DETAILED ACTION
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 the Claims
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-12 and 16-19 are pending.
Withdrawn Rejections
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zagar et al. (US 2013/0310257 A1) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to recite the ratio of flucarbazone to cyprosulfamide is from 5:1 to 1:1. Zagar et al. do not explicitly disclose the ratio of flucarbazone to cyprosulfamide in the Table A.
The rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maier et al. (EP 1 891 855 A1) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to recite the ratio of flucarbazone to cyprosulfamide is from 5:1 to 1:1. Maier et al. do not explicitly disclose the ratio of flucarbazone to cyprosulfamide.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda (US 2013/0237417 A1) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to recite a combination of flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide. Ikeda does not explicitly disclose the claimed combination.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 12-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Peng et al. (US 2019/0124925 A1) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to recite a combination of flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide. Peng et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed combination.
The rejection of claims 1, 6-8 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giannakopoulos et al. (Pest Management Science, 2020) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to recite a combination of flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide. Giannakopoulos et al. do not explicitly disclose the claimed combination.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-12 and 16-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 12 recite the ratio of flucarbazone to cyprosulfamide, but the claims do not state whether the ratio is a molar ratio, weight ratio, etc. Claims 5-7, 11 and 16-19 do not recite whether the ratio is by weight, molar, etc.
Claim 5, the term comprising should not be italicized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 16 and 19 depend from the herbicide combination of claim 12. Claims 16 and 19 both recite the rate of application of flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide, but claim 12 is not drawn to a method. The rate of application of the composition is an intended use for the composition and does not further limit the components or concentrations of the composition of claim 12. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5-7, 11-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zagar et al. (US 2013/0310257 A1).
Zagar et al. teach throughout herbicidal compositions comprising topramezone and pinoxaden and optionally an additional herbicide and a safener, which show enhanced herbicide action against undesirable harmful plants and/or to improve the compatibility with crop plants, in particular improved compatibility with small-grain cereal crops such as, for example, wheat, durum, triticale, rye and barley.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Zagar et al. teach a method for controlling undesired vegetation in crop and non-crop areas, comprising applying an herbicidal composition containing the herbicide and safener to the plants to be controlled within the areas (Abstract; [0009], [0015]-[0020]; Claims 47-49). Zagar et al. teach reducing damage caused by the herbicidal composition to the crops ([0023], [0032], [0141]). The herbicidal compositions comprise topramezone, pinoxaden, cyprosulfamide and flucarbazone (Table A, #185; Claims 33, 36 and 40).
Zagar et al. do not explicitly disclose a composition comprising a combination of flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide in a ratio of 5:1 to 1:1, as instantly claimed.
Zagar et al. teach that if the compositions of the invention comprise a further herbicide component D (i.e., flucarbazone), the relative weight ratio of herbicide compound A, calculated as topramezone, to the total amount of herbicide compounds B and D, is preferably from 1:1 to 1:500, in particular from 1:1 to 1:100, wherein each herbicide compound D, which is an ester or a salt of an acid is calculated as the acid. In these compositions, the weight ratio of herbicide compound B to herbicide compound D is preferably from 10:1 to 1:100, in particular from 10:1 to 1:20 ([0046]). The weight ratio of the herbicide compound A and the herbicide safener compound C (i.e., cyprosulfamide) is generally from 2:1 to 1:15, in particular from 1:1 to 1:7 wherein the herbicide compound A is calculated as topramezone ([0032]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions according to Zagar et al., preferably comprising flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide in a ratio by weight within the ranges taught by Zagar et al. which overlap with the instantly claimed ratio of flucarbazone to cyprosulfamide.
Regarding claim 5, Zagar et al. teach that the compositions are suitable for controlling a large number of harmful plants, including monocotyledonous weeds and dicotyledonous weeds. They are in particular for controlling Amaranthus spp., Cenchrus species such as Cenchrus echinatus, Brachiaria spp., Echinochloa species such as barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crusgalli var. crus-galli), Digitaria species such as crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), etc. ([0078]).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 17, Zagar et al. teach that the crops include cereal crops, such as corn, wheat, rye and barley ([0009], [0079], [0083]; Claim 49).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to use the compositions according to Zagar et al., including composition #185, for the control of undesired plants in crops, wherein the undesired plants include the instantly claimed weed species and the crops include cereal crops, such as corn, wheat, rye and barley. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Zagar et al. specifically teach the compositions comprising cyprosulfamide and flucarbazone, and also teach that the compositions are suitable for the control of various weeds within crops.
Regarding claims 11, 16 and 18-19, Zagar et al. teach the application rate of the herbicide safener compound C (in case of salts calculated as the acid) (e.g., cyprosulfamide) is generally from 5 to 75 g/ha and in particular from 10 to 50 g/ha ([0095]). In the method of the invention, the application rate of the further herbicide compound D (in case of salts calculated as the acid) (e.g., flucarbazone) is generally from 1 to 2500 g/ha and in particular from 5 to 1000 g/ha ([0096]). The rate of application of the ALS inhibitors mentioned as group D.2, including flucarbazone, is generally from 1 to 500 g/ha, in particular from 3 to 200 g/ha of active substance (a.s.) ([0098]; Claim 54).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to determine through routine experimentation the optimum or workable ratio and application rates for the flucarbazone herbicide and cyprosulfamide safener combinations for the control of weeds in crops.
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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(I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Zagar does not provide any reason or motivation to select a herbicide combination comprising flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide, much less a composition comprising flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide in a ratio of from 5:1 to 1:1.
The examiner respectfully argues that Zagar et al. teach compositions comprising a combination of cyprosulfamide and flucarbazone (Table A, #185; Claims 33, 36 and 40). Zagar et al. teach that if the compositions of the invention comprise a further herbicide component D (i.e., flucarbazone), the relative weight ratio of herbicide compound A, calculated as topramezone, to the total amount of herbicide compounds B and D, is preferably from 1:1 to 1:500, in particular from 1:1 to 1:100, wherein each herbicide compound D, which is an ester or a salt of an acid is calculated as the acid. In these compositions, the weight ratio of herbicide compound B to herbicide compound D is preferably from 10:1 to 1:100, in particular from 10:1 to 1:20 ([0046]). The weight ratio of the herbicide compound A and the herbicide safener compound C (i.e., cyprosulfamide) is generally from 2:1 to 1:15, in particular from 1:1 to 1:7 wherein the herbicide compound A is calculated as topramezone ([0032]).
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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(I).
Applicant further asserts that Zagar does not provide any reason or motivation to select the formulation #185 from among the 285 specific formulations disclosed in Table A. Furthermore, none of Zagar's exemplified formulations comprise either of flucarbazone or cyprosulfamide.
The examiner respectfully argues that Zagar et al. teach that particular preferred examples of compositions according to the invention are given in the following table A. It would have been prima facie obvious to select from among a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions taught by Zagar et al. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
The examiner also directs attention to MPEP 2123(I) and (II):
A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. “The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.”).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applicant further argues that Zagar does not disclose any ratios for the amount of herbicide compound D to herbicide safener component C.
The examiner respectfully argues that Zagar et al. teach the relative ratio of components A, B, C and D, as well as the amounts of C and D applied in the method for controlling undesirable vegetation. Zagar et al. teach the relative weight ratio of herbicide compound A, calculated as topramezone, to the total amount of herbicide compounds B (pinoxaden) and D (e.g., flucarbazone), is preferably from 1:1 to 1:500, in particular from 1:1 to 1:100; the weight ratio of pinoxaden to herbicide compound D (e.g., flucarbazone) is preferably from 10:1 to 1:100, in particular from 10:1 to 1:20; and the weight ratio of the herbicide compound A (topramezone) and the herbicide safener compound C (e.g., cyprosulfamide) is generally from 2:1 to 1:15, in particular from 1:1 to 1:7. Zagar et al. further teach that the safener C is applied in an amount from 5 to 75 g/ha; and the herbicide D is applied in an amount of from 1 to 2500 g/ha.
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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(I).
Applicant further argues that they unexpectedly found that compositions comprising flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide in a ratio of from 5:1 to 1:1 are surprisingly effective as herbicides, and exhibit surprisingly decreased phytotoxicity, relative to compositions that do not comprise cyprosulfamide or that comprise a different safener.
The examiner respectfully argues that the examples in the specification are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. Example 1 comprises a combination of flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide, wherein flucarbazone is applied at a rate of 30 g ai/ha, and cyprosulfamide is applied at a rate of 66 g ai/ha. Example 5 comprises flucarbazone applied at a rate of 30 g ai/ha, and cyprosulfamide applied at a rate of 90 g ai/ha; flucarbazone applied at a rate of 45 g ai/ha, and cyprosulfamide applied at a rate of 90 or 148.5 g ai/ha. Therefore, the weight ratio of applied flucarbazone to applied cyprosulfamide is 1:2 to 1:3.3. The specification does not provide examples wherein the ratio of flucarbazone to cyprosulfamide is from 5:1 to 1:1.
Also, Rosinger et al. (US 2007/0010399 A1, discussed below) teaches that it is known to use herbicides in combination with a safener or antidote. A safener is to be understood as meaning a compound which eliminates or reduces the phytotoxic properties of a herbicide in respect to useful plants, without substantially reducing the herbicidal activity against harmful plants. Herbicidal compositions comprising herbicides and safeners are already known from some documents ([0003]). Rosinger et al. further teach that herbicidal compositions comprising a combination of flucarbazone (B1.1) and cyprosulfamide (A3) result in a considerable reduction of the damage to crop plants ([0098]-[0108]). Therefore, it is not surprising and unexpected that the combination of flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide in the ratio claimed is herbicidally effective with decreased phytotoxicity. A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect this result in view of the teachings of Rosinger et al.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosinger et al. (US 2007/0010399 A1).
Rosinger et al. teach throughout a crop plant-compatible herbicidal composition comprising herbicides and safeners.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Rosinger et al. teach the herbicides include flucarbazone (B1.1), and the safeners include cyprosulfamide (A3) ([0007], [0015], [0036], [0051]). Rosinger et al. teach the combination of flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide (A3 + B1.1 or B1.1 + A3) ([0053], [0055]-[0056], [0104]-[0108]; Tables 1, 3-4, A, B, D). Rosinger et al. teach that the compositions comprise components A and B in a weight ratio of from 1:200 to 200:1, preferably from 1:100 to 100:1, particularly preferably from 1:50 to 50:1, especially from 1:20 to 20:1 ([0024], [0058]). Rosinger et al. further teach that the combination of flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide result in a considerable reduction of the damage to crop plants ([0108]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions according to Rosinger et al. comprising a combination of flucarbazone and cyprosulfamide, wherein the weight ratio of flucarbazone to cyprosulfamide is from 1:20 to 20:1, wherein the composition reduces phytotoxicity in crops.
The examiner respectfully points out the following from MPEP 2144.05: “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969); Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed.Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
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(I).
Regarding claim 5, Rosinger et al. teach that the compositions according to the invention act against a broad spectrum of weeds. They are suitable for controlling annual and perennial harmful plants such as, for example, from the species Abutilon, Alopecurus, Avena, Chenopodium, Cynoden, Cyperus, Digitaria, Echinochloa, Elymus, Galium, lpomoea, Kochia, Lamium, Matricaria, Polygonum, Scirpus, Setaria, Sorghum, Veronica, Viola and Xanthium ([0066]).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 17, Rosinger et al. teach that the crops are selected from the group consisting of corn, wheat, rye, barley, oats, rice, sorghum, cotton and soybeans ([0065]; Tables A, B and D; Claim 12).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Rosinger et al. teach application of flucarbazone in an amount of 31 g ai/ha (Tables A, B and D).
Regarding claims 18-19, Rosinger et al. teach application of cyprosulfamide in an amount of 100 g ai/ha (Tables A and B).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schnabel et al. (CA 2 660 023 A1) teach compositions comprising a combination of herbicide and safener, wherein particularly preferred combinations include flucarbazone + cyprosulfamide (pg. 43, ln. 17 and 28). Schnabel et al. teach that the safener:herbicide ratio by weight can vary within wide limits and preferably ranges from 1:100 to 100:1, in particular from 1:100 to 50:1, very particularly preferably 1:10 to 10:1. The optimum amounts of herbicide(s) and safener(s) in each case usually depend on the type of herbicide and/or on the safener used and also on the species of crop to be treated (pg. 44, ln. 30 to pg. 45, ln. 1).
Baur et al. (US 2010/0048516 A1) teach compositions comprising a combination of herbicide and safener, wherein particularly preferred combinations include flucarbazone + cyprosulfamide ([0225], [0227]). Baur et al. teach that the safener:herbicide ratio by weight can vary within wide limits and preferably ranges from 1:100 to 100:1, in particular from 1:100 to 50:1, very particularly preferably 1:10 to 10:1. The respective optimum amounts of herbicide(s) and safener(s) are usually dependent on the type of herbicide and/or on the safener used and on the plant stand to be treated ([0226]). Baur et al. teach that in the case of herbicides and/or safeners, the application to the harmful plant or crop plant is preferred. Regarding the use of herbicides, the plants treated according to the invention are all types of harmful plants, such as weeds. With regard to the crop plants, the application in economically important, for example including transgenic, crops of useful and ornamental plants, for example of cereals, such as wheat, barley, rye, oats, millet, rice, cassaya and corn, or crops of peanuts, sugar beet, cotton, soybean, rape, potato, tomato, pea and other vegetable varieties is preferred ([0260]).
Deckwer et al. (CA 2 676 210 A1) teach compositions comprising a combination of herbicide and safener, wherein particularly preferred combinations include flucarbazone + cyprosulfamide (pg. 48, ln. 32; pg. 49, ln. 10). Deckwer et al. teach that the safener:herbicide ratio by weight can vary within wide limits and preferably ranges from 1:100 to 100:1, in particular from 1:100 to 50:1, very particularly preferably 1:10 to 10:1. The optimum amounts of herbicide(s) and safener(s) in each case usually depend on the type of herbicide and/or on the safener used and also on the species of crop to be treated (pg. 50, ln. 11-15).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571) 272-5539. 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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights