DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s arguments, filed 16 December 2025, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 (maintained)
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-11, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ligon et al. (WO 2000/018235 A1, 04/06/2000, ISR reference) (hereinafter Ligon) in view of Voglewede et al. (US 2019/0090484 A1, 03/28/2019) (hereinafter Voglewede).
Ligon discloses a method of substantially prohibiting flowering in sugarcane comprising applying a composition comprising a plant growth regulator, such as 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid, or an agriculturally acceptable salt thereof or an agriculturally acceptable ester thereof, during a period of flowering induction of the said sugarcane, such that only from about 5-30% of the treated sugarcane plants flowers (p.1, lines 22-23; p.2, lines 8-15), versus 85% flowering rate for the untreated plants (p.6, line 10). The period of induction is generally when there is sunlight on the said cane during a period of from 10-14 hours per day; the period of induction is about 45 days (p.2, lines 16-18). The composition may be applied by aerial application (p.7, line 26).
Ligon differs from the instant claims insofar as not explicitly disclosing wherein the composition comprises florpyrauxifen.
However, Voglewede discloses compositions comprising an effective amount of florpyrauxifen and florpyrauxifen-benzyl, also known as RinskorTM Active, to control unwanted growth ([0006]-[0007]), effects including causing deviations from natural development or regulation ([0011]). The compounds may be applied at an application rate of from 1 gram active ingredient per hectare (g ai/ha) to 200 g ai/ha, depending upon the degree of control required, and the timing and method of application ([0027]). the compositions can be used to control bromoxynil-tolerate crops such as sugarcane ([0053]).
Ligon discloses applying the composition to sugarcane. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included florpyrauxifen, or, alternatively, florpyrauxifen-benzyl, in the composition of Ligon as a known and effective compound to additionally control unwanted growth in crops such as sugarcane as taught by Voglewede. As such, the claimed amounts of florpyrauxifen would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the amounts overlap with the 1-200 g ai/ha taught by Voglewede as a known and effective range to apply florpyrauxifen or, alternatively, florpyrauxifen-benzyl.
Regarding 3 and 16 reciting amounts of period of sunlight, the claimed ranges (i.e. 10 to 14 hours, or 11 to 13 hours, respectively) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since they overlap with the ranges of the prior art (i.e. 10 to 14 hours). 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(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant mainly asserts there is no suggestion in Ligon to combine 2-chlorethylphosphonic acid with other active ingredients such as herbicides or plant growth regulators, and Voglewede does not teach the compound of Ligon as an active ingredient or disclose plant growth effect of florpyrauxifen on sugarcane. Voglewede only discloses herbicidal mixtures of florpyrauxifen with tembotrione or topramezone, and do not disclose the effect of such mixture on the growth of sugarcane itself. Applicant further asserts the Office has not provided a reason why substituting 2-chlorophosphonic acid in place of tembotrione and/or topramezone would produce either an effective herbicide or an effective ripening mixture, or why taking one component (florpyrauxifen) of a 2 or 3 component mixture and combining it with 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid would result in the desired effect. Therefore, Applicant asserts the combination would be inoperative for its intended purpose, and one of ordinary skill in the art would lack a reasonable expectation of success, as the combination would not be expected to be an effective herbicide, and it would not be expected to improve either ripening or weed control without tembotrione and/or topramezone as taught in Voglewede.
The Examiner does not find the assertion to be persuasive. As this is a 103 obviousness rejection, no one piece of prior art is required to teach each and every limitation. As supported by MPEP § 2141(III), "Prior art is not limited just to the references being applied, but includes the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. The prior art reference (or references when combined) need not teach or suggest all the claim limitations." In this instant case, as discussed in the rejection, Ligon teaches applying a composition comprising a plant growth regulator (e.g., 2-chloroethylphosphonic acid) during a period of flowering induction of sugarcane, to substantially prohibit flowering in sugarcane. Voglewede teaches compositions comprising florpyrauxifen that can be applied at any stage of growth (Voglewede [0021])) to control unwanted growth in crops including sugarcane ([0053]). Voglewede further discloses in para. [0037] that florpyrauxifen is suitable to be included with plant growth regulators.
Although Voglewede does not explicitly disclose effects of florpyrauxifen specifically on the growth of sugarcane, 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 Voglewede to disclose including florpyrauxifen the same reason as Applicant’s which is for effects on growth of sugarcane.
Finally, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the rejection does not rely on substituting the plant growth regulator, 2-chlorophosphonic acid, with a compound of Voglewede. As supported by MPEP § 2144.07, generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. Ligon discloses a composition comprising a plant growth regulator. Voglewede discloses florpyrauxifen suitable for application with plant growth regulators. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included florpyrauxifen with plant growth regulators, such as those of Ligon, since it is a known and effective compound suitable for inclusion with plant growth regulators and suitable to be applied to sugarcane at any stage of growth as taught by Voglewede. One would be motivated by the benefit of additional control of weeds in crops such as sugarcane. In doing so, as Ligon also discloses applying the composition to sugarcane during a period of flowering induction, the combination would appear to meet the limitations of “applying a composition comprising florpyrauxifen during the sugarcane flowering induction period” as instantly claimed, thus also reasonably expected to substantially inhibit flowering in sugarcane like the claimed invention. Moreover, the instant claims employ the open-ended transitional term “comprising,” which would not exclude additional compounds. As such, Applicant’s assertions are unpersuasive.
Claims 4, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ligon et al. (WO 2000/018235 A1, 04/06/2000) (hereinafter Ligon) in view of Voglewede et al. (US 2019/0090484 A1, 03/28/2019) (hereinafter Voglewede), further in view of Magalhaes (WO 2013/038269 A2, 03/21/2013).
Regarding claims 4, 8, and 12, the disclosure of Ligon and Voglewede are discussed in detail above, and differ from the instant claims insofar as not explicitly disclosing wherein the sugarcane variety comprises RB85 5035.
However, Magalhaes discloses common sugar cane cultivars with desirable trait characteristics, including drought resistance or improved quality such as enhanced sugar content; said common sugar cane cultivars including RB 85-5035 (p.13).
Ligon discloses applying the composition to sugarcane. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the composition of Ligon to RB 85-5035, since it is a known and effective desirable sugarcane cultivar/variety as taught by Magalhaes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant does not present specific arguments with regards to Ligon and Magalhaes.
Since the Examiner has discussed Ligon above, this rejection is maintained.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Satchivi et al. (WO 2020/096926 A1, 05/14/2020) is directed to a composition comprising a synthetic auxin including aryl picolinates such as florpyrauxifen-benzyl or halauxifen, for controlling undesirable growth of vegetation in sugar cane.
Yerkes et al. (WO2014018402 A1, 01/30/2014) is directed to a composition comprising florpyrauxifen for application on sugarcane.
Tu et al. (US 2019/0116788 A1, 04/25/2019) (hereinafter Tu) discloses halauxifen mixed with plant growth regulator causes an advantageous effect on plants.
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