DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 5, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 Status
Claim 34 has been newly added.
Claims 1, 10, 23, 24, and 26 – 34 are examined here-in.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 10, 23, 24, 26 – 29, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacker (CA 2,783,627 A1, of record).
Hacker teaches an herbicidal combination of A) and imidazolinone herbicide, such as imazamox, and B) a second herbicide, such as mesotrione or pendimethalin (abstract).
Hacker teaches that the combination of herbicide A and B results in synergy (page 4 lines 14 – 16). Hacker teaches that synergistic combinations are advantageous because the application rates of the individual herbicides can be reduced, more potency is observed with the combination than with the herbicides individually, and economic and ecological benefits, among others (page 4 line 29 to page 5 line 2).
Hacker teaches that imazamox is an herbicide that inhibits acetolactate synthase and is both soil- and foliar-acting (page 9 lines 3 – 17). Hacker teaches that imazamox can be applied in the amount of 10 to 200 g/hectare (page 9 lines 15 – 17).
Hacker teaches that mesotrione is a soil- and foliar-acting herbicide that can be used against grasses and dicots (page 12 lines 15 – 17 and page 16 line 24). Hacker teaches that mesotrione can be applied in the amount of 50 – 200 g/ hectare (page 17 line 14).
Hacker teaches that pendimethalin is an herbicide that can be used against dicots (page 14 lines 3 – 5). Hacker teaches that pendimethalin can be applied in the amount of 300 – 200 g/hectare (page 17 line 16).
Hacker teaches that the relative amounts of A) and B) should be in the range of 200:1 to 1:100 (page 18 lines 28 – 32).
Hacker teaches that it is advantageous to combine a compound from group A (such as imazamox) with one or more compound from group B (such as mesotrione or pendimethalin) (page 5 lines 4 – 7, page 21 lines 5 - 7).
Hacker teaches that the herbicidal combination can be formulated with other ingredients, such as fertilizers, colors, surfactants, and solvents as appropriate (page 28 lines 8 – 13, 23 – 24, 31 – 33, page 30 lines 26 - 30). Hacker teaches that the formulation constituents may be present in the amount of 5 to 80% by weight (page 30 lines 13 – 17). Further, Hacker teaches that the active ingredients and necessary excipients can be formulated to wettable powders, emulsifiable concentrates, aqueous solutions, emulsion, granules, and a tank mix or ready-mix, among other formulations (page 28 lines 8 – 14, page 29 lines 5 – 6).
Hacker teaches a method of controlling harmful plants in a crop by applying the herbicidal combination to the seeds of the plants or the area under cultivation (page 2a lines 20 – 27, page 27 lines 23 – 36, claim 9).
Hacker does not teach a specific embodiment having all of the claimed elements. However, claims 1, 10, 23, 24, 26 – 29, 32, and 33 are rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Hacker, because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, in order to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143(I)(a)). In the instant case, all the claimed elements (e.g., imazamox, mesotrione, pendimethalin) were known in the prior art (e.g., herbicidal combinations) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (e.g., a synergistic herbicidal composition) to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Hacker’s teaching that it is advantageous to combine a compound from group A (such as imazamox) with one or more compound from group B (such as mesotrione or pendimethalin) (page 5 lines 4 – 7) reads on instant claim 1, which recites an herbicidal combination of mesotrione, pendimethalin, and imazamox or rimsulfuron. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the herbicides as claimed because Hacker teaches the combination of mesotrione and imazamox shows synergy; that the combination of pendimethalin and imazamox shows synergy; and notes that it the combination of A) with more than one compound B) may be meaningful (page 4 lines 14 – 16, page 21 lines 5 - 7), therefore, the combination of mesotrione, pendimethalin, and imazamox would be reasonably expected to have greater activity than two of the herbicides alone in combination. Furthermore, Hacker suggests that a combination of an A compound with B compounds of different classes is a preferable way to combine compounds (page 21 lines 5 – 7). Notably, imazamox is a type A compound, mesotrione is a type B1 compound, and pendimethalin is a type B2 compound (page 9 line 4, page 13 line 24, page 14 line 5). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine mesotrione, pendimethalin, and imazamox because Hacker teaches that the combination of an A compound with B compounds of different classes is a preferable combination (page 21 lines 5 – 7).
Hacker’s teaching that the herbicidal combination can be formulated with other ingredients, such as fertilizers, colors, surfactants, and solvents as appropriate (page 28 lines 8 – 13, 23 – 24, 31 – 33, page 30 lines 26 - 30) reads on instant claims 10 and 27.
Hacker’s teaching of a method of controlling harmful plants in a crop by applying the herbicidal combination to the seeds of the plants or the area under cultivation (page 2a lines 20 – 27, page 27 lines 23 – 36, claim 9) reads on instant claim 23.
Hacker teaches that imazamox can be applied in the amount of 10 to 200 g/hectare (page 9 lines 15 – 17), mesotrione can be applied in the amount of 50 – 200 g/hectare (page 17 line 14), and pendimethalin can be applied in the amount of 300 – 2,000 g/hectare (page 17 line 16). It is within the expertise of a person of ordinary skill in the art to convert Hacker’s taught amounts of g/hectare to L/hectare as claimed. The instant specification shows an approximately 1 to 1 conversion from g/hectare to L/hectare, reciting 10 to 500 g a.i./hectare for an herbicidal combination in paragraph 0231 and 1 to 500 L/hectare for an herbicidal combination in paragraph 0248. Therefore, the claimed amounts of 1 to 500 L/hectare and 10 to 400 L/hectare can be approximated to 1 to 500 g/hectare and 10 to 400 g/hectare for claims 24 and 36, respectively. Hacker’s taught amounts overlap the claimed amounts of an herbicidal combination in a range from 1 to 500 L/ha and 10 to 400 L/ha as recited in instant claims 24 and 26. Claimed ranges that overlap teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(I).
Hacker’s teaching that the relative amounts of A) and B) should be in the range of 200:1 to 1:100 (page 18 lines 28 – 32) and that formulation constituents may be present in the amount of 5 to 80% by weight (page 30 lines 13 – 17) reads on instant claims 28 and 29. For example, the taught ratio of A:B as 200:1 can represent imazamox in the amount of 70%, mesotrione in the amount of 0.35%, and pendimethalin in the amount of 0.35%, or conversely, the taught ratio of 1:100 can represent imazamox in the amount of 0.7%, mesotrione in the amount of 49%, and pendimethalin in the amount of 49%. These examples illustrate how the taught range of 200:1 to 1:100 overlaps on the claimed ranges of 0.1% to 70% w/w and 0.1% to 50% w/w recited in instant claims 28 and 29.
Hacker’s teaching that the herbicidal combinations can be formulated to a liquid solution, a tank mix or ready-mix, among other formulations (page 28 lines 8 – 14, page 29 lines 5 – 6) reads on instant claims 32 and 33.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hacker (as cited above) in view of Shroff (US 2016/0174551 A1, of record).
Hacker’s teachings are discussed above.
Hacker does not teach the combination of pendimethalin, mesotrione, and rimsulfuron.
Shroff teaches the missing element of Hacker.
Shroff teaches an herbicidal formulation with pendimethalin and a co-herbicide (abstract). Shroff teaches that herbicidal combinations are used for effective and economical weed control and that they offer advantages like broad spectrum action, synergistic effects, prevention of degradation, and reduction in dosages of individual herbicides (paragraph 0004).
Shroff teaches the herbicidal combination of pendimethalin and rimsulfuron (paragraphs 0041 – 0045).
Shroff teaches the herbicidal combination of pendimethalin and imazamox (paragraphs 0041, 0049).
Shroff teaches the herbicidal combination of pendimethalin and mesotrione (paragraphs 0041, 0060).
Shroff teaches that pendimethalin can be combined with more than one additional herbicide (paragraph 0236).
The combination of Hacker and Shroff’s teachings renders instant claims 30 and 31 prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2143(I)(b) as simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results because Hacker teaches the combination of imazamox, pendimethalin, and mesotrione and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute rimsulfuron for imazamox because: 1) both rimsulfuron and imazamox are in the herbicide class of ALS inhibitors, 2) Shroff teaches that the combination of different herbicides leads to advantages such as broad spectrum of effectiveness (paragraph 0004), and 3) Shroff teaches that rimsulfuron is compatible with pendimethalin (paragraph 0041 – 0045), therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would anticipate that rimsulfuron is compatible with pendimethalin and mesotrione in the amounts taught by Hacker. The substitution of imazamox for rimsulfuron is prima facie obvious as simple substitution of one known element for another.
The substitution of rimsulfuron (as taught by Shroff) into Hacker’s teaching of an herbicidal combination of A and B (Hacker page 5 lines 4 – 7), where rimsulfuron is component A and pendimethalin and mesotrione are each component B, where A and B are in a ratio ranging from 200:1 to 1:100 (Hacker page 18 lines 28 – 32) and t formulation constituents in the amount of 5 to 80% by weight (Hacker page 30 lines 13 – 17) reads on instant claims 30 and 31. For example, the taught ratio of A:B as 200:1 can represent rimsulfuron in the amount of 70%, mesotrione in the amount of 0.35%, and pendimethalin in the amount of 0.35%, or conversely, the taught ratio of 1:100 can represent rimsulfuron in the amount of 0.7%, mesotrione in the amount of 49%, and pendimethalin in the amount of 49%. These examples illustrate how the taught range of 200:1 to 1:100 overlaps on the claimed ranges of 0.1% to 70% w/w and 0.1% to 50% w/w recited in instant claims 30 and 31.
Examiner’s Reply to Attorney Arguments Dated January 5, 2026
Applicant argues that the prior art teaches many possible combinations, but does not teach or suggest the specific combination as claimed – specifically arguing that Hacker is “strictly limited to binary combinations” (Remarks pages 6 and 7). As discussed in detail above, Hacker teaches that the combination of mesotrione and imazamox shows synergy; that the combination of pendimethalin and imazamox shows synergy; and discloses that the combination of an A compound with more than one B compound may be advantageous (page 21 lines 5 - 7). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the combination of mesotrione (from the group B1), pendimethalin (from the group B2), and imazamox (from the group A3) to have greater activity than two of the herbicides alone in combination.
Applicant suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have the motivation to combine three pesticides based on Hacker’s disclosure and argues that Hacker teaches away from multi-herbicide mixtures (Remarks page 7). As discussed in detail above, although Hacker cautions that multi-herbicide mixtures may show incompatibility (page 2 lines 4 – 7), Hacker also teaches the combination of more than two compounds (page 21 lines 5 – 20). According to MPEP 2141.02, prior art teachings must be considered as a whole – therefore, both these teachings should be considered. The Examiner notes that Hacker suggests that a combination of an A compound with B compounds of different classes is a preferable way to combine compounds (page 21 lines 5 – 7). Notably, imazamox is a type A compound, mesotrione is a type B1 compound, and pendimethalin is a type B2 compound (page 9 line 4, page 13 line 24, page 14 line 5). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine mesotrione, pendimethalin, and imazamox because Hacker teaches that the combination of an A compound with B compounds of different classes is a preferable combination (page 21 lines 5 – 7). Furthermore, Applicants are reminded that a skilled artisan is not an automaton, but a person having ordinary skill in the art of formulating herbicidal compositions, i.e. a synthetic chemist of Ph.D., and is capable of fitting teachings of the prior art documents together like pieces of a puzzle. See MPEP 2141.03. As such, a skilled artisan would be highly capable of considering Hacker’s teachings regarding potential incompatibility in multi-herbicide mixtures alongside Hacker’s teachings that a combination of two or more compounds can produce synergistic results.
Applicant alleges unexpected results, referencing Tables 1 - 5 of the instant specification (Remarks page 9). As an initial matter, the Examiner notes that a proper side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art as required by MPEP 716.02(e) does not appear to have been made.
In the Remarks (pages 10 and 11), Applicant refers to Table 5 but shows Table 3. To ensure clarity of the record, the table showing ternary combinations and control 28 DAT (%) for wild radish, palmer amaranth, ivyleaf morning glory, sicklepod, and common cocklebur is Table 3 on pages 87 and 88 of the instant specification. With regards to Table 3, the Examiner agrees that the ternary combination shows greater than 95% control at 28 DAT (%) for wild radish, palmer amaranth, ivyleaf morning glory, sicklepod, and common cocklebur. That being said, there is not data for single or binary application of the herbicides for wild radish, palmer amaranth, ivyleaf morning glory, sicklepod, and common cocklebur and therefore no comparison can be made between the ternary, binary, and singular combination control for wild radish, palmer amaranth, ivyleaf morning glory, sicklepod, and common cocklebur.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
716
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
810
678
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Pages 10 and 11 of the Remarks are shown to promote clarity of the record. Here Applicant refers to Table 5 but shows Table 3. )]
As discussed in the action from November 3, 2025, Table 5 on pages 88 and 89 of the instant specification compares the efficacy of the claimed ternary compositions (imazamox + pendimethalin + mesotrione, and rimsulfuron + pendimethalin + mesotrione) with binary combinations (rimsulfuron + pendimethalin, pendimethalin + mesotrione, imazamox + pendimethalin, and imazamox + mesotrione) and individual herbicides (imazamox, rimsulfuron, pendimethalin, and mesotrione) against red sorrel, dandelion, and geranium species. Notably, there is no data for a binary combination of rimsulfuron + mesotrione. Although the ternary combinations appear to show greater bio-efficacy than the binary combinations, there is no indication that a statistically significant number of test plants or replicates was employed. Further, although Applicant references synergy as displayed by Colby’s Equation (9/24/2025 remarks page 8), there are no reports of any Colby’s Equation results accompanying the bio-efficacy results. At present, the results reported in Table 5 appear to show that ternary compositions have greater bio-efficacy than binary combinations, which tend to have greater bio-efficacy than single compounds. The Examiner disagrees that greater efficacy with more compounds than with fewer compounds (i.e. three compounds has more efficacy than one compound) is unexpected.
Furthermore, Applicant has not fully explained the significance of the data in arriving at the conclusion that results are unexpected as required by MPEP 716.01(c)(II) and 716.02(b)(II). Applicant does not explain how the ternary combinations claimed are unexpectedly synergistic compared to binary combinations or individual herbicides. According to MPEP 716.02(a)(i), synergism is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected, and Applicants must show that results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage.
Finally, and purely arguendo, even if Applicant has in fact shown unexpected results (of which the Examiner is not persuaded at this time), the Examiner notes that Applicant’s alleged showing is in regards to the bio-efficacy of ternary combinations in specific amounts ( I + P + M and R + P + M) which does not appear to be “reasonably representative” of the claims in their current scope. See MPEP 716.02(d). The Applicant has allegedly demonstrated a greater bio-efficacy associated with application of 105 g ai imazamox, 4,270 g ai pendimethalin, 210 g ai mesotrione, and 70 g ai rimsulfuron, however if this is in fact true it would only have been shown for a specific combination and amount of each compound as applied to three types of weeds (Table 5). It is unclear that a composition containing the specific combination and amount of each compound would be reasonably representative of compositions containing other amounts of each compound or as applied to other weeds, thereby falling within the broader scope of what is presently claimed.
For all of the reasons discussed above, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over claims 1, 10, 23, 24, and 26 - 33 are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 appears to be free of prior art because the closest prior art of Hacker does not teach or suggest the combination of mesotrione; pendimethalin; and imazamox or rimsulfuron in the specific amounts of 210; 4,270; and 105 or 70 grams of active ingredient per hectare.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 10, 23, 24, and 26 - 33 are rejected.
Claim 34 is allowable.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Toriana N. Vigil whose telephone number is (571)270-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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, 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.
/TORIANA N. VIGIL/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612