DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
Applicants' arguments/remarks filed 04/20/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 19-21 are newly canceled. Claims 18 and 22-23 are examined on the merits within and are currently pending.
Withdrawn Rejections
With applicants' amendment, filed 08/05/2025 and with respect to the applicant’s arguments and remarks:
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 19-21 has been withdrawn in view of the cancellation of the claims;
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 18-19 and 21-23 over Clapperton and Bagwell et al. has been withdrawn in view of the amendment of the claims;
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 18-19 and 20 over Clapperton, Bagwell et al. and Fritz et al. has been withdrawn in view of the amendment of the claims.
Modified Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 18 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Clapperton (WO 2020127931 A1) in view of Bagwell et al. (WO 2019/020283 A1) and further in view of Baur et al., (US 20200367504A1).
Claim 18,
Clapperton teaches a liquid agrochemical composition comprising (a) one or more electrolyte agrochemicals dissolved in the water, (b) an ethoxylated fatty alcohol phosphate ester surfactant; (c) a co-surfactant (Abs), and water-soluble inorganic fertilizers that form electrolyte solutions in water (pg. 9, 1st, 2nd and 3rd pars.).
a) The most preferred water-soluble electrolyte herbicides are glufosinate-ammonium ((RS)-2-Amino-4-(hydroxy(methyl)phosphonoyl)-butanoic acid), 2,4-D ((2,4-Dichlorophenoxy) acetic acid). The glufosinate type of herbicides are phosphinyl amino acids such as glufosinate [2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl) butanoic acid], particularly useful as the ammonium salt. (pg. 8, 2nd par.). One or more electrolyte agrochemicals are dissolved in the water that is contained in the liquid agrochemical composition. The total amount of electrolyte agrochemicals dissolved in the water is 20 wt.% or more based on the total weight of water in the liquid agrochemical composition. (pg. 6, 3rd par.).
(b) The ethoxylated fatty alcohol phosphate ester, (which is a non-hydrotrope phosphorus derivative), has a structure according to Formulae IIIa and/or IIIb:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where M1 and M2 are a cation, preferably independently selected from H+, Na+, K+, or NH4+, n is an integer from 1 to 20 or 2 to 12 and R is C6-C22 or C8-C18 straight- or branched-chain alkyl or alkenyl group, (pg. 14-16, a-3). Formula Illa and Formula Illb in the composition is preferably 10.0 wt.% or less based on the weight of the liquid agrochemical composition. (pg. 15, 2nd last par.).
(c) A surfactant system comprising: (a) an alkylpolyglucoside surfactant and/or an alkyl glucamide ester surfactant (pdf pg. 12, a-1 and pg. 13, a-2). The total amount of alkyl polyglucoside surfactant is preferably present in the composition in an amount of 10.0 wt.% or less based on the weight of the liquid agrochemical composition. (pg. 12, last par.).
(d) And among water-soluble fertilizers that form electrolyte solutions in water are the common water-soluble inorganic fertilizers that provide nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium. Examples of such fertilizers include: for nitrogen as the nutrient: nitrates and or ammonium salts such as amomum nitrate, calcium ammonium nitrate; for potassium as the nutrient: potassium chloride. (pdf pg. 9, 1st- 3rd pars.). Other water-soluble nutrient containing compounds (commonly identified as "micronutrients") may also be included in the compositions e.g. to provide minor or trace nutrients to the formulation. Similarly, water soluble buffering and chelating agents such as ammonium and alkali metal citrates, gluconates, lactates, and polyacrylates may be included as part or all of the electrolyte component of the formulation. It would be obvious their amount can be less than 10% or less than 5%.
Clapperton does not teach that the composition of claim 18 comprising an L-glufosinate ammonium.
Bagwell et al. teach the composition comprising a herbicidally effective amount of L-glufosinate and/or agronomically acceptable salts thereof; one or more surfactants (pdf pg. 16, last par.), including L-glufosinate-ammonium, (pg. 17, line 2).
Clapperton and Bagwell et al. do not teach the composition, wherein the spray solution of the agrochemical liquid composition has a dynamic surface tension of less than 60 mN/m at a surface age of 20-50 milliseconds on a plant surface.
Baur et al. teach compositions comprising a) water soluble herbicide, b) one or more n-alkylglucamides, and/or c ) one or more alkyl ether sulfates and water, (Abs), and especially
for glufosinate-containing compositions, and in the form of liquid, or solid concentrated formulations that facilitate user handling or ensure a higher efficacy of the active ingredient.
The formulations are typically diluted with water prior to use and then deployed by spray application. (0002). Dynamic surface tension was determined via the bubble pressure method (BP2100 tensiometer, Kruss). The value for dynamic surface tension in mN/m correlates with the adhesion on plants that are difficult to wet, such as barley (cereal). The composition has dynamic surface tension of sample C3, C4, C8, C15, C18, C21 and C24 less than 60 mN/m in 50 ms. (Table 7, pg. 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the liquid agrochemical composition, comprising a surfactant system, with glufosinate salt, a non hydrotrope phosphorus derivative, polyethylene glycol monotridecyl ether phosphate; an alkyl polyglycoside, and an electrolyte potassium chloride with ingredients’ percentages taught by Clapperton, wherein the glufosinate is the effective L-glufosinate ammonium taught by Bagwell et al., and some compositions having dynamic surface tension correlates with the adhesion on plants that are difficult to wet, less than 60 mN/m in 50 ms, taught by Baur et al. since they have proven these ingredients with their percentages form stable glufosinate formulation with good dynamic surface tension.
