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 1-13 are pending examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-13 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2, 3 and 5-13 are rejected for depending on rejected base claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the one or more emulsifiers" in reference to the composition of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 6,586,367 (herein ‘367) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘367 claims a process of controlling weeds by applying an herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘367 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 6,746,988 (herein ‘988) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘988 claims a process of controlling weeds by applying an herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘988 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,455,471 (herein ‘471) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘471 claims a process of controlling weeds by applying an herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘471 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 6,380,135 (herein ‘135) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘135 claims a process of controlling weeds by applying an herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘135 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,097,561 (herein ‘561) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘561 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor, isoparaffinic hydrocarbon fluid, stearic acid or stearyl alcohol and benoxacor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘561 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 7,973,083 (herein ‘083) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘083 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘083 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,456,604 (herein ‘604) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘604 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘604 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 38 of U.S. Patent No. 8,680,012 (herein ‘012) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘012 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘012 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 and 19-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,563,471 (herein ‘471) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘471 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘471 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,889,595 (herein ‘595) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘595 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘595 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,298,993 (herein ‘993) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘993 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor and mesotrione.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘993 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,468,213 (herein ‘213) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘213 claims a herbicidal composition comprising chloroacetamide selected from S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘213 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 25 of U.S. Patent No. 8,680,339 (herein ‘339) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘339 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘339 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,102,642 (herein ‘642) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘642 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor, metribuzin or sulfentrazone but does not teach N,N-dimethyl lactamide.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘642 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,815,774 (herein ‘774) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘774 claims a herbicidal composition comprising sulfentrazone.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘744 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,551,918 (herein ‘918) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘918 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor and hydrophobic fluid.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘918 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 9,072,295 (herein ‘295) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘295 claims a herbicidal composition comprising sulfentrazone and a safener.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘295 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,788,543 (herein ‘543) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘543 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor, fomesafen and saflufenacil.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘543 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7 and 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,512,264 (herein ‘264) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘264 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘264 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,472,792 (herein ‘792) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘792 claims a herbicidal composition comprising metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘792 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,356,984 (herein ‘984) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘984 claims a herbicidal composition comprising S-metolachlor.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘984 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,173,301 (herein ‘301) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘301 claims a herbicidal composition comprising metolachlor and metribuzin.
It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘301 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-12 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 18/719,997 (herein ‘997) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N, N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘997 claim a composition comprising S-metolachlor, metribuzin and cloransulam-methyl. ‘997 does not include sulfentrazone and N, N-diethyl lactamide. It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘997 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/720,050 (herein ‘050) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N, N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘050 claim a composition comprising a liquid continuous phase, a first agrochemical ingredient selected from metribuzin and sulfentrazone and a second agrochemical ingredient selected from S-mesotrione. ‘050 does not include N, N-diethyl lactamide. It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘050 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 18/867,400 (herein ‘400) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N, N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘400 claim a method of applying metribuzin or S-metolachlor to weeds with a compound of formula (I). 400 does not include sulfentrazone and N, N-diethyl lactamide. It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘400 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 5, 7 and 9-16 of copending Application No. 18/577,424 (herein ‘424) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N, N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘424 claim a composition comprising at least one herbicide B4 metribuzin or B2 S-metolachlor and methods of applying them to weed. 424 does not include sulfentrazone and N, N-diethyl lactamide. It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘424 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/577,391 (herein ‘391) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N, N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘391 claim a composition comprising at least additional herbicide selected from S-metolachlor and methods of applying them to weed. ‘391 does not include metribuzin, sulfentrazone and N, N-diethyl lactamide. It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘391 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/577,361 (herein ‘361) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N, N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘361 claim a composition comprising at least one PPO inhibitor selected from sulfentrazone and additional compound S-metolachlor and methods of applying them to weed. ‘361 does not include metribuzin and N, N-diethyl lactamide. It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘361 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/577,406 (herein ‘406) in view of Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present invention is drawn to a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N, N-dimethyl lactamide whereas ‘406 claim a composition comprising at least one additional compound S-metolachlor and methods of applying them to weed. ‘406 does not include sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N, N-diethyl lactamide. It is for this reason that Mertoglu et al. is joined.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of ‘406 and Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone with N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mertoglu et al. (US 2017/0049097).
Applicant claims a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide. (Claim 1)
Applicant claims a method of mixing the composition of claim 1 with water in a tank to form an emulsion. (claim 12)
Applicant claims a method of controlling weeds comprising applying a weed controlling amount the composition of claim 1 to a locus. (claim 13)
With respect to claim 1-13, Mertoglu et al. teach emulsifiable concentrates comprising a water-insoluble pesticide, an alkyl lactate and a lactamide and methods of applying the formulation to crop environment (locus) to control undesirable plants (abstract). The concentrates comprises 0.3-45% by weight lactamide [0012-15]. The preferred form of the concentrate is free from (no more than 0.5% by weight) hydrocarbon solvents, specifically aromatic hydrocarbons [0019]. The compositions include pesticides, preferably selected from herbicides and mixtures of two or more pesticides [0026]. The pesticides are selected from metolachlor, metribuzin and sulfentrazone [0055, 0069 and 0072]. The compounds may be in the (S)-enantiomer form with at least 99% of the form being used [0161-162]. The pesticide can comprise one or more further pesticides and comprise 0.1-60% by weight of the concentrate [0171]. The formulations can further comprise surfactants, emulsifiers and antifoam agents including alkylarylsulfonates, alkoxylated alcohols and sorbitans [0172-175]. The alkoxylates can range from 1-45% of the concentrate [0183]. The formulations are used in methods of controlling undesired vegetation by applying to undesired plants [0189]. The concentrates are prepared into tank mix formulations to form ready-to-use spray usually by adding water, buffer or further auxiliaries [0191-192]. The preferred lactamide is N,N-dimethyl lactamide [0197, Table 1]. The addition of the lactamides aid in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature [0194].
Mertoglu does not specify a single formulation comprising the specific combination of herbicides S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone and metribuzin, however one of ordinary skill would have been able to make a composition comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide because Mertoglu teaches formulating emulsifiable concentrates comprising mixtures of two or more pesticides selected from S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone and metribuzin.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Mertoglu to formulate emulsifiable concentrates comprising S-metolachlor, sulfentrazone, metribuzin and N,N-dimethyl lactamide with a reasonable expectation of success because Mertoglu teach making herbicidal concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin, sulfentrazone and N,N-dimethyl lactamide. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the time of filing to use teachings of Mertoglu to form concentrates comprising metolachlor, metribuzin, sulfentrazone and N,N-dimethyl lactamide because Mertoglu teaches mixtures of two or more pesticides can by stabilized by adding N,N-dimethyl lactamide which aids in stabilizing the formulations at low temperature.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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 571-272-6175. 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.
DANIELLE D. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1617
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611