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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed July 22, 2025. Claims 1-5 and 8-14 are pending in the application. Claims 1-5 and 8-14 have been amended. Claims 1-5 and 8-14 will be examined.
Status of the Claims
The rejection of claims 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Christian et al. (WO 2019/030098) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s addition of the limitations of dependent claims 6 and 7 to independent claim 1.
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacker et al. (US 7,105,470) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s addition of the limitations of dependent claims 6 and 7 to independent claim 1.
The rejection of claims 1 and 4-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian et al. (WO 2019/030098) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s addition of the limitations of dependent claims 6 and 7 to independent claim 1.
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.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment filed July 22, 2025
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.
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 1-3 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacker et al. (US 7,105,470) in view of Nogueira et al. (US 2017/0223961) and Liberty Herbicide EPA Label (2007, EPA, Liberty Herbicide). Hacker et al. cited by Applicant on IDS filed 10/10/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a composition comprising (i) glufosinate, L-glufosinate or an agronomically acceptable salt thereof, and (ii) sulfentrazone, wherein a ratio by weight of a total amount of component (i) is at least 4 times more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate, and is at least 2 times more than the total amount of component (i) in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, wherein a total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L based on the total amount of the composition, wherein the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 1 to 120 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, and in the range of from 2 to 240 g/L, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, and in each case based on the total amount of the composition. Applicant claims a method for producing a composition as defined in claim 1. Applicant claims a method for controlling undesired plant growth, and/or controlling harmful plants, comprising applying a composition as defined in claim 1 onto the undesired plants or the harmful plants, on parts of the undesired plants or the harmful plants, or on the area where the undesired plants or the harmful plants grow.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Hacker et al. teach herbicide combinations (A)+(B), if appropriate in the presence of safeners, with an effective content of (A) and (B) one or more herbicides from the group of the compounds consisting of the above-mentioned group (A) and/or (B1) foliar- and/or soil-acting herbicides (residual action) which are effective selectively in soybeans against monocotyledonous and predominantly dicotyledonous harmful plants (Abstract, col. 4).
Regarding claim 1, Hacker et al. teach herbicidal effect in field trials with soybeans compound (A.1.2) (glufosinate-monoammonium salt) + (B4.4) (sulfentrazone) (col. 22, lines 1-21).
Hacker et al. teach A1.1 is glufosinate, in a narrow sense, i.e. D,L-2-amino-4-[hydroxy(methyl)-phosphinyl]butanoic acid, (A1.2) glufosinate-monoammonium salt (col. 4, lines 28-30).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Hacker et al. teach the ratios of the compounds (A1): (B1) from 400:1 to 1:500, preferably from 200:1 to 1:250, in particular from 200:1 to 1:200, very particularly 200:1 to 1:100 (col. 9, lines 6-8). A weight ratio of 400:1 and 200:1 are at least 4 times more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate.
Regarding claim 9, Hacker et al. teach formulation auxiliaries are added, such as inert materials, surfactants, solvents and other additives (col. 14, lines 61-64).
Regarding claim 10, Hacker et al. teach formulations include emulsifiable concentrates (EC), oil-dispersions, and microcapsules (col. 14, lines 43-50).
Regarding claim 11, Hacker et al. teach the active substances combinations can exist not only as formulation mixes of the two components with other active substances (col. 14, lines 35-42).
Regarding claim 12, Hacker et al. teach they are also suitable for the general control and inhibition of undesired vegetative growth without simultaneously destroying the plants. An inhibition of vegetative growth is very important in a large number of monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous crops since lodging can thus be reduced, or prevented completely (col. 12, lines 61-64).
Regarding claims 12, 13, and 14, Hacker et al. teach a method of controlling undesired vegetation in tolerant soybean crops, which comprises applying one or more herbicides of the type (A) and one or more herbicides of the type (B) to the harmful plants, parts of these plants, or the area under cultivation (col. 14, lines 26-31). Soybean crops are row crops, as claimed in claim 13 and specialty crops, as claimed in claim 14.
Regarding claim 12, Hacker et al. teach the combinations (=herbicidal compositions) have an outstanding herbicidal activity against a broad spectrum of economically important monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous harmful plants (col. 11, lines 37-40).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hacker et al. teach as a rule, markedly less active substance (A1), for example an application rate in the range of 20 to 800, preferably 20 to 600, grams of active substance of glufosinate per hectare (g of a.s./ha or g of a.i./ha) is required in the combinations (col. 4, lines 63-67).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Hacker et al. teach (B.10) sulfentrazone is applied at 50 to 2000 g of a.s./ha, in particular 70 to 1500 g of a.s./ha (col. 7, lines 12-13).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Hacker et al. do not specifically disclose the total amount of compound (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L, based on the total amount of the composition; and wherein the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 1 to 120 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, as claimed in claim 1, the ratio by weight of the total amount of component (i) to the total amount of component (ii) is from 50:1 to 6:1 in case of (i) being glufosinate, as claimed in claim 3, or the total amount of component (i) is in the range of from 150 to 500 g/L, and the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 3 to 80 g/L, in the case of (i) being glufosinate, as claimed in claim 8. It is for this reason Nogueira et al. and the Liberty Herbicide EPA Label are added as secondary references.
Nogueira et al. teach a dual mode of action herbicidal formulation for controlling weeds in sugarcane culture (Abstract). Nogueira et al. teach a herbicidal formulation based on sulfentrazone mainly associated with Diuron in a concentration ranging from 35 g/L to 500 g/L of sulfentrazone. In a preferred embodiment, the concentration of sulfentrazone is 175 g/L (page 5, paragraph 61).
The Liberty® Herbicide EPA Label teaches that glufosinate ammonium is the active ingredient, which is equivalent to 1.67 pounds of active ingredient per U.S. gallon. 1.67 pounds of active ingredient per U.S. gallon is equivalent to 200.11 g/L of the active ingredient (page 4 of 35, Active Ingredient).
Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Hacker et al., Nogueira et al., and the Liberty® Herbicide EPA Label to determine the amount of glufosinate (component (i)) and sulfentrazone (component (ii)) in claims 1 and 8. Hacker et al. teach herbicide combinations (A)+(B), if appropriate in the presence of safeners, with an effective content of (A) and (B) one or more herbicides from the group of the compounds consisting of the above-mentioned group (A) and/or (B1) foliar- and/or soil-acting herbicides (residual action) which are effective selectively in soybeans against monocotyledonous and predominantly dicotyledonous harmful plants. Hacker et al. teach herbicidal effect in field trials with soybeans compound (A.1.2) (glufosinate-monoammonium salt) + (B4.4) (sulfentrazone). Hacker et al. teach the ratios of the compounds (A1): (B1) from 400:1 to 1:500, preferably from 200:1 to 1:250, in particular from 200:1 to 1:200, very particularly 200:1 to 1:100. Nogueira et al. teach a herbicidal formulation based on sulfentrazone mainly associated with Diuron in a concentration ranging from 35 g/L to 500 g/L of sulfentrazone. In a preferred embodiment, the concentration of sulfentrazone is 175 g/L. The Liberty® Herbicide EPA Label teaches that glufosinate ammonium contains 1.67 pounds of active ingredient per U.S. gallon, which is equivalent to 200.11 g/L of the active ingredient.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Nogueira et al. and the Liberty® Herbicide EPA Label to determine the amount of glufosinate and sulfentrazone used in the composition taught by Hacker et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use well-known concentrations, such as those taught by the Nogueira et al., which teach the concentration of sulfentrazone when combined with an additional herbicide. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of the Liberty® Herbicide EPA Label, to formulate effective herbicidal compositions with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use experimentation and optimization to determine the optimal herbicidal effect. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings of Hacker et al. to determine the ratio by weight of the total amount of component (i) to the total amount of component (ii) is from 50:1 to 6:1 in case of (i) being glufosinate. Hacker et al. teach the ratios of the compounds (A1): (B1) from 400:1 to 1:500, preferably from 200:1 to 1:250, in particular from 200:1 to 1:200, very particularly 200:1 to 1:100. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the guidance taught by Hacker et al. to determine the optimal weight ratio of glufosinate to sulfentrazone, including a weight ratio of 50:1 to 6:1, to formulate a herbicidal composition that provides effective weed control. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of the arguments and the amendment to independent claim 1, filed July 22, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection, as indicated hereinabove.
Claims 1 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christian et al. (WO 2019/030098) in view of Deckwer et al. (WO 2019/020283) and Nogueira et al. (US 2017/0223961). Christian et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 10/10/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a composition comprising (i) glufosinate, L-glufosinate or an agronomically acceptable salt thereof, and (ii) sulfentrazone, wherein a ratio by weight of a total amount of component (i) is at least 4 times more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate, and is at least 2 times more than the total amount of component (i) in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, wherein a total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L based on the total amount of the composition, wherein the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 1 to 120 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, and in the range of from 2 to 240 g/L, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, and in each case based on the total amount of the composition. Applicant claims a method for producing a composition as defined in claim 1. Applicant claims a method for controlling undesired plant growth, and/or controlling harmful plants, comprising applying a composition as defined in claim 1 onto the undesired plants or the harmful plants, on parts of the undesired plants or the harmful plants, or on the area where the undesired plants or the harmful plants grow.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1, 4, 11, and 12, Christian et al. teach post emergence treatment with a mixture of L-glufosinate with sulfentrazone. The mixture of L-glufosinate with sulfentrazone reads on claim 11, a method of producing a herbicide combination.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 34, Example 4). The ratio by weight of a total amount of component (i) is at least 2 times more than the total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being L-glufosinate. The weight ratio of L-glufosinate to sulfentrazone is 30:1 and 60:1. The herbicidal activity of L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone against the weed species Erigeron Canadensis, Conyza canadensis is 100%.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 5, Christian et al. teach herbicidal mixtures comprising L-glufosinate or its salt and at least one protoporphyrinogen-IX-oxidase inhibitor (Abstract). Christian et al. teach it has been found that L-glufosinate (compound I) and at least one protoporphyrinogen-IX-oxidase inhibitor (compound II) show a higher activity in burndown programs, in industrial vegetation management and forestry, in vegetable and perennial crops and in turf and lawn (page 2, lines 34-37). Christian et al. teach sulfentrazone is a preferred protoporphyrinogen-IX-oxidase inhibitor (page 3, line 9, page 5, lines 4, 26, and 28). Christian et al. teach the mixtures have a weight ratio of compound I to compound II is preferably from 1000:1, 400:1, more preferably 500:1 (page 4, lines 30-31). Christian et al. teach in Table 1 sulfentrazone (II-6)(page 6, Table 1) and in Table 2, mixture M-6 is L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone; mixture M-18 is L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone; and M-30 is L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone (page 7, Table 2).
Regarding claim 9, Christian et al. teach an herbicidal formulation which comprises a herbicidally active mixture and at least one carrier material, including liquid and/or solid carrier (page 12, lines 35-37).
Regarding claim 10, Christian et al. teach examples of mixture types are suspensions (e.g. SC, OD), and capsules (page 9, lines 1-5, page 11, line 10).
Regarding claim 11, Christian et al. teach the inventive mixtures can be converted into customary types of agrochemical mixtures, e.g. solutions, emulsions, suspensions (page 8, lines 24-25).
Regarding claim 12, Christian et al. teach a method for burndown treatment of undesirable vegetation in crops, comprising applying an inventive mixture to a locus where crops will be planted or emergence of the crop.
Regarding claim 12, Christian et al. teach a method for controlling undesirable vegetation, which comprises applying an inventive mixture to a locus where undesirable vegetation is present or expected to be present, wherein application can be done before, during and/or after the emergence of the undesirable vegetation (page 13, lines 20-23).
Christian et al. teach the spray mixture is from 10 to 2000 l/ha, 50 to 1000 l/ha.
Christian et al. teach the application rate of the mixture is from 5 to 6000 g/ha, preferably 100 to 5000 g/ha, from 200 to 4000 g/ha, more preferable from 300 to 3000 g/ha of active ingredient (page 14, lines 21-27, page 31, lines 17-20).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Christian et al. teach the inventive mixtures are suitable for combating/controlling common harmful plant fields, where useful plants shall be planted. The inventive mixtures include legumes (page 20, lines 28-29), TNV-crops, such as grapes, citrus, pomefruit, and apricot (page 20, lines 37-39). The crops taught by Christian et al. are specialty crops. Christian et al. teach the rate of application of L-glufosinate is usually from 50 g/h to 3000 g/ha, preferably in the range from 100 g/ha to 2000 g/ha or from 200 g/ha to 1500 g/ha. The application rate of the protoporphyrinogen-IX-oxidase inhibitor is from 1 g/ha to 2000 g/ha, more preferably from 25 g/ha to 900 g/ah of active substance (page 31, lines 28-32).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Christian et al. do not specifically disclose the total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L, as claimed in claim 1, the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of from 2 to 240 g/L in the case of (i) being L-glufosinate, as claimed in claim 1, or the total amount of component (i) is in the range of from 150 to 500 g/L and the total amount of component (ii) is in the range of 6 to 160 g/L in the case of (i) being L-glufosinate, as claimed in claim 8. It is for this reason Deckwer et al. and Nogueira et al. are added as secondary references.
Deckwer et al. teach in preferred compositions the total amount of L-glufosinate and/or agronomically acceptable salts is equal to or less than 600 g/L (g/L= gram per liter)…even more preferably is equal to or less than 350 g/L, in each case based on the total amount of the composition (page 15, lines 19-22).
Regarding claim 1, Deckwer et al. teach the total amount of L-glufosinate and/or agronomically acceptable salts in a composition is in the range of from 50 to 600 g/L, based on the total amount of the composition (page 15, lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 8, Deckwer et al. teach the total amount of L-glufosinate is more preferably in the range of from 150 to 350 g/L, in each case based on the total amount of the composition (page 15, line 25).
The teachings of Nogueira et al. with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is hereby incorporated and are therefore applied in the instant rejection as discussed above.
Finding a prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Christian et al., Deckwer et al., and Nogueira et al. to determine the amount of L-glufosinate (component (i)) and sulfentrazone (component (ii)). Christian et al. teach mixture M-6 is L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone; mixture M-18 is L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone; and M-30 is L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone. The ratio of compound I to compound II is preferably from 1000:1, 400:1, more preferably 500:1. Christian et al. teach the spray mixture is from 10 to 2000 l/ha, 50 to 1000 l/ha. Deckwer et al. teach the total amount of L-glufosinate and/or agronomically acceptable salts in a composition is in the range of from 50 to 600 g/L, based on the total amount of the composition. Deckwer et al. further teach the total amount of L-glufosinate is more preferably in the range of from 150 to 350 g/L, in each case based on the total amount of the composition. Nogueira et al. teach a herbicidal formulation based on sulfentrazone mainly associated with diuron in a concentration ranging from 35 g/L to 500 g/L of sulfentrazone. In a preferred embodiment, the concentration of sulfentrazone is 175 g/L.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Deckwer et al. and Nogueira et al. to determine the amount of glufosinate and sulfentrazone used in the composition taught by Christine et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use well-known concentrations, such as those taught by the Nogueira et al., which teach the concentration of sulfentrazone when combined with an additional herbicide. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Deckwer et al. to formulate effective herbicidal compositions with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use experimentation and optimization to determine the optimal herbicidal effect. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, and Applicant’s amendment, filed June 25, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 4-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection as indicated hereinabove.
Applicant argues that WO ‘098 does not teach or suggest the total amounts in combination with the weight ratios of components (i) and (ii) as claimed in amended claim 1. In response to Applicant’s argument, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Deckwer et al. and Nogueira et al. to determine the amount of glufosinate and sulfentrazone used in the composition taught by Christine et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use well-known concentrations, such as those taught by the Nogueira et al., which teach the concentration of sulfentrazone when combined with an additional herbicide. In addition, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Deckwer et al. to formulate effective herbicidal compositions with a reasonable expectation of success, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use experimentation and optimization to determine the optimal herbicidal effect. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Applicant argues that the synergy provided by the claimed herbicidal mixture is clearly demonstrated in the specification. Applicant argues that the synergistic effects demonstrated by the claimed invention could not have been predicted. Applicant argues that it was found that the herbicidal effects of a claimed composition was increased significantly and synergistically. In response to Applicant’s argument, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. The data provided in the original specification in Tables 1, 2, and 3, glufosinate (280 g/L) and sulfentrazone (480 g/L) applied at 249 g ai/ha and 4.2 g ai/ha, respectively, at a weight ratio of 58:1 demonstrates purported unexpected herbicidal activity. While this data is purportedly unexpected, compared to the application of the herbicides alone, it is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Applicant claims a composition comprising (i) glufosinate, L-glufosinate or an agronomically acceptable salt thereof, and (ii) sulfentrazone, wherein a ratio by weight of a total amount of component (i) is at least 4 times more than a total amount of component (ii) in case of (i) being glufosinate, and is at least 2 times more than the total amount of component (i) in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, wherein the total amount of component (i) is from 100 to 600 g/L based on the total amount of the composition; and wherein the total amount of the component (ii) is in the range of from 1 to 120 g/L, in case of (i) being glufosinate, and in the range of from 2 to 240 g/L, in case of (i) being L-glufosinate, in each case based on the total amount of the composition.
All of the data presented is directed to glufosinate and sulfentrazone. The claims are also directed to compositions comprising L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone, wherein the weight ratios and perimeters for L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone claimed are different from those compositions comprising glufosinate and sulfentrazone. Since Applicant has claims directed specifically to L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone, one would expect to obtain different results. See claims 1, 4 and 5. As such, the data is not representative of the full scope of the claims, specifically to compositions comprising L-glufosinate and sulfentrazone. In addition, the total amount of glufosinate tested is 280 g/L. It cannot be determined if the results demonstrated using 280 g/L of glufosinate is indicative of the use of 100 to 600 g/L of glufosinate or L-glufosinate, currently claimed. In addition, 480 g/L of sulfentrazone is above the range of 1 to 120 g/L if (i) is glufosinate and 2 to 240 g/L if (i) is L-glufosinate. As such, it cannot be determined if the results demonstrated using 480 g/L, which is much higher than the claimed ranges for glufosinate and L-glufosinate, is indicative of the use of 1 to 120 g/L when (i) is glufosinate or 2 to 240 g/L when (i) is L-glufosinate. Applicant has not established nonobvious evidence that is commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter.
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 Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached on 571-272-9925. 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614