With regard to claim 22,
Clapperton teaches one or more agrochemicals suspended in the water (Abs). Combinations of water-soluble electrolyte agrochemicals with other water-soluble electrolyte agrochemicals can be used in the invention and it is preferable to combine herbicide with herbicide, fungicide with fungicide, plant growth regulator with plant growth regulator, etc.). Suitable herbicide combinations include glyphosate-potassium; glyphosate-sodium; glyphosate -diammonium or other glyphosate salt forms. (pg. 10, 1st par.).
With regard to claim 23,
Clapperton teaches for agrochemicals that are insoluble or not fully soluble in water, it is typical to prepare liquid compositions by dissolving the agrochemical in an organic water-immiscible solvent, such as an aromatic hydrocarbon or a more polar ester solvent. (pg. 1, 2nd last par.). Aqueous liquid compositions of agrochemicals can be prepared. In the case of water-soluble agrochemicals, the agrochemical can be dissolved in the aqueous phase. If the agrochemical is not soluble in water, it can be suspended as solid particles or as liquid droplets ( e.g. oil-in water emulsion). To suspend particles or droplets it is necessary to incorporate a water-soluble polymer ( e.g. xanthan gum). Structured surfactants (i.e. surfactant phases which impart anti-settling characteristics to the aqueous phase) can be used (pg. 1, last par.) to suspend particles and droplets. Where it is desirable to include more than one agrochemical in a liquid composition, one or more agrochemicals can be dissolved in the aqueous phase and one or more agrochemicals can be suspended in the aqueous phase. (pg. 2, 1st par.).
Bagwell et al. teach L-glufosinate-ammonium, (pg. 17, line 2), polar organic solvents, preferably polar organic solvents of substantial or unlimited miscibility with water which are suitable for preparing a single-phase aqueous solution. These preferably are selected from the group consisting of propylene glycol monomethyl ether, propylene glycol, di-propylene glycol, glycerol, iso-propanol, and tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol. (pg. 22, lines 21-25).
Response to Arguments
35 USC§ 102 Rejections
Applicant argues that Office has not identified a sufficient reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have selected potassium chloride from Clapperton's broad, generic fertilizer composition of L-glufosinate ammonium. Clapperton merely discloses an extensive, non-specific "laundry list" of fertilizers/micronutrients (see, e.g., page 9, paragraph 1), without any teaching as to selecting potassium chloride from among the numerous listed materials, or as to using any such material to achieve the results required by the presently claimed invention. Clapperton neither teaches nor suggests the combined role of L-glufosinate ammonium, a non-hydrotrope phosphorus derivative, a surfactant and potassium chloride in achieving the required dynamic surface tension (DST) of the spray formulation on a leaf surface. Clapperton does not study DST by using composition comprising potassium chloride, and potassium chloride is not
exemplified in any of Clapperton's examples. The generalized disclosure of "micronutrients" as fertilizers for plant nutrition is internally inconsistent with, and unrelated to, the herbicidal purpose of Clapperton's compositions. Clapperton neither suggests nor anticipates the use of an electrolyte such as potassium chloride in the claimed formulation, which is amended that the electrolyte (potassium chloride) is present in a small amount, i.e., 0.2% to 2% by weight, in combination of L-glufosinate ammonium, with other excipients and potassium chloride provides the capability of pinning droplets of the formulation to the plant surface such that the droplets do
not bounce and/or roll off the plant surface.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive because a prior art reference does not lose its relevance simply because it discusses multiple options, provided it still offers specific guidance or a roadmap to the claimed invention. A broad, generic list can still teach all elements of a claim, especially if a person of ordinary skill in the art would find the selection obvious. Applicant does not point out that other ingredients in the list do not provide the results beside that the claimed invention select potassium chloride, which is a specifically optimized subset that provides unexpected results over other members of the list, which shows that a broad list can still provide a suggestion to combine. One with skill in the art, is known for solving the same problem, is represented with design choices, may modify the teachings of the prior arts until they can achieve better outcome results. Also, the basis for 103 rejection is that no one reference has to teach all the claim limitations for an obviousness rejection and therefore several references are combined to render the claims obvious. One with ordinary skill in the art can learn from and select specific parts of several prior arts’ teachings before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve better outcome results even though some prior arts may teach more and may teach different things. Clapperton teaches glufosinate ammonium and all excipients in the composition recited by the applicant. Only Clapperton does not teach dynamic surface tension, but one with skill in the art can learn from Baur, who teaches compositions of glufosinate comprising one or more n-alkylglucamides and others, in the form of liquid, for spray application. Baur provides different options of excipients to have low dynamic surface tension less than 60 mN/m in 50 ms. Baur’s teachings show that glufosinate composition can have low surface tension with n-alkylglucamides and with other excipients, with or without potassium chlorides.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Correspondence
No claim is allowed
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGOC-ANH THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/NGOC-ANH THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights