DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, tribenuron-methyl, and kaolin clay in the reply filed on 10 April 2026, is acknowledged.
During a telephone conversation with Michael H. Brodowski on 15 May 2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the species of sodium butyl naphthalene sulfonate, sodium nonyl naphthalene sulfonate, and glycine.
Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action.
Status of Claims
Claim 16 has been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant Office Action.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 April 2026.
Claim 2 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Specifically, claim 2 does not include the elected triazinylsulfonylurea herbicide tribenuron-methyl. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10 April 2026.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the following elected species:
the triazinylsulfonylurea herbicide tribenuron-methyl;
the sulfonic acid derivative salts sodium butyl naphthalene sulfonate and sodium nonyl naphthalene sulfonate; and the agrochemically acceptable excipient glycine.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of parent Indian Patent Application No. IN 202121050620, filed on 3 November 2021, has been received from the International Bureau.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 April 2024, was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-9, 12, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7-8 recite both “sulfonate” and sulphonate” (e.g., claim 7 recites “alkyl naphthalene sulfonates” in line 2 and “alkylbenzene sulphonate” in line 3). While it is clear these refer to the same chemical structure, clarity and consistency would be improved if one variation were recited throughout the claims.
Claim 9 recites “the polymeric carrier; and the at least two…” in lines 1-2. The semicolon is extraneous and should be removed.
Claim 12 recites “at least two triazinylsulfonylurea herbicide” in line 2. The word “herbicide” should be pluralized.
Claims 14-15 recite “the salts of sulfonic acid derivative” in lines 3-4 and 4, respectively. While it is clear each claim is referring to the “at least two salts of sulfonic acid derivatives” recited in instant claim 12, clarity and consistency would be improved if each claim recited the “at least two salts of sulfonic acid derivatives”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 14 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 14 recites the limitation "the triazinylsulfonylurea herbicide" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 12, from which claim 14 depends, recites at least two triazinylsulfonylurea herbicides. It is unclear if claim 14 still requires two or more triazinylsulfonylurea herbicides or if “the triazinylsulfonylurea herbicide” is referring to one herbicide, which would conflict with the limitations of claim 12. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending claim 12 to recite “at least one triazinylsulfonylurea herbicide” or amending claim 14 to recite “the at least two triazinylsulfonylurea herbicides”.
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 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bristow (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0184435 A1, published on 19 July 2012, provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 30 April 2024) in view of Bergstrom et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,283,292 B2, published on 9 October 2012, hereafter referred to as Bergstrom).
Bristow teaches herbicidal compositions comprising one or more safeners and one or more herbicides, which in some embodiments may be the triazinylsulfonylurea herbicides tribenuron-methyl and/or thifensulfon-methyl (Abstract and claim 1). The compositions are further taught to comprise carriers as additives such as kaolin clay, bentonite clay, or diatomaceous earth (para. [0039-0040]) and contain sulfonic acid derivates as wetting agents, such as alkanesulfonates, alkylarylsulfonates, and lignosulfonates (para. [0037]).
The compositions are taught to comprise 0.1-95% w/w of the herbicides and 5-99.8% w/w additives (para. [0041]), which encompasses the ranges recited in claims 4 and 14-15. Finally, Bristow teaches that their composition may be formulated in a variety of forms known in the art including water-dispersible granules (para. [0036]) and may be applied to crop plants (para. [0029-0035]). In the instant rejection, the limitation in claim 12 reciting the optional inclusion of the elected agrochemically acceptable excipient glycine is interpreted as not comprising glycine.
Guidelines on the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions are provided in MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to claimed ranges which “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). These guidelines apply to the ranges of herbicides taught by Bristow which encompasses the range recited in instant claim 4.
Bristow does not teach the specific alkylarylsulfonates sodium butyl naphthalene sulfonate or sodium nonyl naphthalene sulfonate. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Bergstrom.
Bergstrom teaches agrochemical compositions comprising a) anionic compounds having wetting and dispersing properties and b) nitrogen-containing surfactants which provide a good wetting ability with “high efficiency at a low total content of surfactants” (Abstract and col. 2, lines 35-37). Bergstrom teaches that good wetting ability and rainfastness are desirable properties in agricultural compositions to reduce the total quantity of chemicals required and to prevent loss of applied formulations as a result of rain washing away formulations from the leaves of plants, respectively (col. 2, lines 37-44). Bergstrom teaches that they surprisingly found that compositions comprising a combination of a)+b) achieve the above properties, with preferred compounds of a) being naphthalene sulfonate derivatives (col. 2, lines 61-66). Bergstrom further teaches that the specific naphthalene sulfonate derivatives sodium butyl naphthalene sulfonate and sodium nonyl naphthalene sulfonate are “[e]specially preferred” and can be obtained commercially as Morwet® B and Morwet® IP, respectively (col. 5, lines 57-60). Finally, Bergstrom teaches that their composition may also comprise pesticides (claims 7-8 and col. 3, line 59 - col. 4, line 13) and may be formulated as a solid granule (col. 4, lines 14-33).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to combine the teachings of Bristow and Bergstrom to arrive at the invention of claims 7-9 because combining prior art elements to impart known benefits produces predictable results. Bristow teaches herbicidal compositions that may be formulated as water-dispersible granules comprising one or more herbicides, which may be tribenuron-methyl and/or thifensulfon-methyl, carriers such as kaolin clay, and sulfonic acid derivates as wetting agents such as alkylarylsulfonates. Bristow further teaches the quantity of herbicides in their compositions to be 0.1-95% w/w and the quantity of additives to be 5-99.8% w/w, which encompasses the ranges recited in claims 4 and 14-15.
In view of the teachings of Bergstrom, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to select sodium butyl naphthalene sulfonate and sodium nonyl naphthalene sulfonate as the alkylarylsulfonates in the invention of Bristow because Bergstrom teaches the naphthalene sulfonate derivatives, when used in an agrochemical composition alongside components in category b), to provide surprisingly effective wetting ability and rainfastness. The ordinary artisan would recognize these properties as beneficial to their agrochemical composition and desire their inclusion. Further, Bergstrom teaches that these components are commercially available, which the ordinary artisan would recognize as easy to obtain and use in their composition.
Bristow and Bergstrom are silent on the specific ratio between kaolin clay and the sodium alkyl naphthalene sulfonates in their compositions. However, Bristow teaches the inclusion of kaolin clay and sulfonic acid derivatives as additives and that they may be present in the range of 5-99.8% w/w. “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.” See MPEP § 2144.05.II.A. "[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). A person of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the ratio recited in instant claim 9 via routine optimization within the range taught by Bristow. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 1 and 3-12 in view of the teachings of Bristow and further in view of the teachings of Bergstrom.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bristow (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2012/0184435 A1, published on 19 July 2012, provided by Applicant in the IDS filed on 30 April 2024) in view of Bergstrom (U.S. Patent No. 8,283,292 B2, published on 9 October 2012) as applied to claims 1 and 3-12 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1., hereafter referred to as Yang).
Bristow and Bergstrom have been described above, and particularly relevant to claims 14-15, Bergstrom teaches that the component b) in their composition may be an amino acid (Abstract and claim 1), in a ratio with component a) from 99.99:0.01-50:50 (Abstract and col. 3, lines 28-32), and that the total amount of a)+b) is 1-40% w/w (col. 4, lines 60-64).
Bristow and Bergstrom do not teach their composition to comprise glycine. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Yang.
Yang teaches the utility of glycine as an antioxidant in plant development using lettuce as a model crop (Abstract). As a result of the nitrogen cycle, Yang teaches that organic nitrogen, especially in simple forms like amino acids, are useful as a fertilizer for plants (pg. 2., left col., para. 2). Glycine is taught to be one of the most abundant free amino acids in soil and to be “taken up more rapidly by plants”, making it a “model amino acid in plant organic nitrogen research” (pg. 2, left col., para. 2). The influence of glycine as a source of organic nitrogen on the nutritional quality of two lettuce crops was examined (pg. 2, right col., para. 2) and Yang found that addition of glycine significantly enhanced levels of antioxidants (pg. 13, Conclusion). Yang concluded that addition of glycine to plants “could be used strategically to promote the accumulation of health-promoting compounds and increase the antioxidative activity of hydroponically grown lettuce”, with applications in human nutrition (pg. 13, Conclusion).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to combine the teachings of Yang with the invention of Bristow because combining known prior art elements to impart known benefits produces predictable results. Bristow and Bergstrom rendered obvious herbicidal compositions that may be formulated as water-dispersible granules comprising one or more herbicides, which may be tribenuron-methyl and/or thifensulfon-methyl, carriers such as kaolin clay, and sulfonic acid derivates as wetting agents such as the alkylarylsulfonates sodium butyl naphthalene sulfonate and sodium nonyl naphthalene sulfonate. Bristow further teaches the quantity of herbicides in their compositions to be 0.1-95% w/w and the quantity of additives to be 5-99.8% w/w, which encompasses the ranges recited in claims 4 and 14-15.
In view of the teachings of Yang, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include glycine in the composition rendered obvious by Bristow and Bergstrom because Yang teaches glycine to be beneficial to plants for growth and for eventual nutritional benefits to humans. Bristow teaches that their composition may be applied to crops and the ordinary artisan would recognize the usefulness of a chemical that benefits both the plants and humans consuming the plants in an agricultural composition. While Yang teaches a concentration of glycine to be added to aqueous nutrient solutions applied to soil, they do not teach a concentration for agricultural compositions that will be applied directly to plants. In view of the teachings of Bergstrom that amino acids can be present in amounts from 1x10-4-20% w/w (component a):b) ratio of 99.99:0.01-50:50 and a total amount of a)+b) that is 1-40% w/w), it would be obvious for an ordinary artisan to optimize within the range of 1x10-4-20% w/w, which significantly overlaps with the ranges recited in instant claims 14-15. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of claims 13-15 in view of the teachings of Bristow and Bergstrom and further in view of the teachings of Yang.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Burns (J. Surfactants Deterg. 1999, 2 (1), 13.) teaches the use of hydrotropes in surfactant systems, including alkylnaphthalene sulfonates (Abstract). Through examination of solubility, viscosity, and other properties, Burns found that sodium butyl naphthalene sulfonate was the most efficient material tested (pg. 14, right col., final para.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean J. Steinke, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-3396. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, David Blanchard, can be reached at (571) 272-0827. 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.
/S.J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights