--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 .
Applicant’s response dated January 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2020/041510 filed on July 10, 2020, and claims
benefit in provisional application 62/873,026 filed on July 11, 2019.
Claim Status
Claims 1-11, 18-22, and 24-45 are pending. Claims 12-17 and 23 were cancelled. Claims
1, 22, 25, 35, and 43 were amended. Claims 1-11, 18-22, and 24-34 are examined. Claims
35-45 remain withdrawn.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
Modified as Necessitated by Amendment
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 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 CPR 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 1-11, 18-22 and 24-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Zhang (US 2014/0309114 Al Published October 16, 2014 - of record in IDS dated
01/10/2022) and Mollet (US 2018/0303092 Al Published October 25, 2018 - of record in IDS
dated 01/10/2022).
The claims encompass an aqueous herbicidal composition comprising: a first acidic
herbicide comprising a first acidic herbicide anion; a second acidic herbicide comprising a
second herbicide anion, wherein the first acidic herbicide and second acidic herbicide are not the
same herbicide, wherein the first acidic herbicide and/or second acidic herbicide comprise one or
more auxin herbicides; and a salt-forming cation of a diamine of Formula (I).
The teachings of Zhang are related to amine salts of herbicides that in free acid form
include at least one carboxylic acid moiety. Herbicide salts comprising the cation of various
imidazole, piperazine, piperidine, and morpholine compounds are provided. The herbicide amine
salts described are suitable for formulation into herbicidal application mixtures and/or stable
concentration compositions that exhibit acceptable volatility characteristics upon application
(Abstract). In some instances, selection of higher hydrocarbyl substituents that are relatively
more hydrophobic are believed to enhance the low volatility characteristics of the herbicide salt.
However, should an aqueous herbicidal solution be of the salt be desired, the substituents are
selected to ensure sufficient water solubility (paragraph 0023). Specific amines that provide a
cation to the salt are described in paragraph 0037. Accordingly, in various embodiments, the
molar ratio of the base compound to carboxylic acid herbicide is typically at least about 0.4:1. In
these and other embodiments, the molar ratio of the base compound to carboxylic acid herbicide
may range from about 0.4:1 to about 2:1 (paragraph 0039). In certain instances, water-soluble
herbicide salts are desirable so that aqueous herbicidal solutions or formulations can be prepared
(paragraph 0041). The herbicide salts may be used in preparation of herbicide formulations
further comprising one or more additional co-herbicides. Co-herbicides include other carboxylic
acid herbicides and salts thereof. Co-herbicides include glyphosate and glucosinate, among
others, and mixtures thereof (paragraph 0043). In various embodiments, the herbicide salts of
dicamba and/or 2,4-D are used in the preparation of an herbicidal formulation containing
glyphosate or glufosinate or salts thereof as a co-herbicide (Paragraph 0045). In co-herbicide
formulations, the weight ratio on an acid equivalent basis of the carboxylic acid herbicide amine
salt to the total co-herbicide is typically no greater than about 50:1 or from about 50:1 to about
10:1 on an acid equivalent basis (paragraph 0046).
Zhang does not teach a diamine of formula I as claimed.
The teachings of Mollet are related to amine salts of carboxylic acid herbicides (Title).
The amine is selected from dimethylaminopropylamine and 1,2-diaminopropane (Abstract).
Herbicides include dicamba and 2,4-D (paragraph 0018). In certain instances, water-soluble
herbicide salts are desirable so that aqueous herbicidal solution can be prepared (paragraph
0033). Neutralizing acid herbicides such as 2,4-D, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate, with
amines can result in the formation of highly water soluble salts (paragraph 0060).
