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 .
Response to Arguments
The Applicant's arguments filed 7/10/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.
The 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 6, 8-15, 17-22, 27-28, and 32-33 are withdrawn.
A new 112(b) rejection of claim 40 is issued in view of amendment.
The 103 rejections of claims 1, 6, 8-15, 17-22, 27-28, and 32-33 are maintained or modified in view of amendment.
New 103 rejections for newly added claims 39-40 have been issued.
103 Rejection over Lidor-Nili
In response to applicant's argument that Lidor-Nili provides no teaching or suggestion that ACCase inhibitors would produce any effect on the reproductive organs of broadleaf weed species, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Weed control through reproductive disruption is a property that results as a consequence of performing the claimed method. The prior art teaches the claimed method, thus, a property that results as a consequence of performing the claimed method to the same patient population would be expected absence evidence to the contrary. Applicant asserts that Lidor-Nili characterizes application of herbicide at germination and pollination at flowering as temporally distinct operations. This is not persuasive. Lidor-Nili explicitly teaches that herbicide can be applied “concomitantly with” pollen treatment [0362]. Thus, Lidor-Nili does not treat the two as separate and temporally distinct. Applicant also argues against inherency; however, no inherency argument was made in the Office Action dated 3/11/2026. If applicant is referring to the proposition that the artificial pollination step of Lidor-Nili is applied during flowering, Lidor-Nili explicitly defines the artificial pollination step as “the application, by hand or dedicated machinery, of fertile stigmas with the pollen from plants with desired characteristics”, i.e. application to flowers [0357]. As Lidor-Nili teaches three temporal options for applying herbicide to broadleaf weeds (before, during, and after pollen treatment), it would be obvious to choose from one of the three disclosed options. Applicant argues that Lidor-Nili lists ACCase inhibitors as one item of a list of herbicide classes with no sufficient motivation or teaching to produce the claimed effect. (As discussed above, the claimed mechanistic basis of weed control is a property that results as a consequence of performing the claimed method, said discussion will not be repeated herein.) This is not persuasive. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious , see MPEP 2144.07. Furthermore, a prior‑art “laundry list” of suitable alternatives can be sufficient to motivate selection where the list gives a person of ordinary skill a finite set of predictable choices for solving the same problem. See MPEP 2143.
Applicant also cites unexpected results in view of the specification stating that “a material that is usually used for the control of grass weeds and is not expected to affect broadleaf weeds surprisingly affects them as exemplified on various species.” This is a mere conclusory statement. Applicant references experimental data, however, the data is not compared to the closest prior art to establish unexpected results. An applicant bears the burden of proving unexpectedly good results. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). When unexpected results are used as evidence of non-obviousness, the results must be shown to be unexpected compared with the closest prior art. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388, 392, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196, (Fed. Cir. 1984). Applicant argues that the entire field characterizes ACCase inhibitors as grass-weed killers with no application to broadleaf species. This is not persuasive, see, e.g., Lidor-Nili and Ader, which teach application of ACCase inhibitors to broadleaf species. Applicant also argues that there is no motivation in the references to apply ACCase inhibitor to a broadleaf weed during a flowering window to achieve reproductive organ disruption. As previously stated, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability, furthermore, it is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). MPEP 2144.
103 Rejection over Lidor-Nili and Frank
Applicant argues that the threshold in the limitation wherein at least 20% of plants in a growth area are flowering is not a result-effective variable, but rather a practical operational parameter. Applicant states that the threshold defines the minimum population density of flowering weeds required to “justify” performing the claimed method. Applicant also argues that the optimization doctrine does not apply as the general conditions of the claim are not disclosed in the prior art. This is not persuasive for the reasons addressed above in the discussion of the 103 rejection over Lidor-Nili. Frank teaches that the flowering period of several broadleaf weed species is the optimal time window to apply herbicide [page 3]. It would be obvious to apply the claimed method when the patient population meets a condition conducive to optimizing the effectiveness of the method. This is not inconsistent with the proposition of performing the method at a certain threshold of flowering plants to justify performing the claimed method, i.e. waiting for conditions optimal for the method.
103 Rejection over Lidor-Nili and Fisher
Applicant argues that Fisher does not remedy the deficiencies of Lidor-Nili. This is not persuasive as Fisher was relied on for the teachings that herbicide application rate may be denoted in pounds per acre, and furthermore the alleged deficiencies of Lidor-Nili are addressed above in the discussion of the 103 rejection over Lidor-Nili. As stated in the Office Action dated 3/11/2026, Examiner articulated that herbicide application rate to crop fields is stated in pounds per acre, which indicates that application of herbicide is suitable for and customary on growth areas of at least an acre. One can deduce that, in order for the pesticide application rate to be customarily designated in units per acre, that herbicides are customarily applied to crop fields that are at least one acre. A skilled artisan would be motivated to apply the claimed method in the context of crop fields, since controlling weeds in crop fields is desirable to prevent weed damage to crops and improve crop yield.
103 Rejection over Lidor-Nili and Ader
Applicant argues that Ader does not remedy the deficiencies of Lidor-Nili. This is not persuasive as Fisher was relied on for teaching specific species of ACCase inhibitors. The alleged deficiencies of Lidor-Nili regarding the mechanistic basis of weed control are addressed above in the discussion of the 103 rejection over Lidor-Nili and will not be repeated herein.
103 Rejection over Lidor-Nili, Fisher, and Karczewski
Applicant argues that Fisher and Karczewski do not remedy the deficiencies of Lidor-Nili, and that the concentration range of clethodim is not subject to the optimization doctrine because the underlying method is not taught in the art. This is not persuasive. The alleged deficiencies of Lidor-Nili regarding the mechanistic basis of weed control are addressed above in the discussion of the 103 rejection over Lidor-Nili and will not be repeated herein.
103 Rejection over Lidor-Nili and Stromberg
Applicant argues that Stromberg does not remedy the deficiencies of Lidor-Nili and supply the missing teaching that ACCase inhibitor applied to broadleaf weeds at flowering causes reproductive organ disruption. This is not persuasive. The alleged deficiencies of Lidor-Nili regarding the mechanistic basis of weed control are addressed above in the discussion of the 103 rejection over Lidor-Nili and will not be repeated herein. Applicant argues that the density threshold is not derived from Stromberg’s observations. This is not persuasive. Stromberg teaches that a lower threshold of weed density than the instantly recited limitation has potential to allow broadleaf weeds to become the dominant plant in a growth area without herbicide treatment. It would be obvious that a higher threshold would motivate a skilled artisan to apply herbicide to similarly avoid uncontrolled weed propagation.
103 Rejection over Lidor-Nili, Otsubo, and Zhang
Applicant argues that Otsubo, and Zhang do not remedy the deficiencies of Lidor-Nili. This is not persuasive. The alleged deficiencies of Lidor-Nili regarding the mechanistic basis of weed control are addressed above in the discussion of the 103 rejection over Lidor-Nili and will not be repeated herein.
103 Rejection over Lidor-Nili and Dong
Applicant argues that Dong does not remedy the deficiencies of Lidor-Nili. This is not persuasive. The alleged deficiencies of Lidor-Nili regarding the mechanistic basis of weed control are addressed above in the discussion of the 103 rejection over Lidor-Nili and will not be repeated herein.
New Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 27 recites “a regimen for said applying applying”. Appropriate correction is required.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 40 recites “said effective amount is below or above an amount authorized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency”. This limitation lacks support in the specification and originally filed claims, as neither the United States Environmental Protection Agency nor amounts authorized by the agency were disclosed.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 40 is 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.
Claim 40 recites the method of claim 1 wherein “said effective amount is below or above an amount authorized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency”. This renders the claim indefinite. Where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. In the instant case, the claim limitations are defined by reference to an external parameter. Furthermore, the dose/amount of pesticide (“pesticide” as defined by 7 USC § 136 includes herbicides – “any substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant”) that is authorized by the United States EPA may be subject to change as the EPA reevaluates each registered pesticide at least every 15 years (see EPA, Registration Review Process). Additionally, the claim as written seems to recite an effective that is below or above an amount authorized by the EPA, i.e. amounts other than the dosage authorized by the United States EPA. Therefore, it is unclear what amounts or concentrations are embraced by Applicant’s claims. For purposes of compact prosecution, the instant claim limitation is being interpreted to mean any amount that suppresses the growth of weeds [specification pg. 8 line 15].
Maintained/Modified Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 6, 9-11, 13, 20-22, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidor-Nili (US 2019/208790), published 7/11/2019, cited on the 6/17/24 IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Lidor-Nili teaches a method of weed control (i.e. suppressing growth [0085]) comprising artificially pollinating at least one weed species of interest with pollen of the same species that reduces fitness of said weed species [claim 1], wherein the method further comprises treating the weed with an herbicide [claim 4]. Lidor-Nili teaches that the herbicide can be an ACCase inhibitor [109] and further teaches examples of weed species of interest including those of the Amaranthus species, such as A. albus and A. palmier [0078]. Lidor-Nili does not explicitly disclose that the application of the herbicide is restricted to a time window wherein the weed species of interest is flowering, but the prior art method comprises an artificial pollination step [claim 1], which can only be performed while the weed species of interest is flowering. Lidor-Nili further teaches that the herbicide may be applied prior to, concomitantly with, or following the pollination step [0362]. Thus, it would be obvious to select one of the three timing windows taught by the prior art and restrict the application of ACCase to the time window concurrent to the artificial pollination step wherein the broadleaf weed species of interest is flowering.
Regarding claim 6, Lidor-Nili teaches that the weed species of interest may be treated with other weed control means, such as herbicides, at any time [0362], which embraces the limitation of applying ACCase at a time window wherein the weed species of interest is devoid of seeds.
Regarding claim 9, Lidor-Nili teaches that the weed species of interest may include those of the Amaranthus genus [0078].
Regarding claim 10, Lidor-Nili teaches that the weed species of interest may be selected from those of the Amaranthus species, including A. albus, A. blitoides, A. hybridus, A. palmeri, A. powellii, A. retroflexus, A.rudis, A. spinosus, A. tuberculatus, and A. viridis; Ambrosia species, including A. trifida, A. artemisifolia; Euphorbia species, including E. heterophylla; Kochia species, including K. scoparia; Conyza species, including C. bonariensis, C. canadensis, C. sumatrensis; Plantago species, including P. lanceolata; Chenopodium species, including C. album; Abutilon theophrasti; Ipomoea species; Sesbania species, Cassia species, Sida species and Solanum species [0078].
Regarding claim 11, Lidor-Nili teaches that the weed species of interest may be Amaranthus palmeri, Amaranthus tuberculatus, Solanum nigrum, Abutilon theophrasti and Conyza bonariensis [0078].
Regarding claim 13, Lidor-Nili teaches that the herbicide may be a cyclohexanedione [0340].
Regarding claim 20, Lidor-Nili teaches a method of weed control comprising artificially pollinating at least one weed species of interest with pollen of the same species that reduces fitness of said weed species [claim 1], wherein the method further comprises treating the weed with an herbicide [claim 4]. Lidor-Nili further teaches that the pollen may be irradiated [claim 32].
Regarding claim 21, Lidor-Nili teaches that the weed may be treated with an ACCase [claim 4][0362], before artificially pollinating [claim 5]. Lidor-Nili further teaches that the herbicide may be applied prior to, concomitantly with, or following the pollination step [0362].
Regarding claim 22, Lidor-Nili teaches that the weed species of interest may be further treated with other weed control means, such as herbicides, at any time [0362] (reads on applying 3-14 days prior to artificially pollinating).
Regarding claim 27, Lidor-Nili teaches that the weed may be treated with an ACCase [claim 4][0362], before artificially pollinating [claim 5]. Lidor-Nili further teaches that herbicide may be applied prior to, concomitantly with, or following pollen treatment [0362]. The application of pollen may be in multiple doses, continuous, or any other application timing methodology [0357]. Lidor Nili teaches that the weed of interest may be further treated with weed controls other than artificial pollination means at any time. Thus, it would be obvious to effect a weed control method with the claimed combination of recited steps.
Regarding claim 28, Lidor-Nili further teaches that the application of pollen may be in multiple doses, continuous, or any other application timing methodology [0357]. This embraces the instant limitation of one or more rounds of artificial pollinations at 14-30 days following application of ACCase inhibitor.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidor-Nili (US 2019/208790), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frank (2020).
As discussed above, Lidor-Nili teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the recitation of claim 8, “wherein a predominant amount of at least 20% of plants of the weed species of interest in a growth area are at said time window at said applying.”
Regarding claim 8, Frank teaches that the flowering period of several broadleaf weed species is the optimal time window to kill them with herbicide application [page 3]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Lidor-Nili with that of Frank. While Frank does not explicitly teach applying herbicide to a growth area wherein at least 20% of plants of the weed species of interest are at said flowering window, it would be obvious to apply the claimed method when a threshold amount of the patient population meets a condition conducive to optimizing the effectiveness of the method.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidor-Nili (US 2019/208790), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fisher et al. (CA2217655A1) published 10/10/1996.
As discussed above, Lidor-Nili teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the recitation of claim 12 wherein the method is effected “at a growth area of at least an acre and optionally not exceeding 50,000 acres.”
Regarding claim 12, Fisher discloses herbicidal compositions comprising aza-bisphosphonic acid and a method for controlling undesirable growth of plants [pg. 1]. Fisher teaches that the optimum application amount for any given compound will depend upon the nature of the plants to be controlled, and the rate of application may vary from about 0.01 to about 10 pounds per acre. [pg. 14 para. 3] Given that the rate of application is denoted in pounds per acre, the prior art suggests application of herbicide to a growth area of at least an acre. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Nidor-Lili with that of Fisher to perform the claimed weed control method on a growth area of at least an acre, since weed control methods are applied to crop fields in order to prevent weed damage to crops.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidor-Nili (US 2019/208790), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ader et al. (US 2016/0330965 A1), published 11/17/2016, cited on the 6/17/24 IDS.
As discussed above, Lidor-Nili teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the use of all specific ACCases recited in claims 13-14.
Regarding claims 13-14, Ader teaches that ACCase inhibitor herbicides may include members of the chemical families of aryloxyphenoxypropionates, cyclohexanediones and phenylpyrazolines [0021]. Ader further discloses that the cyclohexanedione may be clethodim [0021]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Lidor-Nili with that of Ader to select an ACCase inhibitor from compounds known in the prior art to be suitable ACCase inhibitors used for the purpose of weed control.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidor-Nili (US 2019/208790), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of by Fisher et al. (CA2217655A1) published 10/10/1996 and Karczewski et al. (WO 2007/050090 A1), published 5/3/2007, cited on the 6/17/24 IDS.
As discussed above, Lidor-Nili teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the recitation of claim 15, wherein the ACCase inhibitor is clethodim and the effective amount of 0.05 to 5 grams/liter.
Regarding claim 15, 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). Furthermore, Fisher (previously cited) teaches that the formulation and mode of application for any given herbicide composition may affect its activity. Herbicidal formulations may contain as little as about 0.5% to as much as 95% or more by weight of active ingredient. The rate of application can vary from about 0.01 to about 10 pounds of herbicide per acre. Thus, selection of the herbicide and its application will be made accordingly. [pg. 14 para. 3]. Karczewski further teaches that the appropriate dosage of clethodim may vary with crop, weed type, weather conditions, and application method, and could be determined by one or ordinary skill in the art [47].
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidor-Nili (US 2019/208790), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stromberg et al. (March 2007).
As discussed above, Lidor-Nili teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the recitation of claim 17, wherein the ACCase is applied when the weed species of interest is present in an amount greater than 40 plants per acre.
Regarding claim 17, Stromberg teaches that yellow starthistle (a broadleaf weed) in a density of 20 plants/acre may become the dominant plant in a growth area in a year if not treated with herbicide [page 263, Table 2.1]. The instant limitation recites applying herbicide when the density of the weed species of interest is above 40 plants/acre. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Lidor-Nili with that of Stromberg and apply the claimed weed control method to an area in which the density of weeds is above 40 plants/acre. Given that a lower density of broadleaf weeds than the density recited in the instant claim has the potential to become the dominant plant in a growth area without herbicide treatment, it would be similarly advantageous to treat an area with a higher density of weeds due to the potential for greater propagation of the weed population due to the potential to develop a larger seed bank resulting from the higher weed density.
Claims 18 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidor-Nili (US 2019/208790), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Otsubo et al. (US 2006/0183642 A1), published 8/17/2006, and further in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2016/196130), published 12/8/2016 (both cited on the 6/17/24 IDS).
As discussed above, Lidor-Nili teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the recitation of claim 18, wherein the ACCase application is in a growth area comprising crop.
Regarding claim 18, Otsubo teaches the application of an herbicidal composition to crop fields [0020]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed composition, to modify the teachings of Lidor-Nili with that of Otsubo to apply ACCase inhibitor to a growth area comprising crop to control the growth of weeds, because weeds are known to be undesirable and compete with crops for nutrients, sunlight, and soil [Zhang 0044].
As discussed above, Lidor-Nili teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the recitation of claims 32-33, wherein the ACCase is applied to a crop environment wherein the crop is selected from the group consisting of several listed species.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Otsubo further teaches that the herbicide may be applied to crop fields including soybean, cotton, sugarbeet, and peanut [0020]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Lidor-Nili with that of Otsubo to apply the claimed method to a crop environment known to be suitable for the application of herbicide.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidor-Nili (US 2019/208790), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dong et al. (2021).
As discussed above, Lidor-Nili teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the recitation of claim 19 wherein the crop is modified to be ACCase inhibition-resistant.
Regarding claim 19, Dong teaches that ACCase inhibitor-resistant crops have been developed using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing [page 4, Table 1]. It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Lidor-Nili with that of Dong to modify the crops to which ACCase inhibitor is applied to be resistant to ACCase inhibitor in order to control weed proliferation and increase crop productivity [page 1, Introduction].
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lidor-Nili (US 2019/208790), published 7/11/2019, cited on the 6/17/24 IDS, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 39 and 40, Lidor-Nili teaches that the method of weed control causes reduction in productiveness which is manifested by inability to develop an embryo; embryo abortion; seed non-viability; seed that cannot fully develop; seed that is unable to germinate; and/or seed set number (i.e. affects the reproductive organs) [0096-0102]. This also reads on the instant limitation of claim 40, which is being interpreted as any amount that suppresses the growth of weeds, as discussed above in the 112(b) rejection of claim 40.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
/AMANDA LYNN CHI/Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
