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 .
This application is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed February 6, 2026. Claims 1-10 and 12-21 are pending in the application. Claim 13 has been amended claims 14-21 are newly added.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt of Information Disclosure Statement filed February 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
The rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph because the claimed invention is not supported by either a specific and substantial asserted utility or a well-established utility is withdrawn due to the cancellation of the claim.
The rejection of claim 13 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to the cancellation of the “preferably” limitation.
The rejection of claims 1-12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selby et al. (WO 2020/069057) in view of Satterfield et al. (WO 2016/196593) is maintained.
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 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "wherein the weight ratio of component (A) to component (B) is from 1:30 to 16:1" in lines 1-2. Claim 17 is dependent from claim 16, which recites the rate of application of the compound of formula (B-III). While claim 16 depends from claim 10 and recites “the composition as in claim 1”, it is unclear from the claim language the metes and bounds of the limitations of claim 17 in relation to claim 16 from which it depends. Having claim 17 depend from claim 16 is confusing. Applicant should clarify the metes and bounds of claim 17.
To advance compact prosecution, claim 17 is being interpreted as being dependent from claim 10, wherein the composition of claim 1 comprises component (A) and component (B).
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment filed February 6, 2026
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.
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 1-10 and 12-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selby et al. (WO 2020/069057) in view of Satterfield et al. (WO 2016/196593) as evidenced by Perennial Ryegrass Plant Fact Sheet (2002, USDA, NRCS). Selby et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS filed 4/18/2023.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a composition comprising as component (A) a compound of formula (A-1) or an agrochemically acceptable salt thereof:
PNG
media_image1.png
157
241
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and as component (B) comprising at least one compound, or an agrochemically acceptable salt thereof of formula (B-III):
PNG
media_image2.png
155
166
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claim 1, Selby et al. teach compounds of Formula I and N-oxides or salts thereof
PNG
media_image3.png
212
192
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Abstract, page 1, lines 11-22). Selby et al. teach the preparation of compound No. 20, which is compound (A-1) (page 44, lines 19-38-page 45, lines 1-3).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Selby et al. teach an herbicidal mixture comprising (a) a compound selected from Formula 1, and (b) at least one additional active ingredient (page 22, lines 24-25). Selby et al. teach the at least one additional active ingredient includes other herbicides (b15) (page 27, lines 6-32-page 28, lines 1-32). Selby et al. teach specifically preferred “other herbicides” (b15) include (b15A-4)
PNG
media_image4.png
145
215
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which is compound of formula (B-III) (page 28, Table of structures).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, and 17, Selby et al. teach the weight ratio of the mixing partners (in total) to the compound of Formula I is typically between about 1:3000 and about 3000:1, between about 1:300 and about 300:1, for example ratios between about 1:30 and about 30:1. Selby et al. teach one skilled in the art can easily determine through simple experimentation the biologically effective amounts of active ingredients necessary for the desired spectrum of biological activity (page 57, lines 28-34).
Regarding claims 6, 7, and 8, Selby et al. teach a composition of the compound of the invention, at least one additional active ingredient selected from the group consisting of other herbicides and herbicide safeners (page 57, lines 36-37-page 58, line 1).
Regarding claim 9, Selby et al. teach the compound of Formula I and any other active ingredients are incorporated into the present compositions by dissolving the active ingredient in a solvent or by grinding in a liquid or dry diluent (page 52, lines 20-22).
Selby et al. teach the composition comprising a compound of Formula I (in a herbicidally effective amount) and at least one additional biologically active compound or agent and can further comprise at least one of a surfactant, a solid diluent or a liquid diluent (page 57, lines 8-12).
Regarding claim 10, Selby et al. teach a method for controlling undesired vegetation comprising applying to the locus of the vegetation an herbicidally effective amounts of the compounds of the invention (page 22, lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 12, Selby et al. teach sprayable formulations can be tank mixed with water for foliar treatment (page 49, lines 13-21). Selby et al. teach for water-dispersible and water-soluble granules, tablets, and powders the active ingredient is 0.001-90 % of the composition; the diluent is 0-99.999% of the composition, and the surfactant is 0-15% of the composition (page 49, lines 22-34). Selby et al. teach for oil dispersion, suspensions, emulsions, and solutions the active ingredient is 1-50% of the composition (page 49, line 30).
Regarding claim 14, Selby et al. teach the herbicidally effective amount is in a preferred range of 0.004 to 1 kg/ha, which is equivalent to 4 to 1000 g/ha, which falls within the range of about 50 to about 1,000 g/ha, as currently claimed (page 56, lines 15-17).
Selby et al. teach compounds are used to control undesired vegetation, contact of desired vegetation in the treated locus with compounds of the disclosure result in super-additive or synergistic effects (page 56, lines 31-34).
Regarding claim 18, Selby et al. teach the weed species include ryegrass (page 67, line 6). As evidenced by the Perennial Ryegrass Plant Fact Sheet, perennial ryegrass is Lolium perenne L.
Regarding claim 19, Selby et al. teach the weed species include chickweed (common chickweed Stellaria media) (page 69, lines 6-7).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Selby et al. teach in Test C the weed species include ryegrass and lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) (page 68, lines 20-24).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Selby et al. do not specifically provide examples of a composition comprising the compound of formula (A-1) and a compound of formula (B-III) or the concentrated composition for dilution by a user, comprising from 2% to 80% by weight of active agents, as claimed in claim 13. It is for this reason Satterfield et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Satterfield et al. teach compounds of Formula 1, N-oxides of the compounds a salts and method for controlling undesired vegetation comprising contacting the undesired vegetation with an effective amount of such a compound (Abstract). Satterfield et al. teach the synthesis example 6, which is compound B-III, of the instant invention (page 66, lines 10-35-page 67, lines 1-16). Satterfield et al. teach the formulations will typically contain effective amounts of active ingredients, diluent and surfactant comprising 0.001-90 % active ingredient, 0-99.999% diluent, and 0-15% surfactant (page 73, lines 12-14).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, and 17, Satterfield et al. teach the weight ratio of the various mixing partners range between about 1:30 and about 30:1 (page 99, lines 16-19).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Satterfield et al. teach a herbicidally effective amount of compounds is from about 0.005 to about 20 kg/ha, which is equivalent to 5 to 20,000 g/ha and in some embodiments the range is from about 0.01 to about 1 kg/ha, which is equivalent to 10 to 1000 g/ha. Satterfield et al. teach one skilled in the art can easily determine the herbicidally effective amount necessary for the desired level of weed control (page 88, lines 30-34).
Satterfield et al. teach the compounds result in super-additive or synergistic effects (page 96, lines 1-2; page 99, lines 24-27).
Regarding claim 18, Satterfield et al. teach the weed species include ryegrass (page 381, line 14). As evidenced by the Perennial Ryegrass Plant Fact Sheet, perennial ryegrass is Lolium perenne L.
Regarding claim 19, Satterfield et al. teach the weed species include chickweed (common chickweed Stellaria media) (page 381, lines 26-77).
Regarding claim 20, Satterfield et al. teach the weed species include lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) (page 381, line 18).
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Selby et al. and Satterfield et al. as evidenced by Perennial Ryegrass Plant Fact Sheet and form a composition and agrochemical composition comprising a compound of (A-1) ang (B-III). Selby et al. teach compounds of Formula I and N-oxides or salts thereof
PNG
media_image3.png
212
192
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Selby et al. teach the preparation of compound No. 20, which is compound (A-I). Selby et al. teach a herbicidal mixture comprising (a) a compound selected from Formula 1, and (b) at least one additional active ingredient, including (b15A-4)
PNG
media_image4.png
145
215
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which is compound of formula (B-III). Satterfield et al. teach compounds of Formula 1, N-oxides of the compounds a salts and method for controlling undesired vegetation comprising contacting the undesired vegetation with an effective amount of such a compound. Satterfield et al. teach the synthesis example 6, which is compound B-III, of the instant invention. In view of In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1980), it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more compositions each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition that is to be used for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in prior art, thus claims that requires no more than mixing together two or three conventional herbicides set forth prima facie obvious subject matter. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to formulate an agrochemical composition comprising compound of formula (A-I) and (B-III) as a herbicidal composition, with a reasonable expectation of success since Selby et al. teach compositions comprising these two compounds.
Regarding the limitation of claim 13, wherein a concentrated composition for dilution by user comprises from 2% to 80% by weight of active agents comprising component (A) and component (B), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use experimentation and optimization to determine the amount of active ingredients in the compositions. Selby et al. teach for oil dispersion, suspensions, emulsions, and solutions the active ingredient is 1-50% of the composition. Satterfield et al. teach for oil dispersion, suspensions, emulsions, and solutions the active ingredient is 1-50% of the composition. Selby et al. further teach one skilled in the art can easily determine through simple experimentation the biologically effective amounts of active ingredients necessary for the desired spectrum of biological activity. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the effective amount of herbicides to use in the composition. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references, especially within the broad ranges instantly claimed) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Regarding the application rates the compound of formula (A-1) of newly added claim 14, Selby et al. teach the herbicidally effective amount is in a preferred range of 0.004 to 1 kg/ha, which is equivalent to 4 to 1000 g/ha, which falls within the range of about 50 to about 1,000 g/ha, as currently claimed. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Selby et al. to determine the amount of component (A-1) to use in the composition.
Regarding the application rates of the compound of formula (B-III) of newly added claims 15 and 16, Satterfield et al. teach a herbicidally effective amount of compounds that are same as the compound of formula (B-III) is from about 0.005 to about 20 kg/ha, which is equivalent to 5 to 20,000 g/ha and in some embodiments the range is from about 0.01 to about 1 kg/ha, which is equivalent to 10 to 1000 g/ha. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Satterfield et al. to determine the amount of component (B-III) to use in the composition, specifically because Satterfield et al. teach one skilled in the art can easily determine the herbicidally effective amount necessary for the desired level of weed control.
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selby et al. (WO 2020/069057) in view of Satterfield et al. (WO 2016/196593) as evidenced by Perennial Ryegrass Plant Fact Sheet (2002, USDA, NRCS) as applied to claims 1-10 and 12-21 above, and further in view of the Colby Publication (1967, Weeds). Selby et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS filed 4/18/2023.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Selby et al. and Satterfield et al. as evidenced by Perennial Ryegrass Plant Fact Sheet with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is hereby incorporated and are therefore applied in the instant rejection as discussed above.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Selby et al. and Satterfield et al. as evidenced by Perennial Ryegrass Plant Fact Sheet do not specifically disclose the weight ratio of (A) to (B) is synergistic as calculated by the COLBY formula. It is for this reason the Colby Publication is added as a secondary reference.
The Colby Publication teaches the response of herbicides applied singly are used in calculating the “expected” response when they are combined. The expected response for a combination is obtained by taking the product of the percent-of-control values for herbicides applied alone and dividing by (100) n-1 where n is the number of herbicides in the combination.
Finding a prima facie obviousness
Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Selby et al., Satterfield et al. as evidenced by Perennial Ryegrass Plant Fact Sheet and the Colby Publication and use the COLBY formula to calculate the synergistic effects of the weight ratio of (A) to (B). Selby et al. teach compounds of Formula I and N-oxides or salts thereof
PNG
media_image3.png
212
192
media_image3.png
Greyscale
. Selby et al. teach the preparation of compound No. 20, which is compound (A-I). Selby et al. teach a herbicidal mixture comprising (a) a compound selected from Formula 1, and (b) at least one additional active ingredient, including (b15A-4)
PNG
media_image4.png
145
215
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, which is compound of formula (B-III). Selby et al. and Satterfield et al. each teach that the compounds when combined with other herbicides result in super-additive or synergistic effects. Since the Colby formula is well-known in the agricultural art to calculate the synergistic effects of the combination of herbicides, as taught by the Colby Publication, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use it to determine if the combination of the compound No. 20 (compound (A-1)(A) and compound b15A-4 (compound BIII)(B) provide synergistic results. Regarding Applicant’s purported synergistic effects, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. The data in Table B2.5.1 demonstrates that a composition comprising compound A-1 and B-III at weight ratios of (A) to (B) of 1:5 and 1:20 provide unexpected control of the weed species LOLPE. The data in Tables B2.5.2 and B2.5.3 demonstrates that a composition comprising compound A-1 and B-III at a weight ratio of (A) to (B) of 1:10 provide unexpected control of the weed species STEME and CHEAL, respectively. It cannot be determined if the weed control achieved at weight ratios of (A) to (B) of 1:5, 1:10, and 1:20 is demonstrative of the results of the use of any weight ratio, as claimed in independent claim 1 because no weight ratio is claimed, the weight ratio of 0.01:1 to 100:1; as claimed in claim 2; the weight ratio of 0.025:1 to 20:1, as claimed in claim 3; or 1:30 to 16:1, as claimed in claims 4 and 17. It cannot be determined if the same purported synergistic activity will be achieved if a lesser amount of compound A (A-1) is used in the composition, as claimed in claims 2 and 3 or a higher amount as claimed in claims 3, 4 and 17. Likewise, it cannot be determined if a composition comprising more compound B (B-III), as claimed in claims 2, 4, and 17, will provide the same results demonstrated in the examples. Applicant has not established nonobvious evidence that is commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the specification provides evidence of synergistic effects for the combination of A-1 with B-III. Applicant submits that in view of the evidence of unexpected results, the rejection of Selby in view of Satterfield should be reconsidered in withdrawn. In response to Applicant’s argument, evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. The data in Table B2.5.1 demonstrates that a composition comprising compound A-1 and B-III at weight ratios of (A) to (B) of 1:5 and 1:20 provide unexpected control of the weed species LOLPE. The data in Tables B2.5.2 and B2.5.3 demonstrates that a composition comprising compound A-1 and B-III at a weight ratio of (A) to (B) of 1:10 provide unexpected control of the weed species STEME and CHEAL, respectively. It cannot be determined if the weed control achieved at weight ratios of (A) to (B) of 1:5, 1:10, and 1:20 is demonstrative of the results of the use of any weight ratio, as claimed in independent claim 1 because no weight ratio is claimed, the weight ratio of 0.01:1 to 100:1; as claimed in claim 2; the weight ratio of 0.025:1 to 20:1, as claimed in claim 3; or 1:30 to 16:1, as claimed in claims 4 and 17. It cannot be determined if the same purported synergistic activity will be achieved if a lesser amount of compound A (A-1) is used in the composition, as claimed in claims 2 and 3 or a higher amount as claimed in claims 3, 4 and 17. Likewise, it cannot be determined if a composition comprising more compound B (B-III), as claimed in claims 2, 4, and 17, will provide the same results demonstrated in the examples.
In addition, while Applicant does not have to provide data to demonstrate every weight ratio range, enough data should be submitted to demonstrate a trend. Applicant has not proven to provide a trend in the exemplified data which would allow the skilled artisan to reasonably extend the probative value thereof. See In re Kollmann and Irwin, 201 USPQ 193 (C.C.P.A. 1979).
As such, Applicant has not established nonobvious evidence that is commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andriae M Holt whose telephone number is (571)272-9328. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-4:30 pm 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/ANDRIAE M HOLT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/SAHANA S KAUP/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights