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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026 has been entered.
The previous claim rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 103 Arai et al. (US 20170006870 A1) in view of Chamoulaud et al. (CH 1432577 A) and Tamura et al. (US 2014014893 A1), as indicated in the Office action dated September 19, 2025, has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment made to claim 9, line 1 which specifies the term “a pest” to “a weed”. A new rejection has been made to address the amended limitation.
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.
Claims 9, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 20170006870 A1, published on January 12, 2017, cited in IDS) (“Arai” hereunder) in view of Chamoulaud et al. (CH 1432577 A, published on August 15, 1990) (“Chamoulaud” hereunder) and Tamura et al. (US 20140148493 A1, published on May 26, 2014) (“Tamura” hereunder).
The amended claim 9 is directed to a method of controlling a weed, comprising: treating a soil with an agrochemical composition comprising pyroxasulfone and a masking substance that masks the pyroxasulfone, wherein the pyroxasulfone is microencapsulated in or coated with the masking substance, wherein treating the soil is performed by spraying the agrochemical composition on farmland before seeding or farmland where a seeded pre-sprouting cultivated crop grows, wherein the soil is at least one well-drained soil selected from the group consisting of a sandy soil, a sandy loam, a loamy sand, a sandy clay loam, a sandy clay soil and a light clay soil, and wherein the cultivated crop is a small grain cereal plant or a bean plant.
Arai discloses a method of testing herbicidal effects on weeds by treating the soil, the method comprising treating upland soil with Echinochloa crusgalli with the agrochemical composition comprising microencapsulated pyroxasulfone made according to Examples 7, 9, and 10. See Test example 4. The soil treatment with the compositions from Examples 9 and 11 resulted in a complete weed control.
Regarding claim 10, Arai fails to specifically teach applying the microencapsulated pyroxasulfone composition on farmland before seeding or farmland where a seeded pre-sprouting cultivated crop grows. However, such application site would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application, as the same reference suggests that treating soils with pyroxasulfone is a common practice, and the test example shows that the microencapsulated herbicide effectively inhibits weed growth.
Although Arai fails to specifically provide the characteristics of the farmland soil upland soil, it is well known in the art that the ideal soil for cultivation is located on sandy, well-drained surface. See Chamoulaud, translation, p. 7, bridging paragraph. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the disclosed weed control method on farmland where the soil is in optimal condition for cultivation of crops.
In agricultural art, methods of soil application of herbicides include application of the water-diluted or undiluted liquid or solid formulation onto soil and subsequent incorporation of the formulation into the whole soil before or after seeding. See, for example, Tamura, [0041-0042]. Tamura further teaches and suggests that insecticides can be “simultaneously” used with other pesticides including herbicides “for control of disease/insect pests, weeds, etc”; the reference suggests that such application method provides enhanced effects with reduced phytotoxicity to crops. See [0049]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the microencapsulated pyroxasulfone composition of the Arai reference on farm field before or after seeding as motivated by Tamura with a reasonable expectation of successfully inhibiting weed growth by combining the teachings of the references.
Regarding the types of the cultivated crop, Arai teaches that the cultivated crops which can be protected by foliage spraying of the microencapsulated pyroxasulfone composition include Triticum aestivum, Hordeum vulgare, Secale cereale, Glycine max, etc. Since the reference suggests that conventionally unmasked pyroxasulfone had been used to protect these crops, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the Arai invention to treat the soils for controlling pests in cultivating the same types of crop disclosed in the reference. See also present claims 9, 12, 14 and 15.
Regarding claim 16, Arai specifically teaches that the providing pyroxasulfone with a masking material in a microencapsulated or coated formulation prevents phototoxicity to the cultivated crops due to adhesion. See abstract.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 19, 2016 have been considered but are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Tamura is not applicable in the present case because the reference teaches insecticide. As indicated in the rejection above, see p. 4, 2md full paragraph, the reference teaches and suggests that the soil application of insecticides can be co-administered with herbicides. In view of such teaching, application of the microencapsulated/coated pyroxasulfone on soil before seeding or where a seeded pre-sprouting cultivated crop grows would have been prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GINA JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)272-8605. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5 PM.
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, BETHANY BARHAM can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/GINA C JUSTICE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617