DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Applicant's submissions filed on 10 October and 11 November 2025 has been entered, and the arguments presented therein have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Note Regarding Maleic Hydrazide Stability
The issue of the stability of maleic hydrazide has been discussed in applicant’s prior response on 2 July 2025, especially with regard to its potential decomposition to hydrazine. In view of this, the examiner has conducted additional search related to this issue and has found IPCS Inchem (https://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v84pr28.htm obtained by examiner on 8 July 2025, originally published 1984, pages 1-11). IPCS Inchem (hereafter referred to as Inchem) provides teachings related to the presence of hydrazine impurity in maleic hydrazide, as of Inchem, pages 1-2, relevant text reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image1.png
44
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
140
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner notes that “mg/kg” is understood to be equivalent to ppm as 1 million milligrams are equivalent to 1 kilogram. Also see the following, from page 8.
PNG
media_image4.png
124
584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above-reproduced text would appear to indicate that the diethanolamine salt of maleic hydrazide is unstable to degradation to hydrazine; however, the potassium salt of maleic hydrazide is stable to degradation to hydrazine.
The examiner notes that the potassium salt of maleic hydrazide is understood to be within the claim scope because potassium is not excluded by the claims.
The examiner notes that applicant does not appear to dispute the positions taken here in applicant’s response on 10 October 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that there appears to be a difference of opinion between examiner and applicant regarding how the instant claims are to be interpreted. The examiner presents the following section in order to explain this issue in greater detail.
In applicant’s response on 10 October 2025 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s response), page 8, end of second paragraph, applicant makes the following argument.
PNG
media_image5.png
74
584
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This argument appears to be based on the idea that the claims require that the claimed composition maintains a hydrazine concentration at or below 1 ppm for a year. The examiner disagrees that the instant claims actually require this feature. The instant claims require hydrazine levels less than or equal to 1 part per million. However, this does not appear to exclude a case wherein the composition prior to storage has a hydrazine concentration less than or equal to 1 part per million but after storage has a hydrazine concentration of greater than 1 part per million.
The examiner notes that elsewhere in claim 1, the claim requires that the composition is storage stable at 25°C for twelve months. However, this limitation itself does not require that the composition maintains a hydrazine concentration at or below 1 ppm for a year at 25°C. This is because the phrase “storage stable” is not defined by the instant specification and, as a consequence, has not been defined to require that the amounts of hydrazine formed upon storage is below a certain maximum.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner understands the phrase “true liquid” to refer to an isotropic liquid.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) – Indefiniteness
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 3 and 24-26 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 applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 and 24-26 recite the “transition metal ion” of claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite the phrase “transition metal ion.” As such, it appears that the phrase “transition metal ion” in claims 3 and 24-26 lacks antecedent basis in claim 1.
In addition, regarding claim 3, Claim 1, upon which claim 3 depends, recites copper ions. The skilled artisan would have understood the term “ion” to refer to a charged specie. As such a copper ion is copper in the form in which it has a different number of electrons as compared with its number of protons, resulting in an electrical charge and rendering the copper to be an ion. In contrast, claim 3 recites a transition metal (i.e. copper) in elemental form (i.e. an oxidation state of zero). The skilled artisan would have understood that a transition metal in elemental form is not an ion. As such, it is unclear if claim 3 is drawn only to copper ions or also to copper in elemental form that is not in the form of an ion.
For the purposes of examination under prior art, the examiner will proceed with examination with the understanding that the “transition metal ion” of claims 3 and 24-26 further limits the copper ion of claim 1. Also, copper in elemental form is understood to be excluded from the claims because it is not a copper ion, as required by instant claim 1.
Withdrawn Rejection
Previously in the prosecution history of the instant application, the examiner rejected the instant claims as being obvious over Verzicht (DE 4225528 A1) in view of IPCS Inchem (https://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v84pr28.htm obtained by examiner on 8 July 2025, originally published 1984, pages 1-11). The examiner has withdrawn this rejection for at least the following reasons.
As an initial matter, Verzicht (DE 4225528 A1) was written in German. The examiner has provided an English translation. All page and paragraph citations are to the English translation; however, the cited material is understood by the examiner to have been present in the original German document unless otherwise noted.
Verzicht is drawn to a preservative comprising copper and maleic hydrazide, as of Verzicht, page 1, title and abstract, reproduced below with specific text pointed out by the examiner.
PNG
media_image6.png
230
844
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In applicant’s response on 10 October 2025 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s response), page 7, applicant makes the following arguments.
PNG
media_image7.png
204
586
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The examiner generally agrees with this argument. Were the skilled artisan to have modified Verzicht to have had a potassium salt of maleic acid hydrazide rather than a copper salt of maleic acid hydrazide, the result would have been a soluble product. This soluble product would have gone against what was desired by Verzicht. If a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. See MPEP 2143.01(V) and 2143.01(VI). In this case, Verzicht appears to desire an insoluble product to render it non-leachable, and modifying the product to have been soluble would have destroyed this advantage of Verzicht; as such, this modification would not have been obvious.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, and 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sedun et al. (US 2003/0181332 A1) in view of IPCS Inchem (https://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v84pr28.htm obtained by examiner on 8 July 2025, originally published 1984, pages 1-11).
Sedun et al. (hereafter referred to as Sedun) is drawn to an herbicide composition, as of Sedun, title and abstract. Sedun teaches compositions comprising maleic hydrazide, as of Sedium, at least paragraph 0040, wherein the abbreviation “MH” refers to maleic hydrazide. Elsewhere in the document, Sedun teaches copper sulfate in a concentration of about 100 ppm, as of Sedun, paragraph 0025.
As to claim 1, the claim requires a low toxicity composition. Sedun teaches a lack of phytotoxicity in paragraphs 0058 and 0060.
As to claim 1, the claim requires maleic acid hydrazide. Sedun teaches maleic hydrazide, which is abbreviated as “MH”; see e.g. paragraphs 0005 and 0040 of Sedun.
As to claim 1, the claim requires copper in an amount of less than 100 ppm. Sedun’s teaching of 100 ppm copper in paragraph 0025 is understood to meet this claimed requirement.
Purely en arguendo and for the purposes of this rejection, the examiner understands that Sedun is deficient because Sedun does not teach the required storage stability.
IPCS Inchem (hereafter referred to as Inchem) provides teachings related to the presence of hydrazine impurity in maleic hydrazide, as of Inchem, pages 1-2, relevant text reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image1.png
44
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
140
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Also see the following, from page 8.
PNG
media_image4.png
124
584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above-reproduced text would appear to indicate that the diethanolamine salt of maleic hydrazide is unstable to degradation to hydrazine; however, the potassium salt of maleic hydrazide is stable to degradation to hydrazine.
Inchem does not teach copper.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composition of Sedun as a potassium salt of maleic hydrazide, as taught by Inchem. Sedun is drawn to a composition comprising maleic hydrazide and copper. Inchem teaches that maleic hydrazide in the form of a potassium salt increases storage stability. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have formulated the maleic hydrazide of Sedun in the form of a potassium salt, as taught by Inchem, to have predictably resulted in a composition that resists degradation to hydrazine over 1 ppm with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 1, the claim requires hydrazine levels of less than or equal to 1 part per million. The skilled artisan would have expected this to have occurred had the composition of Sedun been modified to have been in the form of a potassium salt, as taught by Inchem.
As to claim 1, the claim requires that the composition is storage stable at 25°C for twelve months. The skilled artisan would have expected this to have occurred had the composition of Sedun been modified to have been in the form of a potassium salt, as taught by Inchem.
As to claim 3, Sedun teaches copper sulfate; as such, copper appears to have been incorporated as a copper salt.
As to claim 7, Sedun teaches a liquid concentrate or a dry concentrate as of paragraph 0028.
As to claim 24, Sedun teaches 100 ppm copper sulfate in paragraph 0025. This is understood to meet the claimed requirement because 100 ppm of copper is less than the recited maximum of 125 ppm of copper.
As to claims 25-26, Sedun teaches 100 ppm copper sulfate in paragraph 0025. This exceeds the amount required by instant claims 25-26. Nevertheless, generally, differences in concentration between the prior art and claimed invention will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, no evidence of the criticality of the copper concentration has been provided. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of a composition comprising maleic hydrazide and copper have been taught by the prior art. As such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of copper via routine experimentation.
As to claim 27, the iron and EDTA in the examples in the table in paragraph 0040 of Sedun are understood to be agrochemically acceptable excipients.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 107087454 A) in view of IPCS Inchem (https://www.inchem.org/documents/jmpr/jmpmono/v84pr28.htm obtained by examiner on 8 July 2025, originally published 1984, pages 1-11).
As an initial matter, Ge et al. (CN 107087454 A) was not written in English. The examiner has provided an English translation. The English translation was obtained through Google Patents at https://patents.google.com/patent/CN107087454A/en?oq=CN+107087454 on 7 January 2026 and is 6 printed pages.
Ge et al. (hereafter referred to as Ge) is drawn to a sprouting inhibitor of the rice spike, as of Ge, title and abstract. Ge teaches the following composition, as of page 2 of the translation.
PNG
media_image8.png
74
1122
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Ge is not anticipatory because the amount of copper in Ge appears to be higher than what is required by the instant claims. Also, Ge does not teach the storage stability or the amount of hydrazine.
IPCS Inchem (hereafter referred to as Inchem) provides teachings related to the presence of hydrazine impurity in maleic hydrazide, as of Inchem, pages 1-2, relevant text reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image1.png
44
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
224
578
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
140
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Also see the following, from page 8.
PNG
media_image4.png
124
584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The above-reproduced text would appear to indicate that the diethanolamine salt of maleic hydrazide is unstable to degradation to hydrazine; however, the potassium salt of maleic hydrazide is stable to degradation to hydrazine.
Inchem does not teach copper.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the maleic hydrazide in the composition of Ge as a potassium salt of maleic hydrazide, as taught by Inchem. Ge is drawn to a composition comprising maleic hydrazide and copper. Inchem teaches that maleic hydrazide in the form of a potassium salt increases storage stability. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have formulated the maleic hydrazide of Ge in the form of a potassium salt, as taught by Inchem, to have predictably resulted in a composition that resists degradation to hydrazine over 1 ppm with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 1, the claim requires a low-toxicity composition. The skilled artisan would have understood that the composition of Ge would have met this requirement because it is sufficiently non-toxic to be used for agricultural purposes.
As to claim 1, the claim requires a concentration of copper ions of less than 1000 ppm. Ge teaches the following composition, as of page 2 of the translation.
PNG
media_image8.png
74
1122
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This composition differs from the claimed invention for at least the following reasons. First, the minimum amount of copper taught by Ge in the above example appears to be the following:
2
p
a
r
t
s
c
o
p
p
e
r
6
+
2
+
18
+
9
+
3
+
60
+
9
+
8
+
2
+
3
+
364
p
a
r
t
s
t
o
t
a
l
=
2
p
a
r
t
s
c
o
p
p
e
r
484
p
a
r
t
s
t
o
t
a
l
This is between 0.41 and 0.42% copper sulfate, which is about 4100-4200 ppm copper sulfate. The amount of copper ion can therefore be calculated in the following manner:
0.42
%
c
o
p
p
e
r
s
u
l
f
a
t
e
1
×
63.546
g
m
o
l
c
o
p
p
e
r
(
a
t
o
m
i
c
w
e
i
g
h
t
)
159.6
g
m
o
l
c
o
p
p
e
r
s
u
l
f
a
t
e
This is between about 0.16% and 0.17% copper ion. This is equivalent to between about 1600-1700 ppm of copper ion at minimum. This amount is more than what is required. Nevertheless, generally, differences in concentration between the claimed invention and prior art will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). No evidence of criticality appears to have been provided so far in prosecution. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of an agricultural composition comprising maleic hydrazide and copper has been taught by the prior art. As such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum or workable ranges of copper via routine experimentation.
As to claim 1, the claim requires a particular storage stability and particular hydrazine levels. The skilled artisan would have expected that had the maleic hydrazide of Ge been modified in the manner taught by Inchem to have been a potassium salt, the resultant composition would have had the required storage stability and amount of hydrazine.
As to claim 1, the claim requires that the composition is a liquid configured as an agricultural treatment. This appears to have been taught by Ge in that Ge is drawn to preventing paddy rice spike sprouting, as of the title of Ge, which is an agricultural use.
As to claim 3, the copper sulfate of Ge is copper in the form of a metal salt.
As to claim 7, the composition of Ge is present in water and is therefore a liquid composition.
As to claim 24, the optimization rationale of claim 1 regarding the amount of copper would appear to also be applicable to claim 24.
As to claim 27, Ge teaches that the composition is present in water, which is an agrochemically acceptable excipient.
The examiner has not rejected claims 25 and 26 over this ground of rejection. This is because the amount of copper ions taught by Ge appears to exceed the claimed amount of copper ions by almost three orders of magnitude. This is because Ge teaches a minimum amount of copper ions of about 1600-1700 ppm, which is almost three orders of magnitude greater than the maximum of 2 ppm taught by claim 25, and more than three orders of magnitude greater than the 1 ppm taught by claim 26. In view of this large difference, it is the examiner’s position that it would not have been routine optimization for the skilled artisan to have reduced the amount of copper taught by Ge to have been 2 ppm or less.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has provided arguments regarding the previously applied prior art rejections, as of applicant’s response on 10 October 2025 2025 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s response). These arguments are addressed below.
As an initial matter, applicant provided arguments specific to the Verzicht reference. These arguments are moot in view of the withdrawal of the previously applied rejection over Verzicht. As such, arguments specific to Verzicht have not been addressed substantively by the examiner.
Regarding the Sedun reference, applicant argues that Sedun is not relevant to the instant application because Sedun does not address the technical problem solved by the claimed subject matter, as of applicant’s response, paragraph bridging pages 8-9. Applicant also argues the following, as of page 9, first full paragraph, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image9.png
78
590
media_image9.png
Greyscale
This is not persuasive. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV). As such, the fact that Sedun used copper for a different reason than the reason that applicant used copper is insufficient to overcome the applied rejection.
Applicant then makes the following argument as of page 9, second full paragraph.
PNG
media_image10.png
82
586
media_image10.png
Greyscale
This is not persuasive. To the extent that applicant is arguing that the claims require that hydrazine levels be maintained at or below 1 ppm for twelve months when stored at 25°C, the examiner disagrees that the claims actually require this. See the section above entitled “Claim Interpretation,” in which the issue of how the claims are interpreted has been discussed in greater detail.
Applicant then argues the following on page 9, end of second full paragraph, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image11.png
74
586
media_image11.png
Greyscale
The issue of comparative testing and secondary considerations was discussed in the prior office action mailed on 11 July 2025. Specifically, in that office action, the examiner took the position that applicant failed to compare the claimed invention to the closest subject matter to actually exist in the prior art, as required by MPEP 716.02(e). See page 15, top paragraph of the prior office action mailed on 11 July 2025. Applicant does not appear to have addressed this issue in applicant’s most recent response. As such, applicant’s arguments related to comparative testing are not persuasive.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISAAC SHOMER whose telephone number is (571)270-7671. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:00 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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at (571)272-6897. 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.
ISAAC . SHOMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1612
/ISAAC SHOMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612