DETAILED ACTION
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 9-24 are pending in the present application.
Withdrawn Rejections
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 23-24 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 23, ln. 1, and claim 24, ln. 13, the term “cloud” is misspelled as “could”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Instant claim 24 recites “at least about” regarding the concentration of total active herbicide loading of glyphosate monoethanolamine salt and dicamba diglycolamine salt. However, the claim does not include an upper limit for the concentration of the herbicides, and would therefore include any concentration above the recited value. It is unclear how much herbicide can be included in the aqueous herbicidal concentrate composition of the instant invention.
The highest concentration recited in the instant specification appears to be about 550 g/l ([0023]). The examiner recommends Applicant amend claim 24 to include an upper limit that has adequate written support in the instant specification, such as from about 360 grams acid equivalent per liter to about 550 grams acid equivalent per liter (i.e., the same limitation that was inserted into amended claim 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1 and 9-24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seifert-Higgins et al. (CA 2 729 738 A1; US 2011/0263430 A1 referred to herein) in view of Wright et al. (WO 2011/019652 A2) and Zhang et al. (US 2010/0331182 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 11-12 and 15-18, Seifert-Higgins et al. teach herbicidal compositions comprising a glyphosate salt, a nonionic derivatized saccharide surfactant, such as an alkyl polysaccharide, and an etheramine oxide surfactant, wherein the compositions are efficacious, have low toxicity to aquatic organisms, have “ready biodegradable” classification and can be formulated in high loading in stable solution concentrates having high pesticide concentrations ([0027]-[0028]). Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that the combination of the alkyl polysaccharide surfactants and etheramine oxide surfactants has a substantial enhancing effect on the herbicidal efficacy of glyphosate salt formulations ([0029]).
Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that a preferred herbicide is glyphosate, or a salt or ester thereof, including the monoethanolammonium (“MEA”) salt, wherein the concentration of glyphosate is preferably from about 300 to about 600 gae/L, most preferably from about 480 to about 600 gae/L ([0031]). Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that the alkyl polysaccharide surfactant has the formula R11-O-(sug)u (2) wherein R11 is a straight or branched chain substituted or unsubstituted hydrocarbyl selected from alkyl, alkenyl, alkylphenyl, alkenylphenyl having from about 4 to about 22 carbon atoms; the sug moiety is a saccharide residue; and u is an average number from 1 to about 10 ([0038]). Seifert-Higgins et al. further teach that compounds which enhance the compatibility of the surfactants include quaternary ammonium salts ([0061]); and cationic surfactants and cosurfactants effective in such glyphosate formulations include dialkoxylated quaternary ammonium salt having the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
108
168
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0063]-[0065]).
Preferred dialkoxylated quaternary ammonium surfactants include EthoquadTM C12 (a PEG 2 coco methyl ammonium chloride from Akzo Nobel), PEG 5 coco methyl ammonium chloride, PEG 5 tallow methyl ammonium chloride, PEG 5 ditallow ammonium bromide, and PEG 10 ditallow ammonium bromide ([0065]). As evidenced by the instant specification ([0030]), EthoquadTM C-12 is cocoalkylmethylbis(2-hydroxyethyl)ammonium chloride surfactant.
Seifert-Higgins et al. also teach that the compositions may further comprise one or more additional surfactants and one or more additional herbicides ([0059]).
Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that the additional surfactant and cosurfactants effective in formulating pesticides such as glyphosate, or a salt or ester thereof, with polysaccharide and etheramine oxide surfactants include nonionic surfactants and cosurfactants, wherein the surfactant component is present in an amount sufficient to enhance pesticidal efficacy while maintaining the desired toxicology and biodegradability characteristics. Preferably the sum of the additional surfactants is less than about 10 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition ([0062]).
Regarding claim 10, Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that a further drawback of ethoxylated tertiary alkylamine surfactants is they tend to form a stiff gel when combined with water which adds to the complexity and expense of manufacturing formulations containing such surfactants, by making it difficult to clean vessels and process piping. In practice, this problem is ameliorated by adding an anti-gelling agent, such as polyethylene glycol, to the surfactant.
Regarding claim 13, Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that the polysaccharide surfactant may be an alkyl polyglucoside of formula (2) wherein: R11 is a branched or straight chain alkyl group preferably having from 4 to 22 carbon atoms, more preferably from 8 to 18 carbon atoms, or a mixture of alkyl groups having an average value within the given range; sug is a glucose residue (e.g., a glucoside); and u is between 1 and about 5, and more preferably between 1 and about 3 ([0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that preferably the sum of the additional surfactants is less than about 10 wt % based on the total weight of the composition ([0062]).
Regarding claim 19, Seifert-Higgins et al. do not teach compositions comprising a polybasic polymer.
Regarding instant claims 20-21, Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that surfactants tending to give the most useful enhancement of glyphosate herbicidal effectiveness are generally but not exclusively cationic surfactants, including surfactants which form cations in aqueous solution or dispersion at pH levels of around 4-5 characteristic of SL formulations of monobasic salts of glyphosate ([0007]).
Regarding instant claims 22-24, Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that by “storage-stable,” in the context of an aqueous concentrate composition of glyphosate salt further containing a surfactant, is meant not exhibiting phase separation on exposure to temperatures up to about 50° C for 14-28 days, and preferably not forming crystals of glyphosate or salt thereof on exposure to a temperature of about 0° C or even -10° C for a period of up to about 7 days (i.e., the composition must have a crystallization point of 0° C or lower). For aqueous solution concentrates, high temperature storage stability is often indicated by a cloud point of about 50° C or more. A cloud point of 50° C or more is normally considered acceptable for most commercial purposes for a glyphosate SL formulation. Ideally the cloud point should be 60° C or more, and the composition should withstand temperatures as low as about −10° C for up to about 7 days without crystal growth, even in the presence of seed crystals of the glyphosate salt ([0080]).
Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that the herbicidal formulations may optionally contain one or more additional herbicides ([0023], [0030], [0059]; Claims 85-86), but they do not explicitly disclose a composition comprising a combination of the monoethanolamine salt of glyphosate and the diglycolamine salt of dicamba, from instant claim 1.
However, Wright et al. teach low volatility dicamba salt herbicide compositions further comprising glyphosate and a surfactant ([0066]-[0105] and [0124]; and Claims 1, 5, 17 and 18). Wright et al. further teach that the dicamba salt may comprise the diglycolamine salt of dicamba ([0247] Table 14f). Wright et al. teach that the composition comprises at least 450 gae/l of herbicide ([0037] Table A; and Claims 3 and 4). Wright et al. also teach that the surfactant comprises an alkoxylated tertiary etheramines and polysaccharides ([0066]-[0105]; and Claim 18). Wright et al. teach compositions comprising a 1:1 or 1:3 weight ratio of dicamba to glyphosate ([0237] and [0243]). Wright et al. further teach that the pH of the composition is from 4 to 11 ([0036]).
Zhang et al. teach herbicidal compositions comprising the monoethanolamide salt of glyphosate, the diglycolamine salt of dicamba, and a surfactant, wherein the total active ingredient loading is greater than about 450 gae/l and the acid equivalent weight ratio of glyphosate to dicamba is 1:1 to 1:3 ([0003]-[0007], [0009]-[0016] and [0023]; and Tables 1-4). Zhang et al. teach that surfactants are included in concentrations sufficient to enhance the herbicidal activity of the resulting composition, preferably in amounts between about 20 g/L and about 200 g/L, most preferably between about 50 g/L and about 100 g/L ([0024]). Zhang et al. further teach that the surfactants are preferably selected to include one or more of quaternary ammonium surfactants, such as Akzo Nobel’s Arquad T/50, Arquad APA-E, Duoquad T/50, EthoquadTM C/12, Ethoquad 18/12 and Air Products’ Tomah Q-14-2, and alkylpolyglycosides, such as Akzo Nobel AG 6202 or AG 6210 ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions according to Seifert-Higgins et al. comprising monoethanolamine glyphosate salt, a quaternary ammonium salt surfactant and an alkyl polyglucoside surfactant, wherein the compositions further comprise diglycolamine dicamba salt, as reasonably suggested by Wright et al. and Zhang et al. Such would have been obvious because Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that additional herbicides may be included in their compositions, and Wright et al. and Zhang et al. each teach the combination of glyphosate with dicamba as herbicidally effective. It would have been obvious to select cocoalkylmethylbis(2-hydroxyethyl)ammonium chloride salt as the quaternary ammonium salt surfactant in view of Seifert-Higgins et al. teaching that a preferred dialkoxylated quaternary ammonium surfactants include EthoquadTM C12, and Zhang et al. teaching that suitable quaternary ammonium surfactants include EthoquadTM C/12.
Also, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to include propylene glycol or polyethylene glycol in the compositions according to Seifert-Higgins et al. in order to ameliorate the gelling when combined with water.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the 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, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Example 2 describes in Table 2 stable formulations, and Example 3 details stable formulations, in Table 3. Further, Example 6 including the results in Tables 7 and 8 describe stability results for compositions having pH within the claimed range.
The examiner respectfully argues that the data in Examples 2, 3 and 6 are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The data in Table 2 comprises 480 g/l a.e. and 5% Ethoquad C12, and shows that a 2:1 weight ratio of MEA glyphosate to DGA dicamba was not stable after 24 hours and did not report the cloud point, but a 1.5:1 weight ratio had a cloud point of >90 °C and was stable after 24 hours. Table 3 comprises 480 g/L a.e. and a 1.5:1 weight ratio of MEA glyphosate to DGA dicamba, and showed that 7.5 and 10% Ethoquad C12 dissolved in diethylene glycol as well as 7.5% Ethoquad C12 dissolved in propylene glycol had a cloud point of 85 °C or >90 °C and was stable, but the composition with 10% Ethoquad C12 dissolved in propylene was not stable. Tables 7 and 8 do not comprise Ethoquad C12. Therefore, the data in the specification is not commensurate in scope with the concentration range of total active herbicide or the weight ratio of MEA glyphosate to DGA dicamba.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that the teaching of Seifert-Higgins that the possibility of "one or more additional herbicides" is not a sufficient teaching or direction to one skilled in the art to combine (a) the MEA salt of glyphosate, and (b) the DGA salt of dicamba as required in claim 1. There would be no reason to select this combination when aiming to prepare a stable herbicidal formulation including these salts from testing in Seifert-Higgins and information regarding formulations including a different glyphosate salt without any second herbicide, and specifically not including the DGA salt of dicamba required in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully argues that Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that a preferred glyphosate salt includes monoethanolammonium (“MEA”) ([0031]; Claim 95). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to select glyphosate MEA as the salt of glyphosate in the concentrate formulations of Seifert-Higgins et al.
The examiner directs attention to MPEP 2123(I) and (II):
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. “The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.”).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding the selection of dicamba diglycolamine, Wright et al. and Zhang et al. both teach the combination of glyphosate salt with dicamba salt, wherein the dicamba salt includes diglycolamine. Zhang et al. teach the combination of glyphosate monoethanolamine (EA) and dicamba diglycolamine(DGA) with total active content of 480 g ae/L resulted in storage stability after at least 3 days at -10 °C (Table 4, Formulation ID 25-27). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the diglycolamine salt of dicamba in view of the teachings that the diglycolamine salt can be effectively combined with salts of glyphosate.
Applicant argues that Wright describes dicamba salt formulations that can optionally include a second co-herbicide (e.g., glyphosate). Zhang describes herbicidal compositions that include glyphosate and dicamba. However, they do not include any specific teaching or direction to combine the two specific salts required in claim 1 and further along with a quaternary ammonium salt surfactant comprising a cocoalkylmethylbis(2-hydroxyethyl)ammonium chloride salt. Applicant asserts that one skilled in the art armed with the teachings of Seifert-Higgins would not have looked to Wright and Zhang for guidance in preparing (glyphosate + dicamba) formulations given the lack of any specific teachings in Seifert-Higgins regarding such compositions.
The examiner respectfully argues that Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that a preferred glyphosate salt includes monoethanolammonium (“MEA”) ([0031]; Claim 95). Seifert-Higgins et al. further teach that the herbicidal formulations may optionally contain one or more additional herbicides ([0059]). Zhang et al. specifically teach the combination of glyphosate monoethanolamine with dicamba diglycolamine with total active content of 480 g ae/L resulted in storage stability after at least 3 days at -10 °C (Table 4, Formulation ID 25-27). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine glyphosate monoethanolamine with dicamba diglycolamine.
Applicant further argues that the further requirement that the quaternary ammonium salt surfactant comprises cocoalkylmethylbis(2-hydroxyethyl) ammonium chloride salt is dissolved in diethylene glycol or polyethylene glycol is neither taught nor suggested by the prior art in connection with formulations combining components (a), (b), and (c) as detailed above and where the cocoalkylmethylbis(2-hydroxyethyl) ammonium chloride salt is dissolved in diethylene glycol or polyethylene glycol.
The examiner respectfully argues that Seifert-Higgins et al. and Zhang et al. both teach that preferred quaternary ammonium surfactants include EthoquadTM C12, which is cocoalkylmethylbis(2-hydroxyethyl)ammonium chloride. Further, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to include propylene glycol or polyethylene glycol in the compositions according to Seifert-Higgins et al. in order to ameliorate the gelling when combined with water.
Applicant also argues that there is no reason from the cited references, specifically Seifert-Higgins, that stable herbicidal compositions as defined by features (iv) and (v) would be prepared combining (a) the MEA salt of glyphosate, (b) the DGA salt of dicamba, and (c) a quaternary ammonium salt surfactant comprising a cocoalkylmethylbis(2-hydroxyethyl)ammonium chloride salt dissolved in diethylene glycol or polyethylene glycol.
The examiner respectfully argues that Seifert-Higgins et al. teach that by “storage-stable,” in the context of an aqueous concentrate composition of glyphosate salt further containing a surfactant, is meant not exhibiting phase separation on exposure to temperatures up to about 50° C for 14-28 days, and preferably not forming crystals of glyphosate or salt thereof on exposure to a temperature of about 0° C or even -10° C for a period of up to about 7 days (i.e., the composition must have a crystallization point of 0° C or lower). For aqueous solution concentrates, high temperature storage stability is often indicated by a cloud point of about 50° C or more. A cloud point of 50° C or more is normally considered acceptable for most commercial purposes for a glyphosate SL formulation. Ideally the cloud point should be 60° C or more, and the composition should withstand temperatures as low as about −10° C for up to about 7 days without crystal growth, even in the presence of seed crystals of the glyphosate salt ([0080]).
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 11-23 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-11, 13-18, 22-24, 26-27 and 29-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,285,404. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to herbicide compositions methods comprising herbicide compositions comprising dicamba salts, glyphosate salts and a surfactant. US ‘404 claims combining an aqueous glyphosate concentrate composition, a dicamba concentrate composition, and dilution water, wherein the glyphosate concentrate composition comprises glyphosate monoethanolamine salt at a glyphosate loading from about 360 grams acid equivalent per liter to about 550 grams acid equivalent per liter, and a surfactant, and a pH from about 5 to about 6.5 (Claim 1). The ratio of the total weight of the glyphosate salts on an acid equivalent basis to the total weight of the dicamba salt on an acid equivalence basis is from about 1:1 to about 5:1 (Claim 5). The dicamba salt includes diglycolamine salt (Claim 6). The surfactant includes quaternary ammonium salts of formula (I) (Claims 14-18). The surfactant also comprises an alkylpolysaccharide (Claims 22-24). The glyphosate concentrate composition has a surfactant concentration from about 1 wt.% to about 20 wt.% (Claim 26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant states that they will consider the possibility of submitting Terminal Disclaimers listing U.S. Patent No. 10,285,404 and U.S. Patent No. 10,736,322 if/when these are the lone remaining rejections in the subject application.
Therefore, the rejections are maintained for the reasons stated.
Claims 1 and 9-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,736,322 in view of Zhang et al. (US 2010/0331182 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims are drawn to herbicide compositions methods comprising herbicide compositions comprising dicamba salts, glyphosate salts and a surfactant system comprising a quaternary ammonium salt surfactant. US ‘322 claims an aqueous herbicidal concentrate composition comprising monoethanolamine salt of glyphosate, diglycolamine salt of dicamba, and a surfactant system comprising an alkoxylated tertiary etheramine surfactant and an alkylpolysaccharide surfactant, wherein the composition contains a total active herbicide loading of glyphosate monoethanolamine salt and dicamba diglycolamine salt of at least about 360 grams acid equivalent per liter, the pH of the concentrate composition is from about 4.8 to about 5.7, and the acid equivalent weight ratio of glyphosate monoethanolamine salt to dicamba diglycolamine salt is from about 1:1 to about 3:1 (Claim 1). The surfactant system constitutes from about 2.5 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of the composition (Claims 6, 8, 10).
US ‘322 does not explicitly claim a composition comprising a quaternary ammonium salt surfactant, as instantly claimed. However, Zhang et al. teach herbicidal compositions comprising the monoethanolamide salt of glyphosate, the diglycolamine salt of dicamba, and a surfactant, wherein the total active ingredient loading is greater than about 450 gae/l, the acid equivalent weight ratio of glyphosate to dicamba is 1:1 to 1:3, and the surfactant includes quaternary ammonium surfactants and alkylpolyglycosides ([0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to prepare compositions comprising monoethanolamine glyphosate salt, diglycolamine dicamba salt, and the surfactant system of Zhang et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant states that they will consider the possibility of submitting Terminal Disclaimers listing U.S. Patent No. 10,285,404 and U.S. Patent No. 10,736,322 if/when these are the lone remaining rejections in the subject application.
Therefore, the rejections are maintained for the reasons stated.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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, Sue Liu can be reached on (571) 272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights