DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s Response to Restriction Requirement filed 5/12/2026.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 (duplicate claim 3 has been renumbered as claim 18 – see below) remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6 and 11-17) in the reply filed on 5/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 11-18 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statements
The IDS’s dated 5/21/2024 and 8/8/2015 have been considered. Signed copies are enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 3 (the duplicate) has been renumbered as claim 18.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)”. It appears the word “inhibitor” is missing”. As such, it is suggested that the limitation is replaced with “at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitor”. Support is found at [0018]-[0019] of the instant specification.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 recites “phenyl carbamate” and “phenyl-carbamate” as photosynthesis II inhibitor species. Said species are duplicates. Thus, it is suggested that one of the duplicates is deleted.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)”. It appears the word “inhibitor” is missing”. As such, it is suggested that the limitation is replaced with “at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitor”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)”. It appears the word “inhibitor” is missing”. As such, it is suggested that the limitation is replaced with “at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitor”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “at least one at least one” at line 4 of the claim. It is suggested that the limitation is replaced with “at least one”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)”. It appears the word “inhibitor” is missing”. As such, it is suggested that the limitation is replaced with “at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitor”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites, “at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)”. It appears the word “inhibitor” is missing”. As such, it is suggested that the limitation is replaced with “at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lenz et al. (BR 102018075132 A2, Jun. 16, 2020, machine translation, hereafter as “Lenz”).
The instant claims are drawn to an herbicidal composition comprising: at least one photosynthesis II inhibitor; and at least one protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO); a kit thereof; and products thereof.
Regarding instant claim 1, Lenz teaches a composition comprising a first herbicide belonging to the mechanism of action group as an inhibitor of photosystem II and a second herbicide belonging to the mechanism of action as an inhibitor of the enzyme protoporphyrinogen oxidase which together enhance their respective mechanisms of consequently increasing efficiency in the eradication of weeds (abstract).
Regarding instant claim 2, Lenz teaches the particular photosystem II inhibitors, triazines, triazinone, triazlinone, phenylcarbamate, substituted ureas, and uracils ([0017]; Table 4).
Regarding instant claim 3, Lenz teaches the particular photosystem II inhibitors, amicarbazone, chloridazon/pyrazone, and pyridate ([0019]; Table 4).
Regarding instant claim 4, Lenz teaches the particular PPOs, flumaxazin, carfentrazone, saflufenacil, butafenacil, oxadiargyl, ethyl, sulfentrazone, piraflufen-ethyl, flutiacet-methyl, pentoxazone (Table 5).
Regarding instant claim 6, Lenz teaches a ready-made product, an emulsifiable concentrate, microemulsion, an oil dispersible powder, a dispersible granule, or a soluble granulate ([0091] and [0098]).
Regarding instant claim 12, Lenz teaches that the composition can further contain water ([0087]). It is noted the recitation of “tank mix” in the preamble of the claim. MPEP 2111.02(II) states, “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Accordingly, “tank mix” is considered the intended use or purpose of the composition and, as such, is of no significance to claim construction.
Thus, the teachings of Lenz render the instant claims anticipated.
Claims 1-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fabri et al. (WO 2021/024221 A1, Feb. 11, 2021, hereafter as “Fabri”).
The claimed invention is described above.
Regarding instant claims 1-5, Fabri teaches a herbicidal combination comprising: (a) at least one triazolone herbicide selected from amicarbazone, bencarbazone, carfentrazone, flucarbazone, ipfencarbazone, propoxycarbazone, sulfentrazone, or thiencarbazone; (b) at least one photosystem II inhibitor selected from the group consisting of (i) a phenylcarbamate herbicide; (ii) a triazine herbicide; (iii) a triazinone herbicide; (iv) an uracil herbicide; (v) a benthiadiazole herbicide; (vi) a nitrile herbicide; and (vii) an urea herbicide; and (c) at least a third herbicide selected from a 4-(4-hydroxyphenyl-pyruvate dioxygenase) HPPD inhibitor, bleaching inhibitor, cell division inhibitor, PPO inhibitor, ALS inhibitor, microtubule assembly inhibitor, or a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor (page 2, lines 8-19). Fabri also teaches particular embodiments comprising at least one photosystem II inhibitor and at least one PPO inhibitor, e.g., a composition comprising 250 g ai/ha amicarbazone and sulfentrazone 150 g ai/ha (Tables 6-8 at pages 98-99) and triazolones in combination with a PPO, e.g., butafenacil, flumioxazin, saflufenacil, etc. (Table at pages 24-84). Fabri teaches the total amount of triazolone herbicide in the composition is in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight, preferably 0.2 to 90% by weight and the total amount of photosystem II inhibitor in the composition may be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight, preferably 0.2 to 90% by weight, (page 84, 6th paragraph; page 85, 1st paragraph).
Regarding instant claim 6, Fabri further teaches a ready-to-use formulation as well as a microemulsion, a powder dispersible in oil, water-dispersible granules, and soluble granules (paragraph bridging pages 87-88, page 93, lines 4- 8).
Regarding instant claim 11, Fabri further teaches a kit comprising the composition and instructions, wherein the active ingredients can be packaged separately or together (page 92, line 8 - page 93, line 2).
Thus, the teachings of Fabri render the instant claims anticipated.
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 5, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lenz et al. (BR 102018075132 A2, Jun. 16, 2020, machine translation, hereafter as “Lenz”), as applied to claim 1 above.
The claimed invention is described above.
Lenz teaches the elements discussed above including pyridate and sulfentrazone.
Lenz is silent to a particular embodiments comprising pyridate and a particular embodiment comprising sulfentrazone (instant claims 5 and 18).
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select pyridate or sulfentrazone with a reasonable expectation of success because Lenz teaches that pyridate is a suitable photosynthesis II inhibitor for the invention and sulfentrazone is a suitable PPO inhibitor for the invention. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
While Lenz does not recite “a kit” (instant claim 11), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to package the composition of Lenz in a kit because kits provide a convenient mechanism to disperse products to practitioners. There is a reasonable expectation that said kit would provide a convenient mechanism to disperse the herbicidal product to practitioners. It is further noted that MPEP 2112.01 states, “nonfunctional printed matter does not distinguish claimed product from otherwise identical prior art product”.
Thus, the teachings of Lenz render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Claims 12, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabri et al. (WO 2021/024221 A1, Feb. 11, 2021, hereafter as “Fabri”), as applied to claim 1 above.
The claimed invention is described above.
Fabri teaches the elements discussed above.
Regarding instant claim 12, Fabri further teaches that the composition can provided as a tank mixed composition (page 93, lines 14-18). Fabri also teaches suitable liquid carriers including water (page 86, lines 32-33). While Fabri does not explicitly teach that the tank mixed compositions comprise water, Fabri teaches that the composition can include a liquid carrier such as water. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include water in the tank mixed composition with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Fabri teaches a carrier such as water is suitable in the compositions of the invention. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding instant claim 13, Fabri teaches the total amount of triazolone herbicide in the composition is in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight, preferably 0.2 to 90% by weight and the total amount of photosystem II inhibitor in the composition may be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight, preferably 0.2 to 90% by weight, (page 84, 6th paragraph; page 85, 1st paragraph).
Fabri does not specifically teach a photosynthesis II inhibitor in an amount of about 0.01 %wt to about 0.5 %wt and a PPO in an amount of about 0.01 %wt to about 0.5 %wt.
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). Because the claimed ranges of about 0.01 to about 0.5 %wt overlap with the ranges disclosed by the prior art (0.1 to 99% by weight), a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of the active agents in Fabri by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Fabri teaches the general conditions of the claim and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding instant claim 15, Fabri, as discussed above, teaches particular embodiments comprising at least one photosystem II inhibitor and at least one PPO inhibitor, e.g., a composition comprising 250 g ai/ha amicarbazone and sulfentrazone 150 g ai/ha (Tables 6-8 at pages 98-99) and triazolones in combination with a PPO, e.g., butafenacil, flumioxazin, saflufenacil, etc. (Table at pages 24-84).
Regarding instant claim 16, Fabri, as discussed above, teaches a ready-to-use formulation as well as a microemulsion, a powder dispersible in oil, water-dispersible granules, and soluble granules (paragraph bridging pages 87-88, page 93, lines 4- 8).
Regarding instant claim 16, Fabri teaches a ready-to-use formulation (page 93, line 8). Fabri also teaches the total amount of triazolone herbicide in the composition is in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight, preferably 0.2 to 90% by weight and the total amount of photosystem II inhibitor in the composition may be in the range of 0.1 to 99% by weight, preferably 0.2 to 90% by weight, (page 84, 6th paragraph; page 85, 1st paragraph).
Fabri does not specifically teach a ready-to-use formulation comprising a photosynthesis II inhibitor in an amount of about 0.0175 % v/v to about 0.5 % v/v and a PPO in an amount of about 0.0162 % v/v to about 0.6 % v/v.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of the active agents in a ready-to-use formulation of Fabri by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Fabri teaches the general conditions of the claim and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Thus, the teachings of Fabri render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Claims 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fabri et al. (WO 2021/024221 A1, Feb. 11, 2021, hereafter as “Fabri”), as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Pinot (WO 2020/025370 A1, Feb. 6, 2020, hereafter as “Pinot”).
The claimed invention is described above.
Fabri teaches the elements discussed above including at least one photosynthesis II inhibitor (a photosystem Il inhibitor; page 5 lines 10-11).
Fabri is silent to the inclusion of the particular photosynthesis II inhibitor, pyridate.
Pinot discloses pyridate (an herbicidal composition comprising a phenylpyridazine derivative, which is preferably pyridate; abstract; claims 1-2) and a method of controlling undesired vegetation using said composition. Phenylpyridazine derivatives are selective herbicides for controlling unwanted vegetation belonging to the C3 classification according to the Herbicide Resistance Action Committee (HRAC) (page 5, lines 1-4). Pinot teaches that selective herbicides control specific weed species, while leaving the desired crop relatively unharmed (page 3, lines 4-5).
Both Fabri and Pinot are drawn to compositions comprising photosynthesis II inhibitors, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Fabri by including pyridate, as suggested by Pinot, with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Pinot teaches that phenylpyridazine derivatives such as pyridate are selective herbicides that control unwanted vegetation belonging to the C3 classification while minimizing harm to desired crops. It is further prima facie obvious to combine or substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (MPEP 2144.06).
Thus, the combined teachings of Fabri and Pinot render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Sue Liu can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASEY S HAGOPIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights