DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/12/2026 has been entered.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 12, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Ishaque et al. (US 8,404,263 B2) in view of Brandhorst et al (WO 2020/201657 A1 with a foreign translation provided by US 2022/0176427 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3 Ishaque discloses an agrochemical formulation comprising a pesticide (such as the triazolone herbicide, amicarbazone (Col 12, line 38)) an organic UV photoprotective filter, and metal oxide nanoparticles (Abstract). Ishaque discloses the total amount of organic UV photoprotective filter in the agrochemical formulation is from 0.5 to 30 wt. % (Col 6, lines 24-26) and the total amount of metal oxide nanoparticles in the agrochemical formulation is from 0.5 to 20 wt.% (Col 5, lines 31-33). Ishaque discloses that the formulation is contacted with soil (abstract; Col 16, lines 16-21).
Ishaque does not disclose epoxidized vegetable oil.
Brandhorst discloses a composition for soil with an epoxidized vegetable oil (abstract). The composition includes the epoxidized vegetable oil in an amount of 1-100 wt.% [0085]. Brandhorst teaches that the epoxidized vegetable oil acts as a carbon source in soil to help biologically degrade polluting substances [0043]-[0047].
Since Ishaque generally teaches a composition for soil, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include epoxidized vegetable oil, in the amount taught by Brandhorst, within the teachings of Ishaque, because Brandhorst teaches epoxidized vegetable oil in a composition for the soil. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use epoxidized vegetable oil because Brandhorst teaches that the epoxidized vegetable oil acts as a carbon source in soil to help biologically degrade polluting substances [0043]-[0047].
In regards to the amount of the photoprotective agent, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 A.
Claim 5 is rendered prima facie obvious because Ishaque discloses the photoprotective filters to be UV-A and UV-B filters (Col 5, lines 41-43).
Claim 6 is rendered prima facie obvious because Ishaque discloses the metal oxide nanoparticles are particularly preferred to be titanium dioxide (Col 2, lines 38-39).
Claims 8 and 9 are rendered prima facie obvious because Ishaque discloses the composition additionally includes agrochemically suitable excipients, such as adjuvants (Col 7, lines 60-67).
Claim 10 is rendered prima facie obvious because Ishaque discloses the composition is stable towards light (Col 20, lines 20-29).
Regarding claim 14, Ishaque discloses a photostable (Col 20, lines 20-29) agrochemical formulation comprising a pesticide (such as the triazolone herbicide, amicarbazone (Col 12, line 38)) an organic UV photoprotective filter, and metal oxide nanoparticles (Abstract). Ishaque discloses the total amount of organic UV photoprotective filter in the agrochemical formulation is from 0.5 to 30 wt. % (Col 6, lines 24-26) and the total amount of metal oxide nanoparticles in the agrochemical formulation is from 0.5 to 20 wt.% (Col 5, lines 31-33). Ishaque discloses that the formulation is contacted with soil (abstract; Col 16, lines 16-21).
Ishaque does not disclose epoxidized vegetable oil.
Brandhorst discloses a composition for soil with an epoxidized vegetable oil (abstract). The composition includes the epoxidized vegetable oil in an amount of 1-100 wt.% [0085]. Brandhorst teaches that the epoxidized vegetable oil acts as a carbon source in soil to help biologically degrade polluting substances [0043]-[0047].
It would have been prima facie obvious to include epoxidized vegetable oil, as taught by Brandhorst, within the teachings of Ishaque, as previously discussed. In regards to the amount of photoprotective agent, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Regarding claim 20, Ishaque discloses a kit of parts, comprising as separate components a pesticide (such as the triazolone herbicide, amicarbazone, Col 12, line 38) and additional active compounds (Col 15, lines 26-57). Ishaque teaches that the kit of parts allows for the components to be applied either together or separately from each other to deliver an effective amount of the components (Col 1, lines 16-26; Col 15, line 24-49). Ishaque discloses that the formulations of the disclosure are contacted with soil (abstract; Col 16, lines 16-21).
Ishaque does not disclose epoxidized vegetable oil.
Brandhorst discloses a composition for soil with an epoxidized vegetable oil (abstract). Brandhorst teaches that the epoxidized vegetable oil acts as a carbon source in soil to help biologically degrade polluting substances [0043]-[0047].
It would have been prima facie obvious to include epoxidized vegetable oil, as taught by Brandhorst, within the teachings of Ishaque, as previously discussed and one would be motivated to include the epoxidized vegetable oil as a separate component because Ishaque teaches that a kit of parts where the pesticide and additional active compounds are separated allows for the components to be applied either together or separately to deliver an effective amount of the components (Col 1, lines 16-26; Col 15, line 24-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 14, and 20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pg. 6-7 that the Office has not established that Brandhorst is analogous art to the instant invention. Applicant argues that the disclosure taught and claimed by the applicant concerns a photoprotective composition or kit for a triazolone herbicide, whereas Brandhorst is directed to the use of epoxidized vegetable oil as a carbon source for microorganisms in polluted soils.
The Examiner disagrees. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP 2141.01. In the instant case, Brandhorst is analogous art to the claimed invention because both are from the same field of endeavor of agrochemical formulations. The instant invention is stated in the specification to be an agrochemical formulation to be applied to the soil [006] [00103] and Brandhorst discloses a formulation to be applied to soil [abstract] [0043]-[0047], therefore, Brandhorst is analogous art to the instantly claimed invention. The examiner' s reason or motivation to modify the reference may suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem; it is not necessary that the epoxidized vegetable oil is included to achieve the same result (here photoprotection) as the applicant. See MPEP 2144 IV.
The applicant argues at pg. 7 that there is not motivation to combine the teachings of Brandhorst and Ishaque because Ishaque addresses pesticide decomposition due to sunlight and teaches stabilization against UV irradiation, whereas Brandhorst does not teach or suggest epoxidized vegetable oil as a photoprotective agent.
The Examiner disagrees. Brandhorst is analogous art to Ishaque because both are from the same field of endeavor of agrochemical formulations. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use epoxidized vegetable oil, taught by Brandhorst, within the composition of Ishaque (which Ishaque discloses is contacted with soil; abstract; Col 16, lines 16-21) because Brandhorst teaches that the epoxidized vegetable oil acts as a carbon source in soil to help biologically degrade polluting substances [0043]-[0047].
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Ishaque et al. (US 8,404,263 B2) in view of Brandhorst et al (WO 2020/201657 A1 with a foreign translation provided by US 2022/0176427 A1) and further in view of Nogueira et al. (US 2017/0223961 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Ishaque in view of Brandhorst was previously discussed.
Ishaque does not disclose the composition includes 20 g/L to 1000 g/L of triazolone herbicide, as recited in claim 4, or 20 g/L to 1000 g/L of amicarbazone, as recited in claim 15.
Nogueira discloses a formula comprising a triazolone herbicide pesticide, such as amicarbazone [Claim 1] in an amount of 35 g/L to 500 g/L [Claim 8]. Nogueira teaches that a formulation with this amount of triazolinone herbicide is effective in controlling weeds thereby providing a faster initial development of the crop, providing higher production levels, and increasing crop yield [Abstract] [0024] [0026].
Since Ishaque generally teaches an agrochemical formulation comprising a pesticide (such as the triazolone herbicide, amicarbazone), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the triazolone herbicide, amicarbazone, in the amount taught by Nogueira, within the teachings of Ishaque, because Nogueira teaches this amount of triazolone herbicide in an agrochemical formulation. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use 35 g/L to 500 g/L of the triazolone herbicide, amicarbazone, because Nogueira teaches that a formulation with this amount of triazolone herbicide is effective in controlling weeds thereby providing a faster initial development of the crop, providing higher production levels, and increasing crop yield [Abstract] [0024] [0026]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 4 and 15 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pg. 6 that the dependent claims are allowable by virtue of dependency upon an allowable base claim.
The Examiner disagrees because no claims are in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashlee E Wertz whose telephone number is (571)270-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 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, 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.
/ASHLEE E WERTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights