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 .
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 02/102505 A2 in view of FARMER et al (US 2021/0292255 (newly cited). WO 02/102505 A2 is relied upon as discussed in the last Office Action. WO 02/102505 A2 suggests on page 3, first full paragraph that the composition may be applied as a spray. The differences between the method disclosed in WO 02/102505 A2, and that recited in claim 28, are that WO 02/102505 A2 does not disclose that the spent germ material is milled into an isolate having a particle size between about 20 and 200 microns6 that the dried wheat carbohydrate adjuvant comprises between five and twenty percent (5%-20%), and that the composition includes glyphosate. It would be obvious to provide the dries wheat carbohydrate adjuvant in an amount between 5 and 20% of the spray in the composition of WO 02/102505 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since WO 02/102505 A2 teaches in the paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11 that the control agent or other material sorbed within the sorbent may be present in an amount of at least 5% by weight of the total composition, implying that the sorbent may be present in an amount less that 95% by weight of the composition. It would be further obvious to provide the dries wheat carbohydrate with a particle size of less than 200 microns. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since WO 02/102505 A2 teaches in the paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 is ground. Applicant’s argument, that applicant has found that a particle size of less than 200 microns is necessary when using farming equipment to prevent clogging that may not be important in other applications, is not convincing, since applicant’s claims do not require that the composition be sprayed. There is no evidence on record of unexpected results which would emanate from a composition which includes the dried wheat carbohydrate adjuvant in an amount between 5% and 20% of the spray and with a particle size of less than 200 microns. It would be further obvious from FARMER et al to include glyphosate acid in the composition of WO 02/102505 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since WO 02/102505 A2 suggests on page 9 that the composition may include a herbicide, and FARMER et al disclose glyphosate as a herbicide in Paragraph [0205].
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 02/102505 A2 in view of Thompson (US 2025/0289770) (newly cited). WO 02/102505 A2 is relied upon as discussed in the last Office Action. WO 02/102505 A2 suggests on page 3, first full paragraph that the composition may be applied as a spray. The differences between the method disclosed in WO 02/102505 A2, and that recited in claim 29, are that WO 02/102505 A2 does not disclose that the spent germ material is milled into an isolate having a particle size between about 20 and 200 microns6 that the dried wheat carbohydrate adjuvant comprises between five and twenty percent (5%-20%), and that the composition includes dicamba salt acid. It would be obvious to provide the dries wheat carbohydrate adjuvant in an amount between 5 and 20% of the spray in the composition of WO 02/102505 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since WO 02/102505 A2 teaches in the paragraph bridging pages 10 and 11 that the control agent or other material sorbed within the sorbent may be present in an amount of at least 5% by weight of the total composition, implying that the sorbent may be present in an amount less that 95% by weight of the composition. It would be further obvious to provide the dries wheat carbohydrate with a particle size of less than 200 microns. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since WO 02/102505 A2 teaches in the paragraph bridging pages 7 and 8 is ground. Applicant’s argument, that applicant has found that a particle size of less than 200 microns is necessary when using farming equipment to prevent clogging that may not be important in other applications, is not convincing, since applicant’s claims do not require that the composition be sprayed. There is no evidence on record of unexpected results which would emanate from a composition which includes the dried wheat carbohydrate adjuvant in an amount between 5% and 20% of the spray and with a particle size of less than 200 microns. It would be further obvious from Thompson to include dicamba salt acid in the composition of WO 02/102505 A2. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so, since WO 02/102505 A2 suggests on page 9 that the composition may include a herbicide, and Thompson discloses dicamba as a herbicide in Paragraph [0591].
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 WAYNE A LANGEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-1353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:15 am to 4:15 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/WAYNE A LANGEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736