DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 13, 2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 § 103 (Maintained)
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 nonobviousness.
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, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17, 20-23, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Schnabel et al. (US 2015/0157012 A1) in view of Aponte et al. (WO 2017/211572 A1 with a foreign translation provided by US 2020/0323206 A1) and Liu et al. (US 2019/0133116 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Schnabel discloses clear, aqueous compositions to treat plants comprising dicamba salts in an amount of at least 250 g/L and up to 800 g/L (calculated as acid equivalents of dicamba) [0126] [abstract] [0051] [0093] [0006] [0010] [0004] [0118]. Schnabel teaches N-methylpyrrolidone as a suitable solvent [0082].
Schnabel does not disclose the use of an N-C2-C15 alkyl pyrrolidone or 10 to 60 wt.% water.
Aponte teaches the use of N-substituted pyrrolidones (the C4 alkyl pyrrolidone, N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone is preferred [0029] [0034]) to promote the penetration of agrochemical active agents, such as dicamba, in plants [abstract] [0060]. The N-substituted pyrrolidones are present in the aqueous composition in an amount of 0.001 to 99% by weight (around 0.01-990 g/L) [0216]-[0217]. Aponte teaches that the N-substituted pyrrolidones increase the biological efficacy of active agrochemical ingredients and allow more active agrochemical ingredient to be absorbed into the plant [0016], have an advantageous toxicological and ecological profile [0017], and enable a high loading of crop protection compositions with active agrochemical ingredient [0018]. Aponte also teaches that the N-substituted pyrrolidones have high water solubility and can be combined with water in water-soluble concentrates [0020].
Since Schnabel generally teaches compositions to treat plants, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an N-C2-C15 alkyl pyrrolidone, such as N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone, in the amount taught by Aponte, within the teachings of Schnabel, because Aponte teaches N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone in an agrochemical formulation for plants. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use an N-substituted pyrrolidone, such as N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone, because Aponte teaches that the N-substituted pyrrolidones increase the biological efficacy of active agrochemical ingredients and allow more active agrochemical ingredient to be absorbed into the plant [0016], have an advantageous toxicological and ecological profile [0017], and enable a high loading of crop protection compositions with active agrochemical ingredient [0018].
Furthermore, generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, since Schnabel generally taught pyrrolidones as cosolvents with water in the agrochemical formulation [0082], it is prima facie obvious to select N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone for incorporation into the composition based on its recognized suitability for the intended use as a pyrrolidone to be used as a cosolvent with water, as taught by Aponte [0020].
The combined teachings of the prior art do not disclose 10 to 60 wt.% water.
Liu discloses a composition for plants comprising dicamba and water in an amount of 10 wt.% to 80 wt.% [0003] [0068] (such as 20.86 wt.% - S1424-111-05) [0323]. Liu teaches that the composition with dicamba and 20.86 wt.% water is flowable and there is no residue or sediments observed [0323].
Since Schnabel generally teaches an aqueous composition for plants with dicamba, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include water in an amount of 10 to 80 wt.%, such as 20.86 wt.%, because Liu teaches this amount of water in an agrochemical composition with dicamba. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use 20.86 wt.% water with dicamba because Liu teaches that a composition with this amount of water is flowable and there is no residue or sediments observed [0323].
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Furthermore, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In regards to the amount of an N-C2-C15 alkyl pyrrolidone, the general condition of N-substituted pyrrolidones, such as N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone, in an amount of 0.001 to 99% by weight, to affect the agrochemical ingredients absorption into plants is known in the art (Aponte, [0016]). In regards to the amount of water, the general condition of water and adjusting it accordingly to reach desired concentrations has been taught by Schnabel ([0126] [0118]) and the amount of water as claimed is known in the art (Liu, [0068], [0323]). As such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum amount of N-C2-C15 alkyl pyrrolidone or water via routine experimentation to optimize the formulation.
Claims 2-3 and 32 are rendered prima facie obvious because Aponte teaches the use of the C4 alkyl pyrrolidone, N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone, is preferred [0029] [0034].
Claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious because Aponte teaches the N-substituted pyrrolidones, such as N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone, are present in the aqueous composition in an amount of 0.001 to 99% by weight (around 0.01-990 g/L) [0216]-[0217]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed. Furthermore, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum amount of N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone through routine experimentation, as previously discussed.
Claims 8-10 are rendered prima facie obvious because Schnabel discloses that dicamba is most preferred in the form of an N,N-bis(3-aminopropyl)methylamine [0044] [0125]-[0126].
Claims 12-13 are rendered prima facie obvious because Schnabel discloses the compositions include an alkali metal carbonate [0126] [0052]-[0055].
Claim 15 is rendered prima facie obvious because Schnabel discloses the dicamba salt is the potassium salt of dicamba [0125]-[0126] [0007].
Regarding claims 16-17, Schnabel discloses that suitable block copolymers for the composition are block polymers of the A-B-A type comprising blocks of polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide [0086].
Schnabel does not disclose the value of n, m, or p, as recited in claim 16, or the ratio of the ethylene oxide to the propylene oxide in the formulation, as recited in claim 17.
Aponte teaches block copolymers formed on the basis of ethylene oxide and propylene oxide having average molar masses between 200 and 10,000 where the proportion by mass of the polyethoxylated block varies between 10% and 80% (such as the EO/PO/EO block-copolymers of the BASF Pluronic® PE series) [0172]. Aponte teaches that these copolymers are added as surfactants which increase the contact area of the composition [0003].
Since Schnabel generally teaches compositions to treat plants, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the EO/PO/EO block-copolymers taught by Aponte, within the teachings of Schnabel, because Aponte teaches these block-copolymers within an agrochemical formulation for plants. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to include the EO/PO/EO block-copolymers of Aponte as a surfactant to increase the contact area of the composition [0003]. Following the teachings of Schnabel and Aponte the ordinarily skilled artisan would arrive at the claimed n, p, and m values in formula (I), as recited in claim 16, and the claimed (n+p)/m ratio, as recited in claim 17. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Furthermore, generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, since Schnabel generally taught block polymers of the A-B-A type comprising blocks of polyethylene oxide and polypropylene oxide in the agrochemical formulation, it is prima facie obvious to select the EO/PO/EO block-copolymers taught by Aponte (such as the BASF Pluronic® PE series) for incorporation into the composition based on their recognized suitability for the intended use as block copolymers in the composition [0172].
Claims 20-21 are rendered prima facie obvious because Schnabel discloses gamma butyrolactone as a solvent/liquid carrier [0082].
Regarding claim 22, Schnabel teaches gamma butyrolactone as a solvent/liquid carrier in an amount up to 10 wt.% [0082]. It would have been prima facie obvious to include an N-C2-C15 alkyl pyrrolidone, such as N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone as taught by Aponte, within the teachings of Schnabel, as previously discussed, which Aponte teaches in an amount of 0.001 to 99% by weight [0216]-[0217]. It would have been prima facie obvious to include the EO/PO/EO block-copolymer surfactants taught by Aponte, within the teachings of Schnabel, as previously discussed which Aponte teaches as an additive in an amount of 0 to 98% by weight [0140] [0040]. Following the teachings of Schnabel and Aponte, the ordinarily skilled artisan would arrive at the claimed amount of the sum of solvents and additives. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 23 is rendered prima facie obvious because Schnabel discloses the compositions include glyphosate [0014] [0019] [0045]-[0046].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pg. 8 that although the ‘012 publication discloses aqueous formulations of dicamba and suggests N-methylpyrrolidone as a possible solvent, it is merely mentioned as one example in a long list of organic solvents. The applicant also argues that the ‘206 publication mentions dicamba in a long list of organic pesticides and does not include it in the examples.
The Examiner disagrees. Patents are relevant as prior art for all that they contain and nonpreferred or alternative embodiments constitute prior art. See MPEP 2123. Therefore, although the ‘012 and ‘206 references have many teachings, the large number of teachings does not detract from ‘012 teaching N-methylpyrrolidone and ‘206 teaching dicamba.
Applicant argues at pg. 9 that the ‘206 publication does not provide any incentive for a skilled person to include an N-C2-C15-alkyl pyrrolidone in formulations of dicamba in the ‘012 publication.
The Examiner disagrees. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use an N-substituted pyrrolidone, such as N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone, because Aponte teaches that the N-substituted pyrrolidones increase the biological efficacy of active agrochemical ingredients and allow more active agrochemical ingredient to be absorbed into the plant [0016], have an advantageous toxicological and ecological profile [0017], and enable a high loading of crop protection compositions with active agrochemical ingredient [0018].
Furthermore, generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, since Schnabel generally taught pyrrolidones as cosolvents with water in the agrochemical formulation [0082], it is prima facie obvious to select N-butyl 2-pyrrolidone for incorporation into the composition based on its recognized suitability for the intended use as a pyrrolidone to be used as a cosolvent with water, as taught by Aponte [0020].
Applicant argues at pg. 9-10 that the ‘116 publication fails to cure the deficiencies of the ‘012/’206 publications.
The Examiner disagrees because the ‘012/’206 publications are not deficient expect where the ‘116 publication teaches the claimed amount of water.
Analysis of Alleged Unexpected Results
Applicant argues at pg. 6-7 that the examples in the specification demonstrate that the instability of dicamba at high concentrations is overcome by the claimed formulations, namely, that the claimed formulations are stable after prolonged storage, while the formulations without an N-C2-C15-alkyl pyrrolidone are not stable. The applicant argues that these results are unexpected over the prior art. The Examiner is directed to Examples 3, 9, and 12 and Comparative Example 4 of the specification.
The Examiner has fully reviewed and considered Examples 3, 9, and 12 and Comparative Example 4 of the as-filed specification.
In Example 3 (pg. 41-42) formulations were prepared with 56.66 g of Dicamba, 46.75 g of water, 6.68 g of an N-pyrrolidone (solvents B-D), 6.68 g of gamma-butyrolactone (solvent E), and 6.68 g of polymer A, B, or C (polymers described at pg. 40, bottom-pg. 41, top). Each formed clear solutions. This was compared to a composition with 44 wt.% dicamba and 66 wt.% water which formed a turbid liquid.
In Example 9, (pg. 45-46) formulations with 536.6 g of dicamba, 30-100 g of N-(n-butyl) pyrrolidone, 143 g of K2CO3, and the remaining up to 1 L of water were prepared. These compositions had a cold storage stability ranking of 1-3 (lower being less crystallization). A comparative composition was prepared with 536.6 g of dicamba, 143 g of K2CO3, and the remaining up to 1 L of water. The cold storage stability of the comparative composition had a ranking of 4.
In Example 12 (pg. 47), formulations were prepared with 630 g of Dicamba, 50-100 g of N-(n-butyl) pyrrolidone, 153 g of K2CO3, and the remaining up to 1 L of water. These compositions had a cold storage stability ranking of 3, whereas a comparative composition with no N-(n-butyl) pyrrolidone had a cold storage stability ranking of 5. There does not appear to be conclusive data for the higher dicamba concentrations tested (885 g/L and 959 g/L).
From the data presented in Example 3, it is not clear if an individual component (i.e., the N-pyrrolidone solvent) is leading to the increased stability of the dicamba salt or if it is all of the components in combination. The comparative composition has only dicamba and water whereas the inventive formulations also include an N-pyrrolidone, gamma-butyrolactone, and a polymer which all may play a role in the increased stability of the formulation. Examples 9 and 12 provide a comparison between compositions with dicamba and N-(n-butyl) pyrrolidone vs. the dicamba salt alone. The formulations with 536.6 or 630 g/L of dicamba salt and 30-100 g/L of N-(n-butyl) pyrrolidone do appear to show greater stability under storage at cold temperatures than formulations with the dicamba salt alone which is unexpected over the prior art.
However, the claims are not “commensurate in scope” with the showing. See MPEP § 716.02(d). The Applicant has demonstrated improved stability of the dicamba salts, but this has only been shown with the combination of the dicamba salts and N-(n-butyl) pyrrolidone in specific amounts. It is unclear that a comparative composition containing these specific components and in these specific amounts would be reasonably representative of compositions containing other alkyl pyrrolidones (i.e., other than N-(n-butyl) pyrrolidone) and in differing amounts than those tested, falling within the broader scope currently claimed.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Schnabel et al. (US 2015/0157012 A1) in view of Aponte et al. (WO 2017/211572 A1 with a foreign translation provided by US 2020/0323206 A1) and Liu et al. (US 2019/0133116 A1) and further in view of Bhatti et al. (US 2014/0315717 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Schnabel in view of Aponte and Liu was previously discussed.
Schnabel does not disclose 3,5- dichloro-2-hydroxy benzoic acid, as recited in claims 5 and 7.
Bhatti teaches treating plants with a composition comprising dicamba and metabolites such as 3,5-dichloro salicylic acid (synonym for 3,5-dichloro-2-hydroxy benzoic acid) [0023] [0028]. Bhatti teaches that compositions with metabolites, such as 3,5-dichloro salicylic acid, induce improvements in plant health and enhance the yield of a plant [0028] [0034].
Since Schnabel generally teaches compositions to treat plants, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include 3,5-dichloro salicylic acid taught by Bhatti, within the teachings of Schnabel, because Bhatti teaches 3,5-dichloro salicylic acid, within an agrochemical formulation for plants. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to include 3,5-dichloro salicylic acid because Bhatti teaches that compositions with metabolites, such as 3,5-dichloro salicylic acid, induce improvements in plant health and enhance the yield of a plant [0028] [0034].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pg. 11-12 that the ‘717 publication fails to cure the deficiencies of the combination of the ‘012/’206/’116 publications.
The Examiner disagrees because the ‘012/’206/’116 publications are not deficient expect where the ‘717 publication teaches 3,5- dichloro-2-hydroxy benzoic acid.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Schnabel et al. (US 2015/0157012 A1) in view of Aponte et al. (WO 2017/211572 A1 with a foreign translation provided by US 2020/0323206 A1), Liu et al. (US 2019/0133116 A1), Bhatti et al. (US 2014/0315717 A1), and further in view of Silverman et al. (US 2004/0116293 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Schnabel in view of Aponte, Liu, and Bhatti was previously discussed.
It would have been prima facie obvious to include 3,5-dichlorosalicylic acid (3,5-dichloro-2-hydroxy benzoic acid), as taught by Bhatti, within the combined teachings of the prior art, as previously discussed. Bhatti teaches that metabolites, such as 3,5-dichloro salicylic acid, induce improvements in plant health and enhance the yield of a plant [0028] [0034].
Bhatti does not disclose the concentration of the secondary components (i.e., 3,5-dichloro-2-hydroxy benzoic acid), or a total concentration of secondary components in a range of 2 to 20 wt.% based on the total weight of dicamba contained in the formulation, as recited in claim 6.
Silverman discloses an herbicide composition to treat plants [Abstract] [0007] with 3,5-dichlorosalicylic acid in an amount of 0.001 to 50.0 wt.% of the composition [0009] [0011].
Schnabel taught dicamba salts in the aqueous composition in an amount of at least 250 g/L and up to 800 g/L [0051] (around 25 wt.%-80 wt.%).
3,5-dichlorosalicylic acid, and the amount thereof, is recognized to have different effects (plant health and yield) with changing amounts used. Thus, the general condition (amount of 3,5-dichloro salicylic acid, Silverman, [0009] [0011]) is known in the art and the amount of this ingredient is recognized to be result effective (Bhatti, [0028] [0034]). As such, result effective variables can be optimized by routine experimentation, and it would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the amount of 3,5-dichlorosalicylic acid (known in the art to be 0.001 to 50.0 wt.% of the composition; Silverman) in relation to the total amount of dicamba in the composition (known in the art to be around 25 wt.%-80 wt.% of the composition; Schnabel). See MPEP 2144.05. Following the combined teachings of the prior art ordinarily skilled artisan would arrive at the claimed amount of 3,5-dichloro-2-hydroxy benzoic acid based on the total weight of dicamba in the formulation.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Schnabel et al. (US 2015/0157012 A1) in view of Aponte et al. (WO 2017/211572 A1 with a foreign translation provided by US 2020/0323206 A1) and Liu et al. (US 2019/0133116 A1) and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2010/0331182 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Schnabel in view of Aponte and Liu was previously discussed.
Schnabel does not disclose the pH of the formulation if from 6.0 to 11.0, as recited in claim 14.
Zhang discloses an aqueous formulation of dicamba salts to treat plants where the pH of the formulation is between 6 and 8 [abstract] [0008]. Zhang teaches that the aqueous dicamba formulation with the pH value in this range is homogeneous, stable, and high-strength [abstract] [0003] [0019].
Since Schnabel generally teaches compositions to treat plants with dicamba, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a pH value between 6 and 8, within the teachings of Schnabel, because Zhang discloses an aqueous formulation of dicamba salts to treat plants where the pH of the formulation is between 6 and 8. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use this range of pH values because Zhang teaches that the dicamba formulation with the pH value in this range is homogeneous, stable, and high-strength [abstract] [0003] [0019]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
While Zhang does not disclose the pH was measured at 20°C and 1 bar, it would be reasonably expected that the pH was measured close to atmospheric pressure and room temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pg. 12-13 that the ‘182 publication fails to cure the deficiencies of the combination of the ‘012/’206/’116 publications.
The Examiner disagrees because the ‘012/’206/’116 publications are not deficient expect where the ‘182 publication teaches the claimed pH.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10, 12-17, 20-23 and 32 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 17/915,603 in view of Aponte et al. (WO 2017/211572 A1 with a foreign translation provided by US 2020/0323206 A1).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The copending claims recite all of the features instantly recited for the composition except for the N-C2-C15 alkyl pyrrolidone in a range of 10 to 200 g/L.
Aponte teaches N-substituted pyrrolidones are present in the aqueous composition in an amount of 0.001 to 99% by weight (around 0.01-990 g/L) [0216]-[0217]. Aponte teaches that the N-substituted pyrrolidones increase the biological efficacy of active agrochemical ingredients and allow more active agrochemical ingredient to be absorbed into the plant [0016].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include 0.001 to 99% by weight (around 0.01-990 g/L) of the N-C2-C15 alkyl pyrrolidone, within the copending claims. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use this amount to increase the biological efficacy of active agrochemical ingredients and allow more active agrochemical ingredient to be absorbed into the plant [0016].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashlee E Wertz whose telephone number is (571)270-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 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.
/ASHLEE E WERTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights