DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Amendment after Non-final office action filed on 7/27/2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claim filed on 7/27/2026 is acknowledged.
4. New claim 8 has been added.
5. Claims 1-8 are pending in this application.
6. Applicant elected without traverse of peptide [Hy]-SPPYSPPFSPRL-[NH2] (SEQ ID NO: 2) as species of insecticidal compound; and an insect control composition comprising such peptide and adjuvant as species of composition in the replies filed on 3/31/2026.
Restriction requirement was deemed proper and made FINAL in the previous office action. The instant claims 1-8 are drawn to an agricultural composition comprising an insecticidal compound of formula (I) or a salt or solvate thereof, in admixture with one or more adjuvants, preservatives, dispersants, emulsifying agents, or synergists: R1-Y1-Z-Y2-R2 (I). A search was conducted on the elected species; and prior art was found. Claims 1-8 are examined on the merits in this office action.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
7. Objection to claims 2 and 4 is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
8. Rejection to claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
9. Rejection to claims 1-4, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim.
Maintained/Revised Objections
10. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claim 1 remains objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 1 as "…R1-Y1-Z-Y2-R2 (I), wherein: R1 is hydrogen…”.
11. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claim 3 remains objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 3 as “…or a pyroglutamate group of the formula
PNG
media_image1.png
148
240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
”.
12. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claim 5 remains objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 5 as “…wherein the insecticidal compound is [Hy]-SPPYSPPFSPRL-[NH2] (SEQ ID NO:2)”.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
13. Applicant fails to address all the minor issues in these claims. Therefore, these objections are deemed proper and are hereby maintained.
Maintained/Revised Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112 paragraph (a)
Written Description
14. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112:
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
15. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claims 1-8 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient” (MPEP § 2163).
A claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species or disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics such as functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure (MPEP § 2163(3)a(II)). The number of species that describe the genus must be adequate to describe the entire genus; if there is substantial variability, a large number of species must be described.
The analysis for adequate written description considers (a) actual reduction to practice, (b) disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas, (c) sufficient relevant identifying characteristics in the way of complete/partial structure or physical and/or chemical properties or functional characteristics when coupled with known or disclosed correlation with structure, and (d) representative number of samples.
In the instant case, claims 1-8 are drawn to an agricultural composition comprising an insecticidal compound of formula (I) or a salt or solvate thereof, in admixture with one or more adjuvants, preservatives, dispersants, emulsifying agents, or synergists: R1-Y1-Z-Y2-R2 (I).
The instant specification discloses that synergists, i.e. compounds which increase the efficacy of insecticides against their targets.
The genus of instant claimed synergist is extremely broad, including any compound that increases the efficacy of the instant claimed compound against their targets.
The issue at question is whether a person of ordinary skilled in the art would be able to determine what structural feature is required for a compound to increase the efficacy of instant claimed compound against its targets or not.
(a) actual reduction to practice and (b) disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas:
In the instant case, the instant specification discloses piperonyl butoxide and MGK-264, or peptidase inhibitors as examples of synergist.
There is not working example disclosing a composition comprising instant claimed compound and a synergist in instant specification
Taken all these together, other than the few examples, the instant specification fails to disclose a general correlation between structure and function for a compound to have the characteristics of increasing the efficacy of instant claimed compound against its targets.
(c) sufficient relevant identifying characteristics in the way of complete/partial structure or physical and/or chemical properties or functional characteristics when coupled with known or disclosed correlation with structure:
As discussed above, in the instant case, based on the disclosure of instant specification, other than the few examples, a person of ordinary skilled in the art would not be able to determine what the structural feature is required for a compound to have the characteristics of increasing the efficacy of instant claimed compound against its targets.
It is well known in the art that synergistic effects among different drugs are difficult to predict, as disclosed in Chen et al (Mol. BioSyst., 2016, 12, pages 614-623, cited and enclosed in the previous office action) and many others. Chen et al teach “Although quantitative methods can be utilized to evaluate the synergistic effects based on experimental dose–response data, it is both time and resource consuming to screen all possible combinations by experimental trials. This problem makes it a formidable challenge to recognize synergistic combinations. Various attempts have been made to predict drug synergy by network biology, however, most of them are limited to estimating target associations on the PPI network.“, for example, Abstract. Chen et al further teach various limitations of the proposed ‘‘pathway–pathway interaction’’ network-based synergy evaluation method to predict the potential synergistic drug combinations, for example, the paragraph bridging pages 619-620.
Therefore, based on the state of art, a person of ordinary skilled in the art would not be able to determine what the structural feature is required for a compound to have the characteristics of increasing the efficacy of instant claimed compound against its targets.
(d) representative number of samples:
In the instant case, the genus of instant claimed synergist is extremely broad, including any compound that increases the efficacy of the instant claimed compound against their targets.
And, as discussed in (a) and (b) above, the instant specification discloses piperonyl butoxide and MGK-264, or peptidase inhibitors as examples of synergist. And there is not working example disclosing a composition comprising instant claimed compound and a synergist in instant specification.
Considering the broadness of the genus of instant claimed synergist, the instant specification fails to provide sufficient examples to describe the entire genus of synergist claimed.
Taken all these together, considering the state of the art and the disclosure in instant specification, it is deemed that the instant specification fails to provide adequate written description for the claimed genus of synergist to have the functional characteristics of increasing the efficacy of instant claimed compound against its targets; and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
16. Applicant argues that the specification provides sufficient description of a representative number of species in that "peptidase inhibitors" (plural) is not a single representative example but rather a class of representative examples; and peptidase inhibitors are a class of compounds that are generally known in the art and as such have known structures conferring peptidase inhibition functionality. Applicant further argues that “Chen relates to human biology, not agriculture. The alleged difficulties discussed in Chen therefore do not relate to the types of synergism that are relevant to neuropeptide-based insecticides.”
17. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments about instant rejection, the Examiner understands that “peptidase inhibitors" (plural) is not a class of representative example; and peptidase inhibitors are compounds that are generally known in the art. However, in the instant case, as stated in Section 15 above, the genus of instant claimed synergist is extremely broad, including any compound that increases the efficacy of the instant claimed compound against their targets. And considering the broadness of the genus of instant claimed synergist, the instant specification fails to provide sufficient examples to describe the entire genus of synergist claimed. With regards to Applicant’s arguments about the cited Chen et al reference, the Examiner understands that Chen et al do not explicitly teach/disclose neuropeptide-based insecticides. However, Chen et al discuss synergistic drug combinations in general. Since the instant claimed neuropeptide-based insecticide is a drug for controlling insect and/or protecting plant, it is unclear to the Examiner how and/or why the teachings of Chen et al would not apply to instant claimed neuropeptide-based insecticide. Further clarification is required.
Taken all these together, the rejection is deemed proper and is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
18. 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 –
(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.
19. Please note: During the search for the elected species, prior art was found for the non-elected species of composition.
Claims 1-7 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huybrechts et al (Insect Molecular Biology, 2010, 19, pages 87-95, cited and enclosed in the previous office action), and as evidenced by Ingredi (2019, pages 1-3, from https://ingredi.com/blog/what-is-acetic-acid/?srsltid=AfmBOopRs-a5UXmKNvQl-91ptJCK2b4KIuLQcXY6l0Qw75_F5WdKvKI2).
The instant claims 1-7 are drawn to an agricultural composition comprising an insecticidal compound of formula (I) or a salt or solvate thereof, in admixture with one or more adjuvants, preservatives, dispersants, emulsifying agents, or synergists: R1-Y1-Z-Y2-R2 (I).
Huybrechts et al teach neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide (identical to the insecticidal compound of instant SEQ ID NO: 2, also named as SB-P-46) is neuropeptide found in pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum, for example, page 89, Table 1; and page 91, Figure 2. It reads on peptide [Hy]-SPPYSPP FSPRL-[NH2] (SEQ ID NO: 2) as the elected species of insecticidal compound; and meets all the structural limitations of the insecticidal compound recited in instant claims 1-7. Huybrechts et al further teach an aqueous composition comprising such neuropeptide in Ringer solution containing 50 methanol/water/acetic acid (90/9/1), for example, page 93, left column, the last paragraph. And as evidenced by Ingredi, acetic acid is a preservative recited in instant claim 1 (see for example, page 2, the 1st and 2nd paragraphs in Section “Acetic Acid Uses”). It meets the limitation of preservative recited in instant claim 1.
With regards to the limitation “insecticidal compound”, the neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide in Huybrechts et al is identical to the insecticidal compound of instant SEQ ID NO: 2 (also named as SB-P-46) recited in instant claim 5 and disclosed in Figures 6, 7 and 11-16 in instant drawings. Therefore, the neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide in Huybrechts et al would necessarily have the inherent property of being insecticidal compound. It meets the limitations of the insecticidal compound recited in instant claims 1-7. And the MPEP states: “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” (see MPEP § 2112.01 II). Since the USPTO lacks the experimental facilities to make a further determination, the burden is on the Applicant to prove the otherwise.
With regards to “an agricultural composition” recited in instant claims 1-7, the instant specification discloses that “Agricultural", as used herein, means suitable for use in the agricultural or agrochemical industry, including horticulture, floriculture and home and garden uses, but also products intended for non-crop related uses such as public health/pest control operator uses to control undesirable insects and rodents, household uses, such as household fungicides and insecticides and agents, for protecting plants or parts of plants, crops, bulbs, tubers, fruits (e.g. from harmful organisms, diseases or pests); for controlling, preferably promoting or increasing, the growth of plants; and/or for promoting the yield of plants, crops or the parts of plants that are harvested (e.g. its fruits, flowers, seeds etc.).” (see page 40, paragraph [00263] of instant specification). With regards to “insect control”, the instant specification discloses that “The term "insect control agent" refers to agents used to increase insect mortality (i.e. as insecticides.).” (see page 13, paragraph [0085] of instant specification). Therefore, in the instant case, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect the aqueous composition in Huybrechts et al is an agricultural composition for insect control recited in instant claims 1-7. And since the USPTO lacks the experimental facilities to make a further determination, the burden is on the Applicant to prove the otherwise.
Since the reference teaches all the limitations of instant claims 1-7; the reference anticipates instant claims 1-7.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
20. Applicant argues that “the claims have been amended to include one or more additives. Huybrechts does not disclose said peptide in admixture with one or more additives as claimed as part of an agricultural composition.”.
21. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
Please note; In view of Applicant’s amendment to the claim, Ingredi (2019, from https://ingredi.com/blog/what-is-acetic-acid/?srsltid=AfmBOopRs-a5UXmKNvQl-91ptJCK2b4KIuLQcXY6l0Qw75_F5WdKvKI2, pages 1-3) is further cited as an evidentiary reference in instant rejection.
In response to Applicant’s arguments about instant rejection, as stated in Section 19 above, the acetic acid in the aqueous composition disclosed in Huybrechts et al is a preservative recited in instant claim 1; and the aqueous composition in Huybrechts et al is an agricultural composition for insect control recited in instant claims 1-7. Therefore, the rejection is deemed proper and is hereby maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
22. 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 of this title, 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.
23. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
24. (Revised due to Applicant’s amendment to the claim) Claims 1-8 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huybrechts et al (Insect Molecular Biology, 2010, 19, pages 87-95, cited and enclosed in the previous office action), and as evidenced by Ingredi (from https://ingredi.com/blog/what-is-acetic-acid/?srsltid=AfmBOopRs-a5UXmKNvQl-91ptJCK2b4KIuLQcXY6l0Qw75_F5WdKvKI2, 2019, pages 1-3), and in view of Alford et al (WO 2020/115076 A2, cited and enclosed in the previous office action).
The instant claims 1-8 are drawn to an agricultural composition comprising an insecticidal compound of formula (I) or a salt or solvate thereof, in admixture with one or more adjuvants, preservatives, dispersants, emulsifying agents, or synergists: R1-Y1-Z-Y2-R2 (I).
Huybrechts et al teach neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide (identical to the insecticidal compound of instant SEQ ID NO: 2, also named as SB-P-46) is neuropeptide found in pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum, for example, page 89, Table 1; and page 91, Figure 2. It reads on peptide [Hy]-SPPYSPP FSPRL-[NH2] (SEQ ID NO: 2) as the elected species of insecticidal compound; and meets all the structural limitations of the insecticidal compound recited in instant claims 1-7. Huybrechts et al further teach an aqueous composition comprising such neuropeptide in Ringer solution containing 50 methanol/water/acetic acid (90/9/1), for example, page 93, left column, the last paragraph. And as evidenced by Ingredi, acetic acid is a preservative recited in instant claim 1 (see for example, page 2, the 1st and 2nd paragraphs in Section “Acetic Acid Uses”). It meets the limitation of preservative recited in instant claim 1.
With regards to the limitation “insecticidal compound”, the neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide in Huybrechts et al is identical to the insecticidal compound of instant SEQ ID NO: 2 (also named as SB-P-46) recited in instant claim 5 and disclosed in Figures 6, 7 and 11-16 in instant drawings. Therefore, the neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide in Huybrechts et al would necessarily have the inherent property of being insecticidal compound. It meets the limitations of the insecticidal compound recited in instant claims 1-7. And the MPEP states: “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” (see MPEP § 2112.01 II). Since the USPTO lacks the experimental facilities to make a further determination, the burden is on the Applicant to prove the otherwise.
With regards to “an agricultural composition” recited in instant claims 1-7, the instant specification discloses that “Agricultural", as used herein, means suitable for use in the agricultural or agrochemical industry, including horticulture, floriculture and home and garden uses, but also products intended for non-crop related uses such as public health/pest control operator uses to control undesirable insects and rodents, household uses, such as household fungicides and insecticides and agents, for protecting plants or parts of plants, crops, bulbs, tubers, fruits (e.g. from harmful organisms, diseases or pests); for controlling, preferably promoting or increasing, the growth of plants; and/or for promoting the yield of plants, crops or the parts of plants that are harvested (e.g. its fruits, flowers, seeds etc.).” (see page 40, paragraph [00263] of instant specification). With regards to “insect control”, the instant specification discloses that “The term "insect control agent" refers to agents used to increase insect mortality (i.e. as insecticides.).” (see page 13, paragraph [0085] of instant specification). Therefore, in the instant case, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect the aqueous composition in Huybrechts et al is an agricultural composition for insect control recited in instant claims 1-7. And since the USPTO lacks the experimental facilities to make a further determination, the burden is on the Applicant to prove the otherwise.
The difference between the reference and instant claims 1-8 is that the reference does not explicilty teach an insect control composition comprising peptide [Hy]-SPPYS PPFSPRL-[NH2] (SEQ ID NO: 2) and adjuvant as the elected species of composition; and the limitations of instant claim 8.
However, Alford et al teach “Within the insects, neuropeptides are regulatory peptides with functional roles in growth and development, behaviour and reproduction, metabolism and homeostasis, and muscle movement” and “Due to their high specificity, neuropeptides and their cognate receptors (G-protein coupled receptors, GPCRs) may be developed towards insecticidal agents to selectively reduce the fitness of target pest insects, whilst minimising detrimental environmental impacts”, for example, page 1, lines 12-18. Alford et al further teach “The CAPA peptides belong to the PRXamide superfamily which can be further subdivided into three major classes: CAPA peptides, pyrokinins (PK) and ecdysis triggering hormone (ETH)”; and a composition comprising an effective amount of CAP2b analogue in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents, adjuvants and so on as an insect control composition, for example, Abstract; page 2, lines 1-3; and page 7, lines 4-6 and 10-12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Huybrechts et al and Alford et al to develop an agricultural composition comprising an effective amount of peptide [Hy]-SPPYSPPFSPRL-[NH2] and adjuvant, wherein the composition is an aqueous composition for insect control. It reads on an insect control composition comprising peptide [Hy]-SPPYSPPFSPRL-[NH2] (SEQ ID NO: 2) and adjuvant as the elected species of composition.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Huybrechts et al and Alford et al to develop an agricultural composition comprising an effective amount of peptide [Hy]-SPPYSPPFSPRL-[NH2] and adjuvant, wherein the composition is an aqueous composition for insect control, because Alford et al teach “Within the insects, neuropeptides are regulatory peptides with functional roles in growth and development, behaviour and reproduction, metabolism and homeostasis, and muscle movement” and “Due to their high specificity, neuropeptides and their cognate receptors (G-protein coupled receptors, GPCRs) may be developed towards insecticidal agents to selectively reduce the fitness of target pest insects, whilst minimising detrimental environmental impacts”. Alford et al further teach “The CAPA peptides belong to the PRXamide superfamily which can be further subdivided into three major classes: CAPA peptides, pyrokinins (PK) and ecdysis triggering hormone (ETH)”; and a composition comprising an effective amount CAP2b analogue in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents, adjuvants and so on as an insect control composition.
A person of ordinary skilled in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Huybrechts et al and Alford et al to develop an agricultural composition comprising an effective amount of peptide [Hy]-SPPYSPPFSPRL-[NH2] and adjuvant, wherein the composition is an aqueous composition for insect control.
Response to Applicant's Arguments
25. Applicant argues that “First, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would not have been motivated to select SPPYSPPFSPRL-NH2, let alone formulate it into an agricultural composition with additives, because there was no teaching or reasonable expectation that this specific peptide possessed insecticidal activity or any other agriculturally relevant properties.”; and “Second, even if a skilled person had considered both Huybrechts and Alford, they would not have been motivated to apply Alford's teachings to the naturally occurring peptide disclosed in Huybrechts.”
26. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but have not been found persuasive.
First, the Examiner agrees that none of the cited references individually teaches or suggests the agricultural composition recited in instant claims 1-8; and none of the cited references anticipates the agricultural composition recited in instant claims 1-8. However, the Examiner would like to point out that instant claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (obviousness type); and the rejection is based on the combined teachings Huybrechts et al and Alford et al. Therefore, it is not necessary for each of the cited references to teach all the limitations of instant claims. Furthermore, the Examiner would like to point out that the MPEP states "One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references…" (see MPEP § 2145 IV).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “First, a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would not have been motivated to select SPPYSPPFSPRL-NH2, let alone formulate it into an agricultural composition with additives, because there was no teaching or reasonable expectation that this specific peptide possessed insecticidal activity or any other agriculturally relevant properties”, the Examiner understands that Huybrechts et al do not explicilty teach the neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide (identical to the insecticidal compound of instant SEQ ID NO: 2, also named as SB-P-46) possessed insecticidal activity or any other agriculturally relevant properties. However, in the instant case, neuropeptides as target-specific insecticidal agents are well known in the art, as disclosed in Alford et al and many others. And Huybrechts et al teach the neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide is neuropeptide found in pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Therefore, in the instant case, considering the state of art regarding neuropeptides as target-specific insecticidal agents, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect the neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide is a target-specific insecticidal agent.
Furthermore, the Examiner understands that Huybrechts et al teach more than one pea aphid neuropeptide, including three pyrokinin neuropeptides (see for example, Table 1). However, the Examiner would like to point out that the fact that Huybrechts et al teach more than one pea aphid neuropeptide does not render any of these neuropeptides unobvious. And, in the instant case, Huybrechts et al explicilty teach neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPR Lamide is neuropeptide found in pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum, via MALDI-TOF MS spectrum generated from a nervous tissue peptide extract from Acyrthosiphon pisum (see for example, Figure 2). The Examiner understands that Huybrechts et al do not teach such neuropeptide is insecticidally active. However, in the instant case, considering the state of art regarding neuropeptides as target-specific insecticidal agents, and in view of the teachings of Alford et al as set forth in Section 24 above, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand and reasonably expect the neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide taught in Huybrechts et al is insecticidally active against Acyrthosiphon pisum and can be used in an agricultural composition for insect control.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that “Second, even if a skilled person had considered both Huybrechts and Alford, they would not have been motivated to apply Alford's teachings to the naturally occurring peptide disclosed in Huybrechts”, the Examiner understands that Alford et al teach a composition comprising an effective amount of CAP2b analogue in admixture with one or more solvents, carriers, diluents, adjuvants and so on as an insect control composition, However, in the instant case, as stated above, neuropeptides as target-specific insecticidal agents are well known in the art, as disclosed in Alford et al and many others. And Huybrechts et al teach the neuropeptide pyrokinin with the amino acid sequence SPPYSPPFSPRLamide is neuropeptide found in pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Furthermore, as stated in Section 24 above, Alford et al explicitly teach “Within the insects, neuropeptides are regulatory peptides with functional roles in growth and development, behaviour and reproduction, metabolism and homeostasis, and muscle movement” and “Due to their high specificity, neuropeptides and their cognate receptors (G-protein coupled receptors, GPCRs) may be developed towards insecticidal agents to selectively reduce the fitness of target pest insects, whilst minimising detrimental environmental impacts”. Alford et al further teach “The CAPA peptides belong to the PRXamide superfamily which can be further subdivided into three major classes: CAPA peptides, pyrokinins (PK) and ecdysis triggering hormone (ETH).” (see for example, page 2, lines 1-3). Therefore, in the instant case, considering the state of art regarding neuropeptides as target-specific insecticidal agents, and in view of the combined teachings of Huybrechts et al and Alford et al as set forth in Section 24 above, one of ordinary skilled in the art would understand that both Huybrechts et al and Alford et al are in the field of controlling insect with an agricultural composition comprising target-specific insecticidal agents. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art and/or one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Huybrechts et al and Alford et al and develop the agricultural composition recited in instant claims 1-8.
Taken all these together, the rejection is deemed proper and is hereby maintained.
New Objections
27. Claim 6 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 6 as “The agricultural composition according to claim 1, wherein…”.
28. Claim 8 is objected to for the following minor informality: Applicant is suggested to amend claim 8 as “…wherein the agricultural composition comprises an effective amount of the insecticidal compound”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LI N KOMATSU whose telephone number is (571)270-3534. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-4pm 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, Melissa Fisher can be reached on 5712707430. 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.
/LI N KOMATSU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights