DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Formal Matters
Receipt of Applicant’s response dated 01/07/2026 and 02/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-7 are pending.
Claims 1-3 are canceled.
Claim 7 is new.
Claim 6 remains withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are under consideration in the instant Office action to the extent of the elected species, i.e., the at least one safener is benoxacor.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 02/06/2026 has been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy of the IDS is included with the present Office Action.
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The obviousness rejection of claims 4-5 over Amano et al in view of Abu-Qare et al and Scharf et al set forth in the Office action dated 11/07/2025 is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and in favor of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
Double Patenting
The provisional rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting of claims 4-5 over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/765,665 in view of Amano et al, Abu-Qare et al, and Scharf et al set forth in the Office action dated 11/07/2025 is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and in favor of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
NEW GROUNDS OF OBJECTION/REJECTION
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because the comma appearing after “and” in line 5 should be deleted for grammatical correctness.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites “An herbicide combination consisting of…at least one agriculturally acceptable excipient”. In Remarks dated 01/07/2026 it is stated that no new matter is added and that support for claim 7 comes at least from claim 4 and from at least Par. [0051] of the specification. However, neither claim 4 nor Par. [0051] of the specification regard an ‘agriculturally acceptable excipient’. Further, a review of the disclosure as filed indicates that ‘agriculturally acceptable excipient’ is not disclosed in the specification. Therefore, claim 7 is rejected for containing subject matter not described in the specification or claims as originally filed.
New claim 7 recites limitation(s), which were not clearly disclosed in the specification as filed, and now change the scope of the instant disclosure as filed. Such limitation(s) recited in new claim 7, which did not appear in the specification, as filed, introduces new concepts and violates the description requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C 112. Applicant is required to provide sufficient written support for the limitations recited in instant claim 7 in the specification or claims, as-filed, or remove these limitations from the claims in response to this Office Action.
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.
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 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano et al (US 2019/0254278 A1, published 08/22/2019, cited in Notice of References Cited dated 07/25/2025) in view of Abu-Qare et al (Chemosphere, (2002), 48, 965-974, cited in Notice of References Cited dated 07/25/2025) and Scharf et al (Arch. Insect Biochem. Physiol., (1999), 40, 150-156, cited in Notice of References Cited dated 07/25/2025).
Amano et al teach an herbicidal composition and have found that the use of a combination of a component selected from the group consisting of a specific oxopyrazine derivative and a salt thereof, and a component selected from a publicly known herbicide, a plant growth regulator, and a safener, not only have an additive effect of the respective herbicidal activities, but also a synergistic weed killing activity may be obtained, or herbicide injury may be mitigated synergistically (See entire document, e.g., Abstract, [0007]). The herbicidal composition of Amano et al is capable of controlling most weeds, especially those that grow in cultivating a useful plant, in both the stage before emergence and the stage of growth after the emergence, and is substantially not harmful to a useful plant (e.g., [0007]).
The herbicidal composition comprises an oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof and an herbicide, wherein suitable herbicides include propisochlor (e.g., Abstract, [0034]-[0035]). Amano et al teach that the ratio of the oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof to the herbicide varies depending on the target scene, target crop, type of weed or weed condition, application time, application method, formulation type, and the like, and in general, the blending ratio of the oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof to the herbicide is 1:0.001 to 1000, preferably 1:0.01 to 500, more preferably 1:0.05 to 500, and especially preferably 1:0.05 to 100 in terms of mass ratio (e.g., [0038]-[0039]). The herbicidal composition may comprise a safener, wherein suitable safeners include benoxacor (e.g., [0037]). Amano et al teach that when an additive ingredient is added to the herbicide composition, the blend ratio based on mass is selected in a range of ordinarily from 0.1 to 30%, and preferably from 0.5 to 10% (e.g., [0057]). A pesticide active ingredient can be, i.e. but is not required to be, mixed in the herbicidal composition, wherein suitable pesticide active ingredients include fipronil (e.g., [0058]-[0060]).
Amano et al do not teach a motivation for the specific selection of propisochlor, benoxacor, and fipronil in the herbicidal composition.
This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Abu-Qare et al and Scharf et al.
Abu-Qare et al teach that herbicide safeners are applied with herbicides to protect crops against their injury and offers practical, efficient, and simple method of improving herbicide selectivity. Herbicide safeners, such as benoxacor, have been applied against pre-emergence thiocarbamate and chloroacetanilide herbicides in cereal crops such as maize, rice and sorghum (See entire document, e.g., Abstract, Table 1).
Scharf et al teach fipronil used as an insecticide against western corn rootworm (See entire document, e.g., Title, Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Amano et al, Abu-Qare et al, and Scharf et al, to arrive at an herbicidal composition comprising an oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof, an herbicide being propisochlor, a safener being benoxacor, and optionally comprising a pesticide active ingredient being fipronil, wherein the blending ratio based on mass of the oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof to propisochlor is 1:0.001 to 1000, preferably 1:0.01 to 500, more preferably 1:0.05 to 500, and especially preferably 1:0.05 to 100 and the blending ratio based on mass of benoxacor to the composition is from 0.1 to 30%, and preferably from 0.5 to 10%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the aforementioned herbicidal composition comprising fipronil in order to use the composition for weed control on corn/maize crops specifically where western corn rootworm is a known or suspected pest and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select the aforementioned herbicidal composition in the absence of fipronil in order to use the composition for weed control on maize, rice and/or sorghum crops. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Amano et al teach the compatibility of an oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof, propisochlor as an herbicide, benoxacor as a safener, and fipronil as an optionally present pesticide active ingredient in an herbicidal composition for weed control, Abu-Qare et al teach the compatibility of safeners including benoxacor with a thiocarbamate or chloroacetanilide herbicide (for which propisochlor is a chloroacetanilide herbicide), application of the combination to cereal crops such as maize, rice and/or sorghum, and the herbicidal benefits that result from application of the combination, i.e., protecting crops against their injury and offering practical, efficient, and simple method of improving herbicide selectivity, and Scharf et al teach the use of fipronil as an insecticide against western corn rootworm, i.e., a corn-invading pest. It is well settled that it is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular component from among many disclosed by the prior art as long as it is taught that the selection will result in the disclosed effect, even when the possible selections number 1200 or in the thousands (Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). 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 (In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).
The oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof in the herbicidal composition of Amano et al in view of Abu-Qare et al and Scharf et al meets the limitation of the ‘at least one agriculturally acceptable excipient’ of instant claim 7 as ‘agriculturally acceptable excipient’ is not defined in the instant application.
Regarding the range required by instant claim 7, a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art (In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Thus, the herbicidal composition of Amano et al in view of Abu-Qare et al and Scharf et al renders obvious instant claims 4-5 and 7.
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 4-5 and 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/765,665 (hereafter ‘665) in view of Amano et al (as cited above), Abu-Qare et al (as cited above), and Scharf et al (as cited above).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Instant claims 4-5 recite an herbicide combination comprising: propisochlor and at least one safener, wherein the at least one safener is selected from mefenpyr-diethyl, isoxadifen-ethyl, cloquintocet-mexyl, benoxacor, flurazole, fluxofenim, and combinations thereof, and further comprising fipronil. Instant claim 7 recites an herbicide combination consisting of: propisochlor; at least one safener, wherein the at least one safener is selected from mefenpyr-diethyl, isoxadifen-ethyl, cloquintocet-mexyl, benoxacor, flurazole, fluxofenim, and combinations thereof; and at least one agriculturally acceptable excipient; wherein the ratio of the propisochlor to the at least one safener is from 9.6:1 to 19.2:1.
Claim 1 of ‘665 recites an herbicidal combination comprising: propisochlor; at least one Aceto lactate Synthase (ALS) inhibitor or an Acetohydroxy Acid Synthase (AHAS) inhibitor selected from the group consisting of imazapyr, imazaquin, sulfentrazone, and diclosulam; and at least one agrochemically acceptable excipient.
The claims of ‘665 do not recite the herbicide combination comprising benoxacor or optionally comprising fipronil nor do they recite a ratio of propisochlor to benoxacor.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Amano et al, Abu-Qare et al, and Scharf et al, which have been discussed in detail supra.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof, add benoxacor, and optionally add fipronil to the herbicide combination of the claims of ‘665, wherein the blending ratio based on mass of the oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof to propisochlor is 1:0.001 to 1000, preferably 1:0.01 to 500, more preferably 1:0.05 to 500, and especially preferably 1:0.05 to 100 and the blending ratio based on mass of benoxacor to the combination is from 0.1 to 30%, and preferably from 0.5 to 10%, in order to provide an herbicide combination for weed control on maize, rice and/or sorghum crops (composition wherein fipronil is not added) or weed control on corn/maize crops specifically where western corn rootworm is a known or suspected pest (composition wherein fipronil is added). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, because Amano et al teach the compatibility of an oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof, propisochlor as an herbicide, benoxacor as a safener, and fipronil as an optionally present pesticide active ingredient in an herbicidal composition for weed control, Abu-Qare et al teach the compatibility of safeners including benoxacor with a thiocarbamate or chloroacetanilide herbicide (for which propisochlor is a chloroacetanilide herbicide), application of the combination to cereal crops such as maize, and the herbicidal benefits that result from application of the combination, i.e., protecting crops against their injury and offering practical, efficient, and simple method of improving herbicide selectivity, and Scharf et al teach the use of fipronil as an insecticide against western corn rootworm, i.e., a corn-invading pest.
Thus, claim 1 of ‘665 in view of Amano et al, Abu-Qare et al, and Scharf et al render obvious instant claims 4-5 and 7 to the extent of the elected species, i.e., the at least one safener is benoxacor.
Claims 4-5 and 7 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claim 1 of commonly assigned copending Application No. 17/765,665. Specifically, see above.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411 ). Commonly assigned copending Application No. 17/765,665, discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention.
In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/07/2026 have been considered.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the Office fails to make a clear showing of the motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited references and relies on impermissible hindsight to supply the only motivation to arrive at the combination taught and claimed by Applicant because an Examiner cannot pick and choose only one aspect of a prior art reference and exclude other aspects of the reference or ignore the central teaching of the reference, i.e., it would be extremely unlikely that one of ordinary skill in the art would have turned to the teachings of Amano directed to a combination of component A and component B in preparing an herbicide combination without component A. Applicant invites the Examiner to review the prosecution history of IN201927004171 for a better understanding of what exactly is disclosed in Amano and argues that each of the teachings of Abu-Qare and Scharf are irrelevant in the present case.
The above arguments have been fully considered by the Examiner but are not found persuasive because the Examiner disagrees with the arguments of a lack of a clear showing of motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Amano et al, Abu-Qare et al, and Scharf et al and relying on hindsight because, as can be seen in the maintained grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Amano et al, Abu-Qare et al, and Scharf et al, to arrive at an herbicidal composition comprising an oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof, an herbicide being propisochlor, a safener being benoxacor, and a pesticide active ingredient being fipronil in order to achieve weed control on corn/maize crops where western corn rootworm is a known or suspected pest and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Amano et al teach the compatibility of an oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof, propisochlor as an herbicide, benoxacor as a safener, and fipronil as a pesticide active ingredient in an herbicidal composition for weed control, Abu-Qare et al teach the compatibility of safeners including benoxacor with a thiocarbamate or chloroacetanilide herbicide (for which propisochlor is a chloroacetanilide herbicide), application of the combination to cereal crops such as maize, and the herbicidal benefits that result from application of the combination, i.e., protecting crops against their injury and offering practical, efficient, and simple method of improving herbicide selectivity, and Scharf et al teach the use of fipronil as an insecticide against western corn rootworm, i.e., a corn-invading pest. The above argument regarding the Examiner “excluding other aspects of the reference or ignoring the central teaching of the reference” and the above argument that “it would be extremely unlikely that one of ordinary skill in the art would have turned to the teachings of Amano directed to a combination of component A and component B in preparing an herbicide combination without component A” have been fully considered by the Examiner but are not found persuasive because the rejection does not rely on the stance that it would have been obvious to provide a composition with component B, i.e. the component selected from a publicly known herbicide, a plant growth regulator, and a safener, and without component A, i.e. the specific oxopyrazine derivative and a salt thereof, but instead, and as can be seen in the maintained grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 above, the basis of the rejection is that it would have been obvious to provide a composition comprising components A and B. Further, regarding the selection of propisochlor as an herbicide, benoxacor as a safener, and fipronil as a pesticide active ingredient, firstly, it is well settled that it is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular component from among many disclosed by the prior art as long as it is taught that the selection will result in the disclosed effect, even when the possible selections number 1200 or in the thousands (Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). Secondly, as can be seen in the maintained grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 above, the teachings of Abu-Qare et al and Scharf et al provide motivation for the specific selection of propisochlor, benoxacor, and fipronil in the herbicidal composition taught by Amano et al. The Examiner acknowledges the invitation to review the prosecution history of IN201927004171, however IN201927004171 and the instant application are independent examinations conducted by different offices.
Regarding the non-statutory double patenting rejection, Applicant argues that the ‘665 application has recently had significant claim amendments in addition to the claim amendments presented herein, and therefore, the rejection should be withdrawn or, in the alternative, held in abeyance until such time that patentable subject matter is found within either the instant application or the ‘665 application. Applicant notes that the claims between the two applications are drawn to distinctly different compositions, both the instant and cited applications are patentably distinct from each other, and that no later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the subject matter and claimed invention in both the instant and ‘665 applications were owned by the Applicant.
Regarding the argument that the ‘665 application has recently had significant claim amendments, the most recent claim set in the ‘665 application is dated 09/11/2025 which predates the Office action mailed 11/07/2025 in the instant case. Secondly, a request to hold a rejection in abeyance is not a proper response to a rejection. Rather, a request to hold a matter in abeyance may only be made in response to an OBJECTION or REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM (see MPEP 37 CFR 1.111(b) and 714.02). The argument that the claims between the two applications are drawn to distinctly different compositions and are patentably distinct from each other has been fully considered by the Examiner but is not found persuasive because, as can be seen in the new grounds of rejection above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Amano et al, Abu-Qare et al, and Scharf et al, to add an oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof, add benoxacor, and optionally add fipronil to the herbicide combination of the claims of ‘665, wherein the blending ratio based on mass of the oxopyrazine derivative or a salt thereof to propisochlor is 1:0.001 to 1000, preferably 1:0.01 to 500, more preferably 1:0.05 to 500, and especially preferably 1:0.05 to 100 and the blending ratio based on mass of benoxacor to the combination is from 0.1 to 30%, and preferably from 0.5 to 10%, and therefore, claim 1 of ‘665 in view of Amano et al, Abu-Qare et al, and Scharf et al render obvious instant claims 4-5 and 7 (See the above double patenting rejection for more details). The Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s statement under 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) and copending Application No. 17/765,665 is disqualified as prior art in the instant case.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAELEIGH ELIZABETH OLSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, David Blanchard can be reached at (571)272-0827. 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.
/K.E.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights