DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04 February 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peng et al. (US 2019/0216089 A1) (hereinafter Peng), as evidenced by Wynca (“Glyphosate TC”, 2014).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8, and 12, Peng discloses an herbicidal composition comprising glyphosate (abs) with one or more herbicides including simazine ([0025]). The herbicidal composition is mixed with at least one auxiliary ([0010]), including dispersing agents, which are useful for the active ingredients to be stable ([0011]). The dispersing agents include sodium methyl naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde condensate (i.e. instantly claimed naphthalene sulphonate of formula I) ([0014]). The dosages are determined according to the formulation requirements ([0011]). The formulations are processed in a mixing tank and mixed under stirring, and transferred to a storage tank ([0077]).
As noted by para. [0025] of the instant Specification, simazine is a chlorotriazine herbicide.
The prior art is not anticipatory insofar as this combination of propyzamide as the one or more herbicides and sodium methyl naphthalene sulfonate formaldehyde condensate as the at least one auxiliary must be selected from various lists/locations in the reference. It would have been obvious, however, to make the combination since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A).
Regarding claims 1 and 13-14 reciting amounts of compatibilizer, although Peng does not explicitly disclose an amount of one or more auxiliaries, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amounts through routine experimentation based on Peng’s general guidance to determine the dosages according to formulation requirements. Where 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. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 4, Peng further discloses wherein the glyphosate, technical material (TC) is provided by Zhejiang Wynca ([0043]). As evidenced by Wynca, the glyphosate TC includes ammonium salt, potassium salt, and isopropylamine (IPA) salt (¶1). Therefore, the glyphosate of Peng meets the limitation of glyphosate salt as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 5 and 15-16, Peng further discloses wherein the glyphosate may be provided as aqueous formulations ([0131]), and that the active ingredients have a concentration from 0.001%-98% by weight ([0009]). The amounts of actives will depend on the main application purpose of a corresponding formulation ([0049]).
As evidenced by Wynca, Glyphosate TC can be processed into a water-soluble liquid (¶1). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the aqueous formulation of Peng is an aqueous solution of glyphosate.
Regarding the claimed amounts of glyphosate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected an amount of glyphosate from the disclosed range of 0.001%-98% by weight. Such amounts selected would have equated to an amount in g/l (ae) that appears to overlap the instantly claimed amounts in g/l (ae). 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). Moreover, in any case, the selection of appropriate concentrations would appear to require no more than routine testing on the part of the skilled artisan, and so alternatively it would have been obvious to determine workable ranges to arrive at the claimed amounts in g/l (ae). "[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." See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 16, Peng further discloses wherein the composition may be formulated as a concentrate, with the active ingredients present in a concentration of from 5% to 98% by weight ([0009]).
Regarding claim 6, Peng further discloses wherein the one or more herbicides includes clomazone ([0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Peng further discloses wherein the one or more herbicides include propyzamide ([0025]).
Regarding claim 9, Peng further discloses wherein the one or more herbicides includes trifluralin ([0025]).
Regarding claim 10, Peng further discloses wherein the one or more herbicides includes dicamba ([0025]).
Regarding claim 11, as discussed above, Peng discloses wherein auxiliaries including dispersing agents are useful for the active ingredients to be stable. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included such auxiliaries to improve the stability (thus acting as “compatibilizer” as instantly claimed) in the formulations of Peng.
Regarding claim 17 reciting compatibilizer is added in an amount “to reduce sedimentation”, it is noted that such recitation is interpreted as intended use. Where the same active agent is present in the prior art as instantly claimed, the intended use is met. Since the composition of the prior art comprises substantially the same active ingredients as the claimed invention (i.e. glyphosate, at least one herbicide, and naphthalene sulfonate), the naphthalene sulfonate of the prior art would be usable to reduce sedimentation, whether the prior art recognizes such use or not.
Response to Arguments
Applicant mainly asserts that Peng is directed to a different problem and solution, aiming to address the stability of a built-in products that are formed/manufactured in a factory. Further, the “mixing tank” in Peng is manufacturing equipment, which is not an end-user’s spray tank. Thus, the teachings of Peng do not describe a tank mix as described in para. [0002]-[0005] of the instant Specification. Further, Peng does not consider the incompatibilities that are formed from using multiple herbicides in agriculturally active compositions, or the use of claimed compatibilizer for stabilizing the same in a tank mix, or the separate addition of the claimed compatibilizer to the agricultural active composition and its ingredients, nor recognizing the stabilizing effect that the compatibilizer has on its addition to the agricultural active composition to yield less sedimentation in the tank mix composition (i.e. use as a “compatibilizer” instead of “dispersing agent” of Peng). Lastly, the concentration range of the compatibilizer in the tank mix composition is not taught or suggested. The concentration of naphthalene sulfonate in Peng’s examples (e.g., 10% in the concentrate) results in a concentration far below the claimed effective range of 0.1-5% in the final spray liquid. Therefore, Peng provides no motivation for one skilled in the art to explore the range of the present claims.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s assertions to be persuasive. Paragraphs [0002]-[0005] of the instant Specification notes that “tank-mix” composition is a composition including two more compounds in a single composition which is applied to target plants or soil. Such a composition is prepared by adding measured amounts of two or more concentrate compositions of the individual active ingredients to water in a spray tank, sometimes together with other ingredients. Accordingly, the composition of Peng, comprising two or more actives in a single composition, prepared by adding measured amounts of such actives to water in a tank with other ingredients, e.g., naphthalene sulfonate, would reasonably appear to meet the limitation of a tank-mix composition as instantly claimed. Furthermore, even if, purely arguendo, Peng does not explicitly disclose mixing in a tank, Peng nevertheless discloses such “compounded” herbicidal formulations throughout its disclosure.
Regarding the assertion that Peng does not disclose using the compatibilizer for the purpose of stabilizing multiple herbicides in an agriculturally active composition in a tank mix, rationale different from Applicant’s is permissible. It is not necessary for the prior art to suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by Applicant. See MPEP 2144(IV). Thus, it is not necessary for Peng to disclose using naphthalene sulfonate for the same reason as Applicant, which is to stabilize multiple herbicides in an agriculturally active composition in a tank mix. As such, Applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive. Moreover, even if, purely arguendo, it was necessary for Peng to address a purpose of stabilizing the composition, such that the agricultural active composition yields less sedimentation in the tank mix composition, it is further noted that Peng does consider “residue after dumping” (see Table 3 of Peng) and thus Peng does teach or at least suggest considerations regarding incompatibility.
Regarding Applicant’s allegation about one of Peng’s examples having a concentration that would result in a concentration below the claimed range in the final spray liquid, such assertion is merely an opinion with conclusory statements. Conclusory statements, unsupported by objective factual evidence, were not found to be of substantial evidentiary value. See MPEP § 716.01(c). In this instant case, Applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive since there is no factual evidence supporting that optimizing Peng’s mixtures cannot attain the claimed levels of naphthalene sulfonate. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that a prior art reference is evaluated for all that it reasonably suggests and is not limited to preferred embodiments and working examples. Therefore, the teachings of Peng are not limited to its exemplary amounts and Applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., separate addition of the claimed compatibilizer to the agricultural active composition and its ingredients) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, the order of mixing is generally obvious as supported by MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roy et al. (US 2012/0283100 A1, 11/08/2012), directed to a mixture comprising one or more herbicides including glyphosate, with a dispersing agent including anionic surfactants.
Bean et al. (US 6,010,979 A, 01/04/2000) and Townson et al. (US 5,888,934 A, 03/30/1999), directed to glyphosate compositions comprising anionic surface active agents including salts of sulphonated aromatic compounds.
Sun et al. (US 2009/0305896 A1, 12/10/2009), directed to an herbicidal formulation comprising at least one surfactant.
Conclusion
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 LUCY TIEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 AM - 6:30 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, SAHANA KAUP can be reached at (571) 272-6897. 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.
/LUCY M TIEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights