US. Patent Application No.: 16/163,381
`Office Action dated July 23, 2019
`Reply submitted September 23, 2019
`
`Docket No.: SYG-0134VA (115479000042)
`73693-US-REG-D-P-l
`
`REMARKS
`
`The Office Action dated July 23, 2019 has been reviewed and the comments of the US.
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“Office”) have been considered. The foregoing amendments and the
`
`following remarks are respectfully submitted in response.
`
`1.
`
`Summary of the Claims
`
`Upon entry of this response, claims 1, 6-21, and 23 are pending. Claims 1 and 12-21 are
`
`amended. Claim 22 is cancelled; claims 2-5 were previously cancelled. Claim 23 is new. Support
`
`for the new claim and claim amendments may be found throughout the specification as filed, for
`
`example, in the original claims and page 8, lines 1-5 of the specification. Claim 1 is amended to
`
`incorporate the subject matter of claim 22 and claims 12—21 are amended to update the dependency.
`
`There is no new matter.
`
`II.
`
`Allowable Subject Matter
`
`Applicant thanks the Examiner for acknowledging claims 9-21 are allowable if rewritten
`
`into independent form.
`
`III.
`
`Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`Beginning on page 4 of the Office Action, the Examiner rejects claims 1, 6-8, and 22 under
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 as allegedly being unpatentable over WO 2012/41874 to Walter et al. (“Walter” .
`
`Without acquiescing to the propemess of the rejection, claim 1 is amended to incorporate the
`
`subject matter of claim 22.
`
`Walter does not render obvious a composition comprising (A) 3-(difluoromethyl)-N-
`
`methoxy—l-methyl-N—[l-methyl~2-(2,4,6-trichlorophenyl)ethyl]pyrazole-4-carboxamide; (B) the
`
`compound of formula VII
`
`4851-1766-7750.1
`
`

`

`US. Patent Application No.: 16/163,381
`Office Action dated July 23, 2019
`Reply submitted September 23, 2019
`
`Docket No.: SYG-Ol34VA (115479000042)
`73693-US-REG-D-P-l
`
`0
`
`NH
`
`(VII), iSOpyrazam, difenoconazole, azoxystrobin, prothioconazole,
`
`tebuconazole, pyraclostrobin, trifloxystrobin, fludioxonil, or cyprodinil; and (C) fluazinam, wherein
`
`the weight ratio of (A), (B), and (C) is a synergistically effective amount as determined by the
`
`Colby formula.
`
`Per M.P.E.P. §716.02(a).I “GREATER THAN EXPECTED RESULTS ARE EVIDENCE
`
`OF NONOBVIOUSNESS.” The M.P.E.P. continues “[e]vidence of a greater than expected result
`
`may also be shown by demonstrating an effect which is greater than the sum of each of the effects
`
`taken separately (i.e., demonstrating ‘synergism’).” (M.P.E.P. §716.02(a).I (citing Merck & Co. Inc.
`
`v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, (Fed. Cir.),cert. denied, 493 US. 975 (1989)). Here, the
`
`fact that claim 1 recites that “the weight ratio of (A), (B), and (C) is a synergistically effective
`
`amount as determined by the Colby formula,” is sufficient to rebut any case of obviousness.
`
`It is unclear why the Examiner specifically rejected claim 22. However, Applicant believes
`
`such recitation should overcome the present rejection. The Examiner acknowledges that the ratio of
`
`4:1 to 1:4 of (A) to (B+C) is sufficient to overcome the present rejection. (Office Action, page 10.)
`
`Accordingly, the data in the specification is unexpectedly superior. The recitation “the weight ratio
`
`of (A), (B), and (C) is a synergistically effective amount as determined by the Colby formula,” is
`
`another, more comprehensive, way of claiming compositions commensurate with the unexpected
`
`results. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and allowance of the present
`
`claims.
`
`IV.
`
`Conclusion
`
`In view of the above amendment and remarks, Applicant requests reconsideration of the
`
`claimed invention. If the Examiner finds that any issues remain, Applicant requests that the
`
`Examiner contact the undersigned so that the issues may be expeditiously addressed.
`
`4851-1766-7750.1
`
`

`

`U.S. Patent Application No.: 16/163,381
`Office Action dated July 23, 2019
`Reply submitted September 23, 2019
`
`Docket No.: SYG-0134VA (1 15479000042)
`73693-US-REG-D-P—1
`
`In the event that any additional extension of time is necessary to prevent the abandonment of
`
`this patent application, then such extension of time is petitioned. Should any fee be deemed due, the
`
`Office is authorized to charge any fees that may be required in conjunction with this submission (or
`
`with any paper filed by this firm in this application or resulting patent) to our Deposit Account No.
`
`50-2036, from which the undersigned is authorized to draw, under Order No. SYG—0134VA
`
`(1 15479000042).
`
`Dated: September 23, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Toni-Junell Herbert/
`By:
`Toni-Junell Herbert
`
`Registration No.: 34,348
`
`David M. Klecyngier
`
`Registration No.: 72,632
`BakerHostetler
`
`1050 Connecticut Ave NW.,
`
`Suite #1 100
`
`Washington, DC. 20036
`
`Attomeys/ Agents For Applicant
`
`4851-1766-7750.1
`
`