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 .
Claims 1-30 are pending in this application.
Claim 30 stands withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-29 will presently be examined to the extent that they read on the elected invention group I and the expanded elected species of “at least one additional herbicide,” which are saflufenacil, saflufenacil + (S)-metolachlor, or quinclorac dimethylammonium.
Withdrawn ground of rejection
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of corrective amendment to the claims filed on 4/17/2026.
35 U.S.C. 102 or 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Berghaus et al. (US 2010/0255992; Berghaus)1 for the reasons of record.
Berghaus discloses a preferred embodiment of a soluble liquid (SL) formulation comprising quinclorac dimethylammonium, benzyl alcohol, and one additional herbicidal active ingredient selected from (1) bentazon, (2) imazapic, (3) imazapyr, (4) imazaquin, (5) imazethapyr, or (6) imazamox. See paragraph 146, 251; claim 60.
Anticipation
Berghaus explicitly discloses a herbicidal composition comprising the known herbicide quinclorac in the form of its dimethylammonium salt, the known herbicides (1) to (6) as set forth above, and benzyl alcohol. Even though an imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicide is not specifically exemplified or further singled out as “especially,” 5 out of 6 herbicides are imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicides: (2) imazapic, (3) imazapyr, (4) imazaquin, (5) imazethapyr, and (6) imazamox. Imazapic, imazapyr, and imazethapyr are pyridincarboxylic acids and imazaquin is a quinolinecarboxylic acid; therefore, they are in the acid form unless their nomenclature indicates otherwise. Each of these imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicide is clearly envisaged. The claims are thereby anticipated.
Obviousness
In the alternative, selection of imazethapyr, imazapic, imazapyr, imazaquin, or imazamox would have been obvious from a list of additional herbicides that includes only 6 herbicides. Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited reference.
The claims are thereby rejected.
Applicant’s traversal filed on 4/17/2026 and the Examiner’s response
Applicant argues that “SL formulations are generally understood in the art to be water-based formulations, as evidenced by the presence of water as shown in Examples 1-8 of Berghaus” and thus “Berghaus does not expressly teach a non-aqueous composition ….” This argument is factually inaccurate. CropLife International Technical Monograph no. 2, 7th edition (2017) establishes that SL is a soluble concentrate, which is applied as a solution after dilution with water (page 5). The SL liquid “may contain water-insoluble formulants” (id), which is additional evidence that water cannot be a required component of SL formulations.
Applicant argues that “the Examiner mischaracterizes Berghaus by suggesting that it discloses ‘a list of additional herbicides that includes only 6 herbicides.’” Berghaus’ paragraphs 146, 251, and claim 60 clearly discloses a list of additional herbicides that includes only 6 herbicides, 5 of which are imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitors, the same as the compounds recited in Applicant’s claim 2.
Applicant argues further that Berghaus “favors bentazon over the imidazolinone herbicides because of the phrase “especially bentazon” in paragraph 130. The Examiner maintains that a disclosure of a list of 6 specific herbicides would have led the ordinary skilled artisan to envisage and find obvious the use of 5 of those 6 herbicides in obtaining a herbicidal formulation.
Applicant argues that Berghaus does not provide motivation to select an imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor in free acid form, form a non-aqueous composition, where ALS inhibitor in free acid form is dissolved in the solvent of formula I. Berghaus’s claim 37 is directed to a soluble liquid (SL) formulation comprising quinclorac ammonium salt + a genus of solvents that includes benzyl alcohol, and dependent claim 60 requires one or more herbicides from a list of 6 herbicides, 5 of them being imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitors (all of them listed also in Applicant’s claim 2). Berghaus’s claims 37 and 60 do not recite water, and Berghaus’ imazapic, imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr, and imazamox are carboxylic acid compounds. Berghaus does not require the salt form. A soluble liquid (SL) form means that the ingredients are dissolved. Applicant’s argument is therefore found unpersuasive.
For these reasons, this ground of rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-12, 14, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berghaus (US 2010/0255992).
Berghaus discloses a herbicidal composition comprising the known herbicide quinclorac in the form of its dimethylammonium salt, the known herbicides (1) to (6) as set forth above, and benzyl alcohol (paragraphs 146, 251; claims 37 and 60). Even though an imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicide is not specifically exemplified or further singled out as “especially,” 5 out of 6 herbicides are imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicides: (2) imazapic, (3) imazapyr, (4) imazaquin, (5) imazethapyr, and (6) imazamox. Imazapic, imazapyr, and imazethapyr, all of which are carboxylic acids.
Berghaus also discloses 2-25 wt% additional herbicide, 30-60 wt% solvent, and 0.1-20 wt% formulation additives (paragraphs 553-554, 556). The formulation additive can be a surfactant such as castor oil ethoxylate (paragraphs 330, 356). Control of the large crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis with only quinclorac dimethylammonium is shown (paragraph 595).
As discussed in the previous ground of rejection, Berghaus explicitly discloses and at least suggests a herbicidal composition that contains benzyl alcohol and an imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicide such as imazethapyr or imazapic, as claimed herein. Weight ratio of imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor to benzyl alcohol of 1 : “at least about 5” is suggested by the fact that the solvent can be present in 30-60 wt%, whereas the additional herbicide, i.e., imazethapyr or imazapic, can be present in the relatively smaller range of 2-25 wt%. The ordinary skilled artisan would have it obvious to adjust the herbicide amount within the claimed ratio to optimize various formulation considerations such as stability and solubility. Selection of a particular surfactant such as ethoxylated castor oil would have been obvious from Berghaus’ teaching of various surfactant alternatives, including castor oil ethoxylates. Control of weeds, for example Digitaria sanguinalis, would have been obvious with the Berghaus’ herbicide comprising quinclorac dimethylammonium + imazapic, imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr, or imazamox, because quinclorac by itself delivers control.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited reference.
Applicant’s traversal filed on 4/17/2026 and the Examiner’s response
Applicant argues that Berghaus does not render obvious a nonaqueous composition comprising an imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor in free acid form, where ALS inhibitor in free acid form is dissolved in the solvent of formula I. However, Berghaus’s claim 37 is directed to a soluble liquid (SL) formulation comprising quinclorac ammonium salt + a genus of solvents that includes benzyl alcohol, and dependent claim 60 requires one or more herbicides from a list of 6 herbicides, 5 of them being imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitors (all of them listed also in Applicant’s claim 2). Berghaus’s claims 37 and 60 do not recite water, and Berghaus’ imazapic, imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr, and imazamox are carboxylic acid compounds. Berghaus does not require the salt form. A soluble liquid (SL) form means that the ingredients are dissolved. Applicant’s argument is therefore found unpersuasive.
35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-12, 14, 19-20, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berghaus (US 2010/0255992) in view of Jentzer et al. (US 9,392,785; hereinafter, Jentzer).
Berghaus discloses a herbicidal composition comprising the known herbicide quinclorac in the form of its dimethylammonium salt, the known herbicides (1) to (6) as set forth above, and benzyl alcohol (paragraphs 146, 251; claims 37 and 60). Even though an imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicide is not specifically exemplified or further singled out as “especially,” 5 out of 6 herbicides are imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicides: (2) imazapic, (3) imazapyr, (4) imazaquin, (5) imazethapyr, and (6) imazamox. Imazapic, imazapyr, and imazethapyr, all of which are carboxylic acids. A co-solvent can be added (paragraph 251).
Berghaus also discloses 2-25 wt% additional herbicide, 30-60 wt% solvent, and 0.1-20 wt% formulation additives (paragraphs 553-554, 556). The formulation additive can be a surfactant such as castor oil ethoxylate (paragraphs 330, 356). Control of the large crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis with only quinclorac dimethylammonium is shown (paragraph 595).
Jentzer (US 9,392,785) discloses pentanoic acid 5-(dimethylamino)-2-methyl-5-oxo methyl ester. See Example 1.3 at column 34, lines 53-58 and Example 1.4 at column 36, lines 8-14. Compare with instant application claim 20. Jentzer discloses this compound and similar compounds as a solvent to formulate various agricultural compounds such as herbicides (column 2, line 49 to the end of column 3; column 12, lines 41-62). Use with a co-solvent is disclosed (column 10, lines 42-52). 4-60% active phytosanitary product (e.g., herbicide), 10-92% solvent, and 4-60% emulsifier/surfactant such as SOPROPHOR® surfactants and ALKAMULS® OR/36 surfactant is disclosed (Column 28, lines 51-67; column 29, lines 15-23).
As discussed in the previous ground of rejection, Berghaus explicitly discloses and at least suggests a herbicidal composition that contains benzyl alcohol and an imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicide such as imazethapyr or imazapic, as claimed herein. Weight ratio of imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor to benzyl alcohol of 1 : “at least about 5” is suggested by the fact that the solvent can be present in 30-60 wt%, whereas the additional herbicide, i.e., imazethapyr or imazapic, can be present in the relatively smaller range of 2-25 wt%. The ordinary skilled artisan would have it obvious to adjust the herbicide amount within the claimed ratio to optimize various formulation considerations such as stability and solubility. Selection of a particular surfactant such as ethoxylated castor oil would have been obvious from Berghaus’ teaching of various surfactant alternatives, including castor oil ethoxylates. Control of weeds, for example Digitaria sanguinalis, would have been obvious with the Berghaus’ herbicide comprising quinclorac dimethylammonium + imazapic, imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr, or imazamox, because quinclorac by itself delivers control.
Further addition of a co-solvent such as the pentanoic acid 5-(dimethylamino)-2-methyl-5-oxo methyl ester of instant claim 20 would have been obvious from the teachings of Jentzer.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited references.
Applicant’s traversal filed on 4/17/2026 and the Examiner’s response
Applicant argues that Berghaus does not render obvious, and Jentzer does not remedy the “defects of Bergaus,” because a nonaqueous composition comprising an imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor in free acid form, where ALS inhibitor in free acid form is dissolved in the solvent of formula I is not disclosed or suggested by their teachings. However, Berghaus’s claim 37 is directed to a soluble liquid (SL) formulation comprising quinclorac ammonium salt + a genus of solvents that includes benzyl alcohol, and dependent claim 60 requires one or more herbicides from a list of 6 herbicides, 5 of them being imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitors (all of them listed also in Applicant’s claim 2). Berghaus’s claims 37 and 60 do not recite water, and Berghaus’ imazapic, imazapyr, imazaquin, imazethapyr, and imazamox are carboxylic acid compounds. Berghaus does not require the salt form. A soluble liquid (SL) form means that the ingredients are dissolved. Further addition of a co-solvent such as the pentanoic acid 5-(dimethylamino)-2-methyl-5-oxo methyl ester of instant claim 20 would have been obvious from the teachings of Jentzer.
Applicant’s argument is therefore found unpersuasive.
35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 1-19, 21-23 and 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (WO 01/51028; hereinafter, Campbell)2 in view of JP 2018/030797.
Campbell discloses a non-aqueous composition comprising:
emulsifier such as polysorbate 20 or polysorbate 80 (page 8; claim 7)
polyol;
benzyl alcohol; and
biologically active compound, which includes herbicides imazethapyr, imazapyr, imazaquin (page 14; claim 36).
See claim 1. Campbell also discloses a similar composition that further comprises N-methyl pyrrolidone as a co-solvent (claim 12). Application to crop or plants is disclosed (claims 33-34, 40; see also page 1, second paragraph; page 4, lines 12-14; page 5, lines 1-3). Campbell teaches that water-insoluble or water-labile biologically active compounds can be solubilized and conveniently transported to a site of application in non-aqueous form, and then diluted in an aqueous solution (page 2). Although the active ingredient in Campbell’s example on page 8 is not an imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicide, the weight ratio active compound (ivermectin) to benzyl alcohol is about 1:7.5. In the same example, polysorbate 80 is used at 25 wt%. Dilution with water is disclosed (abstract; claim 2); 20-fold dilution is disclosed (Example 1 on page 10).
JP 2018/030797 discloses a herbicide composition that is safe for cultivation of plants and effective for control of wider range of weeds at lower dosage by synergistic effect of active ingredients, which includes the combination of saflufenacil and at least one very long chain fatty acid(VLCFA) synthesis inhibitor herbicide3 See the enclosed machine translation of the entire document; in particular, see the abstract; see also another English abstract provided herewith, this one by Espacenet. JP 2018/030797 further discloses the following:
(1) VLCFA inhibitor herbicides include S-metolachlor (2nd page of translation);
(2) Ratio of saflufenacil and VLCFA inhibitor herbicide ranges from 1:5 to 1:300 (2nd page of translation). Saflufenacil is used at 5-80 g/ha, whereas S-metolachlor is used at 300-3,000 g/ha (6th page of translation, first paragraph). In the Example shown on page 26 of the original document, saflufenacil and S-metolachlor are combined at 1:58 weight ratio (e.g., 6.25 to 362.6, 12.5 to 725).
(3) Formulation with one, two, or more liquid carriers having solvent ability is disclosed (4th page of translation, second to last paragraph);
(4) Formulation with surfactants such as polyoxyethylene sorbitan fatty acid esters, i.e., polysorbates, is disclosed (5th page of translation, first paragraph);
(5) Application in crops such as rice and wheat is disclosed (7th page of translation).
(6) Further combination with additional herbicides such as imazethapyr, imazapic, imazaquin, imazapyr, imazamethabenz-methyl, and imazamox is disclosed (8th page of translation, 7th paragraph).
(7) Control of weeds such as crabgrass (Digitaria), Amaranthus retroflexus, Conyza bonariensis, and Solanum nigrum is disclosed (10th page of translation, first two paragraphs).
The cited prior art references do not explicitly disclose all the claim-recited features of the instant invention. However, for the reasons set forth below, those features and the claimed invention as whole would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan.
Non-aqueous composition comprising imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicide and benzyl alcohol with a polysorbate surfactant
Campbell teaches formulating various active compounds, with benzyl alcohol and a polysorbate surfactant, including imazethapyr, imazapyr, imazaquin and other imidazolinone herbicide class as the active compound in a non-aqueous composition. Advantages of solubility and convenience of transport are suggestive of the claimed invention.
The imidazoline-based ALS inhibitor herbicide is in free acid form and
dissolved in the solvent of formula I (e.g., benzyl alcohol)
Campbell teaches imazamethabenz, imazapyr, imazaquin, and imazethapyr, all
of which are understood as carboxylic acids in the absence of nomenclature that indicates otherwise. Benzyl alcohol is a required ingredient in Campbell’s compositions, and active ingredients are solubilized in Campbell’s composition. Given the required presence of benzyl alcohol and imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicides, which are in their free acid form, said imidazolinones would necessarily be dissolved in benzyl alcohol, because the same benzyl alcohol has the same function in Applicant’s invention.
1 to “at least about 5” wt ratio of imidazolinone ALS inhibitor to benzyl alcohol
Campbell’s example on page 8 is not an imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicide, but the weight ratio active compound (ivermectin) to benzyl alcohol is about 1:7.5. The ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious to adjust and optimize suitable amount of a solvent to formulate herbicides at various concentration strengths to obtain the claimed invention.
Imazethapyr + (S)-metolachlor + saflufenacil
JP 2018/030797 discloses the herbicidally synergistic combination of (S)-metolachlor and saflufenacil, and JP 2018/030797 teaches further addition of another herbicide such as imazethapyr. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan that Imazethapyr + (S)-metolachlor + saflufenacil would advantageously provide herbicidally synergistic activity and control a broad range of weeds at reduced dosage.
Claim 23: about 0.5-5 wt% imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor, about 5-60 wt% solvent, about 10-70 wt% surfactant, about 15-45 wt% VLCFA inhibitor,
about 0.1-25 wt% PPO inhibitor, and 0.5-7 wt% co-solvent
It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan from the known dosage and known formulation concentration ranges of the known herbicides imazethapyr, (S)-metolachlor, and saflufenacil, to arrive at the relative proportions required by claim 23. For example, teachings of Campbell (WO 01/51028) is open to wide concentration strengths of imazethapyr, with sufficient amount of benzyl alcohol utilized as a solvent. In one example Campbell shows approximately 1:7.5 ratio of active compound to benzyl alcohol and 25 wt% polysorbate surfactant. Further, the relative proportion of saflufenacil to (S)-metolachlor is suggested by the fact that saflufenacil is used in smaller dose/concentration of 5-80 g/ha than dose/concentration of (S)-metolachlor of 300-3000 g/ha (JP 2018/030797, 6th page of translation). 1:58 weight ratio of saflufenacil to (S)-metolachlor is exemplified by JP 2018/030797.
Benzyl alcohol is clearly taught by Campbell as a useful solvent to formulate myriad structurally divergent active compounds, which solvent can be used with another solvent (page 8, last paragraph). Additional formulation optimization would have been well within the skill of the ordinary skilled artisan based on the percentages and proportions taught by the prior art as discussed hereinabove. Thus, it would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan to formulate the three claim-recited herbicides imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor such as imazethapyr, VLCFA inhibitor such as (S)-metolachlor, and PPO inhibitor such as saflufenacil with solvent (benzyl alcohol), co-solvent, and surfactants in the proportions and percentages as claimed herein.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited references.
Applicant’s traversal filed on 4/17/2026 and the Examiner’s response
Applicant argues that “Campbell does not unambiguously teach a solvent of Formula I, such as benzyl alcohol, as a solvent for herbicides” (emphasis in the original). Applicant’s position is that “Campbell attributes benzyl alcohol’s role to ‘solubilizing the polysorbate 80 in the propylene glycol’ (end of page 8)” and Campbell’s example on page 8 of solubilizing ivermectin in benzyl alcohol is limited exclusively to ivermectin. Such selective reading of Campbell is strongly disagreed with. Benzyl alcohol, when present, does not know that it is supposed to dissolve only X and not Y; if both X (e.g., polysorbates) and Y (e.g., imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor herbicides) have solubility in benzyl alcohol, they would both be solubilized. As for Campbell’s example on page 8, Campbell clearly states “these examples are not intended to be limiting and the person of ordinary skill in the art will realize that these methods may be applied to administer a variety of pharmacologically and biologically active compounds …” (page 7). Additionally, Campbell’s claim 1 is readable on a non-aqueous composition comprising an emulsifier, a polyol, benzyl alcohol, and a biologically active compound, so an argument that Campbell’s benzyl alcohol would dissolve only ivermectin is found unpersuasive.
Applicant argues also that Campbell’s 1:7.5 ratio of ivermectin to benzyl alcohol fails to suggest the claimed percentage of imidazolinone-based ALS inhibitor and benzyl alcohol, because ivermectin is structurally unrelated to imidazolinones.
However, teachings of Campbell (WO 01/51028) are open to wide concentration strengths of imidazolinones such as imazethapyr, with sufficient amount of benzyl alcohol utilized as a solvent. The ordinary skilled artisan would have understood Campbell’s 2.02% ivermectin and 15% benzyl alcohol can be used as a non-limiting example of formulating a biologically active compound (Campbell’s page 7, last paragraph), including the imidazolinones imazamethabenz, imazapyr, imazaquin, and imazethapyr taught by Campbell (e.g., claim 36).
Applicant also argues that “the Examiner has failed to consider the unexpected results in the specification as filed” and refers to the “greater than expected superior weed control results” in Example 4 on specification pages 15-17, taken with Figs. 1A and 1B. However, the following must be noted about the data in Example 4:
(1) EC-1 contains 1.3 wt% of a co-solvent, Rhodiasolv® PolarClean. There are many issues concerning this ingredient. First, it is listed as a trademark, so its full composition makeup is not known with certainty. Second, Rhodiasolv® PolarClean is disclosed on specification page 10 as containing pentanoic acid 5-(dimethylamino)-2-methyl-5-oxo-methyl ester and “up to about 5% by weight diamide,” but that still does not make clear what else could be in the product. Third, it cannot be known whether the results shown in Example 4 and the figures were due in part by the contribution of a co-solvent such as Rhodiasolv® PolarClean. Rejected claims do not require any of the ingredients of Rhodiasolv® PolarClean. Therefore, at the very least, the claims are not commensurate in scope with that of the evidence espoused by Applicant.
(2) It is not clear whether the “oil dispersion formulation” (OD) contains a solvent of formula I, e.g., benzyl alcohol. It does not appear that the specification discloses the exact composition makeup of the OD formulation.
(3) Even assuming arguendo that the above two issues (1) and (2) could be resolved in Applicant’s favor, it still remains that the specification data is limited to imazethapyr + saflufenacil + (S)-metolachlor as the herbicidal combination, wherein the solvent is benzyl alcohol, the surfactant is a polysorbate, and the co-solvent is ingredients of Rhodiasolv® PolarClean. The claims are far broader than this, see e.g., claims 1, 7, 10, 16. There is insufficient evidence that the specific formulation of imazethapyr + saflufenacil + (S)-metolachlor with benzyl alcohol, polysorbate, and a specific Rhodiasolv® PolarClean co-solvent would deliver similar results with structurally divergent additional pesticides with different physical and bioactive properties, surfactants, and co-solvents. Evidence of nonobviousness, if any, must be commensurate in scope with that of the claimed subject matter. In re Kulling, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Lindner, 173 USPQ 356, 358 (CCPA 1972).
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are deemed unpersuasive, and this ground of rejection must be maintained.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 24 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0620. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's SPE, Fereydoun Sajjadi, can be reached on (571)272-3311. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JOHN PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
1 US 2010/0255992 is a patent family member of WO 2009/013120, which was cited in the International Search Report and submitted in the IDS of 8/23/2023.
2 Cited in the International Search Report and submitted in the IDS of 8/23/2023.
3 Machine translation is provided herewith.
Prosecution Insights