DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ arguments, filed 9 April 2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 has been amended to include the following requirement.
PNG
media_image1.png
90
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner understands this limitation to require that
upon storage of the claimed composition for twelve months at 25°C, there is no occurrence of crystallization; and
upon storage of the composition for twelve months at any temperature, the free hydrazine level remains below 28 ppb.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) – New Matter
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 1, 7, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended in the following manner.
PNG
media_image1.png
90
734
media_image1.png
Greyscale
There does not appear to be adequate support for this newly added claim limitation. The examiner presents the following rationale in support of this position.
The examiner reviewed the instant specification as filed for a disclosure of the term “crystallization” and for “28 ppb” of free hydrazine. Upon such a search and consideration, the examiner cites the instant specification on page 8, bottom paragraph, which is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
158
746
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The above-reproduced paragraph discloses a lack of crystallization and free hydrazine in an amount below 28 ppb. However, the above-reproduced paragraph does not disclose that this lack of crystallization occurs after storage for twelve months at 25°C, or that the 28 ppb of free hydrazine occurs after a year of storage. As such, this is insufficient to adequately support the claimed invention.
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, 7, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ge et al. (CN 107087454 A).
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_image3.png
74
1122
media_image3.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 as measured by the lack of crystallization after a year of storage at 25°C or the required less than 28 ppb of free hydrazine after a year of storage.
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_image3.png
74
1122
media_image3.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 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 1, the claim requires a particular storage stability measured by lack of crystallization after 12 months at 25°C and less than 28 ppb free hydrazine after 12 months of storage. Ge is silent as to these features. Nevertheless, the USPTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same. See MPEP 2112(V). In this case, the examiner takes the position that there is sufficient evidence to shift the burden to applicant to show that the composition of Ge does not possess the required storage stability in accordance with MPEP 2112(V). This is because the composition of Ge, like the claimed invention, contains both maleic hydrazide and copper. As such, there is a sufficiently high likelihood that the copper of Ge, although present in higher quantities than copper in the claimed invention, would have been sufficient to have stabilized the maleic hydrazide in Ge to shift the burden to applicant in accordance with MPEP 2112(V).
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.
Withdrawn Rejection
Previously in the prosecution history, the examiner rejected the instant claims as obvious over the combination of 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). The examiner has made the decision to withdraw this rejection in view of the claim amendment. The examiner takes the following position regarding this decision.
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 all of the examples of Sedun.
The examiner notes that Sedun does teach copper sulfate, as well as copper ions generically, as of Sedun, paragraphs 0011, 0025, as well as claims 10, 14, 18, and 27 of Sedun. However, all of the examples of Sedun utilize iron ions rather than copper ions. As such, combining maleic hydrazide with copper ions would, at best, appear to be a result of optimization of the conditions of Sedun. The fact that a certain result or characteristic may occur or be present in the prior art is not sufficient to establish the inherency of that result or characteristic; specifically, inherency must be based upon what is necessarily present in the prior art rather than what would have resulted due to optimization of conditions. See MPEP 2112(IV). In this case, a combination of maleic hydrazide with copper ions would have resulted from optimization of the conditions of Sedun. As such, the examiner takes the position that there is insufficient evidence in Sedun for there to be a case that the required stability is inherent in Sedun.
Additionally, there would have been no evidence that the composition of Sedun could have been optimized to have achieved the claimed stability with a reasonable expectation of success. The examiner makes the following arguments in support of this position.
As an initial matter, in order to make a prima facie case of obviousness by routine optimization, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(B), first paragraph. In this case, it is the examiner’s position that there would have been no such reasonable expectation of success. This is at least because the instant specification and file record appears to provide substantial evidence that maleic hydrazide is unstable. See e.g. page 1 of the specification, which indicates that maleic hydrazide degrades over time and liberates free hydrazine during storage, as well as elsewhere in the specification and applicant’s arguments. As nothing in Sedun indicates that copper is useful to stabilize maleic hydrazide, there would have been no reasonable expectation that the composition of Sedun could have been successfully stabilized in the manner required by the instant claims by addition of copper ions in the claimed amount.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights