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 .
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s response filed 01/29/2026.
Claims 1-14 are pending and are currently under consideration.
No claims were amended in the most recent response.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et at (EP 0274369)(IDS Reference) and Traynor et al (US 2008/0317795).
Sato teaches a glyphosate-ammonium sulfate herbicidal composition, wherein the composition comprises 10-50% ammonium sulfate, 2-20% quaternary ammonium salt, and the remainder (78% or less) of water (see entire document, for instance, Title and page 4, lines 1-21). The quaternary ammonium salt is taught as being selected from the group including trialkyl amine oxides, and specifically lauryl dimethyl amine oxide (N,N-dimethyl-N-dodecylamine-N-oxide) (see entire document, for instance, page 2, lines 38-42 and claims 13 and 15). The composition further comprises additional nonionic surfactants (see entire document, for instance, page 3, lines 60-61).
Sato, while teaching the instantly claimed ammonium sulfate and trialkylamine oxides, including N,N-dimethyl-N-dodecylamine-N-oxide, does not expressly teach a blend of trialkylamine oxides, and specifically the presence of N,N-dimethyl-N-decylamine-N-oxide.
Traynor teaches a composition that can comprise herbicides, said composition is taught as comprising nonioinic surfactants, and specifically, amine oxides including dimethyldodecylamine oxide and dimethyldecylamine oxide (see entire document, for instance, [0084] and [0207]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize a combination of dimethyldodecylamine oxide and dimethyldecylamine oxide as the trialkyl amine oxide of Sato. One would have been motivated to do so since Sato is teaching the use of trialkylamine oxides, wherein Traynor teaches that both dimethyldodecylamine oxide and dimethyldecylamine oxide are known as useful surfactants for compositions that can have herbicides. Further, it would have been obvious to optimize the amounts of the trialkylamine oxides, water, and ammonium sulfate to arrive at a composition that has superior properties, including surfactant properties, for the composition. One would have been motivated to do so since Sato teaches ranges that overlap the instantly claimed ranges and Traynor teaches that both amine oxides are useful as surfactants. It is noted that MPEP 2144.05 states: "Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” Further, MPEP 2144.05 states: “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the Remarks filed 01/29/2026 that the prior art does not provide motivation for the blending of the C12-C14 fatty amine oxide and the C8-C10 fatty amine oxide. Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive. Specifically, the Example pointed to in Sato at the top of page 4 is taught as being prepared by mixing the ingredients together in a blender (see page 4, lines 26-27). By incorporating components of Traynor into the composition of Sato, one would still utilize the method of Sato, which includes the blending of the composition. As such, the added elements of Traynor would be blended with the components taught by Sato.
Applicant further points to data in the Specification that allegedly establishes unexpected results. It is noted that the data in the Specification is directed to a specific C12-C14 fatty amine oxide and a specific C8-C10 fatty amine oxide wherein the data further includes specific antifreeze agents of either glycerin or propylene glycol. The data is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims as currently pending. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments and the data in the Specification is not found persuasive.
Claim(s) 1-14 (all claims currently under consideration) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et at (EP 0274369)(IDS Reference) and Traynor et al (US 2008/0317795) as applied to claims 1-7 and 11-14 above, and further in view of Townson et al (US 5,888,934).
The teachings of Sato and Traynor are set forth above.
Sato and Traynor, while rendering obvious the instantly claimed composition, does not expressly teach the presence of an antifreeze agent such as propylene glycol.
Townson teaches an herbicidal composition comprising glyphosate ammonium sulfate (see entire document, for instance, column 6, lines 3-8). The composition further comprises anti-freezing agents such as ethylene glycol and propylene glycol (see entire document, for instance, column 8, line 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the ethylene glycol or propylene glycol as anti-freezing agents for the composition of Sato and Traynor. One would have been motivated to do so since Townson teaches that ethylene glycol or propylene glycol can add anti-freezing properties to an herbicidal composition comprising glyphosate ammonium sulphate. There would be a reasonable expectation of success since both Sato and Townson are directed to herbicidal compositions comprising glyphosate ammonium sulfate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the Remarks filed 01/29/2026 that Townson does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Sato and Traynor with regard to the independent claim. As articulated above in the response to the previous rejection, Applicant’s argument is not found persuasive.
Further, Applicant argues that Townson does not provide sufficient motivation to arrive at the instantly claimed antifreeze components in their claimed amounts. It is noted that antifreeze agents have a specific function to reduce the freezing potential of a composition, and as such, by their nature are a result effective variable. It is noted that MPEP 2144.05 states: "Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” It is additionally noted that Applicant has not established the criticality of the amount of the antifreeze component within the breadth of the claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add sufficient antifreeze components to arrive at a composition with superior antifreeze capabilities.
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 TREVOR M LOVE whose telephone number is (571)270-5259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F typically 6:30-3.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 5712726175. 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.
/TREVOR LOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611