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 .
Summary
Claims 1-4 and 12-14 are pending in this office action. Claims 5-11 and 15 have been cancelled. All pending claims are under examination in this application.
Priority
The current application filed on July 18, 2022 is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/050694 filed January 14, 2021, which in turn claims domestic priority to three provisional patent applications 62/964,868, 62/964,861, and 62/964,874 all filed on January 23, 2020. The current application claims foreign priority to EP20172833.4, EP20172834.2, and EP20172837.5 all filed on May 5, 2020 and EP20200249.9 filed on October 6, 2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 non-obviousness.
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 CFR 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 1-4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tu et al. (WO2019/212888A1, published November 2019) in view of Kiji (WO2019/240082A1, published December 2019), Schnabel (US10,091,994B2), and Jakobs-Sauter et al. (US2015/0361329A1).
[For ease of examination, the Examiner relied upon US2021/0163446A1 as an equivalent English translation of the Japanese WO2019/240082A1 publication. All citations henceforth to Kiji are locations in the US Patent Application. Furthermore, the Examiner is going to introduce each reference and then combine them where appropriate to reject the instant claims within numerical order.]
1. Tu et al.
Tu et al. is regarded as being the prior art closest to the subject-matter of the present application as it teaches a compositions containing glufosinate salt and a synthetic auxin herbicide salt (see title). Additionally, Tu et al. disclose aqueous herbicide compositions containing a salt of glufosinate and a salt of a synthetic auxin herbicide are described. Such compositions exhibit good compatibility and reduced viscosity. Methods of reducing the viscosity of an aqueous herbicide composition are also disclosed (see abstract).
2. Kiji
Kiji teach uracil compounds and use thereof (see title). Additionally, Kiji disclose a compound represented by the following formula (A) that has excellent control efficacy against weeds and shows high safety against useful plants (see abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
3. Schnabel
Schnabel teach formulation additives, production, and use thereof (see title). In addition, Schnabel disclose that the invention relates to novel formulation additives of formula I and to the production and use thereof, in particular as adjuvants and additives for agrochemical formulations. A novel combination of known ether sulfates and cations
allows products with superior characteristics to be obtained, such as pesticides with improved strength (see abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
4. Jakobs-Sauter et al.
Jakobs-Sauter et al. teach highly concentrated, water-free amine salts of hydrocarbon alkoxysulfates and use and method using aqueous dilutions of the same (see title). Additionally, Jakobs-Sauter et al. disclose highly concentrated, anhydrous
amine salts of hydrocarbon polyalkoxy sulfates, wherein the salts are selected from the group of substituted amines, preferably alkanolamines. The products obtained are
of low viscosity and pumpable at room temperature. Due to the absence of water, the salts are highly resistant to hydrolysis, even at high temperatures. The invention further relates to the use of the compositions according to the invention in an aqueous dilution for use in oil reservoirs with the aim of achieving enhanced oil production, or for the recovery of hydrocarbons from tar sands or other surfaces or materials provided with hydrocarbon (see abstract).
Combination of Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al.
Regarding instant claim 1, Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. teach a liquid herbicidal composition. The necessary citations within Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. that correspond to instant claim 1 are compiled within Table I.
Table I
Instant Claim 1
Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. Citations
A liquid herbicidal composition comprising a) a protoporphyrinogen-IX oxidase inhibitor, or an agrochemically acceptable salt, stereoisomer, tautomer, or N-oxide thereof;
Kiji discloses a liquid herbicidal composition (see paragraphs [0009] and [0011] and also abstract within Kiji) with compound A (see Figure I):
Figure I
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[The above structure proposed by Kiji is a protoporphyrinogen-IX oxidase inhibitor (PPO inhibitor) due to the structural similarities noted within the following citation (see PTO-892 NPL V).]
b) a compound of formula (I)
[R-(A)X-OSO3-]-M+ (I);
wherein R is C10-C16-alkyl, C10-C16-alkenyl, or C10-C16-alkynyl; each A is independently a group
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein RA, RB, RC, and RD are independently H, CH3, or CH2CH3 with the proviso that the sum of C-atoms of RA, RB, RC, and RD is up to 2; M+ is monoethanolammonium, an alkali metal ion, or a mixture thereof; and the index x is a number from 1 to 10;
Tu et al. disclose an anionic surfactant (within the herbicidal arts) being ethoxylated lauryl ether sulphate wherein the M+ is isopropyl ammonium. This compound is formulated with a sodium salt of lauryl ether sulfate (see Example 2, Table 3, in particular GD34 and GD35; within Tu et al.). The anionic surfactant maps with the claim limitation as shown within Figure II.
Figure II
Na+ -O3SOCH2CH2O(CH2)11CH3
wherein R = C12-alkyl; A = CH2CH2; RA, RB, RC, and RD are independently H; two carbon atoms are present; the sodium cation is an alkali metal (M+); and the index is x = 1 (also see a similar example; PTO-892 NPL-W) (see paragraph [0018] within Tu et al.). A skilled artisan could expand the alkali metals (Na or K) used within Tu et al. under routine experimental conditions.
Schnabel discloses liquid agrochemical formulations comprising alkoxylated alcohol sulfates surfactants which differ from the formula (I) by the cation which is potassium or a quaternary ammonium which contains no nitrogenhydrogen bond (see claim 1 and column 2, lines 59-64 within Schnabel).
Jakobs-Sauter et al. disclose alkoxylated fatty alcohol sulfates which are salts with ammonium compounds: Jakobs-Sauter et al. disclose alkoxylated fatty alcohol sulfates falling in the present formula (I) wherein R is between C12 and C16, one of RA, RB, RC and RD is CH3, (see claim 1 within Jakobs-Sauter et al.) x is between 4 and 9 and the ammonium cation is diethanolammoniun (DEA), monoisopropanolammonium (MIPA), di- and triisopropanolammonium (TIPA) (see paragraph [0028] within Jakobs-Sauter et al.). The document reports that the analogous compounds which have been neutralized with sodium hydroxide instead of the amines are solid. The amine salts of the hydrocarbon polyalkoxysulfates guarantee the flowability and the storage stability of the adjuvant concentrated compositions (see paragraphs [0066]-[0073] and [0077]-[0078] within Jakobs-Sauter et al.). The presently claimed alkyl ethersulfate wherein monoethanolammonium cation is present as counter-ion of the -OSO3- is encompassed.
wherein the protoporphyrinogen-IX oxidase inhibitor is a compound of formula (II)
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
wherein the variables have the following meaning X is H, F, or Cl; Y is CH, or N; Z is C(=O), or N; H is a 5- to 9-membered saturated, partially unsaturated, or fully unsaturated heterocyclic ring or ring system, wherein said heterocyclic ring or ring system comprises one or more, same or different heteroatoms O, N, or S in addition to the N-atom that connects the ring H to the remainder of formula (II), and is unsubstituted, or substituted with one or more, same or different substituents RH, and wherein said N- and S-atoms are independently oxidized, or non-oxidized; RH is C1-C4-alkyl, which is unsubstituted, or halogenated; or two geminal substituents RH form together with the atom to which they are bound a group =0, =S, or =C(CH3)2;
Kiji discloses the protoporphyrinogen-IX oxidase inhibitor is a compound of formula (II) within Figure I.
[the Examiner will start on the eastern portion of the molecule and move west]
- Z is C(=O)
- H is a 6-membered saturated ring system comprising two nitrogen atoms.
- the ring has one C1 alkyl which is substituted with three fluorine atoms (halogenated).
- X is Cl
- Y is CH
RP is selected from the following groups RP1 to RP10;
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
wherein $ means the connection to the remainder of the molecule; wherein P is CH or N; and wherein W is OCH3, OCH2CH3, NHSO2CH3;
- RP =
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Wherein P = carbon (N) and wherein W = OCH2CH3
G is Cl; or G and RP form together one of the following groups (lI-A) or (lI-B)
PNG
media_image8.png
328
1076
media_image8.png
Greyscale
wherein & means the connection to the remainder of the molecule at the carbon atom to which the variable G is connected in formula (II), and wherein § means the connection to the remainder of the molecule at the carbon atom to which the variable RP is connected in formula (II) and
- G is chlorine (Cl)s
wherein the protoporphyrinoqen-IX oxidase inhibitor (PPO) is present in a particulate form as suspended solid particles.
Kiji discloses a protoporphyrinogen-IX inhibitor (PPO) labeled compound A (see above). Compound A is a derivative of eprifenacil (see PTO-892 NPL U) which has poor solubility in water (see PTO-892 NPL X). Compound A would form a particulate form as suspended solid particles in an aqueous mixture.
Therefore, the combination of the protoporphyrinogen-IX oxidase inhibitor disclosed by Kiji, and the anionic surfactant supported by the Tu et al., Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. disclosures would allow a skilled artisan (POSITA; person of ordinary skill in the art) to arrive at the present invention without the addition of inventive skill.
[The remainder of the instant claims that are either directly or indirectly dependent on instant claim 1 are taught in full by the combination of Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al.]
Regarding instant claim 2, Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. teach where the index x is from 1 to 3. Please see the discussion and citations within instant claim 1 where x = 1 (Table 1, column 2).
Regarding instant claim 3, Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. teach where RA, RB, RC, and RD are independently H. Please see the discussion and citations within instant claim 1 where RA, RB, RC, and RD all equal hydrogen (Table 1, column 2).
Regarding instant claim 4, Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. teach wherein the monovalent cation is sodium (M+). Tu et al. disclose the use of the lauryl ether sulfate, sodium salt (see Example 2, Table 3, GD34 within Tu et al.).
Regarding instant claim 12, Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. teach the protoporphyrinogen-IX oxidase inhibitor and surfactant at the correct weight percent. Kiji discloses the use of their protoporphyrinogen-IX oxidase inhibitor at approximately 10 weight percent (see Formulation Example 3 within Kiji). Furthermore, Schnabel discloses at least 15 percent by weight of one or more surfactants of the formula I (see column 4, lines 66-67 within Schnabel).
Regarding instant claim 13, Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. teach wherein the amine is different than the appropriate ammonium salt. Tu et al. disclose that this compound is formulated with an ammonium salt of glufosinate obtained reacting glufosinate with a dimethylamine solution (see Example 2, Table 3, in particular GD32, GD37, and claim 14 within Tu et al.; isopropyl ammonium cation is used). A skilled artisan (POSITA) could under routine experimental conditions substitute the protoporphyrinogen-IX oxidase inhibitor of instant claim 1 for glufosinate.
Regarding instant claim 14, Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. teach a method of applying the herbicide to a locus where undesirable vegetation is present or expected to be present. Kiji discloses a method for controlling weeds which comprises applying an effective amount of the compound according to claim 1 to weeds or a place where weeds are growing or will grow (see claim 1 and 3 within Kiji).
Analogous Art
The Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. disclosures are all relevant for the rejection of instant claims 1-4 and 12-14 due to their direct application to the present invention.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the anionic surfactant disclosed by Tu et al., using the teachings of Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. to incorporate the necessary claim limitations. Starting with Tu et al., the skilled person only had to try the addition of the necessary claim limitations disclosed by Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. The combination of Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. would allow one to arrive at the present application without employing inventive skill. This combination of the anionic surfactant taught by Tu et al. along with the use of the necessary claim limitations taught by Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. would allow a research and development scientist (POSITA) to develop the invention taught in the instant application. It would have only required routine experimentation to modify the anionic surfactant disclosed by Tu et al. with the use of the claim limitations taught by Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. This combined modification would have led to an anionic surfactant and protoporphyrinogen-IX oxidase inhibitor that would be beneficial for consumers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 12, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s claim amendments were sufficient to address the claim objection and 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection. Therefore, the claim objection and the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejection from the Non-Final office action dated March 12, 2025 are withdrawn.
The Applicant’s claim amendments did not necessitate a new ground of rejection.
Applicant Argument: The Applicant argues that the combination of the Tu et al., Kiji, Schnabel, and Jakobs-Sauter et al. references does not present a prima facie case of obviousness.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Tu et al. presents the herbicide glufosinate that is disclosed with various surfactants. Glufosinate is not a PPO inhibitor. However, Tu et al. does mention other herbicides can be used, which include the water-soluble PPO inhibitor saflufenacil (see paragraph [0070] within Tu et al.) (also see Remarks page 7 in the reply dated August 12, 2025). Kiji discloses a water-insoluble derivative of the PPO inhibitor epyrifenacil (see Remarks page 7 in the reply dated August 12, 2025) labelled compound A. This is similar to the herbicides disclosed within the instant specification. Since the surfactants are an integral part of this invention, the Examiner has relied on the Schnabel and Jakobs-Sauter et al. references to elaborate on the surfactants presented by Tu et al.
All references are analogous art and would be consulted by a skilled artisan (POSITA). The motivation to use the Kiji reference is to supply a water-insoluble PPO inhibitor similar to the instant application. The Tu et al. reference supplies the surfactant within the herbicide arts. Finally, the Schnabel and Jakobs-Sauter et al. references supply further elaboration on the surfactants disclosed by Tu et al. Therefore, a strong 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection has been presented to the Applicant.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection is maintained for instant claims 1-4 and 12-14.
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 JOHN W LIPPERT III whose telephone number is (571)270-0862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, 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.
/JOHN W LIPPERT III/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615