DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application is in response to Applicant’s amendment and supplemental amendment filed February 20, 2026 and February 23, 2026, respectively. Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 12-16, 18-20, and 22-24 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 5-7, 12, and 16 have been amended. Claim 24 is newly added. Claims 6-7, 16, and 18-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species. Claims 1, 5, 10, 12-15, and 24 will presently be examined to the extent they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7, 16, and 18-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species. The claims are improperly identified as “Currently Amended” or “Previously Presented”. The correct claim identifier for these claims is “Withdrawn”. Correction is required.
Status of the Claims
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancellation of claim 2.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ye (CN1286910A) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 to add the specific suspensibility agents.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schroff et al. (WO 2012/042316) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 to add the specific suspensibility agents.
The rejection of claims 1 and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroff et al. (WO 2012/042316) in view of Kruger et al. (US 2002/0045549) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 to add the specific suspensibility agents and cancellation of claims 8 and 9.
The rejection of claims 1 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroff et al. (WO 2012/042316) in view of Chen (CN109258654A, Translation) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment to independent claim 1 to add the specific suspensibility agents.
Rejections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment filed February 20, 2026
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, 5, 10, 12-15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schroff et al. (WO 2012/042316) in view of Kruger et al. (US 2002/0045549). Schroff et al. and Kruger et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 1/10/2023.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a solid agrochemical composition comprising: a. about 1% w/w to about 50% w/w of a chloroacetanilide herbicide; b. about 1% w/w to about 30% w/w of a second herbicide, a salt or derivative thereof; and c. about 1% w/w to about 20% w/w of a suspensibility promoting agent, selected from ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate and ethoxylated tristyrylphenol phosphate; wherein the chloroacetanilide herbicide is one or more of pretilachlor or propisochlor and wherein the second herbicide is one or more of a sulfonylurea herbicide, an anilide herbicide, a triazinone herbicide, or a salt or derivative thereof.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1, 5, 10 and 24, Schroff et al. teach a storage stable granular formulation comprising pyrazosulfuron ethyl, pretilachlor and sodium lignosulfonate (Abstract).
Schroff et al. teach the general composition comprises:
PNG
media_image1.png
163
511
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(page 17, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 1, Schroff et al. teach pretilachlor technical at 6.5% (chloroacetanilide herbicide).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Schroff et al. teach pyrazosulfuron ethyl (sulfonylurea herbicide).
Regarding claim 1, Schroff et al. teach the pyrazosulfuron ethyl comprises from about 0.01% to about 5% by total weight of the formulation. Schroff et al. further teach the storage stable granular formulations comprise about 0.05% to about 4.0% by weight of pyrazosulfuron ethyl.
Regarding claims 1 and 24, Schroff et al. teach Sodium lignosulfonate.
Regarding claim 12, Schroff et al. teach the granular formulation additionally comprise a safener (page 21, lines 16-17).
Regarding claim 13, Schroff et al. teach the amount of safener varies from about 0.01% to about 25% to total weight of the herbicidal component of the formulation (page 21, lines 19-20).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Schroff et al. teach the safener is fenclorim although other safeners are not excluded (page 21, lines 21-22).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Schroff et al. do not specifically disclose the suspensibility promoting agents are selected from ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate and ethoxylated tristyrylphenol. It is for this reason Kruger et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Kruger et al. teach liquid herbicidal composition, containing a grass herbicide that is suspended or dissolved in a non-aqueous liquid phase, a herbicide of the sulfonylurea type that is suspended in a non- aqueous liquid phase, and at least one surface-active substance (Abstract). Kruger et al. teach the non-ionic and anionic surface-active substances may be conventional, commercially available substances, for example ethoxylated vegetable oils such as Emulsogen EL, ethoxylated tristyrylphenol and lignin sulfonates such as Ultrazin NA (page 1, paragraph 6).
Kruger et al. teach the non-aqueous liquid phases include the preferred non-ionic, surface-active substances ethoxylated vegetable oil, ethoxylated fat alcohol, ethoxylated alkylphenol, ethoxylated polyethylene glycol and polypropylene glycol and copolymers thereof, ethoxylated tristyrylphenol derivative, and the anionic surface-active substance may be ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate or phosphate (page 1, paragraph 11).
Kruger et al. teach a significant composition is one which contains as the grass herbicide pretilachlor or the compound of formula I or a mixture thereof suspended or dissolved in a vegetable oil, as the herbicide of the sulfonylurea type bensulfuron or pyrazosulfuron, or mixtures thereof suspended in a vegetable oil, and as the surface-active substance a mixture of non-ionic and anionic compounds (page 1, paragraph 12).
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 Schroff et al. and Kruger et al. and use the suspensibility promoting agents, as currently claimed. Schroff et al. teach a storage stable granular formulation comprising pyrazosulfuron ethyl, pretilachlor and sodium lignosulfonate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use other agents that are known to be used as suspending agents for pretilachlor and a sulfonylurea herbicide, specifically those currently claimed, including pyrazosulfuron. Kruger et al. teach that non-ionic or anionic surface active agents that are used in the non-aqueous phase for suspending the herbicides include ethoxylated vegetable oil, lignin sulfonates and ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate or phosphate, as indicated in the examples. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to use a functional equivalent suspensibility promoting agent (non-ionic or anionic surface active agent) in the granular formulations taught by Schroff et al. One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success since Kruger et al. teach that lignin sulfonates and ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate or phosphate are functional equivalents. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute one surface active agent such as lignin sulfonates for another surface active agent such as ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate or phosphate since the prior art establishes these surface active agents are all functional equivalents.
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 because every element of the invention has been fairly suggested by the cited references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that although the Kruger might bear a resemblance to the presently claimed compositions-like the presence of a “grass herbicide” and a sulfonylurea type herbicide-they are still fundamentally different than the presently claimed composition. Applicant argues that the compositions are liquid compositions in contrast to the presently claimed solid compositions. In response to Applicant’s argument, the examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use other agents that are known to be used as suspending agents for pretilachlor and a sulfonylurea herbicide, specifically those currently claimed, including pyrazosulfuron. Schroff et al. teach a storage stable granular formulation comprising pyrazosulfuron ethyl, pretilachlor and sodium lignosulfonate. Kruger et al. teach that non-ionic or anionic surface active agents that are used in the non-aqueous phase for suspending the herbicides include ethoxylated vegetable oil, lignin sulfonates and ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate or phosphate, as indicated in the examples. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to use a functional equivalent suspensibility promoting agent (non-ionic or anionic surface active agent) in the granular formulations taught by Schroff et al. Regarding Applicant’s argument that the compositions taught by Kruger are liquid and the compositions of the instantly claimed invention are solid, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to use a functional equivalent suspensibility promoting agent (non-ionic or anionic surface active agent) in the granular formulations taught by Schroff et al. even those used in liquid compositions. One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success since Kruger et al. teach that lignin sulfonates and ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate or phosphate are functional equivalents. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to substitute one surface active agent such as lignin sulfonates for another surface active agent such as ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate or phosphate since the prior art establishes these surface active agents are all functional equivalents. Regarding the compositions being dispersed in water, Applicant’s claims are directed to a solid agrochemical composition comprising: a. about 1% w/w to about 50% w/w of a chloroacetanilide herbicide; b. about 1% w/w to about 30% w/w of a second herbicide, a salt or derivative thereof; and c. about 1% w/w to about 20% w/w of a suspensibility promoting agent, selected from ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate and ethoxylated tristyrylphenol phosphate; wherein the chloroacetanilide herbicide is one or more of pretilachlor or propisochlor and wherein the second herbicide is one or more of a sulfonylurea herbicide, an anilide herbicide, a triazinone herbicide, or a salt or derivative thereof, the instant claims do not have a limitation directed to water or the composition dispersed in water.
Applicant argues that the inventors observed that the solid agrochemical compositions as described herein are stable and can maintain good suspensibility of chloroacetanilide herbicide, i.e., above 70% when diluted with water for the purpose of application to crops. In response to Applicant’s argument, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. Applicant claims are directed to a solid agrochemical composition comprising: a. about 1% w/w to about 50% w/w of a chloroacetanilide herbicide; b. about 1% w/w to about 30% w/w of a second herbicide, a salt or derivative thereof; and c. about 1% w/w to about 20% w/w of a suspensibility promoting agent, selected from ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate and ethoxylated tristyrylphenol phosphate; wherein the chloroacetanilide herbicide is one or more of pretilachlor or propisochlor and wherein the second herbicide is one or more of a sulfonylurea herbicide, an anilide herbicide, a triazinone herbicide, or a salt or derivative thereof. The data from Examples 1-4 contain pretilachlor, pyrazosulfuron ethyl, and tristyrylphenol ethoxylate sulfate as the suspensibility prompting agent. Independent claim 1 is directed to the second herbicide being a sulfonylurea herbicide, an anilide herbicide, a triazinone herbicide or a salt thereof. The only second herbicide tested is pyrazosulfuron ethyl, a single species of a sulfonylurea herbicide. It cannot be determined if the same purported stability demonstrated with the tested compositions will be shown if pretilachlor and tristyrylphenol ethoxylate sulfate is combined with all sulfonylurea herbicides, all anilide herbicides, and all triazinone herbicides, as currently claimed. It also cannot be determined if pretilachlor at 33% w/w, when combined with pyrazosulfuron ethyl 0.85% w/w, which is outside the currently claimed range of 1% w/w to about 30% w/w, and tristyrylphenol ethoxylate sulfate at 4% w/w, is indicative of the results that would be achieved across the percentage ranges of the components as currently claimed. Also, as indicated hereinabove, the weight percentage of pyrazosulfuron ethyl is outside of the currently claimed range. Applicant has not established nonobvious evidence that is commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter.
Response to Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed February 23, 2026, is insufficient to overcome the rejection set forth in the Office action because: the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. Declarant argues that the results (Table C) highlight the critical role of suspensibility promoting agent in the claimed compositions. In response to Declarant’s argument, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. Applicant claims are directed to a solid agrochemical composition comprising: a. about 1% w/w to about 50% w/w of a chloroacetanilide herbicide; b. about 1% w/w to about 30% w/w of a second herbicide, a salt or derivative thereof; and c. about 1% w/w to about 20% w/w of a suspensibility promoting agent, selected from ethoxylated tristyrylphenol sulfate and ethoxylated tristyrylphenol phosphate; wherein the chloroacetanilide herbicide is one or more of pretilachlor or propisochlor and wherein the second herbicide is one or more of a sulfonylurea herbicide, an anilide herbicide, a triazinone herbicide, or a salt or derivative thereof. Tested Composition 1B comprises 33% of pretilachlor; 0.85 % of pyrazosulfuron ethyl; 3.5% of fenclorim; 3.5% of ethoxylated tristyrylphenol phosphate; 25% of sodium lignosulfonate; 1% SUPRAGIL® WP; 18% of precipitated silica; and 18.65% of kaolin. Tested Composition 1C comprises 33% of propisochlor; 0.85 % of pyrazosulfuron ethyl; 3.5% of fenclorim; 3.5% of ethoxylated tristyrylphenol phosphate; 25% of sodium lignosulfonate; 1% SUPRAGIL® WP; 18% of precipitated silica; and 18.65% of kaolin. While compositions 1B and 1C appear to show improved suspensibility of pretilachlor and propisochlor when compared to compositions 1A and 1D, that do not contain the claimed suspensibility promoting agents, the data is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
The second component in independent claim 1 is directed to the second herbicide being a sulfonylurea herbicide, an anilide herbicide, a triazinone herbicide or a salt thereof. The only second herbicide tested is pyrazosulfuron ethyl, which is one species of a sulfonylurea herbicide. It cannot be determined if the same purported stability demonstrated with the tested composition comprising 33% of pretilachlor; 0.85 % of pyrazosulfuron ethyl; 3.5% of fenclorim; 3.5% of ethoxylated tristyrylphenol phosphate; 25% of sodium lignosulfonate; 1% SUPRAGIL® WP; 18% of precipitated silica; and 18.65% of kaolin will be shown if the compositions is combined with all sulfonylurea herbicides, all anilide herbicides, and all triazinone herbicides, known and unknown, as currently claimed. Likewise, it cannot be determined if the same purported stability demonstrated with the tested composition comprising 33% of propisochlor; 0.85 % of pyrazosulfuron ethyl; 3.5% of fenclorim; 3.5% of ethoxylated tristyrylphenol phosphate; 25% of sodium lignosulfonate; 1% SUPRAGIL® WP; 18% of precipitated silica; and 18.65% of kaolin will be shown if the compositions is combined with all sulfonylurea herbicides, all anilide herbicides, and all triazinone herbicides, known and unknown, as currently claimed.
It also cannot be determined if the limited weight percentage of 33% of propisochlor and pretilachlor combined with 0.85% of pyrazosulfuron ethyl, which is outside the currently claimed range of 1% w/w to about 30% w/w of the second herbicide, 3.5 fenclorim, 25% sodium lignosulfonate and the other components are indicative of the results that would be achieved across the percentage ranges of the components, as currently claimed. For example, it cannot be determined if 1% of pretilachlor or propisochlor combined with the other components will provide the same purported suspensibility. It cannot be determined if 3.5% of ethoxylated tristyrylphenol phosphate is indicative of results if 20% of the suspensibility promoting agent is used in the composition. Also, as indicated hereinabove, the weight percentage of pyrazosulfuron ethyl is outside of the currently claimed range. Applicant has not established nonobvious evidence that is commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ali Soroush can be reached at 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
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights