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. Status of Claims Claims 1-24 and 46-67 are pending. Claims 25-45 are canceled. Election/Restriction Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-24 and 46-67 , in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicant has also elected the following in the reply filed on 09/16/2025: Mesotrione as the species of the herbicide (s) present in the formulation ; The combination of methylated soybean oil, polyethoxylated (POE) tall oil fatty acid and POE glycerin esterified with hydroxy stearic acid as the species of the oil-based drift control agent; and Polyacrylamides as the species of the additive (s) present in the formulation . Upon further search and consideration, the election of species requirement for the oil-based drift control agent, as set forth in the Office action dated 07/17/2025, is hereby withdrawn by the Examiner. Claim s 3, 14-15, 47-48, and 59 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species (i.e., the herbicide(s) present in the formulation was elected as mesotrione ) , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1- 2, 4-13, 16-24, 46, 49-58, and 60-67 are being examined to the extent of the elected species, i.e., the herbicide(s) present in the formulation is mesotrione and the additive(s) present in the formulation is polyacrylamides. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed 08/31/2023 , 11/16/2023 (2) , and 12/16/2025 have been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy of each IDS is included with the present Office Action. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following: In line 6 of Par. [0023] of the specification, “PPO’s” should be amended to “PPOs” for grammatical correctness; Each of Tables 3-8 and 12 should be provided on a singular page without extending off of a page edge; and The figure captions in Par. [0009]-[0012] of the specification should be amended to be more descriptive, i.e., currently the captions of each of Figures 1-3 and each of Figures 4-8 are identical, respectively. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in checking the rest of the disclosure for informality errors and making changes accordingly. The disclosure is objected to because of the recitation of trade names and/or marks without the proper symbol beginning in Table 1 in Par. [0026] of the specification. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks; the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. Applicant is requested to check throughout the disclosure for trade names and/or marks missing the proper symbol and make corrections accordingly. Appropriate correction is required . The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the second sentence is an incomplete sentence and it appears the word “comprises” is missing in line 2 between “formulation” and “at”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Drawings The drawings are objected to because of the following: Each of Figures 1-8 should be amended so that each figure has an x-axis label and a y-axis label; In each of Figures 4-8, "% fines <150um" or "% fines, <150um" in each table title should be amended for clarity, e.g., "Weight Percentage of Fine Particles less than 150 microns" ; The following bars are illegible: “44A” in Figure 4, “ 005A1, 1.0 % DRA ” in Figure 5, and “ 005A1, 1.0% DRA/RUPM3 ” in Figure 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claim s 1 -2 , 4 -1 3 , 17- 19, 21- 24, 46, 49 -5 8 , 60- 62 , and 64-67 are objected to because of the following: In each of claim s 1 , 7, 10-12, 17-18, 52, 55-57, and 60-61 , “of” should be added after each recitation of “wt%” in order to improve claim readability and consistency (See claim 46); In line 2 of claim 4 and line 2 of claim 49 , “comprising” should be amended to “comprises” for grammatical correctness; In the last line of each of claims 10-12 and 55-57, “or” should be replaced with “and” in order to improve claim readability and consistency (See e.g. claim 13); Line 2 of claim 19 should be amended for grammatical correctness, e.g., “comprise an auxin based herbicide” or “comprise auxin based herbicides”; In the last line of each of claim s 24 and 67 , a space should be inserted between “35” and the degree s ymbol for grammatical correctness; In the last line of claim 46, the typographical error “st%” should be corrected to “wt%”; Line 2 of claim 62 should be amended for grammatical correctness, e.g., “ not comprise an auxin based herbicide” or “ not comprise auxin based herbicides” ; and In line 1 of each of claims 2, 4-9, 13, 19, 21-24, 49-54, 58, 62, and 64-67, a comma should be added after “claim [number]” and before “wherein” for grammatical correctness. Appropriate correction is required . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 4-6 , 13, 1 7 -1 8 , 24, 49-51 , 58, 60-61, and 67 are rejected 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. (a) Claim 4 is indefinite in the recitation of “The agrochemical formulation of claim 1 wherein said oil-based drift control agent further comprising …” because it is unclear whether the list of oil-based drift control agents following that phrase are in addition to and different from the oil-based drift control agent of claim 1, are further defining the oil-based drift control agent of claim 1, or whether something else is meant by the phrase. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims. Claims 5-6 are similarly rejected in the recitation of “further comprises” for being unclear whether the list of oil-based drift control agents following each of those phrases are in addition to and different from the oil-based drift control agents of the claim to which each claim depends, are further defining the oil-based drift control agents of the claim to which each claim depends, or whether something else is meant by the phrase. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims. (b) Claim 4 is indefinite in the recitation of “ oil-based drift control agent further comprising a vegetable oil or a methylated vegetable oil, ethoxylated fatty acid, ethoxylated polyol esterified with fatty acids ” because it is unclear whether the claim requires that the oil-based drift control agent further comprises a vegetable oil or a methylated vegetable oil, and ethoxylated fatty acid, and ethoxylated polyol esterified with fatty acids , whether the claim requires that the oil-based drift control agent further comprises a vegetable oil or a methylated vegetable oil, or ethoxylated fatty acid, or ethoxylated polyol esterified with fatty acids , or whether something else is meant by the phrase . As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims. Claims 5-6 are rejected for depending from claim 4 without resolving the ambiguity. (c) Claim 13 recites the limitation “said polymer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “a polymer” is not earlier recited, however claim 10 recites “polymers”. Thus, it is unclear whether ‘said polymer’ in claim 13 refers to just one of the polymers of claim 10, all of the polymers of claim 10, or whether something else is meant by each of the phrases. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims. ( d ) Claim s 1 7 -1 8 each recite the limitation " said herbicide” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims because “an herbicide” is not earlier recited, however claim 1 recites “at least one herbicide”. Thus, it is unclear whether ‘said herbicide’ in each of claims 1 7 -1 8 are referring to just one of the herbicides of claim 1, all of the herbicides of claim 1, or whether something else is meant by each of the phrases. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims. (e) Claim 24 recites the limitation “said concentration ” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “a concentration” is not earlier recited in claim 24 nor claim 1. ( f ) Claim 49 is indefinite in the recitation of “The agrochemical formulation of claim 46 wherein said oil-based drift control agent further comprising…” because it is unclear whether the list of oil-based drift control agents following that phrase are in addition to and different from the oil-based drift control agent of claim 46 , are further defining the oil-based drift control agent of claim 46 , or whether something else is meant by the phrase. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims. Claims 5 0 - 51 are similarly rejected in the recitation of “further comprises” for being unclear whether the list of oil-based drift control agents following each of those phrases are in addition to and different from the oil-based drift control agents of the claim to which each claim depends, are further defining the oil-based drift control agents of the claim to which each claim depends, or whether something else is meant by the phrase. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims. ( g ) Claim 58 recites the limitation “said polymer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “a polymer” is not earlier recited, however claim 56 recites “polymers”. Thus, it is unclear whether ‘said polymer’ in claim 58 refers to just one of the polymers of claim 56, all of the polymers of claim 56, or whether something else is meant by each of the phrases. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims. ( h ) Claim s 60-61 each recite the limitation " said herbicide” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims because “an herbicide” is not earlier recited, however claim 46 recites “at least one herbicide”. Thus, it is unclear whether ‘said herbicide’ in each of claims 60-61 are referring to just one of the herbicides of claim 46, all of the herbicides of claim 46, or whether something else is meant by each of the phrases. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims. (i) Claim 67 recites the limitation “said concentration ” . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because “a concentration” is not earlier recited in claim 67 nor claim 46. 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. Claim s 1-2, 4-6, 10-13, 16-24, 46, 49-51, 55-58, and 60-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baur et al (US 2018/0192644 A1, published 07/12/2018) as evidenced by Thornton ( "Can Nozzle Type, Carrier Volume or the use of an Adjuvant Improve the Control of Cercospora Leaf Spot in Sugarbeets?" ) and CDMS (“ InterLock® DRIFT CONTROL AGENT, CANOPY PENETRANT, DEPOSITION AID" ) . Baur et al teach a monophasic adjuvant composition comprising a) one or more polyalkylene glycol ether sulfate salts or polyalkylene glycol ether sulfonate salts, b) water, and c) one or more electrolytes dissociated into ions (See entire document, e.g., [0014]-[0017]). The composition may comprise one or more active ingredients , wherein agrochemical active ingredients, i.e., active constituents of crop protection compositions , are particularly preferred (e.g., Abstract, [0019] , [0202] ). Preferred compositions comprise herbicide active ingredients such as mesotrione as component c) (e.g., [0077]-[0078], [0085]-[0086], claims 14-15). Preference is given to compositions which take the form of a concentrate formulation, which are diluted prior to use and may contain 5% to 80% by weight, preferably 10% to 70% by weight and more preferably 20% to 60% by weight , of the one or more active ingredients of component c) (e.g., [0146]). The compositions may further comprise auxiliaries, including drift retardants such as InterLock® by Winfield , as component h) (e.g., [0148], [0190]). As evidenced by Thornton , InterLock® by Winfield is a spray adjuvant made with modified vegetable oil, vegetable oil and a polyoxyethylene sorbitan fatty acid ester emulsifier intended to reduce the number of drift-prone, fine droplets without compromising the volume median diameter (See First Par. on Page 2 O f Thornton ) and as evidenced by CDMS , comprises methylated seed oil, polyoxyethylene sorbitan fatty acid ester vegetable oil (See “Principle Functioning Agents” on Page 1 of CDMS ). The content of component h) is preferably 1% to 50% by weight, more preferably 2% to 30% by weight and especially preferably 2% to 15% by weight (e.g., [0149]). The compositions may take the form of concentrate formulations which are diluted prior to use, especially with water (for example “ready-to-use”, “in-can” or “built-in” formulations) (e.g., [0197]) and are described as stable compositions (e.g., [0140]). The compositions may optionally, i.e., or may not optionally, comprise 2,4-D, dicamba (i.e., auxin based herbicides), and/or polyacrylamides (e.g., [0077]-[0078], [0085]-[0086], [0190]). The specific combination of features claimed is disclosed within the broad generic ranges taught by Baur et al but such “picking and choosing” within several variables does not necessarily give rise to anticipation ( Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. , 868 F.2d 1251, 1262 (Fed. Circ. 1989)). That being said, however, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious” ( KSR v. Teleflex , 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro , 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions” ( Id. ). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” ( KSR at 1741). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” ( Id. at 1742). Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected various combinations of various disclosed ingredients of an agrochemical monophasic adjuvant composition from within the prior art disclosure of Baur et al , i.e., provide a stable agrochemical monophasic adjuvant compositio n comprising one or more polyalkylene glycol ether sulfate salts or polyalkylene glycol ether sulfonate salts, water, mesotrione as herbicide active ingredient from 5% to 80% by weight preferably 10% to 70% by weight and more preferably 20% to 60% by weight , and InterLock® by Winfield as drift retardant from 1% to 50% by weight more preferably 2% to 30% by weight and especially preferably 2% to 15% by weight in the form of a “ready-to-use”, “in-can” or “built-in” formulation , and arrive at the agrochemical formulation of the instant claims “yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.” The above composition of Baur et al renders obvious instant claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-13, 16-24, 46, 49-51, 55-58, and 60-67 . The evidentiary descriptions of the constituents of InterLock® by Winfield render obvious the oil-based drift agent limitations of claims 4-6 and 49-51. Regarding the ranges required by the instant claims, 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)). The composition of Baur et al not comprising polyacrylamides (i.e., the elected species of additive(s) for the instant application) renders obvious instant claims 10-13 and 55-58. The composition of Baur et al not comprising auxin based herbicides 2,4-D or dicamba renders obvious instant claims 19 and 62. Regarding the limitations of instant claims 20-23 and 63-66, the instant specification discloses that “oil-based drift reduction agents of this type are preferred … because they are less likely to increase average spray particle size while reducing fine particles, which can mean less of an impact to herbicide efficacy compared to water-based polymers, such as polyacrylamide ” at Par. [0017]. Because the fine particle reduction and increase in average particle size is attributed to the oil-based drift reduction agent , as evidenced by the instant specification , and the drift retardant of Baur et al is the same as the oil-based drift reduction agent of the instant claims, the composition of Baur et al renders obvious the limitations of instant claims 20-23 and 63-66. Regarding the limitations of instant claims 24 and 67, the instant specification discloses that “c ombining the herbicide and oil-based drift reduction technology in a common package also improves storage and distribution … overcomes the stability challenges that previously made this infeasible ” at Par. [0017]. Because the stability of the instant formulation is attributed to the combination of the herbicide and oil-based drift reduction technology of the instant invention , as evidenced by the instant specification, and the herbicide active ingredient and drift retardant of Bauer et al are the same as the herbicide and the oil-based drift reduction agent of the instant claims, the composition of Baur et al renders obvious the limitations of instant claims 24 and 67. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present ( In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 7-9 and 52-54 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. Conclusion No claims are allowable . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KAELEIGH ELIZABETH OLSEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1962 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Blanchard can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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 /NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619