pages 18, 22, and 23.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 20-23, 25, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vadakekuttu et al. (US 10,492,489, published 03 Dec 2019, listed on IDS filed 05 Mar 2024).
Vadakekuttu teaches an agricultural granular composition (col 1 lines 15-20). Vadakekuttu teaches that the granular composition includes at least one water insoluble nutrient and at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient (col 7 lines 27-32). Vadakekuttu teaches that the water insoluble nutrient may be a water insoluble fertilizer such as elemental sulphur (col 7 line 55 – col 8 line 2, col 45 lines 9-26). Vadakekuttu teaches that the water insoluble nutrient is present in amounts such as at least 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% etc. by weight (col 8 lines 42-67), rendering obvious the claimed range of elemental sulphur. Vadakekuttu teaches the inclusion of at least one pesticidal active ingredient (col 5 lines 33-35, 57-60, col 43 lines 1-4) and teaches the pesticidal active may be acynonapyr (col 18 lines 15-20). Vadakekuttu teaches that the pesticidal active is present in amounts such as a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight (col 4 lines 24-38), rendering obvious the claimed range of acynonapyr. 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).
Vadakekuttu teaches that the composition is in a size range of 0.1 mm to 5 mm and comprises particles in the size range of from 0.1 micron to 50 microns (col 4 lines 60-65, col 7 lines 33-54), rendering obvious claims 21 and 25. Vadakekuttu teaches the inclusion of at least one algae (col 9 lines 1-5) and macronutrients (col 43 lines 1-4), rendering obvious claim 27. Vadakekuttu teaches that the composition has good physical properties of dispersion (col 4 lines 65-66) and that the water disintegrable granules exhibit superior dispersibility (col 29 lines 39-41), rendering obvious the form of a solid and water dispersible granules as in claims 22, 23 and 25. Vadakekuttu teaches that the particles have a dispersibility of at least 10%, 20%, 30%...80% (col 29 line 58 – col 30 line 5). Vadakekuttu teaches the excipients include surfactants (col 30 lines 60-61), rendering obvious claim 28.
Vadakekuttu does not expressly teach selecting the acynonapyr, sulphur and excipient in the claimed amounts with sufficient specificity to rise to the level of anticipation.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a granular composition comprising elemental sulfur in amounts such as at least 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% etc. by weight, and acynonapyr in amounts such as a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight and an excipient. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as elemental sulphur, acynonapyr and excipients are taught by Vadakekuttu as suitable in agricultural granular compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully forming agricultural granular compositions with these components, as taught by Vadakekuttu, since the modification of the prior art represents nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Accordingly, the instant claims are rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Vadakekuttu.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 Jul 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Vadakekuttu does not specifically teach, disclose or suggest a combination of elemental sulphur and acynonapyr (page 12 of remarks). Applicant argues that Vadakekuttu does not suggest or teach a person skilled in the art to employ acynonapyr as the pesticidal active, let alone in combination with sulphur (page 12 of remarks). Applicant argues that the combination of sulphur with acynonapyr represents one of over 84,000 possible combinations and that Vadakekuttu does not guide to this specific combination (page 12 of remarks). Applicant argues that Vadakekuttu does not show preference for acynonapyr (page 12 of remarks). Applicant argues that Vadakekuttu does not teach the process for producing a pesticidal composition in the claimed forms (page 13 of remarks). Applicant argues that Vadakekuttu does not recognize the combination of sulphur and acynonapyr as a synergistic pesticidal combination (page 13 of remarks). Applicant argues that the data in Tables 1 and 2 of the specification demonstrate a surprising and unexpected effect of the claimed composition over compositions known in the art (page 14-15 of remarks).
The examiner does not find this persuasive. The large number of combinations of components that are possible from Vadekekuttu is not a sufficient reason to see the particular combination of sulphur and acynonapyr as nonobvious. As noted in the rejection above, Vadakekuttu teaches compositions comprising water insoluble nutrients such as elemental sulphur (col 7 line 55 – col 8 line 2, col 45 lines 9-26) and along with the insoluble nutrients teaches the inclusion of one or more pesticidal actives such as acynonapyr (col 43 lines 1-4, col 18 lines 15-20). The examiner acknowledges that there are many other possible combinations that may result from the teachings of Vadakekuttu, but that in itself does not lead one away from the combination of these components that are particularly taught as suitable for such compositions. It is noted that an "obvious to try" rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. " [A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). Again, the sulphur and acynonapyr components are known to be suitable for these combinations and there is nothing in Vadakekuttu that would suggest that such as combination would not be compatible. The examiner notes that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Thus, the selection of the known components of insoluble fertilizer sulphur and pesticide acynonapyr which are taught by Vadakekuttu as suitable for the compositions would have been prima facie obvious.
Regarding the argument that Vadakekuttu does not teach a process of forming the particular compositional forms, the examiner notes that the claims are directed to a pesticidal composition and not to a method and that Vadakekuttu renders obvious the claimed compositional forms such as water dispersible granules, as described in the rejection.
Regarding the argument that one would not predict a synergistic combination between sulphur and acynonapyr, the examiner notes that it is not necessary for there to be the expectation of synergy in a combination for the combination to be obvious. Combining suphur with acynonapyr is obvious from Vadekekuttu for the reasons listed above. Merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., 814 F.2d 628, 632-33, 2USPQ2d 1051, 1054 (Fed. Cir.), cert. Denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987). In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990), which states “a general rule that merely discovering and claiming a new benefit of an old process cannot render the process again patentable.” Appellants attempt to patent the mechanism of action does not have a bearing on the patentability of the invention if the invention was already known or obvious. Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). Granting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See MPEP 2145(II).
Regarding the argument for unexpected results, the examiner does not find the results presented to be sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness as described above. The results are not found persuasive in overcoming the obviousness rejection as the scope of the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims are currently much broader than the results presented. For example, claim 20 merely requires a pesticidal composition (can be of any form) with a wide range of sulphur (20-90%) and acynonapyr (0.1-50%) and an excipient and does not specify the particle size. The examples of tables 1 and 2, however, merely show a few water dispersible granule compositions within the claimed ranges of sulphur and acynonapyr, which is not sufficient to establish the unexpected nature across the breadth of compositions as claimed.
Thus, the examiner maintains that the claims remain obvious over the prior art for the reasons given above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 20-23, 25, 27 and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-21, 23-26, 31, and 32 of copending Application No. 18/022,068 in view of Vadakekuttu et al. (US 10,492,489, published 03 Dec 2019, listed on IDS filed 05 Mar 2024).
The ‘068 application recites a pesticidal composition comprising 1-95% elemental sulphur, a choline salt of pelargonic acid, at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient and particles from 0.1-50 microns. The composition may be a solid form of water dispersible granules and the dispersibility is at least 30%. The granules are from 0.1 to 6 mm. The composition includes macronutrients and algae and excipients such as surfactants.
The ‘068 application does not recite the inclusion of acynonapyr. This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Vadakekuttu.
The teachings of Vadakekuttu are described supra. Vadakekuttu further teaches the inclusion of pelargonic acid (col 23 line 56).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included acynonapyr in amounts such as a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight in the composition. Agricultural granular compositions are known from Vadakekuttu and it is known that components including elemental sulphur and pesticidal actives such as pelargonic acid and acynonapyr in a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight are suitable for such compositions. Thus, each of these components are known to be suitable for granular compositions and the inclusion of acynonapyr merely represents the use of a known prior art element, namely a pesticidal active component, according to its known use in a granular pesticidal composition.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 20-23, 25, 27 and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19, 21, 23, 26-30, 32, and 33 of copending Application No. 18/022,085 in view of Vadakekuttu et al. (US 10,492,489, published 03 Dec 2019, listed on IDS filed 05 Mar 2024).
The ‘085 application recites an agricultural composition of granules and a liquid suspension comprising 40-70% elemental sulphur with particles from 0.1-25 microns and at least one hydrocolloid. The granules are water dispersible granules of size 0.1 to 6 mm and a dispersibility of at least 30%. The composition includes excipients such as surfactants.
The ‘085 application does not recite the inclusion of acynonapyr or active such as algae. This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Vadakekuttu.
The teachings of Vadakekuttu are described supra. Vadakekuttu further teaches the inclusion of hydrocolloids (col 37 line 62).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included acynonapyr in amounts such as a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight and algae in the composition. Agricultural granular compositions are known from Vadakekuttu and it is known that components including elemental sulphur and hydrocolloids and algae and pesticidal actives such as acynonapyr in a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight are suitable for such compositions. Thus, each of these components are known to be suitable for granular compositions and the inclusion of acynonapyr and algae merely represents the use of a known prior art element, namely an active component, according to its known use in a granular pesticidal composition.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 20-23, 25, 27 and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-24 of copending Application No. 18/188,849 in view of Vadakekuttu et al. (US 10,492,489, published 03 Dec 2019, listed on IDS filed 05 Mar 2024).
The ‘849 application recites a pesticidal composition comprising 15-75% elemental sulphur, flupyradifurone, at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient and particles from 0.1-50 microns. The composition may be a solid form of water dispersible granules. The granules are from 0.1 to 6 mm. The composition includes macronutrients and algae and excipients such as surfactants.
The ‘849 application does not recite the inclusion of acynonapyr or the dispersibility is at least 30%. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Vadakekuttu.
The teachings of Vadakekuttu are described supra. Vadakekuttu further teaches the inclusion of flupyradifurone (col 21 line 54).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included acynonapyr in amounts such as a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight in the composition and to have the dispersibility at least 30%. Agricultural granular compositions are known from Vadakekuttu and it is known that components including elemental sulphur and pesticidal actives such as flupyradifurone and acynonapyr in a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight and dispersibility of at least 30% are suitable for such compositions. Thus, each of these components and dispersibility are known to be suitable for granular compositions and the inclusion of acynonapyr and dispersibility merely represents the use of a known prior art element, namely a pesticidal active component, according to its known use in a granular pesticidal composition and an obvious dispersibility.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 20-23, 25, 27 and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 24-35 of copending Application No. 18/568,735 in view of Vadakekuttu et al. (US 10,492,489, published 03 Dec 2019, listed on IDS filed 05 Mar 2024).
The ‘735 application recites a pesticidal composition comprising 20-90% elemental sulphur, a fluensulfone, at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient and particles from 0.1-30 microns. The composition may be a solid form of water dispersible granules. The granules are from 0.1 to 3 mm. The composition includes macronutrients and algae and excipients such as surfactants.
The ‘735 application does not recite the inclusion of acynonapyr or the dispersibility is at least 30%. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Vadakekuttu.
The teachings of Vadakekuttu are described supra. Vadakekuttu further teaches the inclusion of fluensulfone (col 21 line 45).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included acynonapyr in amounts such as a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight in the composition and to have the dispersibility at least 30%. Agricultural granular compositions are known from Vadakekuttu and it is known that components including elemental sulphur and pesticidal actives such as fluensulfone and acynonapyr in a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight and dispersibility of at least 30% are suitable for such compositions. Thus, each of these components and dispersibility are known to be suitable for granular compositions and the inclusion of acynonapyr and dispersibility merely represents the use of a known prior art element, namely a pesticidal active component, according to its known use in a granular pesticidal composition and an obvious dispersibility.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 20-23, 25, 27 and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 23-30 of copending Application No. 18/682,831 in view of Vadakekuttu et al. (US 10,492,489, published 03 Dec 2019, listed on IDS filed 05 Mar 2024).
The ‘831 application recites a pesticidal composition comprising 30-90% elemental sulphur, fluxapyroxad, prothioconazole, at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient and particles from 0.1-50 microns. The composition may be a solid form of water dispersible granules and the dispersibility is at least 30%. The granules are from 0.05 to 6 mm. The composition includes macronutrients and algae and excipients such as surfactants.
The ‘831 application does not recite the inclusion of acynonapyr. This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Vadakekuttu.
The teachings of Vadakekuttu are described supra. Vadakekuttu further teaches the inclusion of fluxapyroxad and prothioconazole (col 21 line 60 and col 24 line 29).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included acynonapyr in amounts such as a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight in the composition. Agricultural granular compositions are known from Vadakekuttu and it is known that components including elemental sulphur and pesticidal actives such as fluxapyroxad and prothioconazole and acynonapyr in a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight are suitable for such compositions. Thus, each of these components are known to be suitable for granular compositions and the inclusion of acynonapyr merely represents the use of a known prior art element, namely a pesticidal active component, according to its known use in a granular pesticidal composition.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 20-23, 25, 27 and 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22-31 of copending Application No. 18/259,035 (recently allowed) in view of Vadakekuttu et al. (US 10,492,489, published 03 Dec 2019, listed on IDS filed 05 Mar 2024).
The ‘035 application recites a pesticidal composition comprising 60-99% elemental sulphur, azadirachtin, at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient and particles from 0.1-60 microns. The composition is a solid form of water dispersible granules. The granules are from 0.05 to 6 mm. The composition includes excipients such as surfactants.
The ‘035 application does not recite the inclusion of acynonapyr, a dispersibility of at least 30% and macronutrients and algae. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Vadakekuttu.
The teachings of Vadakekuttu are described supra. Vadakekuttu further teaches the inclusion of azadirachtin (col 18 line 37).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included acynonapyr in amounts such as a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight in the composition and to have the dispersibility at least 30% and to include macronutrients and algae. Agricultural granular compositions are known from Vadakekuttu and it is known that components including elemental sulphur and pesticidal actives such as azadirachtin and acynonapyr in a range from 0.1% to 60% by weight and dispersibility of at least 30% and including macronutrients and algae are suitable for such compositions. Thus, each of these components and dispersibility are known to be suitable for granular compositions and the inclusion of acynonapyr and dispersibility and macronutrients and algae merely represents the use of known prior art elements, namely a pesticidal active component and components of macronutrients and algae, according to their known use in a granular pesticidal composition and an obvious dispersibility.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 Jul 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the reference applications do not recite the inclusion of acynonapyr as is instantly claimed. Applicant argues that Vadakekuttu fails to guide one of ordinary skill to the consider acynonapyr instead of over thousands of pesticidal actives and combine it with the sulphur of the reference applications.
The examiner does not find this persuasive. Agricultural compositions comprising sulphur and pesticide such as acynonapyr is obvious over Vadakekuttu for the reasons provided above. The reference applications recite pesticidal compositions with sulphur and it would be obvious to include acynonapyr as there is a prima facie case of obviousness for combining sulphur with acynonapyr based on the teachings of Vadakekuttu. The large number additional pesticides taught by Vadakektuttu as suitable in such compositions does not take away from the obviousness of combining sulphur and acynonapyr as there is nothing to suggest that such a combination would not be compatible. These components are known and suggested for use in the same kind of composition by Vadakekuttu, rendering it obvious to include acynonapyr in the compositions of the reference claims for its known pesticidal activity and suitability with components such as sulphur.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7007. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/E.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights