DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments
Status of Claims
The amendment, filed on 3 November 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 2, 6, and 11 have been amended.
Claim 7 was previously withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species and claim 20 was previously withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention in the Office Action mailed on 1 July 2025.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are pending and under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the following previously elected species:
the agriculturally active compound is the herbicide saflufenacil;
the fertilizer is ammonium polyphosphate;
the cationic polymer is polyquaternium-32;
the compound of general formula (I) is PPG-1 trideceth-6;
the additive in the compatibilizer blend is mineral oil;
the solvent in the compatibilizer blend is N,N-dimethyl lactamide; and
the nutrient is zinc.
Objections Withdrawn
Objections to Claims
Applicant’s amendments to claims 2, 6, and 11, submitted on 3 November 2025, have overcome the objection to the claims set forth in the Office Action mailed on 1 July 2025. Accordingly, the relevant objections are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 October 2025, was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Maintained 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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0141249 A1, published on 21 May 2015, provided by Applicant in IDS) in view of Mertoglu et al (WIPO International Publication No. WO 2011/121477 A1, published on 6 October 2011, provided by Applicant in IDS, hereafter referred to as Mertoglu), Sahoo et al. (Int. J. Chem. Studies 2017, 5 (1), 339., hereafter referred to as Sahoo), Zuazo et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0165638 A1, published on 27 July 2006, hereafter referred to as Zuazo), and Chen et al. (Agric. Sci. Tech. 2015, 16 (8), 1716., hereafter referred to as Chen).
Anderson teaches an agricultural formulation comprising a polymer-associated herbicide, wherein the polymer is a polyelectrolyte, and a dispersant or wetting agent, in addition to other agriculturally relevant formulating agents (Abstract). Aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides (AOPPs), cyclohexanedione herbicides (CHDs), and triazoline inhibitors of protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) are taught to be commonly used in the agricultural field to control undesirable plants (para. [0001-0002]). However, their use presents several challenges because of their physical properties, including being “highly non-polar, substantially water insoluble, and susceptible to hydrolysis under alkaline or acidic conditions” (para. [0025]). Anderson teaches formulation techniques that attempt to address these challenges, stating that an ideal formulation would remedy the above issues and “have adequate loading of the active ingredient, be non-odorous, non-caking, non-foaming, stable under extreme conditions for extended periods of time, disperse rapidly upon addition to a spray tank, be compatible with a range of secondary additives and other agricultural products (fertilizer, fungicide, pesticides, herbicide safeners, other herbicides, and other formulations) [when] added to a spray tank, pourable or flowable,…and have sufficient/superior rainfast properties after application” (para. 0026).
To address the issues of low water solubility, or water insolubility, Anderson teaches the techniques of preparing suspension concentrates, which involves milling solid particles to 1-10 microns in size and dispersing in water at high concentration alongside surfactants, and preparing emulsion concentrates, which is the more common technique and involves utilizing organic solvents to solubilize active ingredients before adding to water along with surfactants (para. [0031-0033]). These techniques are taught to work for AOPPs, CHDs, and PPO inhibitors (para. [0035]). Another method of providing solution stability is the inclusion of thickeners, which Anderson teaches “can help provide stability to a liquid formulation or modify the rheology”, and are included in an amount of 0.05-5.0% of the formulation (para. [0114]). To avoid hydrolysis due to alkaline or acidic conditions, Anderson teaches that formulations with neutral pH, that is close to pH 7, are more stable (para. [0040-0043]). Finally, Anderson teaches that it is desirable to develop formulations that are stable under high-salt conditions because end users find beneficial formulations that comprise additional fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides (para. [0055]).
The polymer of Anderson’s formulation is a polyelectrolyte in some embodiments, which is a polymer that contains monomer units of ionized or ionizable functional groups, units which may be linear, branched, hyperbranched, or dendrimeric, may be synthetic or natural, and are homopolymers, copolymers, or graft copolymers (para. [0093-0096]). Examples of monomer units used in the invention of Anderson include acrylic acid, methacrylic acid, PEO, dimethylammonium chloride, and styrenes (para. [0096]). The above polymers are taught to comprise 1-30% of the total formulation (para. [0109] and claim 36).
The solvent used in the invention is taught in one embodiment to be hydrocarbons, be they alkenes, alkanes, or alkynes (para. [0104] and claim 84). The solvent is taught to be present in an amount less than 10% of the formulation (claim 83), in addition to water being present in an amount up to 50% of the formulation (claim 70). The formulation is also taught in some embodiments to comprise a dispersant or wetting agent, which aids dispersion of components in water by altering the interfacial tension (para. [0107]), and may be present in an amount less than 30% of the formulation (claims 36 and 38). One example of such a component is a PEO-PPO block copolymer (para. [0108]).
Anderson further teaches that the final formulations used by farmers have high ionic strength, i.e., high concentrations of salts (para. [0203]). One source of high ionic strength is desirable mineral additives such as micronutrients, which includes zinc (para. [0204]). The formulation is also taught to optionally comprise traditional N-P-K fertilizers, providing the example of ammonium phosphate (para. [0204] and Example 24).
Anderson does not teach the specific herbicide saflufenacil, the specific fertilizer ammonium polyphosphate, the specific cationic polymer polyquaternium-32, the compound of general formula (I) PPG-1 trideceth-6, nor the inclusion of mineral oil. These deficiencies are offset by the teachings of Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen.
Mertoglu teaches a graft copolymer that increases the activity of a pesticide, compositions comprising the polymer and pesticide, and methods of manufacture and use of said compositions (Abstract). Efficient uptake of active ingredients into plants is taught to be particularly important for agricultural formulations and a general method of improving activity is taught to be addition of adjuvants to formulations (pg. 1, lines 24-41). Known adjuvants have associated difficulties with their use, including decreasing formulation stability, often by increasing viscosity or particle size, inducing high phytotoxicity, introducing high costs, and harming the skin of farmers using the products containing adjuvants (pg. 2, lines 19-25). The adjuvant polymer taught by Mertoglu is in one embodiment a polyether that is a block copolymer of the AB type and comprises PEO and PPO (pg. 4, lines 26-29). The copolymer is taught to be terminated by hydroxy groups or alkylated on one or both ends with a C1 to C18 alkyl group, for example tridecyl (pg. 4, lines 31-35).
Mertoglu teaches a variety of active ingredients that are used in conjunction with copolymers in their formulations, including the fungicides strobilurins, carboxamides, azoles, and carbamates, growth regulators, herbicides, and insecticides (pg. 9, line 33 - pg. 15, line 21). Among the herbicides taught by Mertoglu is saflufenacil (pg. 14, line 12). The pesticide is taught to be present in a range of 0.5-90% by weight of the formulation (pg. 19, lines 21-24). A preferable form of the pesticide formulation is taught to be an “aqueous agrochemical composition” and may have additional solvents, including “organic solvents such as mineral oil fractions of medium to high boiling point, such as kerosene or diesel oil” (pg. 17, line 37 - pg. 18, line 10).
Guidelines on the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions are provided in MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to claimed ranges which “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). These guidelines apply to the range of agriculturally active compound in the agricultural formula recited in instant claim 13, which falls within the range of pesticide taught by Mertoglu.
Sahoo teaches the results of field experiments with six different herbicides applied to maize crops (Abstract). Management of weeds is taught to be an important factor to increasing yields of maize crops, particularly during the early stages of growth when weeds “cannot be controlled by traditional and cultural practices alone”, because weed infestations deplete soil of applied nutrients needed by crops (pg. 339, 1. Introduction, para. 1-2). To determine a suitable herbicide for weed management, six herbicides were tested for their Weed Control Efficiency (WCE) and the yield and economics of the crop as influenced by the applied herbicide (pg. 339, 1. Introduction, para. 3). The applied herbicides were glyphosate, paraquat, glufosinate ammonium, saflufenacil, halosulfuron, and imazethapyr (pg. 339, 2. Materials and methods). Saflufenacil, trade name Kixor, is taught to be a protoporphyrin oxidase (PPO) inhibitor (pg. 340, sections 2.1-2.3). After treatment and harvesting, a mixture of atrazine and saflufenacil was found to be the best method of weed control because it “recorded higher grain yield, net returns, benefit to cost (B:C) ratio as well as WCE as compared to other herbicides treatment” (pg. 341, right column, final para.).
Zuazo teaches a composition comprising two copolymers which are used to influence the rheological profile of cosmetic preparations (para. 0001-0003]). The copolymers of the invention preferably include monomers that are ethylenically unsaturated, derivatives of acrylic acid (para. [0065-0067]), and includes N,N-dimethylaminopropyl(meth)acrylate (para. [0073]). In one embodiment, this is PPG-1 trideceth-6 (para. [0174]). Zuazo teaches that commercially available mixtures comprising PPG-1 trideceth-6 also include polyquaternium polymers, including polyquaternium-32 and -37, sodium acrylates copolymers, and/or paraffinum liquidum (mineral oil) (para. 0174).
Chen teaches the effect of ammonium polyphosphate fertilizers on plant growth, particularly with respect to uptake of vital phosphorous and zinc nutrients in corn seedlings (Abstract). Phosphate is taught to be second only to nitrogen in importance to crops with respect to essential nutritional elements, but traditional fertilizers and application methods are taught to often lead to inefficient phosphorous uptake (pg. 1716, left column, para. 1). Ammonium polyphosphate is taught to be a potential source of nitrogen and phosphorous and its impact on “growth and development, phosphorous absorption and accumulation and zinc absorption in the seedling stage of corn” is assessed alone and in mixtures with diammonium phosphate, alongside the salts ammonium chloride and potassium chloride (pg. 1716, right column, para. 2 - pg. 1717, left column, para. 4).
60 days post-treatment, Chen concluded that the phosphorous content in the seedlings was not significantly different among the various fertilizer mixtures, however ammonium polyphosphate specifically promoted plant growth, “so the phosphorous cumulant was significantly higher than diammonium phosphate treatment group, thereby improved the use ratio of phosphorous” (pg. 1719, left column, para. 2). Further, Chen taught that “zinc content…had been significantly improved after the application of ammonium polyphosphate”, indicating ammonium polyphosphate can improve the absorption of zinc by plants as well as the utilization of the element (pg. 1719, middle column, para. 1). Finally, Chen teaches that chemical structure alone does not impact the usefulness of a phosphorous fertilizer, but bioavailability also has a significant impact, and ammonium polyphosphate demonstrates effective improvement of phosphorous and zinc uptake in corn seedlings (pg. 1719, middle column, para. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filling of the instant application, to combine the teachings of Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen to arrive at the invention of claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-13 because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results. An artisan would be motivated to combine the teachings of Anderson and Mertoglu because the former teaches a PPO-PEO block copolymer, but does not teach the copolymer to be capped with an alkyl chain. Mertoglu teaches that a polymer comprising a block copolymer of the AB type containing PPO and PEO and terminated in an alkyl chain can enhance the activity of a pesticide, which a person of ordinary skill would desire in an agricultural composition. Mertoglu further teaches that suitable solvents for agricultural compositions that enhance pesticide activity are water, mineral oil, kerosene, or diesel, and teaches saflufenacil as an herbicide that could have its activity enhanced in their invention, but does not provide motivation for selecting it from the list of pesticides. An artisan would be motivated to select saflufenacil as an herbicide in their agricultural composition in view of the teachings of Sahoo because the reference teaches it to be successful in producing higher grain yield, benefit to cost (B:C) ratio, and weed control efficiency as compared to several other herbicides.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the polymers taught by Zuazo in the agricultural composition rendered obvious by the teachings of Anderson, Mertoglu, and Sahoo because Mertoglu teaches that many adjuvants are harmful to the skin of farmers that use agricultural compositions, demonstrating a need for skin-safe adjuvants. Zuazo teaches polyquaternium-32, a polymer that matches the broad characteristics taught by Anderson, to be skin-safe and capable of modifying the rheology of compositions. Further, Zuazo teaches PPG-1 trideceth-6 to be skin-safe, which is a polymer that falls within the AB form PPO-PEO block copolymer capped with an alkyl chain taught by Mertoglu. Finally, Zuazo teaches that both polyquaternium-32 and PPG-1 trideceth-6 are compatible with mineral oil, a solvent taught to be useful in agricultural compositions by Mertoglu. An artisan would be motivated to utilize the two polymers in view of Zuazo teaching that they are skin-safe, compatible, and fall within the broader categories taught by Anderson and Mertoglu.
Finally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use ammonium polyphosphate as a fertilizer in their agricultural composition in view of the teachings of Chen because they teach the fertilizer to improve plant growth and uptake of phosphorous and zinc. Anderson teaches the use of traditional N-P-K fertilizers and the inclusion of the nutrient zinc, but Chen teaches the drawbacks of traditional fertilizer use, including poor phosphorous uptake in plants treated with such fertilizers. An artisan would desire a composition that improves plant growth and nutrition uptake and therefore would be motivated to use ammonium polyphosphate as a fertilizer. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-13 in view of the teachings of Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen.
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0141249 A1, published on 21 May 2015, provided by Applicant in IDS) in view of Mertoglu (WIPO International Publication No. WO 2011/121477 A1, published on 6 October 2011, provided by Applicant in IDS), Sahoo (Int. J. Chem. Studies 2017, 5 (1), 339.), Zuazo. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0165638 A1, published on 27 July 2006), and Chen (Agric. Sci. Tech. 2015, 16 (8), 1716.) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Moore et al. (European Patent No. EP 0968155 B1, published on 21 May 2003, hereafter referred to as Moore).
Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen teach the above.
Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen do not teach the concentration of fertilizer when present in their agricultural composition nor the concentration of all the components of the compatibilizer blend. These deficiencies are offset by the teachings of Moore.
Moore teaches “surfactant-impregnated, water-soluble fertilizer compositions” which comprise surfactant-compatibilizer-fertilizer compositions that are stable at high fertilizer concentrations in water and can improve water and nutrient retention in plants following application (para. [0001]). The compatibilizer blend taught by Moore consists essentially of a polymer mixture, with a PEO-PPO block copolymer and an alkylpolygycoside polymer (para. [0017]). The concentration of fertilizer in preferred aqueous solutions is taught to be 20-50% by weight, significantly overlapping with the range recited in instant claim 11 (claim 4). The compatibilizer mixture is taught to be present in a range of 0.5-10% by weight (para. [0019]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to modify the invention rendered obvious by the teachings of Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen with the teachings of Moore to arrive at the invention of claims 11 and 14 because combining prior art elements according to known methods yields predictable results. An artisan would have been motivated to modify the above teachings with the teachings of Moore because the concentrations of fertilizer and compatibility mixture were not taught. Moore taught appropriate ranges of fertilizer and compatibility mixture in an aqueous fertilizer composition, which would provide an artisan with the necessary information to create the aqueous agricultural composition rendered obvious above. Further, Moore teaches that their invention, with its relative concentrations of fertilizer and compatibilizer mixture, improve water and nutrient retention in plants, which one of ordinary skill would desire in their agricultural composition. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 11 and 14 in view of the teachings of Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen and further in view of Moore.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0141249 A1, published on 21 May 2015, provided by Applicant in IDS) in view of Mertoglu (WIPO International Publication No. WO 2011/121477 A1, published on 6 October 2011, provided by Applicant in IDS), Sahoo (Int. J. Chem. Studies 2017, 5 (1), 339.), Zuazo. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0165638 A1, published on 27 July 2006), and Chen (Agric. Sci. Tech. 2015, 16 (8), 1716.) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Meffert et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,497,867 B2, published on 24 December 2002, hereafter referred to as Meffert).
Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen teach the above.
Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen do not teach an agricultural composition comprising a copolymer of methacrylate and stearyl methacrylate. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Meffert.
Meffert teaches the use of copolymers of mono-ethylenically unsaturated carboxylic acids as solubilizers in solutions for a variety of applications (column 1, lines 7-18). Solubilizers are taught to convert substances which are insoluble or virtually insoluble in water into aqueous solutions “without changing the chemical structure of these substances in the process” (column 1, lines 12-16). Commonly used solubilizers are taught to have a number of drawbacks, including low solubilizing action for compounds containing certain functional groups, high haemolytic activity, which prevents their use in pharmaceuticals, and limitations on solution concentration (column 1, lines 47-63).
To overcome the above drawbacks, Meffert teaches copolymers comprising
a) 82-99.9% of at least one monoethylenically unsaturated C3-C8 carboxylic acid;
b) 0.1-18% of a monomer selected from N-C8-C30 alkyl substituted amides of, N,N-C8-C30 dialkyl substituted amides of, or C8-C30 alkyl esters of monoethylenically unsaturated C3-C8 carboxylic acids; and
c) 0-17.9% of at least one monomer selected from vinyl esters of aliphatic C8-C30 carboxylic acids or C8-C30 alkylvinyl ethers (column 2, lines 24-40).
In one embodiment, the copolymer may comprise methacrylic acid as component a) and N-stearylmethacrylamide as component b) (claim 2). Meffert teaches that these copolymers have application in the agricultural field, including in “formulations which comprise pesticides, herbicides, fungicides or insecticides, especially also preparations of crop-protection agents which can be used as spray or pouring mixtures” (column 7, lines 44-49).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to modify the invention rendered obvious by the teachings of Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen with the teachings of Meffert to arrive at the invention of claim 15 because the use of a known technique to improve products taught by prior art yields predictable results. In the present case, the invention rendered obvious above comprises multiple components with varying water solubility and less than 50% water by weight. An artisan would be motivated to include a component to aid solubilization of all components in water because an inhomogeneous solution is undesirable, and Meffert teaches a copolymer of methacrylic acid and N-stearylmethacrylamide to aid solubilization. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claim 15 in view of the teachings of Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen and further in view of Meffert.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2015/0141249 A1, published on 21 May 2015, provided by Applicant in IDS) in view of Mertoglu (WIPO International Publication No. WO 2011/121477 A1, published on 6 October 2011, provided by Applicant in IDS), Sahoo (Int. J. Chem. Studies 2017, 5 (1), 339.), Zuazo. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2006/0165638 A1, published on 27 July 2006), and Chen (Agric. Sci. Tech. 2015, 16 (8), 1716.) as applied to claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12-13 above, and further in view of Mertoglu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2017/0064959 A1, published on 9 March 2017, hereafter referred to as Mertoglu #2).
Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen teach the above, particularly relevant to claims 16-19 Anderson teaches solvent to be present in an amount less than 10% of the formulation (claim 83) and the nutrient zinc to be desirable in their composition (para. [0204]).
Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen do not teach the solvent N,N-dimethyl lactamide. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Mertoglu #2.
Mertoglu #2 teaches an emulsifiable concentrate comprising a water-insoluble pesticide and an emulsifying mixture comprising an amide and a lactamide, as well as its use in regulating pests and growth of plants (Abstract). Mertoglu #2 teaches that emulsifiable concentrates are “widely used formulations in crop protection. The disadvantage of the known emulsifiable concentrates is the poor cold stability, the pronounced tendency to crystallize and the low pesticide concentration” (para. [0002]). To overcome these challenges, Mertoglu #2 teaches the mixture of an amide of formula (I) and a lactamide of formula (II) (para. [0004-0006] and claim 18). In a preferred embodiment, the lactamide of formula (II) is N,N-dimethyl lactamide (claim 18 and all Examples). The emulsifiable concentrate is taught to be capable of maintaining solubility of pesticides at higher concentrations, including the herbicide saflufenacil (para. [0095] and [0220]). Finally, Mertoglu #2 teaches the lactamide to be present in a range of 1-30% of the total weight of the formulation (claim 25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to modify the invention rendered obvious by the teachings of Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen with the teachings of Mertoglu #2 to arrive at the invention of claims 16-19 because the use of a known technique to improve a similar product produces predictable results. An artisan would have been motivated to use N,N-dimethyl lactamide as a solvent because Mertoglu #2 teaches it to aid the emulsion of pesticides that are water-insoluble, including saflufenacil, and Mertoglu #2 teaches the lactamide to be used in a range that significantly overlaps with the range taught by Anderson. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 16-19 in view of the teachings of Anderson, Mertoglu, Sahoo, Zuazo, and Chen and further in view of the teachings of Mertoglu #2.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments, filed on 3 November 2025, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which they think the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. In para. 2 of pg. 6, Applicant states “[t]he references cited by the Examiner do not teach or suggest the compatibilizer blend of the pending claims”. The Examiner disagrees and directs the reader to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 above, which contain the elected species in the composition.
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 Sean J. Steinke, whose telephone number is (571) 272-3396. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, David Blanchard, can be reached at (571) 272-0827. 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.
/S.J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619