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 March 30, 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 11-25 are pending in the application. Claims 18-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 11-17 will presently be examined to the extent they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Status of the Claims
The objection of claim 1 for the following informalities: 1) the numbering of the application steps and 2) a missing space between “atleast” in line 8 of claim 1 is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7-9, and 11-15 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or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims and cancellation of claim 2.
The rejection of claims 16-17 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 is maintained.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 13, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the Cahoon Publication (2015, The Journal of Cotton Science, Cahoon et al.) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann et al. (WO 2015/094884) in view of the Cahoon Publication (2015, The Journal of Cotton Science, Cahoon et al.) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment of the claims.
The rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann et al. (WO 2015/094884) in view of the Cahoon Publication (2015, The Journal of Cotton Science, Cahoon et al.) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-17 above, and further in view of the Fadin Publication (2018, Weed Research, Fadin et al.) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancellation of claim 2.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann et al. (WO 2015/094884) in view of the Cahoon Publication (2015, The Journal of Cotton Science, Cahoon et al.) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-17 above, and further in view of Qiu et al. (CN 101485310A, English Translation) is withdrawn due to Applicant’s cancellation of claim 6.
The rejection of claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mann et al. (WO 2015/094884) in view of the Cahoon Publication (2015, The Journal of Cotton Science, Cahoon et al.) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7, and 10-17 above, and further in view of Winter et al. (CA 3,070,179) is withdrawn due to cancellation of claim 8 and the amendment of claim 9.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 11-17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, and 16-17 of copending Application No. 17/925,202 (‘202) is withdrawn due to amendments to the instant claims and claims in copending Application No. ‘202.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
Claims 16 and 17 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.
Claims 16 and 17 recite “wherein the herbicide combinations are applied at a rate of 0.1 to 10 L/ha (claim 16) and 1 to 5 L/ha (claim 17). Claim 16 is dependent from claim 1 and claim 17 is dependent from claim 16.
Claim 1 recites several different herbicide combinations: 1) a combination of herbicides in line 2; 2) a first application comprising a combination of glyphosate and
triclopyr; and 3) a second application comprising a combination of glufosinate or K-glufosinate and an herbicide selected from flumioxazin, imazethapyr, metolachlor or carfentrazone. It is unclear which combination is referenced in claims 16 and 17, combination 1), combination 2), combination 3) or a total of all three. Clarification is required.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment filed March 30, 2026
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.
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, 3-5, 7, 11, 12, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 8,586,504) in view of Mann et al. (WO 2015/094884) and the Fadin Publication (2018, Weed Research, Fadin et al.). Mann et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 10/20/2023.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a method of controlling herbicide resistant weeds by applying sequentially to a locus a combination of herbicides comprising, (i) a first application comprising a combination of glyphosate and triclopyr, and (ii) a second application comprising a combination of glufosinate or L-glufosinate alone or a combination of glufosinate or L-glufosinate and an herbicide selected from flumioxazin, imazethapyr, metolachlor or carfentrazone, wherein the second application of the combination of herbicides is applied at least seven days after the first application, and wherein the herbicide resistant weed is Spermacoce verticillate.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Wright et al. teach a herbicidal compositions or formulations, and to methods of using such compositions or formulations to kill, or control the growth and proliferation of unwanted plants (Abstract).
Regarding claim 1, Wright et al. teach an aqueous herbicidal composition useful for killing or controlling the growth of unwanted plants comprising glyphosate or a salt or ester thereof; triclopyr or a salt or ester thereof; and at least one surfactant (col. 55, claim 1, lines 14-29).
Wright et al. teach one or more of the compositions further comprise one or more additional pesticides comprising carfentrazone, glufosinate, imazethapyr, flumioxazin, and metolachlor (col. 30, lines 40-42).
Wright et al. teach the amount of glyphosate and triclopyr applied to plants in combination generally provides a herbicidally effective amount of the herbicides. The amount of glyphosate and triclopyr applied to plants further is sufficient to provide early visual symptoms of plant treatment without significantly reducing the desired biological effect of the glyphosate. These application rates are usually expressed as amount of glyphosate per unit area treated, e.g. grams per hectare (g/ha) (col. 34, lines 22-34).
Wright et al. teach the glyphosate concentration ranges from about 100 to about 400 grams per liter a.e. and the triclopyr concentration ranges from about 8 to about 20 grams per liter a.e. (col. 56, claim 14, lines 1-5).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Wright et al. do not specifically disclose the second application comprises a combination of glufosinate or L-glufosinate alone, as claimed in claim 1, the second application of the combination of herbicides is applied at least seven days after the first application, the second application is applied at least 14 days after the first application, as claimed in claim 11, the second application is applied at least 30 days after the first application, as claimed in claim 12, and the herbicide combination are applied at a rate of 0.1 to 19 L/ha or 1 to 5 L/ha, as claimed in claims 16 and 17 or the herbicide resistant weed is Spermacoce verticillate. It is for this reason Mann et al. and the Fadin Publication are added as secondary references.
Regarding claim 1, Mann et al. teach compositions for controlling undesirable vegetation containing a mixture comprising synergistic, herbicidally effective amounts of (a) a choline salt of 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D choline), (b) a salt of N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine (glyphosate), and (c) a salt of 2-amino-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid (glufosinate) (page 1, lines 16-22).
Regarding claim 1, Mann et al. teach the components of the mixtures are applied sequentially or as part of a multipart herbicidal system. Mann et al. teach two of the three components can be formulated together (e.g., glyphosate and 2,4-D) and the third component formulated separately and the two formulations applied sequentially. The time between the applications can vary including 7 days or longer (page 9, lines 3-15).
Mann et al. teach in some embodiments, 2,4-D-choline, a salt of glyphosate, and a salt of glufosinate are used in combination with herbicides that are selective for the soybeans, corn or cotton being treated and which complement the spectrum of weeds controlled by these compounds at the application rate employed. In some embodiments, the compositions and other complementary herbicides are applied either as a combination formulation at the same time or as sequential applications (page 7, lines 1-6).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Mann et al. teach that 2,4-D-choline, a salt of glyphosate, and a salt of glufosinate may be used to control herbicide resistant weeds, including 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase inhibitors (e.g., glyphosate) (page 19, lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 5, Mann et al. teach that 2,4-D-choline, a salt of glyphosate, and a salt of glufosinate may be used to control herbicide resistant weeds including synthetic auxins (e.g., phenoxycarboxylic acids).
Regarding claim 7, Mann et al. teach an exemplary salt of glufosinate is glufosinate-ammonium (page 3, lines 16-25).
Mann et al. teach the methods comprise contacting the undesirable vegetation with a composition sequentially. In some embodiments the composition is applied at an application rate from about 500 grams acid equivalent per hectare to about 12,200 g ae/ha based on the total amount of active ingredients in the composition (page 8, lines 23-30).
Regarding claim 10, Mann et al. teach the mixtures can be applied in conjunction with one or more other herbicides including carfentrazone (page 10, line 23), flumioxazin (page 11, line 14), metolachlor (line 11, line 30) and triclopyr (page 12, line 23).
Mann et al. teach the methods are utilized to control undesirable vegetation including Amaranthus palmeri S. (Palmer amaranth, AMAPA) (page 16, line 30); and Spermacoce alta Aubl. or Spermacoce latifolia (broadleaf buttonweed, BOILF) (page 17, lines 21-22).
Mann et al. teach the 2,4-D-choline salt plus glyphosate premix formulation was 195 ga ae/L 2,4-D choline salt and 205 g ae/L glyphosate dimethylammonium salt (page 21, lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 14, Mann et al. teach in example 1 glufosinate-ammonium is applied at 542 g ae/ha, which falls within the range of 200 to 800 g/ha, as currently
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 Wright et al., Mann et al. and the Fadin et al. and formulate a second application comprising a combination of glufosinate or L-glufosinate alone or L-glufosinate and an herbicide selected from flumioxazin…or carfentrazone. Wright et al. teach an aqueous herbicidal composition useful for killing or controlling the growth of unwanted plants comprising glyphosate or a salt or ester thereof; triclopyr or a salt or ester thereof; and at least one surfactant. Wright et al. teach one or more of the compositions further comprise one or more additional pesticides comprising carfentrazone, glufosinate, imazethapyr, flumioxazin, and metolachlor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add an additional herbicide, such as glufosinate because Wright et al. teach that other herbicides, including glufosinate, can be added to the composition comprising glyphosate and triclopyr in a method of controlling weeds or unwanted vegetation. In addition, 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.
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 Wright et al., Mann et al., and the Fadin Publication and use the compositions to control the herbicide resistant weed Spermacoce verticillate. Wright et al. teach an aqueous herbicidal composition useful for killing or controlling the growth of unwanted plants comprising glyphosate or a salt or ester thereof; triclopyr or a salt or ester thereof; and at least one surfactant. Mann et al. teach the components of the mixtures are applied sequentially or as part of a multipart herbicidal system. Mann et al. teach two of the three components can be formulated together (e.g., glyphosate and 2,4-D) and the third component formulated separately and the two formulations applied sequentially. Mann et al. teach the methods are utilized to control undesirable vegetation including Spermacoce alta Aubl. and Spermacoce latifolia (broadleaf buttonweed, BOILF). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the compositions taught by Wright et al., as modified by Mann et al., to control herbicide resistant weeds. Since Mann et al. teach that the compositions control other undesirable weeds in the Spermacoce species, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the composition on another Spermacoce species. In addition, since the prior art teaches the application of glyphosate in the early stages of growth and glyphosate combined other herbicides provides control of Spermacoce verticillate the use of the compositions comprising glyphosate would have been obvious to the skilled artisan, without evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the limitations of the second application is applied at least 7 days after the first application, as claimed in claim 1, 14 days after the first application, as claimed in claim 11, or applied at least 30 days after the first application, as claimed in claim 12, Wright et al. teach an aqueous herbicidal composition useful for killing or controlling the growth of unwanted plants comprising glyphosate or a salt or ester thereof; triclopyr or a salt or ester thereof; and at least one surfactant. Mann et al. teach the components of the mixtures are applied sequentially or as part of a multipart herbicidal system. Mann et al. teach two of the three components can be formulated together (e.g., glyphosate and 2,4-D) and the third component formulated separately and the two formulations applied sequentially. Mann et al. further teach that in some embodiments, the compositions and other complementary herbicides are applied either as a combination formulation at sequential applications. The time between the applications can vary including 7 days or longer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Mann et al. in the methods of Wright et al. to apply the second application 14 days or 30 days after the first application because Mann et al. teach the second application is 7 days or longer, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007). In addition, since Mann et al. teach the application is 7 days or longer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the second application 7, 14, or 30 days after the first application, as a matter of experimentation and optimization. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions 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 limitation of the herbicide combination are applied at a rate of 0.1 to 19 L/ha or 1 to 5 L/ha, as claimed in claims 16 and 17, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use experimentation and optimization to determine the application rates. Wright et al. teach the glyphosate concentration ranges from about 100 to about 400 grams per liter a.e. and the triclopyr concentration ranges from about 8 to about 20 grams per liter a.e. Mann et al. teach the 2,4-D-choline salt plus glyphosate premix formulation was 195 ga ae/L 2,4-D choline salt and 205 g ae/L glyphosate dimethylammonium salt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the guidelines from the prior art to determine the optimal amount of the first application and the second application. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions 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.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 8,586,504) in view of Mann et al. (WO 2015/094884) and the Fadin Publication (2018, Weed Research, Fadin et al.) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 12, and 16-17 above, and further in view of Winter et al. (CA 3,070,179). Mann et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 10/20/2023.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a method of controlling herbicide resistant weeds by applying sequentially to a locus a combination of herbicides comprising, (i) a first application comprising a combination of glyphosate and triclopyr, and (ii) a second application comprising a combination of glufosinate or L-glufosinate alone or a combination of glufosinate or L-glufosinate and an herbicide selected from flumioxazin, imazethapyr, metolachlor or carfentrazone, wherein the second application of the combination of herbicides is applied at least seven days after the first application, and wherein the herbicide resistant weed is Spermacoce verticillate. Applicant claims the L-glufosinate herbicide is L-glufosinate ammonium.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Wright et al., Mann et al. and the Fadin Publication 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)
Wright et al., Mann et al. and the Fadin Publication do not specifically disclose the L-glufosinate is L-glufosinate ammonium, as claimed in claim 9. It is for this reason Winter et al. is added as a secondary reference.
Winter et al. teach herbicidal mixtures comprising L-glufosinate and a herbicidal compound II selected from glyphosate (page 3 of 83, lines 4-18, page 5, lines 7-23). Winter et al. teach it has been found that mixtures of L-glufosinate or its salt and the herbicidal compound II show enhanced herbicide action against undesirable vegetation in pre-plant burn-down prior to planting of conventional soybeans (page 4 of 83, lines 41-43). Winter et al. teach relevant salts of L-glufosinate include L-glufosinate-ammonium (page 4, lines 10-12).
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 Wright et al., Mann et al., the Fadin Publication, and Winter et al. and use L-glufosinate-ammonium as the L-glufosinate component in the compositions. Wright et al. teach an aqueous herbicidal composition useful for killing or controlling the growth of unwanted plants comprising glyphosate or a salt or ester thereof; triclopyr or a salt or ester thereof; and at least one surfactant. Wright et al. teach one or more of the compositions further comprise one or more additional pesticides comprising glufosinate. Mann et al. teach the components of the mixtures are applied sequentially or as part of a multipart herbicidal system. Mann et al. teach two of the three components can be formulated together (e.g., glyphosate and 2,4-D) and the third component formulated separately and the two formulations applied sequentially. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use L-glufosinate ammonium as the glufosinate component because it is a known enantiomer of glufosinate used in the compositions comprising more than one herbicide. This is further evidenced by Winter et al. that teach it has been found that mixtures of L-glufosinate or its salt and the herbicidal compound II show enhanced herbicide action against undesirable vegetation in pre-plant burn-down prior to planting of conventional soybeans.
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.
Claims 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 8,586,504) in view of Mann et al. (WO 2015/094884) and the Fadin Publication (2018, Weed Research, Fadin et al.) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 12, and 16-17 above, and further in view of the Cahoon Publication (2015, The Journal of Cotton Science, Cahoon et al.). Mann et al. cited by Applicant on the IDS dated 10/20/2023.
Applicant’s Invention
Applicant claims a method of controlling herbicide resistant weeds by applying sequentially to a locus a combination of herbicides comprising, (i) a first application comprising a combination of glyphosate and triclopyr, and (ii) a second application comprising a combination of glufosinate or L-glufosinate alone or a combination of glufosinate or L-glufosinate and an herbicide selected from flumioxazin, imazethapyr, metolachlor or carfentrazone, wherein the second application of the combination of herbicides is applied at least seven days after the first application, and wherein the herbicide resistant weed is Spermacoce verticillate.
Determination of the scope of the content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
The teachings of Wright et al., Mann et al. and the Fadin Publication 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)
Wright et al., Mann et al. and the Fadin Publication do not specifically disclose the triclopyr of the first application is ranging from 500 to 1500 g/ha, as claimed in claim 13, the concentration of glufosinate is ranging from 200 to 800 g/ha, as claimed in claim 14, or the concentration of the herbicide of the second application is ranging from 10 to 1200 g/ha, as claimed in claim 15. It is for this reason the Cahoon Publication is added as a secondary reference.
Cahoon et al. teach treatments consisted of glyphosate and the ammonium salt of glufosinate (Liberty® 280 SL Herbicide) applied sequentially or co applied. Glyphosate and glufosinate rates were based upon the manufacturers’ suggested use rates of 868 and 543 g ae ha-1, respectively. Cahoon et al. teach sequential applications included glyphosate applied to two leaf cotton 18 to 22 d after planting (POST1) followed by (fb) glufosinate applied 14 d later to six-leaf cotton (POST-2) and glufosinate applied POST-1 fb glyphosate applied POST-2 (page 339, col. 2, Materials and Methods, 1st full paragraph).
PNG
media_image2.png
398
736
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Glufosinate is applied at 543 g ha-1, which falls in the range of 500 to 1500 g/ha of the one or more herbicides in the first application.
Regarding claim 14, glufosinate in the second application is applied at 543 g ha-1, which falls in the range of 200 to 800 g/ha, as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, glyphosate, which is the one or more herbicide in the second application, is applied at 868 g ha-1, which falls within the range of 10 to 1200 g/ha, as claimed.
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 Wright et al., Mann et al., the Fadin Publication, and Cahoon et al. and use experimentation and optimization to determine the amount of triclopyr, glufosinate, and the other herbicide, as claimed in claims 13, 14, and 15, respectively to use in the compositions.
Wright et al. teach the glyphosate concentration ranges from about 100 to about 400 grams per liter a.e. and the triclopyr concentration ranges from about 8 to about 20 grams per liter a.e. Mann et al. teach in some embodiments the composition is applied at an application rate from about 500 grams acid equivalent per hectare to about 12,200 g ae/ha based on the total amount of active ingredients in the composition. Cahoon et al. teach that glufosinate is applied at 543 g ha-1. Cahoon et al. teach that glufosinate in the second application is applied at 543 g ha-1, which falls in the range of 200 to 800 g/ha, as claimed 14. Cahoon et al. further teach glyphosate, which is the one or more herbicide, is applied at 868 g ha-1, which falls within the range of 10 to 1200 g/ha, as claimed in claim 15. Based on these teachings one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the teachings of Cahoon et al. to determine the amount of the concentration of triclopyr, glufosinate, and other herbicides of the second application, in the composition taught by Wright et al., as modified by Mann et al., as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or technical grasp. Note: MPEP 2141 [R-6] KSR International CO. v. Teleflex lnc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed March 30, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7, 9, and 11-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made as set forth hereinabove.
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
/ALI SOROUSH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights