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 .
Election/restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 31, 32 and 35 in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 39-42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/26/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5, 11 and 25 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 5 is indefinite as to the phrase “a random copolymer”. The phrase fails to define what a random polymer is. Furthermore, the phrase fails to set forth the bounds and metes of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is indefinite as to the phrase a “a T5 polymer”. The phrase fails to set forth what a T5 polymer is.
Claim 25 contains the trademarks/trade names Agnique® AMD 3L, Rhodiasol and PolarClean Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex Parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe various organic solvents and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims dependent on claim 5, 11 and 25 are also rejected, since they have all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2. 5-8, 10, 11, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 31, 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gewehr et al. (US 20120252668) in view of Sanders et al. (20160272553).
The claims are drawn to A noncorrosive nitrapyrin formulation comprising:
a nitrapyrin complex comprising nitrapyrin complexed with a polyanion; an amine-based corrosion inhibitor selected from a neutralizing amine, a
film-forming amine and a combination thereof; and
an organic solvent,
wherein the non-polymeric polyanion comprises a mono. di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, octa-, nona-, or deca-carboxyl, a di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, octa-, nona-, or deca-sulfonate, or a di-, tri-, tetra-, penta-, hexa-, hepta-, octa-, nona-, or deca- phosphonate.
Regarding claims 1, 5-8, 10, 18, and 35, Gewehr teaches methods of reducing nitrous oxide emission (nitrification) from soils comprising treating a plant growing on the soil with mixtures comprising at least one fungicide A selected from thiram (A11), at least one ammonium or urea fertilizer B and at least one nitrification inhibitor C selected from 2-chloro-6-(trichloromethyl)-pyridine (nitrapyrin). See Paras [0043], [0093] and claim 1. The compounds are combined with auxiliaries customary in agrochemical compositions including organic solvents such as mineral oil fractions of medium to high boiling point, oils of vegetable or animal origin, hydrocarbons, alcohols, ketones such as fatty acid dimethylamides (corrosion inhibitor) and polar solvents; carriers, surfactants (emulsifiers, wetting agents), anti-foaming agents and dyes. See Para [0180]. The concentrations of the active substances range from 0.01-95% of the agricultural formulations, preferably 0.0001-10% of the ready-to-use preparations. See Para [0206]. The nitrous oxide emission from soils is reduced by applying mixtures comprising compounds B and C. See Para [0043].
With respect to claim 35, Gewehr teach methods of reducing nitrification from soils by treating plants growing in the soil and/or the locus where the plant grows (claim 1).
Gewehr does not teach a polyanion, specifically a polyanionic polymer having at least one of each type B, and type C repeat units, and optionally type G repeat units, preferably a polyanionic polymer having 45 mole percent maleic repeat units, 50 mole percent itaconic, 4 mole percent methallylsulfonate and 1 mole percent allylsulfonate repeat units.
However, Sanders et al. teach polyanionic polymers comprising repeating maleic, itaconic and sulfonate unit. See the abstract. Sanders teaches the polymers comprise at least four repeat units including type B, type C and type G repeat units, wherein the preferred polymers have one type B (35-55 mole percent maleic acid), one type C (20-44 mole percent itaconic acid), and two different type G repeat units (1-25 mole percent methallylsulfonic acid and allylsulfonic acid). See Para [0019]. The polymers may be used alone or in combinations with another anionic polymer including maleic and itaconic repeat units. See Para [0022]. The polymers are combined with fertilizers, preferably solid urea and applied to soil. See Para [0049]. The polymers are also combined with pesticides selected from herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and nematocides. See Para [0057]. The polymer in the pesticide compositions range from 0.04-10% by weight of the composition. See Para [0296]. The pesticides are preferably selected from dithiocarbamates. See Para [0449]. The polymers serve as nitrification inhibitors See Para [0477]. The use of T5 polymer is taught in Para [0245], [0257] and tables 1, 2 and 3.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to add a polyanion to the composition of Gewehr, motivated by the teachings of Sanders et al., which teach the use the claimed polyanions in a composition being used in the agricultural field for nitrification as old and well known.
Regarding claim 18, Gewehr teaches the concentrations of the active substances range from 0.01-95% of the agricultural formulations, preferably 0.0001-10% of the ready-to-use preparations. See Para [0206].
Regarding claim 21, and 22, Gewehr and Sanders do not teach the corrosion inhibitors claimed in such claims. However, Watchter teaches the use of cyclohexylamine and ethylamine as claimed in claim 21 as a corrosion inhibitor. See Column 3, lines 53-61. Williams et al. teach the use of a fatty amine as corrosion inhibitors. See the abstract and claim 1. It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to use the fatty amines of claim 22 and amines of claim 21 as a corrosion inhibitor in the composition of Gewehr and Sanders, motivated by the teachings of Williams and Wachter, which teach the use of such amines as corrosion inhibitors.
Regarding claim 24, the determination of optimum proportions or amounts is considered to be within the skill of artisan in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Additionally, Sanders in Para [0151] teaches the concentration of fertilizer being 0.01-10%
Regarding claim 25, Gewehr teaches the use of xylene as an organic solvent. See Para [0180].
Regarding claim 28, the reduced corrosion behavior is the expected property of Geweher, which teaches nitrapyrin in combination with an amide-based corrosion inhibitor.
Regarding claim 31, the determination of optimum proportions or amounts are considered to be within the skill of artisan. Additionally, Sanders in Para [0151] teaches the concentration of fertilizer being 0.01-10%.
Regarding claim 34, Sanders teaches the use of pesticides in combination with a polyanion. The reduction in velocity is the expected property of Sanders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOHREH A FAY whose telephone number is (703)756-1800. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6:00.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/ZOHREH A FAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights