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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/24/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments are in response to in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 08/22/2025. Applicant’s claims have been amended in the following manner: the claims set has been amended by removal of “about” per the 112b rejection of the previous office action such that the claims are essentially the same as before. Furthermore, new claims 28-30 have been entered to draw a new ground of rejection, where the ingredient amounts of claim 28 are supported for incorporation by Applicant’s Specification [0057], and claims 29-30 further narrow the n value compared to the independent claims 1 and 28, in response to the last Non-Final Office Action.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive in relation to the 103 rejection (resulting in removal of several discussed species of Lennon and reconsideration of unexpected results), per the discussion in the response to arguments section. The following objections/rejections are withdrawn: the 112b rejection and the 103 rejection.
However, different portions of the previously cited Art and new Art are cited below, affording a new 103 rejection, where this action represents a second Non-Final action.
The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Claims 1-16 and 28-30 are pending.
Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected inventions.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 28 are presented for examination and rejected as set forth below.
Claims 12 and 29-30 are objected to.
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.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lennon (US 2010/0234228A1), as evidenced by Raval (Basic Fundamentals of Drug Delivery, 2019), and in further view of Noiret (Journal of Surfactants and Detergents, 1999), Nguyen (US5118444A), and Krough (Journal of Chromatography A, 2002).
Applicant’s claims are directed to a composition comprising an agrochemical and at least one surfactant of any of the structures of instant formulas (I-III). The use of “derived” in instant claim 10 does not suggest chemical derivatization but a “sourcing of” the hydrocarbon group, as confirmed by the specification [0027]. The use of “derivative” in claim 14 is narrowed by the “said surfactant” recited in claim 1, and thus the term is defined and understood, as also discussed in the specification [0039]. Note that acid equivalent (ae, a.e.) is used throughout to (primarily) express concentration of potassium glyphosate (K-glyphosate) in the stock K-glyphosate ingredient solution and within the final agrochemical formulations, per the description of Lennon [0008].
Applicant elects the following species below (i.e., Armeen EA 13i-4G):
PNG
media_image1.png
497
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lennon teaches novel surfactants and formulations for herbicidal compositions, that incorporate glyphosate at concentration and is stable (Lennon – claim 1, [0002]).
Regarding claims 1 and 7: Lennon teaches promotes surfactant N (Surfonic AGM-550) (Table 4) and surfactant TED5 (Tomah ED-17-5) [0408] as a high performing surfactants (compared to all surfactants of Table 4, pg 40-47), such that a PHOSITA would select surfactant N and/or TED5 for further optimization. Note a cloud point of 70 °C for Surfonic AGM 550 (Example 2.06 in Table 3) and >90 °C for Tomah E-D-17-5 (Example 2.13 in Table 3), which are considered high cloud points for highly concentrated potassium glyphosate formulations [0025]. Lennon teaches, for aqueous solution concentrates, that high temperature storage stability is often indicated by a cloud point of about 50° C or more, and that a cloud point of 50° C or more is normally considered acceptable for most commercial purposes for a glyphosate SL formulation, with preference for a cloud point of 60° C or more [0025]. Thus, higher cloud points of concentrate formulations are suggestive of higher formulation stability, wherein surfactant N and TED5 demonstrate high cloud points, while also incorporating high concentrations of K-glyphosate in the formulation (>36% a.e. K-glyphosate in the final formulation; e.g., in example 2.06, 50% K-glyphosate x 74 wt% = 37 wt% K-glyphosate a.e. in the formulation).
PNG
media_image2.png
122
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
48
747
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, surfactant N is an embodiment of formula (23) and surfactant TED5 is an embodiment of Formula (33), including the variability of the substituents, which are taught by Lennon to furnish effective surfactants to make high concentration glyphosate formulations (pg 104-105 of Lennon – claim 25) [0033]. One would employ variation per Lennon’s formulas in order to optimize cloud point and stability [0025] and also to achieve more concentrated formulations for application [0002, 0285-0288], where cloud points are demonstrated at > 70 °C (Table 3). As discussed above, ideally cloud points should be 60° C or more to ensure storage stability, since above 60° C, the formulation could phase separate and appear cloudy [0025].
PNG
media_image4.png
107
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
127
413
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Note the nearly identical core structure of formula (23), where y = 0 (compared to instant formula (I), where n = 0) and formula (33) (compared to instant formula (I), where n=1). The minor differences in structure from a homology perspective would not be considered to significantly affect function from the perspective of a PHOSITA: Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious); Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (5(S) stereoisomer of ramipril obvious over prior art mixture of stereoisomers of ramipril.).
Also note that “substituted hydrocarbyl” (in claim 25) means “alkoxyalkylene and alkenyloxyalkylene groups containing from one to thirty oxyalkylene groups RO in which R in each of the RO groups is independently C2-C4 alkylene,” [0052] which includes the subset functionality of ethoxylates [0052], and appears as an option for selection to substitute directly on the amines of claim 25, providing direction for a PHOSITA to attempt an ethoxylate substitution in the following formulas (23) and (33).
Lennon also teaches N-oxides and quaternary nitrogen as general SAR strategies for agrochemicals as seen in formula (32) (Lennon – claim 25(g)) compared to formula (23) (Lennon – claim 25(a)) and in formulas (44/45) (Lennon – claim26(a)), which would make the N-oxides and quaternary nitrogen of instant formula (I), where n = 0, obvious (i.e., instant formulas (II-III)). Lennon teaches that cationic surfactants are generally most useful [0012, 0015, 0016], and teaches the usefulness of zwitterionic surfactants such as alkylamine oxides [0018]. Lennon provides motivation to modify neutral surfactants into cationic by stating “surfactants tending to give the most useful enhancement of glyphosate herbicidal effectiveness are generally but not exclusively cationic surfactants” [0012], where Nguyen (cited by Lennon in [0018]) demonstrates a reduction in irritancy incorporation of N-oxide modified surfactants (abstract, col 2, lines 19-40).
Finally, Lennon teaches a composition comprising glyphosate and a surfactant (Lennon – claim 1, [0002]), as required by instant claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-5: Lennon teaches R2 in each of the x and y “(R2O) groups” of the Formula (23) and (33) is independently C2-C4 alkylene (reads on linear ethylene and propylene linkers) (Lennon – claim 25(a) and 25(h)). An artisan skilled in the art of polymers would understand that an independent arrangement of monomers in a copolymer could be arranged in a random or block arrangement, since Lennon teaches R2 to be independently alkylene (Lennon – claim 25(b)), as evidenced by Raval in the basic teachings of copolymers (pg 174, fig. 5.1).
Regarding claim 6: Lennon teaches “x” to be 0-30 in Formulas (23) and (33) (Lennon – claim 25), encompassing the instant range.
Regarding claims 8-9: R1 can be hydrocarbyl from 1-30 carbon atoms in Formulas (23) and (33) (Lennon – claim 25(a) and 25(h)). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 10: The source of the hydrocarbon group does not impact the structure of the drawn hydrocarbon group. The claim appears to invoke product-by-process language, and thus, it must be remembered: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 11-13: Lennon teaches a formulation of herbicidal activity containing a surfactant and glyphosate (Lennon – claim 1).
Regarding claim 14: Lennon teaches the general preparation of surfactants RRR-UUU (pg 50) by reacting general compound (which can be an amine, when X=N(R14)) with an epoxide (e.g., benzyl glycidol is provided as an example in [0301], and R4 can be CH2OH [0298]) to afford general intermediate (91) (pg 51). Note that the claim appears to invoke product-by-process language, and the process of making “said surfactant” does not impact patentability.
Regarding claim 28: Lennon teaches an embodiment that shows 36.4% ae glyphosate (i.e., acid equivalent [0008, 0027, 0280]), 9 wt% Huntsman Surfonic AGM 550 (aka compound N, which is also listed in Table 4 next to QQQ referenced above) in Composition 2.11 (Table 3, pg 39-40), which has a cloud point of 60 °C, where it is advantageous to have higher cloud points from a stability perspective [0025, 0043]. Thus, the amounts of glyphosate and the surfactant present in an agrochemical composition, as recited by instant claim 28, are obvious, because Lennon teaches formulations that fall within the instant ranges. Of note, the Examiner also identifies the importance of cloud point in Applicant’s Specification for the instant embodiments of Table 3 [0087].
Thus, Lennon teaches the core structures of Formulas (I-III) (i.e., including the ammonium and N-oxide variations) from instant claim 1 except that they contain ethoxylate substituents instead of the polyglycerol substituents (instant claims 1 and 7). Note that substituted hydrocarbyl of Formulas (23) and (33) means “alkoxyalkylene and alkenyloxyalkylene groups containing from one to thirty oxyalkylene groups RO in which R in each of the RO groups is independently C2-C4 alkylene,” [0052] which includes the subset ethoxylates [0052].
Noiret explicitly teaches polyglyceryl moieties attached to an amine to be valuable substitutes for ethoxylates attached to an amine (pg 349, paragraphs 1-2, and pg 354, paragraph 3), especially for modifying amphiphilic properties and producing surfactants (abstract). Furthermore, surface tension and critical micelle concentration (CMC) can be modified based on the number of glycerol units added (pg 350, paragraph 1 and Figure 3). Noiret demonstrates an example of the advantageous polyglycerol motif in compound 7, exhibiting linear polyglyceryl sidechains (note that the number of glycerol units of the examples do not limit the number of units of the polyglycerol motif, as generally taught by Noiret):
PNG
media_image6.png
132
177
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Krough teaches a generic structure of ethoxylates and amine ethoxylates (Figure 1), as a description of the ethoxylates generally discussed by Noiret.
PNG
media_image7.png
268
351
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the ethoxylate side chains (as defined by Krough) taught by Lennon’s formulas for the polyglyceryl sidechains taught by Noiret. See In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.”) The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Herein, Lennon provides the basic alkoxyalkylene structures (where in terms of the instant claims, n = 0 for formula (23), and n = 1 for formula (33)) in which substitution of the alkoxyalkylene moieties for polyglyceryl moieties, as taught by Noiret, would lead to a surfactant with more advantageous properties such as being milder, safer, and efficient compared to ethoxylates (pg 349 paragraphs 1-2). Additionally, Noiret teaches the addition of many glycerol units to continue modification of the final polyglycerol moiety to modify properties (pg 350, paragraph 1 and Figure 3).
Finally, although the elected species was not explicitly identified in the literature, the art makes obvious the elected species Armeen EA 13i-4G, as shown above and described by Applicant Arguments/Remarks (filed on 6/11/2025). Such that the surfactant N of Lennon (taught as a high performing surfactant compatible with K-glyphosate in Table 3), that is taught in the context of Lennon’s surfactant formulas (where Lennon’s formula teaches the obviousness of the homology and analog substitution by way of Formula 23 for the purpose of surfactant construction), as modified with polyglyceryl substituting for the ethoxylate, according to Noiret, makes obvious the elected species.
PNG
media_image2.png
122
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
107
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Where surfactant N is effective in forming high concentration glyphosate formulations (and taught as an embodiment of formula 23, where formula 23 motivates certain modifications to optimize formulation stability and cloud point) with suitable cloud points, and the only significant difference is substitution of ethoxylate with the polyglycerol taught by Noiret, compared to the instant elected species:
PNG
media_image1.png
497
728
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, see pg 8-16, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1-14 under rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The thrust of the rejection has changed in response. The newly added claims are addressed: claim 28 is rejected as being obvious, and claims 29-30 are objected to. Several arguments are now moot, but addressed as well as possible.
On page 8, Applicant adds new claims 29 and 30 to address the Examiner’s Note, which his addressed below this section.
On page 8-11, Applicant argues the “would vs. could” analysis, wherein the basis for using “would” is that there is a rationale or motivation for making combination or modifications of the prior art to arrive at a prima facie case of obviousness. Note that proper motivation for combining references is provided in the 103 rejection above, that complies with the case law recited on pages 8-9.
On page 9-10, Applicant alleges pages 5 and 7 of the Office action uses the word “could” to improperly justify a rationale for combination. The Examiner simply could have substituted the word “would” for “could” in the same phrasing, at no cost to the meaning of the statement. The argument appears to be foundationally semantic in nature. From page 5, the statement could have just as easily be written using the word “would” to achieve the same effect of the statement based on the teachings of Lennon. Furthermore, implicit in that particular statement from page 7 is that copolymers generically are in random or block sequence, and it is obvious for a PHOSITA to construct a copolymer in random or block sequence or a mixture of random and block sequences.
On page 10-13, Applicant alleges that the selection of compound QQQ from a number of different molecules is not obvious. Applicant further argues the lead compound analysis (LCA) was not followed. Applicant discusses the first inquiry of the LCA (selecting a lead compound) and the second inquiry of the LCA (that requires a reason or motivation to modify a lead compound with a reasonable expectation of success).
On second examination of QQQ, the Examiner acknowledges a deficiency in QQQ such that there is no particular motivation to demethylate QQQ to arrive at the core structure found in instant formula (I).
Thus, The Examiner withdraws arguments based on QQQ (and also NN, KKK, and V) as discussed above and refocuses: Lennon teaches promotes surfactant N (Surfonic AGM-550) (Table 4) and surfactant TED5 (Tomah ED-17-5) [0408] as a high performing surfactants (compared to all surfactants of Table 4, pg 40-47), such that a PHOSITA would select surfactant N for further optimization. Note a cloud point of 70 °C for Surfonic AGM 550 (Example 2.06 in Table 3) and >90 °C for Tomah E-D-17-5 (Example 2.13 in Table 3) (see 103 rejection above for more details).
Regarding a reasonable expectation of success on page 12, “Applicants are reminded that obviousness does not require absolute predictability. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (indicating that evidence showing there was no reasonable expectation of success may support a conclusion of nonobviousness).”
On page 15-16, Applicant argues superior and unexpected results on the basis that the formulations allow for high load formulations of glyphosate formulations, pointing to Table 3 (pg 22-23 that demonstrates incorporation of K-glyphosate 39%% ae (or acid equivalent) in the final formation with 10 wt% surfactant and high cloud points (such that high temperature cloud points allow for the high concentration glyphosate formulations to remain clear and stable at room temperature, as taught by Lennon [0025]).
Note that with respect to the LCA analysis based on Lennon, reasonable starting points for optimization from Lennon would be surfactant N (Surfonic AGM-550) (Table 4) and surfactant TED5 (Tomah ED-17-5) [0408] as a high performing surfactants (compared to all surfactants of Table 4, pg 40-47), such that a PHOSITA would select surfactant N and/or TED5 for further optimization. Note a cloud point of 70 °C for Surfonic AGM 550 (Example 2.06 in Table 3) and >90 °C for Tomah E-D-17-5 (Example 2.13 in Table 3). Furthermore, surfactant N is an embodiment of formula (23) and surfactant TED5 is an embodiment of Formula (33), including the variability of the substituents (with variability demonstrating overlap with the instant formulas), which are taught by Lennon to furnish effective surfactants to make high concentration K-glyphosate formulations (pg 104-105 of Lennon – claim 25) [0033]. One would employ variation per Lennon’s formulas in order to optimize active concentration, cloud point and formulation stability, as discussed by Lennon [0025], where cloud points are demonstrated at > 70 °C, as a starting point (Table 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
122
702
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
48
747
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, the homologous comparison of formulas (23) and (33), with instant formula (I), would suggest similar surfactant function: Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties. In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). See also In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978) (stereoisomers prima facie obvious); Aventis Pharma Deutschland v. Lupin Ltd., 499 F.3d 1293, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (5(S) stereoisomer of ramipril obvious over prior art mixture of stereoisomers of ramipril.).
PNG
media_image4.png
107
410
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
127
413
media_image5.png
Greyscale
In further consideration of starting molecules in the LCA analysis based on Lennon, other high performing molecules (but not closely structurally related to the instant compounds) were identified, where formulations give high cloud points include Ethoquad C/12 (Table 3), and non-ethoxylated surfactants F, AA, RR, VV, XX, YY, ZZ, AAA, etc. (Table 5).
However, on closer inspection of the data, many of the surfactants of Lennon (including surfactant N (Surfonic AGM-550) (Table 4) (in example 2.06 at 37 wt% K-glyphosate with 12.5 wt% surfactant) and surfactant TED5 (Tomah ED-17-5) [0408]) (in example 2.13 at 37 wt% K-glyphosate with 12.5 % surfactant) fall short of the high concentration stable formulations achieved when the instant surfactants are used, which consistently demonstrate 39 wt% ae (as the final K-glyphosate formulation concentration), at 10 wt% surfactant with >80 °C cloud points (see Applicant’s Specification, for Table on pg 22-23).
In summary, Lennon teaches compatibility of 37 wt% a.e. K-glyphosate with 12.5 wt% surfactant in the ethoxylate species (relevant to the instant formula (I)), compared to the instant Specification which consistently demonstrates compatibility of 39% wt% a.e. K-glyphosate (e.g., in sample 3.1, 48.2% ae x 82.2 wt% = 39.4% ae K-glyphosate in the final formulation) with 10 wt% surfactant (i.e., at least 14 examples found in samples 3.1-3.14).
Regarding the significance of the difference in achievable K-glyphosate concentrations (using lower amounts of surfactant), Lennon demonstrates that the lowest bar in the disclosure’s formulations is achieving a 31 wt% ae at 10 wt% stable formulation, in which all surfactants of Table 4 are found to past that bar [0285]. As the amount of K-glyphosate increases to 37 wt% a.e. and higher [0286-0291], fewer surfactants are found to be suitable (Table 5), where 45 wt% a.e. K-glyphosate is found to require 15wt% surfactant for stable formulations (Table 5) (implying higher amounts of K-glyphosate eventually require higher amounts of surfactant to stabilize the formulation). Thus, the differences (i.e., between Lennon’s embodiments and the instant compounds) in amount of K-glyphosate concentrations achievable and amount of surfactant required for stable formulations are not insignificant.
The highest performing surfactants of Lennon (that may compete with results of Applicant because they demonstrate compatibility at 40/10 wt% and/or 45/15 wt% K-glyphosate to surfactant ratios in Table 5) generally appear to be of the “poly(hydroxyl)” type (i.e., surfactants F, AA, RR, VV, XX, YY, ZZ, AAA in Table 4), which are unrelated in structure to the obviousness analysis of Applicant’s compounds (i.e., they do not exhibit the ethoxylate or polyglyceryl sidechains used in the analysis, when Lennon and Noiret are considered).
Thus, the data presented in the Specification (Tables on pg 22-23, [0087]), represent a higher-than-expected surfactant effect in support of high concentration K-glyphosate formulations, based on data presented in the Specification compared to Lennon, and render portions of the claim set allowable.
There is no objective evidence to demonstrate that the instant compounds do not generally provide an improved surfactant effect (i.e., allowing for higher concentration stable K-glyphosate solutions, employing less surfactant, with generally higher cloud points) compared to the surfactant effect exhibited by surfactant N (Surfonic AGM-550) (Table 4) and surfactant TED5 (Tomah ED-17-5) [0408], as shown in Table 3. Although Noiret explicitly teaches polyglyceryl moieties attached to an amine to be valuable substitutes for ethoxylates attached to an amine (pg 349, paragraphs 1-2, and pg 354, paragraph 3), especially for modifying amphiphilic properties and producing surfactants (abstract) and furthermore, surface tension and critical micelle concentration (CMC) can be modified based on the number of glycerol units added (pg 350, paragraph 1 and Figure 3), Noiret does not reasonably suggest substitution with ethoxylates to afford surfactants that can better solubilize K-glyphosate, requiring a lower amount of surfactant.
Note that although evidence of unexpected results must compare the claimed invention with the closest prior art, applicant is not required to compare the claimed invention with subject matter that does not exist in the prior art. In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 689, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Newman, J., concurring) (Evidence rebutted prima facie case by comparing claimed invention with the most relevant prior art. Note that the majority held the Office failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.); In re Chapman, 357 F.2d 418, 148 USPQ 711 (CCPA 1966) (Requiring applicant to compare claimed invention with polymer suggested by the combination of references relied upon in the rejection of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 103 "would be requiring comparison of the results of the invention with the results of the invention." 357 F.2d at 422, 148 USPQ at 714.). In this case, Lennon does not reasonably or consistently teach the instant polyglycerol substituent directly on an amine-based surfactant for direct comparison.
Finally, although Applicant has demonstrated unexpected results, the Examiner does not believe the claim scope is commensurate in scope with the unexpected results (see ‘allowable subject matter below).
On page 15, Applicant suggests there is no need for a 1.132 declaration on the basis of the results provided in the Specification, which is noted.
On page 16, Applicant requests rejoinder. However, a new 103 rejection is presented above on the elected claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12: Claim 12 is objected to depending from a rejected claim. For example, instant Claims 1 and 11 do not limit the agrochemical formulation to the agrochemicals demonstrated as compatible with the instant surfactants in the Specification (see Table 4, pg 23-25, for 2,4-D, glufosinate, dicamba, etc.). Lennon consistently discusses compatibility of their disclosed surfactants with glyphosate [0009, 00021, Tables 3-5] and incorporates glyphosate as essential to operation of the invention (Lennon – claim 1).
Claims 29-30: Similarly to what was discussed in the previous Office Action in the Examiner’s Note, claims 29-30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e., claims 29-30 are not obvious based on the Prior Art).
Correspondence
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJAN PRAGANI whose telephone number is (703)756-5319. The examiner can normally be reached 7a-5p EST (M-Th).
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.
/R.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1614 1/22/2026
/SEAN M BASQUILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614