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 .
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to the title of the invention as not descriptive is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the specification.
The objection to claim 2 is withdrawn in view of the cancellation of the claim.
The objection to claim 7 is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The rejections of claims 2-4 are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of the claims.
The previous rejections of claims 5-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Belfry et al. is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
Claim Status
Applicants' amendments and arguments filed on 07/15/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the
complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 2-4 and 13-16 are cancelled.
Claims 12 and 17-20 are withdrawn.
Claim 21 is newly added.
Claims 1, 5-11, and 21 are under current examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/18/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is fewer than 50 words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: for readability of the claim, it is suggested that “including at least one of 2-[methyl-(1-oxo-9-octadecenyl)amino]-ethanesulfonic acid, and/or lignins; or salts thereof” should read “including at least one of 2-[methyl-(1-oxo-9-octadecenyl)amino]-ethanesulfonic acid
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: for readability of the claim, it is suggested that “including at least one of naphthalene sulfonic acid, sodium salt condensed with formaldehyde” should read “including .
Appropriate correction is required.
New Rejections Necessitated by Claim Amendments
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.
Claims 1, 5-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if “(CS)” and “(SC)” in parentheses following the limitations “a stable suspension of capsules” and “active ingredient(s) in fluid”, respectively, are intended to be a further limitation on the preceding limitations, are intended to be an abbreviation for the preceding limitations, or are some other requirement. For purposes of examination and applying prior art, the Examiner interprets that these are intended as an abbreviation for the preceding limitations and do not further limit the claims.
Claims 5-11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on indefinite claim 1 and failure to cure the deficiency noted above.
Further, claim 21 recites (emphasis added) “The composition of claim 1, wherein cloransulam-methyl remains present in amount of from 0.1 to 5% after storage for two weeks at 54°C.” Claim 1 does not recite any amount of cloransulam-methyl, and is inclusive of amounts less than 0.1% and greater than 5%. It is unclear if claim 21 requires that the composition of claim 1 comprises cloransulam-methyl in an amount of from 0.1 to 5% or not. For purposes of examination and applying prior art, the Examiner interprets that the claim requires that the amount of cloransulam-methyl present in the composition remains consistent upon the recited storage conditions.
Claim 21 further does not recite units associated with the recited 0.1 to 5% (weight %, volume %, mole %, etc.), rendering the metes and bounds of the claim uncertain.
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, 5-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becher et al. (US 2010/0248963 A1, published September 30, 2010; included on IDS submitted 06/14/2024), as evidenced by Croda International Plc (“Brij Data Sheet” https://www.crodabeauty.com/en-gb/resources/technical-library/resource-finder/resource/98-brij).
Regarding instant claim 1, Becher teaches herbicidal microcapsules comprising acetamide herbicide core material and a shell wall encapsulating the core material (see entire document, particularly abstract and claim 1), wherein the microencapsulated herbicide is selected from the group including S-metolachlor (claims 16-17). The microencapsulated acetamide herbicide is taught to be in an aqueous mixture (fluid) in the form of a concentrate or diluted spray application mixture (claim 68), and may be formulated as an aqueous dispersion optimized for shelf stability (paragraph [0193]). Becher further teaches that the aqueous mixture further comprises one or more co-herbicides selected from those including photosystem II inhibitors and ALS inhibitors (see claim 70, paragraph [0224]). Photosystem II inhibitors include metribuzin (paragraph [0220]), and ALS inhibitors include cloransulam-methyl (paragraph [0221]).
Regarding instant claim 5, Becher teaches that microcapsule dispersions may be less than about 55 weight percent herbicide in order to prevent a viscosity that is too high to pump (paragraph [0205]); the dispersions may be as dilute with respect to microcapsule weight percent as is preferred by the user, and is typically at least about 25 weight percent herbicidal active (paragraph [0206]). Becher therefore suggests S-metolachlor present from about 25 to about 55 weight percent, overlapping the range of the instant claim. Per MPEP 2144.05 I., “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”.
Regarding claims 6-7, as noted above, Becher teaches the inclusion of one or more co-herbicides including metribuzin and cloransulam-methyl, and suggests an amount of S-metolachlor from about 25 to 55 weight percent. Becher further teaches that a preferred weight ratio of acetamide herbicide to co-herbicide of from 10:1 to 1:10 or 5:1 to 1:5 is preferred (paragraph [0215]). At a 10:1 ratio, Becher therefore suggests an amount of co-herbicide of about 2.5 to 5.5 weight percent, overlapping the ranges of the instant claims.
Regarding instant claim 8, Becher teaches that in aqueous dispersions, dispersants are useful to inhibit the agglomeration and settling of the microcapsules; useful dispersants include sodium and calcium lignosulfonates (paragraphs [0193]-[0194]).
Regarding instant claim 9, Becher teaches that dispersants include polymeric naphthalene sulfonate sodium salt and sulfonated naphthalene-formaldehyde condensates (paragraph [0194]).
Regarding instant claim 10, Becher teaches that aqueous dispersions of microcapsules are prepared via oil-in-water emulsions comprising an emulsifying agent which helps determine the size of the microcapsules (paragraphs [0174] and [0176]). Becher further teaches the inclusion of surfactants such as alkoxylated alcohols of the BRIJ series (paragraph [0197]). As evidenced by Croda International Plc, Brij surfactants are ethoxylated fatty alcohols (pg. 1).
Regarding instant claim 11, Becher teaches that dispersions can be formulated with additives such as stabilizers, surfactants, antifreeze agents, and preservatives etc. (paragraphs [0192], [0202]); thickeners are useful to inhibit the agglomeration and settling of the microcapsules (paragraphs [0193], [0195]).
Becher does not teach the combination of S-metolachlor, metribuzin, and cloransulam-methyl and the inclusion of the claimed additives with sufficient specificity to anticipate, but rather renders obvious the instant claims. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to combine the prior art elements of encapsulated S-metolachlor, co-herbicides of metribuzin and cloransulam-methyl, and additives taught by Becher according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Becher teaches that encapsulated acetamide herbicides reduce injury to crop foliage while achieving commercially acceptable weed control (paragraphs [0002], [0010]); combining encapsulated acetamide with co-herbicides achieves maximum activity against weeds in the absence of antagonism between acetamide and co-herbicide (paragraph [0112]). The additives of Becher are formulated with the aqueous dispersion to optimize its shelf stability and safe use (paragraphs [0193]-[0202]) and to help determine the size of the microcapsules (paragraph [0176]). Rearrangement of the prior art elements taught by Becher to reach the composition of the instant claims is within the purview of a person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton and would predictably result in a shelf-stable herbicidal composition with good activity against weeds and an absence of antagonism between herbicides. Further, from MPEP 2141 I., "[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.)”.
Regarding instant claim 21, as set forth above, Becher renders obvious the structural limitations of claim 1, from which claim 21 depends, and the recited properties upon storage do not structurally limit the claimed composition. Becher further teaches the inclusion of additives to optimize the shelf stability of the aqueous dispersion (paragraphs [0193]-[0202]). Absent evidence to the contrary, the claimed stability properties will be present in the composition of Becher. See and MPEP 2112.01, “A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable” and MPEP 2112.01 I. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433”.
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, 5-11, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 12 of copending Application No. 18/720,050 in view of Becher et al. (US 2010/0248963 A1, published September 30, 2010; included on IDS submitted 06/14/2024), hereafter “Becher”, as evidenced by Croda International Plc (“Brij Data Sheet” https://www.crodabeauty.com/en-gb/resources/technical-library/resource-finder/resource/98-brij).
Both the instant claims and those of copending Application No. 18/720,050 recite a composition comprising encapsulated S-metolachlor suspended (dispersed) in a liquid phase comprising metribuzin and cloransulam-methyl. Both sets of claims further recite that the compositions comprise one or more dispersants, wetting agents, emulsifiers, thickeners, anti-freeze agents, and an anti-foam agent.
The claims of copending Application No. 18/720,050 do not recite the amounts of S-metolachlor, metribuzin, and cloransulam-methyl recited in claims 5-7. The claims of copending Application No. 18/720,050 do not recite the specific dispersants, wetting agents, and emulsifier recited in the instant claims.
Becher teaches herbicidal microcapsules comprising acetamide herbicide (see entire document, particularly abstract and claim 1) wherein the microencapsulated herbicide is selected from the group including S-metolachlor (claims 16-17). The microencapsulated acetamide herbicide is taught to be in an aqueous mixture (claim 68), and the aqueous mixture further comprises one or more co-herbicides selected from those including photosystem II inhibitors and ALS inhibitors (see claim 70, paragraph [0224]). Photosystem II inhibitors include metribuzin (paragraph [0220]), and ALS inhibitors include cloransulam-methyl (paragraph [0221]). Becher teaches that microcapsule dispersions may be less than about 55 weight percent herbicide in order to prevent a viscosity that is too high to pump (paragraph [0205]); the dispersions may be as dilute with respect to microcapsule weight percent as is preferred by the user, and is typically at least about 25 weight percent herbicidal active (paragraph [0206]). Becher therefore suggests S-metolachlor present from about 25 to about 55 weight percent, overlapping the range of instant claim 5. Becher further teaches that a preferred weight ratio of acetamide herbicide to co-herbicide of from 10:1 to 1:10 or 5:1 to 1:5 is preferred (paragraph [0215]). At a 10:1 ratio, Becher therefore suggests an amount of co-herbicide of about 2.5 to 5.5 weight percent, overlapping the ranges of instant claims 6-7.
Becher further teaches that dispersions can be formulated with additives and may be formulated to optimize its shelf stability and safe use (paragraphs [0192]-[0193]). Becher teaches that in aqueous dispersions, dispersants are useful to inhibit the agglomeration and settling of the microcapsules; useful dispersants include sodium and calcium lignosulfonates (paragraphs [0193]-[0194]); dispersants further include polymeric naphthalene sulfonate sodium salt and sulfonated naphthalene-formaldehyde condensates (paragraph [0194]). Becher further teaches the inclusion of surfactants such as alkoxylated alcohols of the BRIJ series (paragraph [0197]). As evidenced by Croda International Plc, Brij surfactants are ethoxylated fatty alcohols (pg. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the amounts of S-metolachlor, metribuzin, and cloransulam-methyl in the composition of copending Application No. 18/720,050 with those suggested by Becher to reach the amounts of the instant claims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the herbicide concentrations to achieve an herbicidal composition that achieves good weed control in the absence of antagonism between acetamide and co-herbicide while avoiding undesirable viscosities, as suggested by Becher (see paragraphs [0002], [0010]), [0112], [0206]). Further, per MPEP 2144.05 I., “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)” and per MPEP 2144.05 II. A., “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
It would further have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition claimed in copending Application No. 18/720,050 with the additives suggested by Becher. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize the shelf stability and safe use of the composition, as suggested by Becher (paragraph [0193]).
Regarding instant claim 21, as set forth above, the claims of copending Application No. 18/720,050 render obvious the structural limitations of claim 1, from which claim 21 depends, and the recited properties upon storage do not structurally limit the claimed composition. Absent evidence to the contrary, the claimed stability properties will be present in the composition claimed in co-pending Application No. 18/720,050. See MPEP 2112.01, “A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable” and MPEP 2112.01 I. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433”.
Given that the subject matter of the instant claims is obvious and substantially overlaps the subject matter of copending Application No. 18/720,050, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC § 103, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 clarifies the structural features of claimed invention; claim 1 is directed not merely to a combination of three herbicides, but to a specific formulation architecture in which the individual active ingredients are intentionally partitioned between two different formulation phases. Applicant argues that the rejection relies upon selecting S-metolachlor from Becher's disclosure of encapsulated acetamide herbicides, selecting metribuzin from a broad class of photosystem II inhibitors, selecting cloransulam-methyl from a broad class of ALS inhibitors, and then further modifying Becher to partition these active ingredients into Applicant's claimed formulation architecture, and neither Becher nor the Office identifies any teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to make these multiple selections and modifications. Applicant further argues that formulation chemistry is an inherently unpredictable art, successfully formulating multiple herbicidal active ingredients into a commercially acceptable ZC formulation requires consideration of numerous factors, and the rejection can only be reached through impermissible hindsight. Applicant further argues that Becher does not teach or suggest the chemical stability under accelerated storage conditions recited in newly added claim 21.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Becher does not teach the claimed architecture. As set forth above, Becher explicitly teaches an encapsulated herbicide selected from the group including S-metolachlor (abstract and claims 1 and 16-17) in an aqueous mixture (fluid) (claim 68). Becher teaches that the aqueous mixture further comprises one or more co-herbicides, and metribuzin and cloransulam-methyl are both provided as suitable co-herbicides (claim 70 and paragraphs [0220], [0221], and [0224]). Becher teaches that encapsulated acetamide herbicides reduce injury to crop foliage while achieving commercially acceptable weed control (paragraphs [0002], [0010]). Combining encapsulated acetamide with co-herbicides achieves maximum activity against weeds in the absence of antagonism between acetamide and co-herbicide (paragraph [0112]), providing motivation to the skilled artisan who is not an automaton to select co-herbicides from those contemplated by Becher and formulate the claimed architecture in order to achieve these beneficial effects. Further, from MPEP 2141 I., "[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.)”.
In response to Applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, as set forth above, the teachings of Becher were within the level of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the instant invention, and the rejection does not rely on knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant’s disclosure.
Newly added claim 21 is addressed in the above rejections. In summary, Becher renders obvious the structural limitations of claim 1, from which claim 21 depends, and the recited properties upon storage do not structurally limit the claimed composition. Becher further teaches the inclusion of additives to optimize the shelf stability of the aqueous dispersion (paragraphs [0193]-[0202]). Absent evidence to the contrary, the claimed stability properties will be present in the composition of Becher. See particularly MPEP 2112.01, “A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.
Regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejections over claims 1-5, 7, 9-10, and 12 of copending Application 18/720,050 in view of Becher, Applicant states that they will address the rejection upon the indication of otherwise allowable subject matter.
In response, the Examiner notes that a request to hold a rejection in abeyance is not a proper response to a rejection. Rather, a request to hold a matter in abeyance may only be made in response to an OBJECTION or REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM (see MPEP 37 CFR 1.111(b) and 714.02). As set forth in the above rejections, the instant claims are rejected on the ground of obvious-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 18/720,050 in view of Becher, as evidenced by Croda International Plc.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUDITH M KAMM whose telephone number is (703)756-4575. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/J.M.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights