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 .
Detailed Action
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 08/25/25 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 36, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35
U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this
Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 13, 35 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (CN 106719652A).
Huang et al. discloses herbicide containing compounds for controlling weed in soybean field, see title. The compound taught is di-methyl fumarate in 50-60 parts in abstract and claims 2-3.
PNG
media_image1.png
220
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above compound reads on the oxaloacetate compound of formula (III) wherein R1 and R2 are methyl, R3 and R4 are hydrogen (see instant claim 13 which is same as the claimed compound). Huang teaches that the object of the present invention to provide a kind of soybean in field herbicide, it has herbicidal effect good, the strong advantage of penetrating power, see content of the invention of the translation. Additional herbicides are disclosed in claims 3 and 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 14, 18-20, 22, 29-30, 32, 36 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (CN 106719652A) in view of Coleman et al. (US PG Pub. 2007/0249699 A1) and Gorbunov et al. (US PG Pub. 2019/0119193A1).
Huang et al. does not teach the amount of oxaloacetate compound applied to the plant fertilizer.
Coleman et al. discloses a method of controlling plant growth, said method comprising applying to a plant a herbicidal composition comprising an organic acid, or salt thereof, wherein said plant is a grass (see claims 25, 26). The reference discloses that the organic acid can be fumaric acid or oxaloacetic acid), see claim 3. Coleman et al. is applied at a rate ranging from about 0.10 to about 1000 pounds per acre (see claim 33). Coleman et al. discloses that the compositions are particularly suited for spot killing of unwanted weeds about a home or farm (see paragraph [0103)). Coleman et al. discloses an agricultural field such as a field of strawberries (a crop of cultivated plant) (see paragraph [0048]). Coleman et al. discloses that the compositions can be used to kill/desiccate a variety of grasses, broadleaves, and crop plants, wherein grasses killed or desiccated include fall panicum, prickly side, johnsongrass, ryegrass, horseweed, or goosegrass (see claims 27, 29; paragraph [0080)]). Coleman et al. discloses that the fungicide composition can be combined with an herbicide composition, a desiccant composition, or an insecticide composition (see paragraph [0035]). Coleman et al. discloses the herbicidal composition comprising an emulsifier and an additive selected from the group consisting of an adjuvant a diluent, and a combination thereof (see claim 25). Coleman et al. discloses that the composition can be provided either as a liquid concentrate or a ready-to-use formulation, and the ready-to-use formulation can be a clear, aqueous solution, a suspension, or an emulsion (see paragraph [0022]).
Gorbunov teaches herbicide at a dose of 175.0 g/ha (see paragraph [0110]). Gorbunov et al. discloses composition for regulating plant growth, see title. The reference teaches oxaloacetate compound, see [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified or optimized by a person skilled in the art without the exercise of inventive skill considering that the composition of Coleman et al. is applied at a rate ranging from about 0.10 to about 1000 pounds per acre (see claim 33) and the amount of herbicide can be easily modified or optimized through repeated experimentation conducted by a person skilled in the art, without the exercise of inventive skill, considering herbicide at a dose of 175.0 g/ha in Gorbunov et al. (see paragraph [0110]). The amount of herbicide can be simply controlled and applied by routine experimental means in accordance with experimental conditions by a person skilled in the art considering that the active ingredient content corresponds to a 50-60 parts by Huang et al. Coleman et al. discloses the herbicidal composition comprising an organic acid, or salt thereof (see claim 25) and modifying a type of salt form is merely a matter of design option when general technical knowledge in the relevant field of the art is used. Regarding an effective herbicidal amount, can be easily modified or optimized by a person skilled in the art without the exercise of inventive skill and no unexpected effects or properties are indicated in the application. The amount of oxaloacetate compound can be modified or optimized by a person skilled in the art without the exercise of inventive skill considering that the composition of Coleman et al. is applied at a rate ranging from about 0.10 to about 1000 pounds per acre (see claim 33). Regarding mixing the oxaloacetate compound to the fertilizer and applying the fertilizer to the herbicidal composition, it would be within the scope of the customary practice followed by a person skilled in the art and no unexpected effects or properties are indicated in the application.
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the rejections made above necessitated by claim amendments.
Action is final
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached on 571-272-6897. 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.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612