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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 21, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 8-10, 12-15, and 17-26 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 9, 10, and 17 have been amended. Claims 18-26 are newly added. Claims 1-10, 12-15 and 17-26 will be examined.
Status of the Claims
The objection of claims 1 and 17 because of the following informalities: missing bonds on the structure of the compound of Formula (I) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of claims 1 and 17 due to cancellation of the structure.
The rejection of claims 1, 8-10, 12-15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manhas et al. (WO 2020/061706) in view of Hewett et al. (US 5,264,411) is maintained.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manhas et al. (WO 2020/061706) in view of Yerkes et al. (US 8,901,035) is withdrawn.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
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, 8-10, 12-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manhas et al. (WO 2020/061706) in view of Hewett et al. (US 5,264,411). Manhas et al. cited by Applicant on IDS filed 9/7/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims an active compound combination comprising (a) a herbicidally active compound of (a) diflufenican and (b) pelargonic acid or a salt thereof.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claim 1, Manhas et al. teach methods of increasing the efficacy of pesticidal composition including synergistic pesticidal compositions comprising a pesticidal active ingredient and a C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Manhas et al. teach the C4-C10 saturated include nonanoic acid, which is pelargonic acid (page 6, lines 1-2, page 8, lines 22-24). Manhas et al. teach the pesticidal active ingredient include diflufenican (page 165, claim 12, lines 20-21).
Regarding claim 8, Manhas et al. teach the synergistic pesticidal composition comprise a ratio of the concentrations of said pesticidal active ingredient and said at least one saturate or unsaturated C4-C10 aliphatic acid. The ratio is between 1:2000 and 2000:1 and between 1:30 and 30:1 (page 5, lines 5 and 8).
Regarding claim 9, Manhas et al. teach the ratio is between 1:500 and 500:1 and between 1:20 and 20:1 (page 5, lines 6 and 9).
Regarding claim 10, Manhas et al. teach the ratio is between 1:40 and 40:1 and between 1:250 and 250:1 (page 5, lines 8 and 7)
Regarding claim 13, Manhas et al. teach a method of synergistically enhancing the pesticidal activity of at least one pesticidal active ingredient adapted to control at least one target pest organism comprising: providing at least one pesticidal active ingredient active for said at least one target pest organism; adding a synergistically effective concentration of at least one C4-C10 saturate or unsaturated aliphatic acid to said pesticidal active ingredient to provide a synergist composition; and applying said synergistic pesticidal composition in a pesticidally effective concentration to control said at least one target pest organism (page 169, claim 18, lines 18-26).
Regarding claims 12 and 15, Manhas et al. teach a method of synergistically enhancing the pesticidal activity of at least one pesticidal active ingredient adapted to control at least one target pest organism comprising: providing at least one pesticidal active ingredient active for at least one target pest organism; adding a synergistically effective concentration of at least one C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof to provide a synergistic pesticidal composition; mixing said synergistic pesticidal composition with at least one formulation component comprising a surfactant to form a synergistic pesticidal concentration; diluting said synergistic pesticidal concentrate with water to form a synergistic pesticidal emulsion; and applying said synergistic pesticidal emulsion at a pesticidally effect concentration and rate to control said at least one target pest organism (pages 180-181, claim 40).
Manhas et al. teach pests include weeds (page 20, line 6). Manhas et al. teach the term “pesticide” includes herbicides (page 20, lines 22-23).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Manhas et al. do not specifically disclose examples of diflufenican and pelargonic acid, the unwanted plant is selected from the group consisting of Polygonum convolvulus…and Laminum amplexicaule, or a kit-of-parts comprising (a) diflufenican and (b) pelargonic acid or a derivative thereof. It is for this reason Hewett et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Hewett et al. teach a method of controlling the growth of weeds at a cereal crop locus which comprises applying to the locus (a) bromoxynil, which is 3,5-dibromo-4-hydroxybenzonitrile, or ioxynil, which is 4-hydroxy-3,5-diiodobenzonitrile, an agriculturally acceptable salt or ester thereof or a mixture thereof and (b) diflufenican which is N-(2,4-difluorophenyl)-2-(3-trifluoromethylphenoxy)nicotinamide (Abstract). Hewett et al. teach Weeds that may be controlled by the method include: from broad-leaf weeds, Abutilon theophrasti, Amananthus retroflexus, Chenopodium album, Lamium amplexicaule, Polygonum convolvulus and, Echinochloa crus-galli, and Setaria viridis (col. 3, lines 12-39). Hewett et al. teach the method is practiced by the time-separated application of separate formulations (col. 3, lines 44-46).
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 use the teachings of Manhas et al. and formulate a composition comprising diflufenican and pelargonic acid. Manhas et al. teach methods of increasing the efficacy of pesticidal composition including synergistic pesticidal compositions comprising a pesticidal active ingredient and a C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid. Manhas et al. teach herbicides include diflufenican. Manhas et al. further teach nonanoic acid, which is pelargonic acid, is a preferred C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid. This is exemplified in the examples. Based on these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate a composition to inhibit the growth of at least one target pest organism, which Manhas et al. teaches are weeds, comprising diflufenican, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the limitation of “an herbicidally active compound of Formula (I)” in claims 1 and 17, “herbicide composition” of claim 12, and “an herbicidal compound combination of claims 13 and15, it would have been obvious that the compounds of formula (I) are herbicides and would be herbicidally active because Manhas et al. specifically lists diflufenican as one of the herbicides. Manhas et al. also teach that term “pesticide” or “pesticidal” are understood to refer to any composition or substance that can be used in the control of any agricultural, natural environment. Manhas et al. teach that the term “pesticide” includes herbicides. Manhas et al. further teach the term “pesticidally effective amount” generally means the amount of the inventive mixtures or compositions comprising the mixture needed to achieve an observable effect on growth, including the effects of necrosis, death, retardation, prevention or otherwise diminishing the occurrence of the target pest organism, which includes weeds, as taught by Manhas. As such, based on these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the compositions as herbicides, specifically the known herbicides diflufenican, with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 Manhas et al. and Hewett et al. and use the compositions to control unwanted plants selected from the group consisting of Polygonum convolvulus…and Laminum amplexicaule. Manhas et al. teach methods of increasing the efficacy of pesticidal composition including synergistic pesticidal compositions comprising a pesticidal active ingredient and a C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid. Manhas et al. teach herbicides include diflufenican. Manhas et al. further teach nonanoic acid, which is pelargonic acid, is a preferred C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid. This is exemplified in the examples. Manhas et al. teach that weeds are pest organisms that are inhibited. Hewett et al. teach compositions comprising diflufenican control Abutilon theophrasti, Amananthus retroflexus, Chenopodium album, Lamium amplexicaule, Polygonum convolvulus and, Echinochloa crus-galli, and Setaria viridis. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if diflufenican controls the claimed species in Hewett et al. it would control the claimed weed species when combined with pelargonic acid, especially since Manhas et al. teach the activity of the pesticidal active ingredients is enhanced.
Regarding claim 17, Manhas et al. teach a method of synergistically enhancing the pesticidal activity of at least one pesticidal active ingredient adapted to control at least one target pest organism comprising: providing at least one pesticidal active ingredient active for said at least one target pest organism; adding a synergistically effective concentration of at least one C4-C10 saturate or unsaturated aliphatic acid to said pesticidal active ingredient to provide a synergist composition; and applying said synergistic pesticidal composition in a pesticidally effective concentration to control said at least one target pest organism. Hewett et al. teach the method is practiced by the time-separated application of separate formulations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the compositions comprising nonanoic acid and diflufenican are in separate containers prior to mixing. Hewett et al. teach time-separated application of separate formulations. Based on these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that these variations taught by Manhas et al. and Hewett et al. would be spatially separated until the components are mixed or applied separately.
Regarding the limitation of “synergistically effective amount”, claim 17 is drawn to a kit-of-parts comprising (a) diflufenican and (b) pelargonic acid or a derivative thereof, in a synergistically effective amount in a spatially separated arrangement. Evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. The data in the original specification does demonstrate that a composition comprising diflufenican and pelargonic acid at weight ratios of 1:40, 1:100, 1:106, and 1:266.6, provide better than expected herbicidal activity. However, the claim recites any amount of diflufenican and any amount of pelargonic acid can be used in the composition. It cannot be determined if the herbicidal activity of diflufenican and pelargonic acid, at in the range of 1:40-1:266.6, as demonstrated in the examples, will be extended to any weight ratio of diflufenican and pelargonic acid, as currently claimed. Applicant has not established nonobvious evidence that is commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter.
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 filed November 21, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that claim 1 is directed to compound combinations comprising diflufenican and pelargonic acids. Applicant argues Manhas is silent with respect to diflufenican except to include in a list of pesticides. Applicant argues demonstration of a greater than expected herbicidal result by combining diflufenican and pelargonic acid/salts. Applicant further argues that claim 1 is directed to compound combinations comprising the herbicidally active compound diflufenican and that Manhas fails to disclose any data in connection with herbicides or corresponding herbicidal activity. In response to Applicant’s argument, the examiner maintains that Manhas et al. specifically list diflufenican as a herbicide. Manhas et al. also teach that term “pesticide” or “pesticidal” are understood to refer to any composition or substance that can be used in the control of any agricultural, natural environment. Manhas et al. teach that the term “pesticide” includes herbicides. Manhas et al. further teach the term “pesticidally effective amount” generally means the amount of the inventive mixtures or compositions comprising the mixture needed to achieve an observable effect on growth, including the effects of necrosis, death, retardation, prevention or otherwise diminishing the occurrence of the target pest organism, which includes weeds, as taught by Manhas. As such, based on these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the compositions as herbicides, specifically the known herbicide diflufenican, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant argues that Hewett does not cure the deficiencies of Manhas. Applicant argues that no combination of Manhas and Hewett would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine diflufenican with pelargonic acid to arrive at the compound combination of Claim 1. Applicant argues that Manhas fails to disclose any data in connection with herbicides or corresponding herbicidally activity. In response to Applicant’s arguments, although the examples are directed to fungicides or insecticides, Manhas et al. specifically teach pests include weeds and that the term “pesticide” includes herbicides. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that Manhas et al. do teach the use of the compositions as herbicides even though there are no examples disclosed.
Regarding demonstration of a greater than expected herbicidal result by combining diflufenican and pelargonic acid/salts, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. The data in the original specification does demonstrate that a composition comprising diflufenican and pelargonic acid at weight ratios of 1:40, 1:100, 1:106, and 1:266.6, provide better than expected herbicidal activity. However, the claim recites any amount of diflufenican and any amount of pelargonic acid in the composition. It cannot be determined if the herbicidal activity of diflufenican and pelargonic acid, in the range of 1:40-1:266.6, as demonstrated in the examples, will be extended to any weight ratio of diflufenican and pelargonic acid, as currently claimed. While Applicant does not have to show every weight ratio, a representative trend should be exemplified. Weight ratios of diflufenican to pelargonic acid of 1:40, 1:100, 1:106, and 1:266.6, is not representative of the wide range of weight ratios claimed in claims 1 and 17. Applicant has not proven to provide a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the skilled artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof. See In re Kollmann and Irwin, 201 USPQ 193 (C.C.P.A. 1979). Applicant has not established nonobvious evidence that is commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter.
Regarding Hewett, it was added to provide motivation to use the compositions to control unwanted plants selected from the group consisting of Polygonum convolvulus…and Laminum amplexicaule. Manhas et al. teach methods of increasing the efficacy of pesticidal composition including synergistic pesticidal compositions comprising a pesticidal active ingredient and a C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid. Manhas et al. teach herbicides include diflufenican and picolinafen. Manhas et al. further teach nonanoic acid, which is pelargonic acid, is a preferred C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid. This is exemplified in the examples. Manhas et al. teach that weeds are pest organisms that are inhibited. Hewett et al. teach compositions comprising diflufenican control Abutilon theophrasti, Amananthus retroflexus, Chenopodium album, Lamium amplexicaule, Polygonum convolvulus and, Echinochloa crus-galli, and Setaria viridis. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that if diflufenican controls the claimed species in Hewett et al. it would control the claimed weed species when combined with pelargonic acid, especially since Manhas et al. teach the activity of the pesticidal active ingredients is enhanced.
Claims 1 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manhas et al. (WO 2020/061706) in view of Hewett et al. (US 5,264,411), Yerkes et al. (US 8,901,035). Manhas et al. cited by Applicant on IDS filed 9/7/2022.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims an active compound combination comprising (a) diflufenican and (b) pelargonic acid or a derivative thereof. Applicant claims the composition of claim 1 further comprises a compound (c) a cellulose synthase inhibitor.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Manhas et al. and Hewett et al. with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection is hereby incorporated and are therefore applied in the instant rejection as discussed above.
Regarding claims 18, 22, and 25, Manhas et al. teach the herbicides include dichlobenil (page 165, line 14) and isoxaben (page 166, lines 9).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Manhas et al. and Hewett et al. do not specifically disclose the composition further comprises a compound (c) a cellulose synthase inhibitor. It is for this reason Yerkes et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Yerkes et al. teach herbicidal compositions comprising (a) a compound of formula (I) and indaziflam (Abstract). Yerkes et al. teach the mixtures comprise an additional herbicide comprising diflufenican (col. 14, lines 9-10) and picolinafen (col. 14, lines 63-64).
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 Manhas et al., Hewitt et al., and Yerkes et al. and formulate a composition comprising diflufenican and pelargonic acid and an additional compound (c), indaziflam, isoxaben or dichlobenil. Manhas et al. teach methods of increasing the efficacy of pesticidal composition including synergistic pesticidal compositions comprising a pesticidal active ingredient and a C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid. Manhas et al. teach herbicides include diflufenican, isoxaben and dichlobenil. Manhas et al. further teach nonanoic acid, which is pelargonic acid, is a preferred C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid. This is exemplified in the examples. Yerkes et al. teach a ternary composition comprising indaziflam and diflufenican. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add isoxaben, dichlobenil or indaziflam to the compositions taught by Manhas et al. because it is known in the herbicidal art to add additional herbicides to enhance the activity of herbicides. In addition, in view of In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1980), it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in prior art, thus claims that requires no more than mixing together two or three conventional plant herbicides set forth prima facie obvious subject matter.
Regarding the limitation of “an herbicidally active compound of Formula (I)” in claim 1, it would have been obvious that the compounds of formula (I) are herbicides and would be herbicidally active because Manhas et al. lists diflufenican, isoxaben, and dichlobenil as herbicides. Manhas et al. also teach that term “pesticide” or “pesticidal” are understood to refer to any composition or substance that can be used in the control of any agricultural, natural environment. Manhas et al. teach that the term “pesticide” includes herbicides. Manhas et al. further teach the term “pesticidally effective amount” generally means the amount of the inventive mixtures or compositions comprising the mixture needed to achieve an observable effect on growth, including the effects of necrosis, death, retardation, prevention or otherwise diminishing the occurrence of the target pest organism, which includes weeds, as taught by Manhas. As such, based on these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the compositions as herbicides, specifically the known herbicides diflufenican and picolinafen, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the limitation of the weight ratios in claims 19, 20, and 21, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use experimentation and optimization to determine the amount of herbicides to use in the ternary composition. Manhas et al. teach the ratio of the pesticide, diflufenican and pelargonic acid is between 1:500 and 500:1; between 1:20 and 20:1, between 1:40 and 40:1 and between 1:250 and 250:1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use experimentation to determine the optimal amount of the third component to use in the herbicidal composition to effectively control weeds. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references, especially within the broad ranges instantly claimed) 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.
Regarding the limitations of claims 24, 25, and 26 of the kit-of-parts, Manhas et al. teach a method of synergistically enhancing the pesticidal activity of at least one pesticidal active ingredient adapted to control at least one target pest organism comprising: providing at least one pesticidal active ingredient active for said at least one target pest organism; adding a synergistically effective concentration of at least one C4-C10 saturate or unsaturated aliphatic acid to said pesticidal active ingredient to provide a synergist composition; and applying said synergistic pesticidal composition in a pesticidally effective concentration to control said at least one target pest organism. Hewett et al. teach the method is practiced by the time-separated application of separate formulations. Yerkes et al. teach the herbicides can be applied sequentially with the other herbicides. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the compositions comprising nonanoic acid and diflufenican are in separate containers prior to mixing. Hewett et al. teach time-separated application of separate formulations. Based on these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that these variations taught by Manhas et al., Hewett et al., and Yerkes et al. would be spatially separated until the components are mixed or applied separately.
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 filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Yerkes does not cure the deficiencies of Manhas. Applicant submits that no combination of Manhas and Yerkes would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to combine diflufenican with pelargonic acid or salt thereof to arrive at the compound combination of Claim 1. In response to Applicant’s argument, the examiner maintains that it would have been obvious that the compounds of formula (I) are herbicides and would be herbicidally active because Manhas et al. list diflufenican and picolinafen as herbicides. Manhas et al. also teach that term “pesticide” or “pesticidal” are understood to refer to any composition or substance that can be used in the control of any agricultural, natural environment. Manhas et al. teach that the term “pesticide” includes herbicides. Manhas et al. further teach the term “pesticidally effective amount” generally means the amount of the inventive mixtures or compositions comprising the mixture needed to achieve an observable effect on growth, including the effects of necrosis, death, retardation, prevention or otherwise diminishing the occurrence of the target pest organism, which includes weeds, as taught by Manhas. As such, based on these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the compositions as herbicides, specifically the known herbicides diflufenican and picolinafen, with a reasonable expectation of success. Yerkes was added to provide a motivation to add indaziflam as an additional herbicide. Manhas et al. teach methods of increasing the efficacy of pesticidal composition including synergistic pesticidal compositions comprising a pesticidal active ingredient and a C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid. Manhas et al. teach herbicides include diflufenican and picolinafen. Manhas et al. further teach nonanoic acid, which is pelargonic acid, is a preferred C4-C10 saturated or unsaturated aliphatic acid. This is exemplified in the examples. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add indaziflam to the compositions taught by Manhas et al. because it is known in the herbicidal art to add additional herbicides to enhance the activity of herbicides. In addition, in view of In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1980), it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in prior art, thus claims that requires no more than mixing together two or three conventional plant herbicides set forth prima facie obvious subject matter.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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