Patent Application 17638743 - BISAMIDE COMPOUND AND APPLICATION THEREOF - Rejection
Patent Application 17638743 - BISAMIDE COMPOUND AND APPLICATION THEREOF
Title: BISAMIDE COMPOUND AND APPLICATION THEREOF
Application Information
- Invention Title: BISAMIDE COMPOUND AND APPLICATION THEREOF
- Application Number: 17638743
- Submission Date: 2025-05-12T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-02-25T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-02-25T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 504
- National Sub-Class: 130000
- Examiner Employee Number: 77391
- Art Unit: 1624
- Tech Center: 1600
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
No patents were cited in this rejection.
Office Action Text
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 23-42 are new, pending and under examination and claims 1-22 are cancelled in the above identified application.
Priority
U.S. Appln. Ser. No. 17/638,473, Filed: February 18, 2022 is a 371 Nat.’l Stage Entry of WO 2021/036966 A1 Appln. (i.e., PCT/CN2020/110171, Inter.’l Filing Date: August 24, 2020, Inter.’l Pub. Date: 04 March 2021), which claims foreign priority to CN202010013008.7, Filed: January 07, 2020 and CN 201910789623.4, Filed: August 26, 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
An Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted on February 25, 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Accordingly, Information Disclosure Statements have been considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims of the present invention are objected to, because of the following informalities:
Claims of the present invention are objected for improper claim format, i.e., which includes use of awkward use of English language terms, redundant claim language and failure to follow standard patent claim structure, where a patent claim should be a single sentence, with a preamble, a transitional phrase, and a body, all following specific grammatical rules.
For example, a suggested amendment is made to claim 23 as shown below:
“A compound of
[AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
304
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(I)
wherein:
R1 is selected from halogen;
R2 is selected from halogen, C1-C4 halogenoalkyl, or C1-C4 halogenoalkoxy;
R3 is CF3 or CF2CF3;
R4 is selected from fluorine, difluoromethyl, trifluoromethyl, or cyano.
Appropriate amendments and correction to compound claims 23-32 are required accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 33- 34 and 38-39 are directed to non-statutory subject matter are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
The aforementioned use claims, respectively, do not constitute patent eligible matter because, it does not fall within at least one of the four categories of subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) (i.e., also see MPEP § 2106.03 ):
Claims 33-34 and 38-39 are considered improper method/process claims. It recites a "use" but provides no steps to actually carry out that use.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant can rewrite these claims as explicitly define and outline specific process steps involved in using the product or composition or deleted these claims accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 23-32 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 Applicants), regards as the invention.
[a] Claim 23-32 is rejected for recitation of improper Markush format and specifically not reciting lists of elements or embodiments in the alternative.
A Markush group in a patent claim allows for claiming a list of alternative members in a single claim. It's a closed group, meaning the selection is made from the specified members, not an open-ended "comprising" or "including" clause. The standard format often includes language like "selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C" or "selected from of A, B, or C"
For example:
in claim 23, the variable phrase is defined as:
“R2 is selected from halogen, C1-C4 halogenoalkyl, C1-C4 halogenoalkoxy”; and should be amended to
“R2 is selected from halogen, C1-C4 halogenoalkyl, or C1-C4 halogenoalkoxy”
Correction of identified claims must be made accordingly.; and
in claim 32, Table 4 should be amended to recite “:” after each compound, with “or” in second to last compound followed by a period “.” (i.e. claims must be proper sentence format)
PNG
media_image2.png
397
535
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Appropriate amendments and correction to compound claims 23-32 are required accordingly.
[b] Claims 23-32 are rejected for improper claim format resulting in lack of clarity, i.e., which includes use of redundant claim language, incorrect chemical name spellings and failure to follow standard patent claim structure, where a patent claim should be a single sentence, with a preamble, a transitional phrase, and a body, all following specific grammatical rules (i.e. also as noted under Objection Section above).
[c] Claim 37 is rejected for lack of clarity, vague, ambiguous and indefiniteness for recitation of inconsistent and confusing terms, i.e., e.g.,
if the goal of the method of claim 37 is for controlling agricultural or forestry pests, it is unclear why there would be an application of “a growth medium”; and
claim 37 is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984).
A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
Appropriate claim amendment and correction is required accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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.
Claims 23-42, respectively are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the specification, while being enabling for “a bisamide compound of Formula I:”
PNG
media_image1.png
304
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
corresponding intermediates compounds of Formula (II) thereof, insecticide compositions or formulations, methods for treating controlling specific insect pest species (i.e., Leucania separata, Plutella xylostella, and Chilo suppressalis) and/or specific animal parasites (i.e., cat fleas, dog ticks).
it DOES NOT reasonably provide enablement for these terms or phrases in:
[A] “[another] ALL active bisamide compound(s) . . .and
another active compound is one or more selected from:
[an] ALL insecticide(s), [a] ALL poison bait(s), [a] ALL disinfectant(s), [an] ALL acaricide(s), [a] ALL nematicide(s), [a] ALL fungicide(s), [a] ALL growth regulator(s), and [a] ALL herbicide(s).
All insecticide composition(s), which comprise:
a mixture of the bisamide compound and AN or ALL other active compound(s),
where AN or ALL active compound(s) is one or more selected from:
ALL insecticide(s),
ALL poison bait(s),
ALL disinfectant(s),
ALL acaricide(s),
ALL nematicide(s),
ALL fungicide(s),
ALL growth regulator(s); and
ALL herbicide(s) (i.e., as in claim 36)
ALL method for controlling an ALL agricultural or forestry pest, which comprises:
applying an effective dose of:
ALL material to
ALL pest to be controlled or
ALL growth medium thereof,
where
ALL material is one or more selected from the following group:
the bisamide compound according to claim 23;
ALL insecticide formulation; and
ALL insecticide composition (i.e., as in claim 37)
ALL animal parasite control agent(s) is used to control ALL (one or more) of ALL cat fleas and ALL American dog ticks (i.e., as in claim 39).
ALL animal parasite control composition(s), which comprise:
a mixture of:
the bisamide compound and
another active animal parasite control compound,
where the another active animal parasite control compound is
one or more selected from an acaricide, an insecticide, a parasiticide, and antimalarial agent. (i.e., as in claim 41)
ALL method for controlling ALL animal parasite(s), which comprise the step of applying an effective dose of ALL material(s) to ALL animal parasite(s) to be controlled or a growth medium thereof;
where:
ALL material(s) is one or more selected from the following group:
the bisamide compound according to claim 23;
ALL animal parasite control agent(s); and
ALL animal parasite control composition (i.e., as in claim 42)
The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
The test of enablement is whether one skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention from the disclosures in the application coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation. (United States v. Teletronics Inc., 8 USPQ2d 1217 (Fed. Cir. 1988)). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not based on a single factor, but rather a conclusion reached by weighing many factors (See Ex parte Forman 230 USPQ 546 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986) and In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
These factors include the following:
Amount of guidance provided by Applicant.
[A] The Examples 1 to 17 set forth in the specification are limited to:
Working examples in the instant specification are directed to:
the compounds of Formulas (I) to (III) (i.e., Examples 1 to 14)
corresponding assays of those compounds to show biological or insecticidal activity, of the aforementioned compounds against
Leucania separata, Platell xylostella, and Chilo suppressalis (i.e., Ex. 15)
Cat Fleas (i.e., Example 16)
American Dog Ticks (i.e., Example 17)
[B] Other than the limited number of experimental examples in the specification directed to
Three (3) moth pests, i.e., Leucania separata, Platell xylostella, and Chilo suppressalis (i.e., Ex. 36)
Cat Fleas (i.e., Example 37)
American Dog Ticks (i.e., Example 38)
there are no working examples encompassing the broad scope or list of:
Regarding [A] & [B] as noted above, these cannot be simply willed into existence. As was stated in Morton International Inc. v. Cardinal Chemical Co., 28 USPQ2d 1190 “The specification purports to teach, with over fifty examples, the preparation of the claimed compounds with the required connectivity. However...there is no evidence that such compounds exist...the examples of the '881 patent do not produce the postulated compounds...there is...no evidence that such compounds even exist.”
The same circumstance appears to be true here. Hence, applicants must show that cancer treatment methods, associated CDK inhibitors and other anti-androgen, subject resistant to anti-androgen therapy and other requirements yields all the desired effects of claim 13, other than those exemplified by the limited Experimental Example section of the present invention, such as in examples can be made and used for the stated purpose in all situations across the board, not just in animals, but also in human subjects or limit the claims accordingly.
The Nature Of The Invention And Predictability In The Art.
The invention is directed toward agriculture (i.e., controlling pests, such as insects) and is therefore physiological in nature (i.e., as it involves targeting or manipulating an insect's internal processes or biological systems. ) . It is well established that “the scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved,” and physiological activity is generally considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).
In terms of the law, MPEP 2107.03 states “evidence of pharmacological or other biological activity of a compound will be relevant to an asserted therapeutic use if there is a reasonable correlation between the activity in question and the asserted utility. Cross v. Iizuka, 753 F.2d 1040, 224 USPQ 739 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Jolles, 628 F.2d 1322, 206 USPQ 885 (CCPA 1980); Nelson v. Bowler, 626 F.2d 853, 206 USPQ 881 (CCPA 1980).” If correlation is lacking, it cannot be relied upon, Ex parte Powers, 220 USPQ 924; Rey-Bellet and Spiegelberg v. Engelhardt v. Schindler, 181 USPQ 453; Knapp v. Anderson, 177 USPQ 688. Indeed, the correlation must have been established “at the time the tests were performed”, Hoffman v. Klaus, 9 USPQ2d 1657.
Number of working examples.
[A] Working examples in the instant specification are directed Examples 1 to 38, which discloses:
the compounds of Formulas (I) to (III)
corresponding assays of those compounds to show biological or insecticidal activity, of the aforementioned compounds against
3 specific moth species, Leucania separata, Plutella xylostella, and Chilo suppressalis (i.e., Example 36)
Cat Fleas (i.e., Example 37)
American Dog Ticks (i.e., Example 38)
Specific details are further summarized in the Example excerpts shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Scope Of The Claims.
The scope of the claims involves:
“a bisamide compound of Formula I:
PNG
media_image4.png
176
518
media_image4.png
Greyscale
;
corresponding intermediates compounds of Formula (II) thereof, insecticide compositions or formulations, methods for treating controlling specific insect pest species (i.e., Leucania separata, Plutella xylostella, and Chilo suppressalis) and/or specific animal parasites (i.e., cat fleas, dog ticks).
Thus, the scope of claims is very broad.
Nature of the invention.
The Invention relates :
generally to bisamide compound to develop improved or better insecticidal activity than already known in the conventional art. It may be used to prepare drugs for preventing and controlling pests in agriculture and other fields, and to prepare drugs for controlling animal parasites in the field of veterinary medicine.;
specifically relates to compounds of Formulas (I) and/or corresponding intermediates compounds of Formula (II) thereof, insecticide compositions or formulations, methods for treating controlling specific insect pest species (i.e., Leucania separata, Plutella xylostella, and Chilo suppressalis) and/or specific animal parasites (i.e., cat fleas, dog ticks).
Level of skill in the art.
An ordinary artisan in the area of agricultural research and development would have experience in screening chemical compounds for particular agricultural utilities. Screening of new compounds aimed at improving various aspects of agriculture, such as crop yields/productivity, livestock health, soil fertility, water conservation, development of pesticides, herbicides, miticides, etc., while complex, is routine in the art. The process for finding new compounds focusing on creating effective and sustainable methods for managing pests in crops, with a goal of improving food security and reducing environmental impact. This research encompasses various areas, inc., but not limited to understanding pest biology, biopesticides, integrated pest management (IPM), and developing pest-resistant crop varieties that have in vitro activity against a particular biological target is well known. Additionally, while Biological Control (i.e., using natural enemies of pests, such as predators, parasites, and pathogens, to control pest populations),
Pest Modeling (i.e., developing mathematical models to predict pest outbreaks and optimize pest management strategies), Pest Resistance (understanding how pests develop resistance to pesticides and developing new strategies to overcome resistance), high throughput screening assays etc. can often be employed, to develop and find compounds and creating targeted control methods, as claimed, may not be generally not well-known or routine, given the complexity of certain biological systems.
MPEP §2164.01 (a) states, "A conclusion of lack of enablement means that, based on the evidence regarding each of the above factors, the specification, at the time the application was filed, would not have taught one skilled in the art how to make and/or use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1562, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)." That conclusion is clearly justified here that Applicant is not enabled for making these compounds or compositions or treating the diseases mentioned.
Appropriate action is required accordingly in the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 23-26, 35 37 and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over: EP 3 081 552 B2 to Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc., Pub. Date:, Intern.’l Filing Date: June 30, 2009, Pub. Date: October 19, 2016 (“EP ‘552 B2”), alone, in combination with and/or further in view of WO 2017/049172 A1 (Intern.’l Filing Date:16 September 2016 , Intern.’l Pub. Date: 23 March 23, 2017; “WO ‘172 A1”), respectively, and vice versa.
The present invention relates to a compound of Formula (I):
PNG
media_image5.png
310
599
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In general:
EP ‘552 B2 is directed to bis-amide compounds of Formula (I)
PNG
media_image6.png
339
297
media_image6.png
Greyscale
or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,
corresponding compositions and intermediates thereof and/or methods of using the aforementioned compounds or compositions for agricultural uses, i.e., pest control; and
WO ‘172 A1 is directed to prolonged ectoparasite-controlling agent bis-amide compounds of Formula (I)
PNG
media_image7.png
223
231
media_image7.png
Greyscale
,
corresponding intermediates and compositions thereof and/or methods of using the aforementioned compounds or compositions for agricultural uses, i.e., pest control of parasites for crop protection.
Each of above-identified references and the claimed invention, respectively, teach compounds possessing an identical same chemical core compound structure with mostly equivalent functional group substituents, with the primary difference noted on substituents on the N atom the amide linked pyridine moiety (i.e., see scheme below).
Species compound 7 in the instant application teaches all the variables of the EP species 6-1616 but for the cyclopropyl alkyl as described in greater detail to follow. EP ‘552 B2 discloses and teaches a specific subgenus of Formula (I) and compound 6-1616 (i.e., with hydrogen substituted on the amide nitrogen atom) and WO ‘172 A1 teaches compound 21 (i.e., with methyl substituted on the same amide nitrogen atom):
PNG
media_image8.png
678
1014
media_image8.png
Greyscale
While EP ‘552 B2 and WO ‘172 A1, respectively, do not exemplify a specific compound of the claimed invention with a “-CH2-propyl group” on the amide nitrogen, EP ‘552 B2 does teach that:
“a C1-6alkyl with a substituent; where one or more substituents include being a C3-C9 cycloalkyl group (i.e., e.g., which includes cyclopropyl; see para. [0103], line 4 (i.e., which corresponds to Compound of Formula (I) of the claimed invention).
Based on the aforementioned two references, it would have been obvious for an ordinary artisan to arrive at the compound of Formula (I) of claims 1 to 6 of the claimed invention by making a simple substitution to make compounds of the claimed invention by making a conventional substitution in light of the art given the virtual similarities taught by those references and the claimed invention and the fact that these references teach common utility for use in agricultural and/or biological uses for pest control.
Moreover, EP ‘552 B2 further encompasses the claimed invention by disclosing and teaching
agricultural and forestry pests that read on the claims of the present invention, which are set forth in:
the comprehensive species lists defined at para [0199] therein; and
where:
specific examples include 3 examples identified in the claimed invention Plutella xylostella, Chilo suppressalis, Mythimna separata (i.e. conventionally known in the art by synonym name moth Leucania separata; see Wikipedia entry on Myrhimna separata) (i.e., see para. [0199], lines 11-12 and 22-23]
corresponding compositions formulations, which comprise:
a composition, which comprises “a compound as defined in claim 1 used as an agricultural chemical, it may be used, if required, as a mixture with other active components, which include:
herbicides, various pesticides, miticides, nematicides, fungicides, plant growth regulators, synergists, fertilizers, soil conditioners, or the like to be applied during the preparation or the dusting (i.e., see [0215] therein and reads on claim 36)”; and
Where such formulations comprise compounds taught by the cited references defined weight percents and ranges as defined in para [0214], i.e., which includes the amount of the 0.1% to 99.9% (i.e., which reads on claim 35 of the instant invention); and
Pest control agents are defined in paras [0204 to [0210] and weight % amounts of active agents defined in [0214] in various ranges from 1 to 90% (i.e., which reads on claim 40 ) and corresponding compositions, which are
It is an object of the present invention to provide a pest control agent containing an amide derivative as an active ingredient showing a pesticidal effect against a wide range of agricultural/horticultural pests and a pest controlling method. [0004]
Comprising is opened ended transitional phrase so theoretically could incur[rate a secondary agent takes into account it is possible in light of the patent citations cited therein suggest the use of a secondary agents
According to the present invention, it becomes possible to provide a novel pest control agent comprising an amide derivative. The amide derivative shows a significant effect for a pest control activity, and has a high industrial availability.
Teaches tests of pesticides being controlled by administration to literal pests as in Test Examples 9 and 10, which constitute treatment methods of larvae and then demonstrated to show pesticidal activity (i.e., see paras. [0555] to [oo57]
In light of the teachings of the cited art, an ordinary artisan would meet with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining compounds and corresponding compositions, methods of using the present invention by combining compounds taught by WO ‘172 A1 Appln. and EP ‘552 B2, (i.e. similar in chemical core structure, with the difference being R1 = methyl vs. R1 = -CH2-cyclopropyl in the claimed invention) making a functional group substitution from among conventional substituents defined by EP ‘552 B2 and WO ‘172 A1 Appln, especially given the similarity between core chemical compound structures and/or functional groups used in the claimed invention and those taught by taught by EP ‘552 B2 and WO ‘172 A1 Appln to be able to make novel bisamide compounds of the present invention for use in making pest control agents and controlling pests.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to facilitate use of all
combine the teachings of EP ‘552 B2 and WO ‘172 A1 with that of the present invention to:
make compounds of the present invention for use against biological resistance to known compounds with the goal to develop new insecticides to with higher or better insecticidal activity to meet the needs of agriculture, veterinary and/or other fields,
i.e., e.g., such as in improving prevention, controlling and maintain pest control in agriculture and to prepare drugs for controlling animal parasites in the field of veterinary medicine.
Based on the foregoing, claimed invention is rendered obvious over WO ‘172 A1 Appln., alone, in view of or in combination with the EP ‘552 B2”.
Claims 27-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/049172 A1 (Intern.’l Filing Date:16 September 2016 , Intern.’l Pub. Date: 23 March 23, 2017; “WO ‘172 A1”), alone, in combination with and/or further in view of EP 3 081 552 B2 to Mitsui Chemicals Agro, Inc., Pub. Date:, Intern.’l Filing Date: June 30, 2009, Pub. Date: October 19, 2016 (“EP ‘552 B2”)
The present invention also relates to an intermediate compound of Formula (I)
PNG
media_image9.png
177
431
media_image9.png
Greyscale
where:
PNG
media_image10.png
120
766
media_image10.png
Greyscale
In general, WO ‘172 Appln. discloses and teaches an intermediate compound of Formula (II) or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof:
PNG
media_image11.png
86
226
media_image11.png
Greyscale
where:
PNG
media_image11.png
86
226
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The compound intermediate of the present invention reads on and incorporates all of the functional group substituents of Formula (2) as defined by the WO ‘172 Appln.
While WO ‘172 Appln. teaches an intermediate of Formula (2) and its precursors, where R1 = C1-C4 alkyl group, it does not teach an intermediate of the present invention and its corresponding precursors, where R1 is a substituted C1-C4 alkyl group with a cycloalkyl group (i.e., -CH2-cyclopropyl).
However, the EP ‘552 B2 Appln.:
[A] teaches preparation methods for amide compounds and corresponding intermediate Formula (44) thereof:
PNG
media_image12.png
177
309
media_image12.png
Greyscale
where functional groups on the aforementioned compounds and intermediates specifically are defined in para. [0619], i.e., where EP ‘552 B2 discloses that the R1 on N can be a substituted C1-C6 alkyl with one or more substituents, i.e, which includes, where R1 is a substituted C1-C4 alkyl group including a C3-C9 cycloalkyl (i.e., , see para. [0103], line 4] (i.e., -CH2-cyclopropyl) (i.e., see virtually identical or similar base core structures of EP ‘552 B2 to that of the present invention except that some substituents attached that core are different most notably the difference lies in the substituents in the N of the amido linked to the pyridine); and
[B] also teaches intermediates and corresponding different preparation methods thereof (i.e., e.g., inc. Formulas (II) and (III), which reads on claims 7-10 therein), where:
the primary difference between the claimed invention and EP ‘552 B2 lies in the substituent groups on the nitrogen on respective intermediates and compounds associated with methods, i.e., see comparative example below:
PNG
media_image13.png
200
400
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Moreover, selecting the compound materials, reactants and reaction conditions to effectuate transformations to each successive molecule in a synthetic route, such as adding different substituent groups to intermediates with the goal of making a target product is customarily understood and adapted by those of ordinary skill in the art.
In light of the teachings of the cited art, an ordinary artisan would meet with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining intermediate compounds of the present invention by combining compounds taught by WO ‘172 A1 Appln. (i.e. similar in chemical core structure, with the difference being R1 = methyl vs. R1 = -CH2-cyclopropyl in the claimed invention) making a functional group substitution from among conventional substituents defined by EP ‘552 B2, especially given the similarity between core chemical compound structures and/or functional groups used in the claimed invention and those taught by taught by EP ‘552 B2 to be able to make novel bisamide compounds of the present invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to facilitate use of all
combine the teachings of EP ‘552 B2 with that of the present invention to:
make intermediates of the present invention for use against biological resistance to known compounds with the goal to develop new insecticides to with higher or better insecticidal activity to meet the needs of agriculture, veterinary and/or other fields,
i.e., e.g., such as in improving prevention, controlling and maintain pest control in agriculture and to prepare drugs for controlling animal parasites in the field of veterinary medicine.
Based on the foregoing, claimed invention is rendered obvious over WO ‘172 A1 Appln., alone, in view of or in combination with the EP ‘552 B2”.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to GRACE C HSU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1689. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicants 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, Jeffrey H. Murray can be reached on 571-272-9023.
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.
/G.C.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 1624
/JEFFREY H MURRAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1624