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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 22, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are pending in the application. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 10 is newly added. Claims 1-5 and 8-10 will be examined.
Status of the Claims
The objection of claim 1 regarding the use of the term “in” after “bifenthrin” in line 7 is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (CN102986717A) in view of Herrick et al. (US 2009/0131518) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-9 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 17 of copending Application No. 17/258,525 (‘525) is maintained.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated and/or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt of Information Disclosure Statement filed January 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
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 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao et al. (CN102986718A) and Chen (CN102986717A) and in view of Herrick et al. (US 2009/0131518) and Martin (US 8,937,054). Shao et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 12/17/2025. CN102986718A Espacenet Translation used for translation purposes.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a stable liquid agrochemical formulation comprising: (a) acetamiprid in a suspended form; (b) bifenthrin in a partly solubilized form; (c) at least a solubilizing medium, wherein the solubilizing medium is an alkyl ester of a vegetable oil and provides a higher amount of the second active ingredient in the partly solubilized form; (d) at least one C9-C15 heavy aromatic hydrocarbon effective to prevent the bifenthrin in the partly solubilized form from freezing at sub-zero degrees Celsius; (e) at least one dispersing agent selected from trystyrylphenol ethoxylates, polyalkylene oxide block copolymers of a primary alcohol, alkylnaphthalene sulfonates; (f) hydrophobic fumed silica at 1-10%; and (g) optionally one or more agrochemically acceptable excipients, wherein said formulation is stable at a temperature below 0˚ and wherein said formulation has a particle size distribution D10 of less than about 1.5 microns, a D50 of less than about 5.0 microns and a D90 of less than or equal to about 30 microns. Applicant claims a process for preparation of the stable liquid agrochemical formulation according to claim 1, comprising: (i) adding the bifenthrin to be in the partly solubilized form to a mixture of the solubilizing medium and the C9-C15 heavy aromatic hydrocarbon; (ii) adding the acetamiprid to be in the suspended form in the mixture; and (iii) milling the mixture obtained in step (ii). Applicant claims a method of controlling or preventing unwanted pests on plants or propagation material thereof, said method comprising applying an agrochemically effective amount of the stable liquid agrochemical formulation of claim 1 to the pests or to their locus.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claim 1, Shao et al. teach an oil suspending agent containing acetamiprid and bifenthrin. The oil suspending agent is prepared from the following components in percentage by weight 1%-30% of acetamiprid, 1%-30% bifenthrin, and the balance of agricultural preparation auxiliary component. Shao et al. teach the acetamiprid and the pyrethroid are mixed with a suitable wetting dispersant, penetrant, thickening agent, antifreezing agent, defoaming agent, vegetable oil (page 1, Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Shao et al. teach the wetting and dispersing agents are alkyl aryl polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene ether (page 3, paragraph 2, translation).
Regarding claim 1, Shao et al. teach the vegetable oil includes corn oil, soybean oil, methyl oleate (page 3, paragraph 7, translation).
Regarding claim 1, Shao et al. teach the defoaming agent is selected from silicon defoaming agent (page 3, paragraph 6).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, Shao et al. teach in example 4 a composition comprising, Acetamiprid 15%
Bifenthrin 25%
Wetting and dispersing agent 5%
Penetrant 3% 3%
Thickener 0.5% 0.5%
Antifreeze 3% 3%
Anti-foaming agent 0.5% 0.5%
The balance is vegetable oil.
In this embodiment, the wetting and dispersing agent uses alkyl aryl polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene ether and nonylphenol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate, wherein the content of alkyl aryl polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene ether is 2.5 %, Nonylphenol polyoxyethylene ether phosphate 2.5%; penetrant uses fatty alcohol polyoxyethylene ether; thickener uses magnesium aluminum silicate and xanthan gum. The content is 0.2%; antifreeze is glycerin; antifoaming agent is silicone antifoaming agent; vegetable oil is methyl oleate (pages 7-8, Example 4, translation).
Regarding claim 9, Shao et al. teach the products produced in the examples, the comparative examples and the water control were used to conduct field efficacy trials for the prevention and control of Brassica oleracea, and the mortality rate and the degree of control of the pesticide against cabbage worms were measured by the mortal mortality and corrected mortality. Each treatment dose was mixed with 50kg of water. According to the conventional method, the Gongnong-16 manual sprayer was used to spray evenly on the front and back of the cabbage leaves (pages 4-5, Detailed Description, paragraph 1, translation).
Shao et al. teach the wetting and dispersing agent has a good wetting effect on the outer surface of the dispersed pesticide active ingredient particles, which facilities the dispersion (page 3, paragraph 10).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8, Chen et al. teach a method for producing a high-efficiency suspension agent containing acetamiprid and bifenthrin oil includes the following steps:
Step 1: Add acetamiprid and bifenthrin, wetting and dispersing agent, penetrant and vegetable oil to the mixing kettle, stir to make the materials fully mixed evenly; the weight percentage of each component is as follows:
Acetamiprid 1 ～ 30
Bifenthrin 1 ～ 30
Wetting and dispersing agent 1 ～ 5
Penetrating agent 0.5 ～ 10
The balance is vegetable oil;
Step 2: The above materials are driven into a ball mill, and the ball is milled until there are no visible particles;
Step 3: Put the ball-milled material into the sand mill and sand it to make the particle size 2 ～ 3 microns (page 3, Summary of Invention, paragraphs 2-5, translation).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Shao et al. and Chen et al. do not specifically disclose the stable liquid agrochemical formulation comprises at least one C9-C15 heavy aromatic hydrocarbon effective to prevent the bifenthrin in the partly solubilized form from freezing at sub-zero degrees Celsius, the hydrophobic fumed silica, the formulation is stable at a temperature below 0°C, formulation has a particle size distribution D10 of less than about 1.5 microns, a D50 of less than about 5.0 microns and a D90 of less than or equal to about 30 microns, as claimed in amended claim 1 or the exact method steps as claimed in claim 8. It is for this reason Herrick et al. and Martin are added as secondary references.
Regarding claim 1, Herrick et al. teach insecticidal and/or miticidal composition comprising bifenthrin (Abstract). Herrick et al. teach the formulations comprise a liquid carrier, such as heavy aromatic naphthas (page 2, paragraph 36). Herrick et al. teach in example 1, 42.32 grams of Aromatic 200 ND was added to 8.34 grams of melted bifenthrin (page 3, paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 1, Martin teach an insecticidal composition that include bifenthrin, a polymeric dispersant, a suspension agent, a freeze-thaw stabilizer (Abstract). Martin teach in one preferred embodiment the suspension agent include fumed silica (col. 4, lines 12-13). Martin teach the fumed bifenthrin is preferably 15% to 30% and the suspension agent is fumed silica, present in an amount of about 3.5% by weight based on the total weight of all components in the composition (col. 4, lines 14-34).
Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Shao et al., Chen et al., Herrick et al. and Martin and add at least one C9-C15 heavy aromatic hydrocarbon to the compositions. Shao et al. teach in example 4 a composition comprising Acetamiprid 15%, Bifenthrin 25%, Wetting and dispersing agent 5%, Penetrant 3%; Thickener 0.5%; Antifreeze 3%; Anti-foaming agent 0.5%; and the balance is vegetable oil.
Chen et al. teach a similar composition in example 4 comprising, Acetamiprid 15%; Bifenthrin 25%; Wetting and dispersing agent 5%; Penetrant 3%; the balance is the dispersion medium. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a C9-C15 heavy aromatic hydrocarbon to the compositions taught by Shao et al. and Chen et al. because Shao et al. and Chen et al. teach that other additives can be added to the composition. Shao et al. and Chen et al. teach that aromatic hydrocarbons have been used in compositions to dissolve bifenthrin. Herrick et al. teach compositions comprising bifenthrin and heavy aromatic naphthas in formulations. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to add additives, such as heavy aromatic hydrocarbons, that are known to be used in agrochemical formulations, with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Regarding the limitation of the C9-C15 heavy aromatic hydrocarbon being effective to prevent the bifenthrin in the partly solubilized form from freezing at sub-zero degrees Celsius, Herrick et al. teach in the example, Aromatic 200 ND (C9-C15 heavy aromatic hydrocarbon) is added to bifenthrin. As such, following the prior art teaching that if the same C9-C15 heavy aromatic hydrocarbon is mixed with bifenthrin is taught in the prior art, the skilled artisan would expect to obtain a result that necessarily flows with the intended purpose and properties, i.e., effective to prevent the bifenthrin in the partly solubilized form from freezing at sub-zero degrees Celsius, without evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the limitation of the hydrophobic fumed silica, Shao et al. and Chen et al. teach similar compositions. Shao et al. teach the acetamiprid and the pyrethroid are mixed with a suitable wetting dispersant, penetrant, thickening agent, antifreezing agent, defoaming agent, vegetable oil. Shao et al. teach the defoaming agent is selected from silicon defoaming agent. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known defoaming agents and suspension agents in the compositions, such as fumed silica taught by Martin used in compositions comprising bifenthrin. Martin teach an insecticidal composition that include bifenthrin, a polymeric dispersant, a suspension agent, a freeze-thaw stabilizer. Martin teach in a preferred embodiment the suspension agent is fumed silica. Martin teach the bifenthrin is preferably 15% to 30% and the suspension agent is fumed silica, present in an amount of about 3.5% by weight based on the total weight of all components in the composition. The percentage of fumed silica in the bifenthrin compositions falls within the range of that currently claimed and silicon defoaming agent taught by Shao et al. Based on these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use fumed silica as the silicone component taught by Shao et al., especially within the ranges currently claimed, without evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the limitation of the formulation being stable at a temperature below 0°C, Shao et al. teach in example 4 a composition comprising Acetamiprid 15%, Bifenthrin 25%, Wetting and dispersing agent 5%, Penetrant 3%; Thickener 0.5%; Antifreeze 3%; Anti-foaming agent 0.5%; and the balance is vegetable oil. Chen et al. teach in example 4 a composition comprising, Acetamiprid 15%; Bifenthrin 25%; Wetting and dispersing agent 5%, a polyalkylene oxide block copolymer of a primary alcohol; Penetrant 3%; the balance is the dispersion medium, methyl oleate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Shao et al. and Chen et al., modified by Herrick et al., to use optimization and experimentation to determine the stability of the formulation at low temperatures. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Regarding the limitations wherein the formulation has a particle size distribution D10 of less than about 1.5 microns, a D50 of less than about 5.0 microns and a D90 of less than or equal to about 30 microns, Shao et al. teach the wetting and dispersing agent has a good wetting effect on the outer surface of the dispersed pesticide active ingredient particles, which facilities the dispersion. Chen et al. teach a method of preparing a highly efficient oil suspending agent comprising: Acetamiprid 1 ～ 30; Bifenthrin 1 ～ 30; wetting and dispersing agent 1 ～ 5; penetrating agent 0.5 ～ 10; the balance is vegetable oil that is driven into a ball mill, wherein the particle size is 2 ～ 3 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the distribution D10, D50 and D90 as a matter of experimentation and optimization. The particle size taught by Chen et al. falls within the range of the D10 distribution, currently claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use experimentation to determine the optimal particle size distribution. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Regarding claim 5, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use experimentation to determine the optimal amount of C9-C15 heavy aromatic hydrocarbon in the formulation to formulate a stable liquid agrochemical formulation. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references, especially within the broad ranges instantly claimed) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Regarding the exact method steps as claimed in claim 8, Chen et al. teach a method for producing a high-efficiency suspension agent containing acetamiprid and bifenthrin oil includes the following steps:
Step 1: Add acetamiprid and bifenthrin, wetting and dispersing agent, penetrant and vegetable oil to the mixing kettle, stir to make the materials fully mixed evenly; the weight percentage of each component is as follows:
Acetamiprid 1 ～ 30
Bifenthrin 1 ～ 30
Wetting and dispersing agent 1 ～ 5
Penetrating agent 0.5 ～ 10
The balance is vegetable oil;
Step 2: The above materials are driven into a ball mill, and the ball is milled until there are no visible particles;
Step 3: Put the ball-milled material into the sand mill and sand it to make the particle size 2 ～ 3 microns.
Martin teaches a process for preparing a composition by dispersing bifenthrin. During the process, the bifenthrin mixture is wet milled to an average particle size of about 0.1 to about 10 microns and adding a suspension agent including fumed silica.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use varying and/or alternate method steps to formulate a stable liquid agrochemical formulation that has a good wetting effect on the outer surface of the dispersed pesticide active ingredient particles, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made because every element of the invention has been fairly suggested by the cited references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-8, filed on August 22, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Shao et al. (CN102986718A) and Chen (CN102986717A) and in view of Herrick et al. (US 2009/0131518) and Martin (US 8,937,054).
Applicant's arguments filed August 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s argument, based on the new rejection of record. Shao et al. and Chen et al. teach similar compositions. Shao et al. teach the acetamiprid and the pyrethroid are mixed with a suitable wetting dispersant, penetrant, thickening agent, antifreezing agent, defoaming agent, vegetable oil. Shao et al. teach the defoaming agent is selected from silicon defoaming agent. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use known defoaming agents and suspension agents in the compositions, such as fumed silica taught by Martin used in compositions comprising bifenthrin. Martin teach an insecticidal composition that include bifenthrin, a polymeric dispersant, a suspension agent, a freeze-thaw stabilizer. Martin teach in a preferred embodiment the suspension agent is fumed silica. Martin teach the bifenthrin is preferably 15% to 30% and the suspension agent is fumed silica, present in an amount of about 3.5% by weight based on the total weight of all components in the composition. The percentage of fumed silica in the bifenthrin compositions falls within the range of that currently claimed and silicone defoaming agent taught by Shao et al. Based on these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use fumed silica, especially within the ranges currently claimed, without evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the disclosure repeatedly teaches that 1-10 wt-% hydrophobic fumed silica is essential for (i) preventing syneresis at elevated temperatures and (ii) maintaining pourability and physical stability after a 7-day hold at sub-zero temperatures, as demonstrated in Examples 1-8 and Table 1, in reviewing the data in the original specification, the data in Table 1 on page 22, Example 8 which contains Aromatic 200 ND demonstrates that the composition remains a cream color suspension at 0˚C, whereas, Example 9 which does not contain Aromatic 200 ND solidifies at 0˚C. Applicant indicates regarding the data in example 3 the inventors overcame syneresis problem by carefully selecting the right amount of emulsifying agents and aromatic hydrocarbon. Composition Ex-2 prepared according to the present invention remained stable under ambient and AHS study but it solidified at zero-degree Celsius. Ex-3 and Ex-4 did not show any syneresis and remain stable as uniform dispersion throughout the study period. Applicant’s data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and Applicant’s own assertions. Independent claim 1, as amended, is directed to (a) acetamiprid in suspended form, in any amount; (b) bifenthrin in partly solubilized form, in any amount; (c) at least a solubilizing medium that is an alkyl ester of vegetable oil, in any amount; (d) at least one C9-C12 heavy aromatic effective to prevent the bifenthrin in the partly solubilized form from freezing at sub-zero degrees Celsius, in any amount, (e) a dispersing agent selected from tristyrylphenol ethoxylates, polyalkylene oxide block copolymers of a primary alcohol, alkylnaphthalene sulfonates, in any amount; (f) hydrophobic fumed silica at 1-10%; and (g) optionally one or more agrochemically acceptable excipients, in any amount. The examples that provide the desired purported unexpected results comprise acetamiprid at 11.88% (Example 1) 11.9% (examples 2, 3, 4, 5, 8); 15.1% (Example 6); 18.0 (Example 7); bifenthrin at 18.33% (Examples 1); 18% (Examples 2, 3, 4, 8); 18.36% (Example 5); 15.1% (Example 6); 12% (Example 7); the various heavy aromatic hydrocarbons at 15% (Examples 1, 5, 6, 7, 8); 10% (Example 2); 20% (Example 3, 4); and the dispersing agents in a range of 1-15%. All of the compositions also contain colloidal silicon dioxide, fumed silica, bentonite, or silica. Based on Applicant admission, it cannot be determined if acetamiprid, present in any amount, as currently claimed or even in the range of 0.1% to 90%, as claimed in claim 2, will provide the same purported stability and freeze protections. It cannot be determined if bifenthrin, present in any amount, as currently claimed or even in the range of 0.1% to about 90%, as claimed in claim 3, will provide the same purported stability and freeze protections. It cannot be determined if the C9-C15 heavy aromatic hydrocarbon, present in any amount, as currently claimed, or even in the range of 1% to about 60%, as claimed in claim 5, will provide the same purported stability and freeze protections. This is exemplified in example 2 that solidifies at 0˚C, wherein the heavy aromatic hydrocarbon is present at 10%. This data demonstrates that the components of the composition must be present in a specific amount to provide the required results. Evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. Applicant has not established nonobvious evidence that is commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. The claims remain rejected.
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 1-5 and 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, and 17 of copending Application No. 17/258,525 (‘525). Each application is drawn to a stable liquid agrochemical formulation comprising: (a) acetamide in a suspended form; (b) bifenthrin in a partly solubilized form; (c) at least one solubilizing medium; (d) at least one aromatic hydrocarbon preventing the active ingredient in the partly solubilized form from freezing at sub-zero degrees Celsius; and (e) optionally one or more agrochemically acceptable excipients and colloidal silicon dioxide or fumed silica present in a amount about 3% by weight of the formulation (claim 1, instant invention; claims 1, 4, and 7, copending Application No. ‘525). Each claims the aromatic hydrocarbon is naphthalenes, Aromatic 200, Aromatic 150, Aromatic 100 (claim 1, instant invention; claim 11, copending Application No. ‘525). Each claims the formulation has a particle size distribution D10 of less than about 1.5 microns, a D50 of less than about 5.0 microns and a D90 of less than or equal to about 30 microns (claims 1 and 10, instant invention; claim 1, copending Application No. ‘525). Each claims the neonicotinoid (acetamiprid) is present from about 0.1% to about 90% of the total weight of the formulations (claims 2 and 10, instant invention; claim 5, copending Application No. ‘525). Each claims the stable liquid agrochemical formulation wherein the pyrethroid (bifenthrin) is present from about 0.1% to about 90% of the total weight of the formulation (claims 3 and 10, instant invention; claim 8, copending Application No. ‘525). Each claims the solubilizing medium is alkyl esters of vegetable oil (claim 1, instant invention; claim 9, copending Application No. ‘525). Each claims the solubilizing medium is present from about 5% to about 90% of the total weight of the formulation (claim 4, instant application; claim 10, copending Application No. ‘525). Each claims the aromatic hydrocarbon is present from about 1% to about 60% of the total weight of the formulation (claims 5 and 10, instant invention; claim 12, copending Application No. ‘525). Each claims a process for the preparation of the stable liquid agrochemical formulation according to claim 1 (claim 8, instant invention; claim 15, copending Application No. ‘525). Each claims a method of controlling or preventing unwanted pests on plants or propagation material thereof (claim 9, instant invention; claim 17, copending Application No. ‘525).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant indicates that a terminal disclaimer was filed, however, there is no terminal disclaimer in the record. As such, the rejection of record is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 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, Ali Soroush can be reached on 571-272-9925. 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614