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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 38 is objected to because of the following informalities: “tartarate” is incorrect; it should be “tartrate”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 24-26 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.
Claim 24 is indefinite because it is 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. The claim is directed to a method for treating a crop but the only method step is forming a spray preparation. It is unclear how merely preparing a spray formulation treats a crop in the absence of a step of applying to a crop.
Claims 25-26: are indefinite because
Claim 25 recites …spray formulation at a rate of no more than 1.25% v/v.
Claim 26 recites …spray formulation at a rate of no more than 1% v/v.
Claims 25 and 25 do not define 1.25% v/v or 1% v/v of what.
In the specification, Test 1, 2, and 3, has 0.6% ae Clarity+ 1.2% ae Roundup Powermax 2 + 1% v/v JM19-12A or JM19-12B - JM19-12M. (SPEC, 0033).
1.25% v/v or 1.% v/v are specified of 50% K Acetate, K citrate, Polyacrylate and DI water, being recited in SPEC (0033).
For examining purpose, 1.25% v/v in claim 25 or 1.% v/v in claim 26 are defined as 1.25% v/v or 1.% v/v. of 50% K Acetate, K citrate, Polyacrylate and DI water.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 24-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hemminghaus et al. (US 20220192192A1).
Claims 24, 28-31, 33-34, 36-41 and 46,
Hemminghaus et al. teach low volatility herbicidal compositions comprising at least one auxin herbicide and at least one monocarboxylic acid, or monocarboxylate thereof. The invention further relates generally to methods for preparing and using such low volatility herbicidal com
positions, including methods for controlling auxin-susceptible plant growth on agricultural lands. (Abs). In one embodiment, the monocarboxylic acid is selected from the group consisting of formic acid, acetic acid, propionic acid , and benzoic acid. In another embodiment, the monocarboxylate salt is selected from the group consisting of formate salts, acetate salts, propionate salts, and benzoate salts. (0046). In another embodiment, the herbicidal composition comprises a monocarboxylate salt having the formula R1 = C(O)OM, wherein R1 is unsubstituted C1, -C6 alkyl and M is an alkali metal salt . In another embodiment, the herbicidal composition comprises a monocarboxylate salt having the formula R1-C (O)OM , wherein R1 is unsubstituted C1 -C3 alkyl and M is an alkali metal salt selected from sodium and potassium. In another embodiment , the monocarboxylate salt is potassium acetate . In another embodiment, the monocarboxylate salt is sodium acetate. (0047).
In some embodiments, the herbicidal compositions comprise an alkali metal phosphate and an alkali metal carbonate. (0050)
In some embodiments, the herbicidal compositions comprise potassium citrate and potassium carbonate. ((0499), Table 2-26). Citric Acid and potassium hydroxide forms potassium citrate. Citric Acid / potassium citrate is non-volatile.
Dipotassium phosphate has high pH range from 8.5-9.6 at 5% solutions in water, https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/sial/795496
or 8.7-9.3 at 1M solutions in water: https://www.sigmaaldrich.com/US/en/product/sigma/60353
With regard to claims 25 and 26,
To the primary spray solution, Treatment 1, the following were added: (SPEC, 0029)
Treatment 2 - 1 % v/v of 50% solution of potassium acetate, (SPEC, 0029), which is equivalent to 0.5% w/w of potassium acetate.
Treatment 3 - 1.25% v/v of Mixture 1 which contains 36.6% potassium acetate and 12%
potassium citrate, (SPEC, 0029), which is equivalent to 0.45% w/w of potassium acetate and 0.15% w/w of potassium citrate.
Tests 1-3: 0.6% ae Clarity+ 1.2% ae Roundup Powermax 2 + 1% v/v (JM19-12A or JM19-12M)
Hemminghaus et al. teach:
Table 1 (1-1 to 1-32 or 1-33-1-40):
DGA dicamba ( CLARITY ® ): 1.20 % ae
ROUNDUP POWERMAX ® potassium acetate 2.40 % ae
And salts: dipotassium phosphate: 2.00 %
potassium acetate: 2.00 %
Which are divided by 2 to converse to
DGA dicamba ( CLARITY ® ): 0.6 % ae
ROUNDUP POWERMAX ® potassium acetate 1.20 % ae
And salts: dipotassium phosphate: 1.00 %
potassium acetate: 1.00 %
With regard to claim 27,
The vapor pressure of acetic acid at 20°C is approximately 11.6 mmHg
https://hansonchemicals.com/products/acetic-acid/
With regard to claim 32,
The vapor pressure of potassium phosphate at 20°C is approximately 0.1-0 mmHg, depending on the source and the product's concentration.
https://www.anchemsales.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/dipotassium-phosphate-jan-2014.pdf
With regard to claim 34,
Hemminghaus et al. teach The results reported above for the di- and tri carboxylic acids tested ( oxalic acid and succinic acid). (0505).
With regard to claims 35, 38,
Hemminghaus et al. teach potassium oxalate in Table 1-27. (0486), Table 3-1, (0504).
With regard to claim 42,
Salt of said volatile acid and said salt of said nonvolatile acid are in a weight ratio of between about 1:1. Table 2-3. (0495) or Table 3-7. (0504).
With regard to claim 43,
Salt of said volatile acid and said salt of said nonvolatile acid are in a weight ratio of between about 2:1. 2% potassium acetate + 1% ammonium sulfate. Table 3-3. (0504).
With regard to claims 44-45,
In various embodiments, the herbicidal compositions (ready-to-use, liquid concentrate, tank mix, etc.) have a pH that is equal to or higher than the acid dissociation constant ( pKa ) of the monocarboxylic acid present in the composition. For example, in certain embodiments, the
herbicidal compositions comprise acetic acid (which has a pKa of about 4.8 ) and have a pH equal to or greater than about 4.8 . In the case of herbicidal compositions comprising dicamba and an effective amount of acetic acid, dicamba volatility generally decreases as composition pH increases with dicamba volatility reaching substantially non-detect able levels at a composition pH of about 5.2 as measured in a plant response study. (0094).
With regard to claims 46-47,
In one embodiment, the auxin herbicide is selected from dicamba, or a agriculturally acceptable salt or ester thereof, and 2,4-D, or an agriculturally acceptable salt of ester thereof. In another embodiment, the non-auxin herbicide is glyphosate, or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof.
(0008).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 24 and 48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hemminghaus et al. (US 20220192192 A1) as described in claim 24 above, in view of Moity et al. (US 20180255769 A1).
The teachings of Hemminghaus et al. are described in claims 24 above.
Hemminghaus et al. teach an adjuvant composition for use in the preparation of an aqueous herbicidal composition application mixture. The adjuvant composition comprising an additive selected from the group consisting of a drift reduction agent, Claim 1.
Hemminghaus et al. do not teach the polyacrylamide, guar gum, xanthan gum, or other drift control polymers.
Moity et al. teach low volatility herbicidal compositions comprising at least one auxin herbicide and at least one cationic polysaccharide derivative, (Abs) to reduced off-site movement of said auxin herbicide comprising introducing a cationic polysaccharide derivative to said diluted agrochemical spray formulation. (0021).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to prepare a crop composition including a herbicide with a volatile reduction adjuvant, taught by Hemminghaus et al. and to reduce drifting by adding a polymer like a cationic polysaccharide, since they have proven it would help to reduce off target spraying or reduce drifting.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGOC-ANH THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/NGOC-ANH THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615