The teachings of Zhang and Mollet are related to diamine salts of carboxylic acid
herbicides and aqueous formulations comprising said herbicide salts and it would have been
obvious to have combined them because they are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed an aqueous
herbicidal composition comprising a diamine salt of dicamba and a diamine salt of glyphosate,
with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches an aqueous herbicide
composition comprising a diamine salt of dicamba and a salt of glyphosate. It would have been
obvious to have formed the glyphosate salt with a diamine because glyphosate comprises a
carboxylic acid group, and Zhang teaches that diamines are suitable for forming a salt with an
herbicide that comprises a carboxylic acid group. It would have been obvious to have selected
dimethylaminopropylamine as a diamine, with a reasonable expectation of success because it
was known from Mollet that dimethylaminopropylamine is useful for making amine salts of
carboxylic acid herbicides, and replacing Zhang's diamine with Mollet's diamine would have
been obvious because both diamines were known to be useful for the same purpose. The
resultant formulation comprises a salt of dicamba and dimethylaminopropylamine (relevant to a
first acidic herbicide comprising a first acidic herbicide anion and a diamine cation); and a salt of
glyphosate and dimethylaminopropylamine (relevant to a second acidic herbicide comprising a
second acidic herbicide anion and a diamine cation). Dicamba is an auxin herbicide.
Dimethylaminopropylamine is 3-(dimethylamino)-1-propylamine.
It would have been obvious to have formulated the composition to comprise total herbicide in a concentration from about 50 to 750 g a.e./L, with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches said range (paragraph 0046). The claimed range is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to have formulated the composition to
comprise the molar ratio of the base compound (diamine) to carboxylic acid herbicide to be from
about 0.4:1 to about 2:1, with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches this
ratio as suitable (paragraph 0039). The claimed limitation is met because acidic herbicide
exceeds the number of moles of the diamine in Zhang' s composition.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, a molar ratio of the total acidic herbicide to diamine in Zhang
is from about 1:0.4 to 1:2. The claimed molar ratio ranges are obvious because they overlap with
Zhang' s range of molar ratios.
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Zhang's modified aqueous composition comprises salts made
from dimethylaminopropylamine cation and glyphosate anion and dicamba anion. The pH of the
aqueous composition would have been controlled by the amounts and molar ratios of these
components the composition and total amount of these components in the aqueous composition.
Considering that Zhang' s salts have a molar ratio of the acid and the base that overlaps with
claimed molar ratios of the acid and the base, it would have been reasonable to expect that
Zhang' s compositions have a pH range that overlaps with the claimed pH ranges. The
application was reviewed and there is no evidence that claimed pH ranges are critical.
Regarding claims 7-10, Zhang's modified composition above is free of other salt forming
cations, excluding those of the diamine of Formula I. Claim 7 recites an embodiment of a
composition that is free of other salt forming cations, excluding those of Formula I. In claim 8,
the range of at least about 25:1 and in claim 9 the range of no more than 5 wt. % both encompass embodiments of composition comprising 0 wt.% of other salt-forming cations.
In the interest of compact prosecution, claims 7-10 are alternatively rejected over
embodiments that comprise other salt forming cations. It would have been obvious to have
formed the aqueous composition with a combination of diamine salts of dicamba and 2,4-D with
a potassium salt of glyphosate as the co-herbicide, with a reasonable expectation of success
because Zhang teaches a composition comprising diamine salts of dicamba and/or 2,4-D with a
salt of glyphosate as co-herbicide (paragraph 0045), which encompasses embodiments of
compositions that contain all three herbicides; and Zhang teaches an embodiment of the sodium
salt of glyphosate as the co-herbicide (paragraph 0064). In this embodiment the diamine salt of
dicamba meets the limitation of a first acidic herbicide; the diamine salt of 2,4-D meets the
limitation of a second acidic herbicide; and the sodium salt of glyphosate meets the limitation of
other salt forming cations, excluding those of diamine of Formula I. It would have been obvious
to have formulated the composition to comprise the combination of diamine salts of dicamba and
2,4-D relative to the total co-herbicide (potassium salt of glyphosate) in a weight ratio of no
greater than 50:1. For calculation purpose, a composition having a weight ratio of 50:1, a weight
ratio of dicamba salt to 2,4-D salt of 1: 1, a molar ratio of diamine to carboxy lie acid of 1:1 and a molar ratio of potassium to glyphosate of 1: 1 is used. The composition would comprise 25g of
diamine salt of dicamba, 25g of diamine salt of 2,4-D, and lg of potassium salt of glyphosate.
The diamine salt used for calculation is dimethylaminopropylamine. The diamine salt of 2,4-D
has a molecular weight of 323 g/mole, the diamine salt of dicamba is 323 g/mole, and potassium
glyphosate has a molecular weight of 207 g/mole. A 50 g mixture of dicamba salt and 2,4-D salt
is equivalent to 0.15 moles and lg of sodium glyphosate is equivalent to 0.005 moles. Thus, the
molar ratio of dimethylaminopropylamine to potassium is 0.15:0.005 or 30:1. Considering that
the calculation was done on the upper end of the weight ratio range, the calculated molar ratio of
30: 1 would represent the upper limit of the range of molar ratios. The range of molar ratios in the prior art would be up to 30: 1, which renders the claimed range of at least about 25: 1 obvious.
Alternatively, if diamine salt of dicamba and sodium salt of glyphosate are considered coherbicides to the diamine salt of 2,4-D, then the molar ratios work out to be the same as
calculated above. The composition would contain 50g of a diamine salt of 2,4-D, and 1 g of the
combination of a diamine salt of dicamba and sodium glyphosate, which would contain the
diamine to potassium in a molar ratio of 0.15 to 0.005.
It would have been obvious to have formulated the composition to comprise the herbicide
salts of dicamba and 2,4-D and the co-herbicide salt (potassium glyphosate) in a concentration of
about 0.1 g a.e./L to about 50 g a.e./L, with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang
teaches said concentration range as suitable (paragraph 0046). Said composition comprising the
combination of diamine salts of dicamba and 2,4-D to potassium glyphosate in weight ratio of no
more than 50: 1, would have comprised a range of wt. % concentrations of potassium that
overlaps with the claimed range of no more than 5 wt.%.
Regarding claim 11, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition
comprising dicamba and glyphosate in a weight ratio of from about 50:1 to 1:10, with a
reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches said ratio as suitable (paragraph 0046).
The claimed range of weight ratios is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range.
Regarding claims 18 and 24, it would have been obvious to have formulated Zhang's
composition with 2,4-D instead of dicamba with a reasonable expectation of success because
Zhang teaches forming the composition with dicamba and/or 2,4-D. The resulting composition
would have comprised 2,4-D and glyphosate.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang teaches dicamba.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Zhang teaches using glyphosate and/or glufosinate as a coherbicide. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used one or a combination of said coherbicides.
Regarding claim 22, it would have been obvious to have formulated Zhang's
composition with 2,4-D instead of dicamba with a reasonable expectation of success because
Zhang teaches forming the composition with dicamba and/or 2,4-D. The resulting composition
would have comprised 2,4-D and glyphosate. The molar ratio range of the total acidic herbicide to diamine in Zhang is from about 1:0.4 to 1:2. The claimed molar ratio ranges are obvious because they overlap with Zhang' s range of molar ratios.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, it would have been obvious to have formulated the
composition to comprise total herbicide in a concentration from about 50 to 750 g a.e./L, with a
reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches said range (paragraph 0046). The
claimed ranges are obvious because they overlap with the prior art range.
Regarding claims 27-30, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition to
comprise total herbicide in a concentration of at least 51 grams acid equivalent per liter, with a
reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches said concentration range as suitable
(page 14 claim 48). Zhang teaches that dicamba and glyphosate are present in a range of weight
ratios from 50:1 to 1:10. It would have been obvious to have varied the amounts of the two
herbicides within said parameters. The claimed concentration ranges are obvious because they
overlap with the prior art concentration ranges.
Regarding claim 31, it would have been obvious to have formulated the composition with
a surfactant, with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches adding a surfactant
to the composition (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, it would have been obvious to have selected an alkoxylated
quaternary amine as the surfactant with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang
teaches alkoxylated quaternary amine as a suitable surfactant (paragraph 0047).
Regarding claim 34, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition with a
combination of diamine salts of dicamba and 2,4-D with a diamine salt of glyphosate as the coherbicide, with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches that the composition comprises salts of dicamba and/or 2,4-D which encompasses embodiments with one or both herbicides. In this embodiment, the diamine salt of dicamba meets the limitation of the first acidic herbicide; the diamine salt of glyphosate meets the limitation of a second acidic herbicide; and the diamine salt of 2,4-D meets the limitation of a monocarboxylic acid salt having the formula RLC(O)OM where Rl is a substituted aryl and Mis a diamine cation, which is an agriculturally acceptable cation.
The claimed invention is obvious over Zhang and Mollet because combining prior art
elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results supports obviousness and the
selection of a known material suitable for its intended purpose supports obviousness.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted in the remarks dated January 20, 2026, were fully
considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
In response to applicant's argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by
combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where
there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references
themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See Jn re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d
1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d
1385 (2007). Applicant's argument that the skilled artisan would not have made the selection of
claimed elements is not persuasive because Zhang teaches an aqueous herbicide composition comprising diamine and a herbicide dicamaba and/or 2,4-D and a co-herbicide such as glyphosate and/or glufosinate. Mixtures of two or more different herbicides in combination with diamine were known from Zhang. Mollet teaches 3-(dimethylamino)-1-propylamine as a suitable diamine counter cation to negatively charged carboxylic acid herbicides. The skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed invention by following the teachings of Zhang and Mollet. The specification was reviewed and there is no evidence of unexpected results.
On page 10, the applicant argued that present invention provides various advantages and it was discovered that formulating acidic auxin herbicides in this manner provides compositions that exhibit reduced auxin volatility. Formulating highly loaded herbicidal concentrates that exhibit sufficient stability can be challenging. Present invention provides herbicidal efficacy and stability, and provides for reduced vaporization and migration of the auxin herbicide from the application site to adjacent crop plants where contact damage to sensitive plants can occur.
These arguments are not persuasive because the arguments describe composition
properties and advantages, and these properties and advantages would have been present in the
prior art composition, absent evidence to the contrary. The prior art composition meets all of the
structural limitations of the claimed composition and it would have been reasonable to expect the
prior art composition to have the same properties and benefits as the claimed composition when
tested under identical conditions. Additionally, Zhang teaches that the herbicide amine salts are
suitable for formulation into herbicidal application mixtures and/or stable concentration
compositions that exhibit acceptable volatility characteristics upon application (Abstract).
Arguments related to limitations about concentration of active agent are not persuasive because Zhang teaches a concentration range that overlaps with the claimed range, rendering the claimed range obvious. The specification was reviewed and there is no evidence that the claimed range is critical. Zhang teaches that compositions may comprise mixtures of herbicides, therefore it would have been obvious to applying herbicide concentration range teachings to the total amount of both herbicides of the herbicide mixture. The current rejection is an obviousness rejection and Zhang is not required to exemplify the claimed composition to render the claimed composition obvious. Zhang’s teachings are sufficient for a proper obviousness rejection.
Applicant's argument on page 11 that Mollet does not include any teachings relevant to
compositions containing multiple acidic herbicides is not persuasive because using multiple
different herbicides in combination with a diamine was known from Zhang. The teachings of
Mollet are relied upon for the specific diamine known to be useful for making amine salts of
carboxylic acid herbicides. Mollet teaches neutralizing acid herbicides such as 2,4-D, dicamba,
glyphosate, and glufosinate, with amines to form highly water soluble salts (paragraph 0060).
Applicant's argument on page 12 that there is no reason to further modify Zhang because
there is no indication that Zhang' s teachings were unsuccessful, is not persuasive because that is
not the standard for an obviousness rejection. Mollet was identified as teaching alternative
diamine compounds that are useful for making amine salts with carboxylic acid herbicides, and
that teaching is sufficient for an obviousness rejection and to arrive at the claimed invention.
The rejection addressed each limitation and how the skilled artisan would have arrived at the claimed invention by combining prior art elements.
Arguments against rejections of dependent claims are not persuasive for the same reasons
as provided above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Alma - Pipic whose telephone number is (571)270-7459. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm. 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, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. 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.
/ALMA PIPIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617