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
Applicant’s response dated 01 May 2026 to the previous Office action dated 05 November 2025 is acknowledged. Pursuant to amendments therein, claims 1-5 and 7-12 are pending in the application.
A new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 is made herein in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 made in the previous Office action is withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments, but a new (modified) rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is made herein in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
The double patenting rejections made in the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05 August 2025.
Applicant’s election of compound of formula (I) species lauryl ether sulfate monoethanolammonium (MEA-LES) in the reply filed on 05 August 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the species election requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicant’s election of agrochemical active ingredient species ammonium salt of glufosinate/(L)-glufosinate in the reply filed on 05 August 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 5 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05 August 2025.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 12 are under current consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 7 fails to include all the limitations of claim 1 upon which it depends in that it recites that the concentration of the agrochemical active ingredient is in a range of 5-50 wt% which includes concentrations from 5-25 wt% whereas claim 1 requires that the concentration be more than 25 wt%.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Long (US 2013/0090239 A1; published 11 April 2013; of record) in view of Brock et al. (EP- 0656416-A1; published 07 June 1995; of record; citations herein to English machine translation made 09 March 2025; of record).
Regarding claim 1, Long discloses a liquid herbicidal composition comprising a water-soluble herbicidal ingredient and a C8-C16 alkyl ether sulfate (claim 1), which reads on the claimed agrochemical composition, wherein the water-soluble herbicidal ingredient comprises glufosinate-ammonium (claim 2), which reads on the claimed and elected species of agrochemical active ingredient ammonium glufosinate, wherein the C8-C16 alkyl ether sulfate can be a salt of lauryl ether sulfate (paragraph [0022]).
Further regarding claim 1, although Long does not disclose a salt of lauryl ether sulfate as being the claimed and elected species of lauryl ether sulfate monoethanolammonium, Brock et al. discloses mono-, di-, or tri-alkanolammonium salts of alkyl ether sulphate surfactants that give homogenous and free-flowing liquid formulations (abstract) wherein Sample 1 is C₁₂-C₁₄ fatty alcohol ether sulfate 2 mol EO / mol monoethanolammonium salt (page 7 first paragraph) which encompasses instant formula (I) wherein R is linear C12-alkyl (i.e., lauryl); RA, RB, RC, and RD are H; x is 2; and M+ is a monoethanolammonium cation.
Further regarding claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Long and Brock et al. by using the monoethanolammonium cation lauryl ether sulfate of Brock et al. as the salt of lauryl ether sulfate in the composition of Long as discussed above, with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so to use a suitable known cation of lauryl ether sulfate therein that results in homogenous and free-flowing liquid formulations as suggested by Brock et al.
Further regarding claim 1, Long discloses that the C8-C16 alkyl ether sulfate is present in an amount of 3 to 35 percent by weight, based on the total weight of the composition (claim 6), which overlaps the claimed concentration range of the compound of formula (I) of more than 25 wt%, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where prior art and claimed range overlap per MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above regarding claim 1, Brock et al. discloses x=2, which reads on the claimed x=1-3.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above regarding claim 1, Brock et al. discloses the claimed RA, RB, RC, and RD are H.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above regarding claim 1, Long discloses glufosinate-ammonium, which reads on the claimed glufosinate or salt thereof.
Regarding claim 7, Long discloses 20 to 35 percent by weight, based on the total weight of the composition of the water-soluble herbicidal ingredient (claim 1), which overlaps the claimed concentration range of agrochemical active ingredient of 5-50 wt%, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where prior art and claimed range overlap per MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above regarding claim 1, Long discloses glufosinate-ammonium, which reads on the claimed ammonium salt of glufosinate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding obviousness filed 01 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that no problem driven motivation arising from the prior art would have motivated a skilled formulator to replace sodium with monoethanolammonium counterions, and there is no reason provided to modify the references (remarks pages 5-6). In response, as discussed in the rejection, Long explicitly discloses that the C8-C16 alkyl ether sulfate can be a salt of lauryl ether sulfate (paragraph [0022]), which provides direct motivation to use an such salt of lauryl ether sulfate, and Brock et al. discloses that a monoethanolammonium salt of alkyl ether sulphate surfactants gives homogenous and free-flowing liquid formulations as discussed in the rejection, and thus a combination of such teachings would have been obvious as discussed in the rejection.
Applicant argues that Brock et al. is non-analogous art having different formulations, problems, and solutions, and there would have been no reason to consider Brock et al. (remarks pages 6-7). In response, Brock et al. is directed to the use of salts of alkyl ether sulfates (abstract), which is exactly what Long suggests using, and is reasonably pertinent to the problem of selection of an alkyl ether sulfate surfactant, and thus applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed surfactant paired with monoethanolammonium cations exhibits unexpectedly low viscosity and high stability (remarks pages 7-8). In response, no instant claims appear to be commensurate in scope with any compositions shown to exhibit asserted unexpected results in the instant specification, in that the instant claims are not limited to such specific formulations (i.e., all ingredients and concentrations thereof). Applicant should clearly and concisely point to specific tested formulations and comparative formulations such that all ingredients therein and concentrations thereof are clear, so that commensurateness and unexpectedness can be evaluated, including a determination as to whether ranges of concentrations and/or compound species/genus have been shown to exhibit unexpected results. Applicant is reminded that the burden is on applicant to establish that results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance, per MPEP 716.02(b). Such evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention per MPEP 716.02(d), and must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art (or closer) per MPEP 716.02(e).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 MICHAEL B. PALLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/MICHAEL B. PALLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights