Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/709,059

METHOD FOR INCREASING THE EFFICACY OF A HERBICIDE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 10, 2024
Priority
Nov 15, 2021 — EU 21208262.2 +1 more
Examiner
PACKARD, BENJAMIN J
Art Unit
1616
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
BASF SE
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
66%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
9m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 66% — above average
66%
Career Allowance Rate
886 granted / 1333 resolved
+6.5% vs TC avg
Strong +16% interview lift
Without
With
+15.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
49 currently pending
Career history
1378
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
65.3%
+25.3% vs TC avg
§102
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§112
2.9%
-37.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1333 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
CTNF 18/709,059 CTNF 84226 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-7 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Last et al (CA 2755041) . Last et al teaches microcapsules comprising and containing a copolymer of 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonic acid or its salts with (meth)acrylamide (claim 15), containing herbicides (claim 38) and being in a dispersion with alkaline salts (claim 33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the copolymer taught by Last et al. While Last et al does not teach the specific ratio of monomers in the copolymer system, the range of 1-99% of each would be inherent given both need to be present. As such, overlapping ranges are prima facia obvious. MPEP 2144.05. With regard toc the properties of claims 6 and 7, such appear to be inherent in the composition claimed. Thus, where the composition is made obvious, the properties will be inherent in the compositions. With regards to claim 9, it would be obvious to vary the concentration of the composition based on the intended field application. Thus, where an herbicide is encapsulated, it would be obvious to optimize for efficacy of the active. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN J PACKARD whose telephone number is (571)270-3440. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 2-6pm and Tues-Fri 9:30am-6:30pm + mid-day flex. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at (571) 272-6897. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /BENJAMIN J PACKARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612 Application/Control Number: 18/709,059 Page 2 Art Unit: 1612 Application/Control Number: 18/709,059 Page 3 Art Unit: 1612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12673952
PROCESSES FOR PREPARING MODULATORS OF ALPHA-1 ANTITRYPSIN
3y 5m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12673906
METHOD FOR PRODUCING RADIOACTIVE LABELED SUBSTANCE, DEVICE FOR PRODUCING RADIOACTIVE LABELED SUBSTANCE, AND METHOD FOR EVAPORATIVELY CONCENTRATING RADIOACTIVE METAL NUCLIDE
3y 4m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12673029
NANODELIVERY SYSTEM BASED ON GLOBULIN-1 S ALLELE, PREPARATION METHOD THEREFOR AND USE THEREOF
2y 10m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12642775
SUBSTRATE FOR DELIVERING A BIOLOGICALLY ACTIVE SUBSTANCE
2y 8m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12635710
METHODS OF USING FORMALDEHYDE-FREE ANTIMICROBIAL COMPOSITIONS IN ANIMAL BY-PRODUCT COMPOSITIONS
2y 7m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
66%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+15.5%)
2y 11m (~9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1333 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month