DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 24, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 § 112(a) (New, Necessitated by Amendment)
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 20 are 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 claims 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 1 is drawn to compositions of a triazolone herbicide and a photoprotective agent which comprises epoxidized vegetable oil that “prolongs the half-life of the at least one triazolone herbicide or increases the stability of the at least one triazolone herbicide when exposed to light”. The working examples in the specification [00136]-[00167] demonstrate that epoxidized vegetable oil stabilizes and slows down the photodegradation of sulfentrazone and amicarbazone, however the examples with these two triazolone herbicides are not representative of all triazolone herbicides. There are a large number of known triazolone herbicides, for example, Hsu et al. (US 5,120,347) lists at col.1-2 an immense list of possible substitutions for aryl triazoles where Q is oxygen (i.e., triazolones) which possess herbicidal activity, with 39 synthesized examples (Table 1 and Table 3). Regarding claim 20, 9 different triazolone herbicides are recited, of which only two (sulfentrazone and amicarbazone) were tested. The two tested triazolone herbicides do not appear to be representative of the vast number of “triazolone herbicides” as is known in the art or of the 9 different herbicides recited in claim 20. It would not be reasonably expected that the half-life would be prolonged or the stability would be increased with all of the “triazolone herbicides” as claimed with epoxidized vegetable oil and it is understood that the specification does not provide sufficient written support to describe all embodiments (“prolongs the half-life of the at least one triazolone herbicide or increases the stability of the at least one triazolone herbicide when exposed to light”) of the claimed compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-10, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 are allowed. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art, Ishaque (US 8,404,263 B2) discloses an agrochemical formulation comprising a pesticide (such as the triazolone herbicide, amicarbazone (Col 12, line 38)) and a UV photoprotective filter. Ishaque discloses the total amount of UV photoprotective filter in the agrochemical formulation is from 0.5 to 30 wt. % (Col 6, lines 24-26).
Ishaque does not disclose the photoprotective agent comprises epoxidized vegetable oil that prolongs the half-life of amicarbazone, sulfentrazone or the combination thereof or increases the stability of amicarbazone, sulfentrazone or the combination thereof when exposed to light.
The authors have demonstrated (instant specification [00136]-[00167]) that the claimed amount of photoprotective agent comprising epoxidized vegetable oil prolongs the half-life and photostability of amicarbazone and sulfentrazone. The claimed combination of epoxidized vegetable oil and amicarbazone, sulfentrazone, or a combination thereof with the properties of increased half-life and stability of the triazolone herbicide is not taught nor suggested by the prior art.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable (for the same reasons discussed above) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
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