DETAILED ACTION
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/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-16); Species 1: Beauveria; Species 2: R1, R2: methyl and R3: H (hydrogen); Species 3: mixtures thereof, in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that instant claim 14 recites “pesticides different from” the list of pesticides listed in the claim and a mixture thereof; applicant elected “mixture thereof” to include pesticides different from the list of species in claim 14. This is found persuasive because applicant states the additional pesticide(s) is one other than a pesticide from the list provided. The Applicant’s election of the “mixtures thereof” is affirmed.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06/29/2026.
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 are pending and under examination. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Objection
Regarding claim 13, units for viscosity measure are written as “500 mPa.s to 5,000 mPa.s”. Notation for units of measure should read as mPa·s, second(s) are a multiple of pressure (mPa) readings. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 13, it is not clear if the parenthesized text “(1.013 x 105 Pa)” is a limitation of the claim or exemplary language. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined and it is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, R. C.Y. et al., (US10362786B2; 2019-07-30) and further in view of Schnabel, G. et al., (WO2013153030A1; 2013-10-17) and evidenced by PubChem® (open chemistry database at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH): Solketal® | C6.H12.O3 | CID 7528 – PubChem).
Regarding claims 1-3, 9,10, and 12 Chen et al., teaches a stable liquid formulation containing Beauveria species (Column 7, lines 17-40), along with silica powder as a rheology control (Column 17, lines 4-6). Wherein the solvents are agriculturally acceptable stable aqueous formulations that include among others, glycerol and glycerol-based derivatives that are compatible with water and spores/spore-forming organisms (Column 3, lines 46-65).
Regarding claim 13, Chen et al., teaches the use of a Brookfield RV viscometer with an agriculturally acceptable formulation between 150 to 3500 cps (same as 150 to 3500 mPa·s) (Column 7, lines 1-4), where solvents are maintained at room temperature (20-25°C) (Column 14, lines 37-43).
Regarding claims 14-16, Chen et al. teaches where solvents are maintained at room temperature (20-25°C) (Column 14, lines 37-43), in which the formulation further contains a pesticide that is a chemical and is agriculturally useful (Column 6, lines 5-25), and the solvent is diluted before dispersing through a spraying device (Column 18, lines 27-35).
Chen et al. teaches the use of a glycerol-derived polar solvent for the agrochemical formulation. However, Chen et al. does not expressly teach a diloxane-based solvent.
However, regarding claim 1- 11, Schnabel, et al., teaches a liquid carrier concentrate with the diloxane-based compound (IUPAC Name: 2,2-dimethyl-1,3-dioxolan-4-yl)methanol; synonyms for the compound include Solketal® among others identified in the publicly available PubChem® database CID 7528 – PubChem) where R1 and R2 are methyl and R3 is H (page 2, lines 10-32; page 11, claims 1 and 5), and comprising at least 10% and preferably 20% and in most cases no more than 95% by weight of solvent (page 2, lines 34-36) in agrochemical compositions, with pesticides, and for dressing plant seeds (page 8, lines 25-37; page 12, claim 15). Schnabel et al., further teaches that the concentrate is low phytotoxicity to crops, low toxicity to humans, low flammability, compatibility to farm equipment, low cost and low environmental impact, that is storage stable, sprayable, and permits high biological efficacy; and further retains properties, including: low viscosity, high water solubility, high flash point, and low odor (page 9, lines 4-15, page 1, lines 15-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective date of filing to utilize the diloxane-based compound of Schnabel et al. as the solvent in Chen et al. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to do so because Chen et al. teaches the use of glycerol-derived polar solvents for the agrochemical formulations, while Schnabel discloses such a glycerol-derived polar solvent in the form of the diloxane-based compound that is also for agrochemical formulations. Such a composition would be considered an advantageous solvent in Chen’s disclosure, which recognizes the need for the glycerol-derived polar solvent, so as to, as suggested by Schnabel: provide a solvent that has the beneficial traits for agricultural application, with pesticides, and human safety (i.e. low phytotoxicity to crops, low toxicity to humans, low flammability, compatibility to farm equipment, low cost and low environmental impact, that is storage stable, that is sprayable, and permits high biological efficacy).
Therefore, a skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in the combination of Chen et al., with Schnabel et al., since the combined prior art produces the same agricultural composition, using the same sprayable methods, reagents, and spore-forming organisms, and/or pesticides for better plant growth and protection.
Conclusion
No claims are currently deemed patentable.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENUSHA KARUNASENA whose telephone number is (571)272-3972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at 571-272-0614. 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.
/ENUSHA KARUNASENA/Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
