CTNF 18/720,050 CTNF 78176 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 . Claims 1-17 have been presented for examination on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/14/24, 09/30/25 and 01/30/26 have been filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. However, the IDS filed on 06/14/24 contains an incorrect document number (US 202 2 0/163331) which has been lined through. The correct document number is recited in PTO-892. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. 07-31-01 Claims 1, 8, 11-12, 14 and 17 are 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 1 recites the limitation of “a stabilizing amount” of the second agrochemical active ingredient; claim 8 recites the limitations of “the free second agrochemical active ingredient is about 1 to 10% w/w of the composition”; claim 11 recites the limitations of “wherein the permeable capsule of from 3-40 microns”, claim 12 recites the limitations of “wetting agents”, “emulsifiers”, “dispersants”, “thickeners”, “anti-freeze agents”, “biocide”, “less than 1% of biocide”, “an antifoam agent”, “less than 1% of antifoam agent”, “a buffer”; claim 14 recites the limitation of “an herbicidal amount” and claim 17 recites the limitations of “a solvent” and “a stabilizing amount of the solvent”. The specification does not provide sufficient disclosure, definition or examples of the said limitations to reasonably covey to one skilled in the art that the Applicants had possession of the claimed limitations at the time of invention. For example, the Specification doe not provide any or sufficient disclosure on the stabilizing amount of a second agrochemical of claim 1 or the solvent of claim 17. The Specification does not provide an herbicidal amount of the composition as in claim 14, especially since the agrochemical active agents of claim 1 are not herbicides or limited to herbicides. Also, the Specification discloses one or two specific examples of a wetting agent, a dispersant, a thickener, etc, of claims 12 and 14 and do not have possession of ALL claimed dispersants, or wetting agents, anti-freeze agents, thickeners, etc. 07-31-03 AIA Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for a method of controlling grasses and broad-leafed weeds, often in maize, with a composition comprising S-metolachlor, metribuzin, sulfentrazone, cloransulam-methyl, and mesotrione (See [0035] of published Spec) , does not reasonably provide enablement for a method of weed control comprising diluting and applying the composition of claim 1 . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. To be enabling, the specification of a patent must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk 108 F.3d 1361, 1365, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Wright 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co ., 927 F.2d 1200, 1212, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Fisher 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970) and In re Wands 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988). There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “ undue ”. See In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ 2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The court set forth the eight factors to consider when assessing if a disclosure would require undue experimentation. Citing Ex parte Forman, 230 USPQ 546 , the court recited eight factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: 1) The breadth of the claims, 2) The nature of the invention, 3) The state of the prior art, 4) The level of one of ordinary skill, 5) The level of predictability in the art, 6) The amount of direction provided by the inventor, 7) The existence of working examples, 8) The quantity of experimentation needed to male or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. (1 and 2) The breadth of the claims and the nature of the invention : The claims are broad. The claims are drawn to a method of weed control by applying a diluted composition of claim 1 to a crop or the locus of the crop. Composition of claim 1 comprises a liquid continuous phase, a first agrochemical and a second agrochemical, partly encapsuled and partly free in the liquid phase. (3 and 5) The state of the prior art and the level of predictability in the art: The art teaches methods of weed control by applying a specific composition comprising a specific agrochemical agent(s) to a specific type of weed. It is known in the art that ALL agrochemicals are not suitable for controlling ALL types of weeds. For example, Belfry et al (provided in IDS) teach that optimum herbicide program is weed species specific. Accordingly, the level of predictability of "all" weeds being controlled with the said method, in the art is very low . (6 and 7) The amount of direction provided by the inventors and the existence of working examples : Applicants have provided in the specification disclosure regarding a method of controlling grasses and broad-leafed weeds, often in maize, with a composition comprising S-metolachlor, metribuzin, sulfentrazone, cloransulam-methyl, and mesotrione (See [0035] of published Spec). In fact, these are the only 5 agrochemicals and the only two species of weed that are named in the specification. This is in addition to the fact that the composition of claim 1 recites a first agrochemical active and a second agrochemical active, which may be active agents other than herbicides, such as growth promoting agents, drought protecting agents, fungicides, etc, none of which have been known to control weeds. In view of the various different weeds known (and not yet known) which may or may not be controlled with disclosed agrochemicals, further testing would be necessary to use the invention as broadly as claimed. (8) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention bases on the content of the disclosure : The quantity of experimentation needed to make and use the invention based on the contents of the disclosure and the unpredictability asserted by the Applicant, is very high and not enabled by the specification . Conclusion For the forgoing reasons, the specification is not enabling for the scope of the claims. In view of the unpredictability in the art, the lack of working examples, the excessive breadth of the claims and lack of guidance in the specification, it would require undue experimentation on the part of the person of skill in the art to practice the full scope of the invention. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 10-12, 14 and 16 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. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the third agrochemical active" in the composition of claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The composition of claim 1 does not recite a third agrochemical active and claim 1 does not support this limitation. for purposes of examination, claim 10 is interpreted as depending on claim 9. Corrections are required. Claim 11 is vague and indefinite for reciting that “the w/w ratio of capsule material to the second agrochemical active ingredient is 1:5, …”. This renders the claim scope indefinite because claim 1 recites that the capsule comprises the second agrochemical active and no other capsule material. Thus, it is not clear what the said ratios are referring to. Claim 14 is indefinite for reciting the step of “diluting the composition of claim 1”, without indicating what the said composition is diluted in. This is especially indefinite since concentrated compositions are typically diluted in water; however, the liquid continuous phase of the composition comprises water (See claim 7 and the Spec). Claim 16 is vague and indefinite for reciting “a method, comprising … ”. This is incomplete preamble and it is not clear what the said method is or which statutory class of claims it belongs to. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 is a method comprising encapsulating the second agrochemical active and combining it with the first agrochemical active to form a composition. However, the composition of claim 1 already recites these limitations and claim 16 fails to further limit the scope of claim 1 . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Applicant’s claims Claim 1 is directed to a composition, comprising: a liquid continuous phase; a first agrochemical active ingredient which is insoluble in the liquid continuous phase; a second agrochemical active ingredient which dissolves the first agrochemical active ingredient encapsulated in a permeable capsule, the permeable capsule dispersed within the liquid continuous phase; and a stabilizing amount of the second agrochemical active ingredient free in the liquid continuous phase which dissolves the first agrochemical active ingredient. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 5, 7, 9-10 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 ( a)(1) and (a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Nelson (US 20140213450 or WO 2009103455) (Recitations are from the US document) . Nelson teaches a novel herbicide formulation comprising: (a) an aqueous phase ; (b) an HPPD inhibitor in suspension in the aqueous phase; (c) an encapsulated chloroacetamide or an isoxazoline herbicide in suspension in the aqueous phase; (d) glyphosate and/or glufosinate or an agrochemically acceptable salt thereof, in solution in the aqueous phase , a process for the preparation of the said herbicide formulation and a process for the control of unwanted vegetation (See abstract). Regarding claims 1, 5, 7, 9-10 and 16 , Nelson teaches formulation comprising: (a) an aqueous phase; (b) an HPPD inhibitor in suspension in the aqueous phase; (c) an encapsulated chloroacetamide or an isoxazoline herbicide in suspension in the aqueous phase; (d) glyphosate and/or glufosinate or an agrochemically acceptable salt thereof, in solution in the aqueous phase (See [0010] and claim 1). Nelson also teaches an encapsulated chloroacetamide or an isoxazoline herbicide in suspension in the aqueous phase ; wherein the isoxazole is isoxaflutole (See claim 1, [0010], [0027] and [0038]). Additional herbicides can be water-soluble. The second herbicide comprises metribuzin , an HPPD inhibitor including mesotrione , isoxaflutole , (See [0052], [0096]-[0102]). Regarding claim 1 and 5 , Nelson teaches an herbicidal microcapsule wherein the acetamide herbicide comprises at least one chloroacetanilide herbicide selected from the group consisting of acetochlor, alachlor , metolachlor , S-metolachlor , etc, (See [0104] and [0107]). Regarding claims 14-15 , Nelson teaches that before use, the concentrate formulation is suitably first diluted , preferably with water and that the said herbicide formulation can thus be used to control plants , typically controlling unwanted plants ( weeds ). The said method of controlling plants comprises applying to the plants or to the locus thereof the said herbicide formulation. The method includes both pre-emergent and post emergent (See [0128]-[0130] and [0134]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-7, 9-11, 13-17 are rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 20140213450 or WO 2009103455) (Recitations are from the US document) in view of Findley et al (US 20130029847) and Belfry et al ( Weed management options for conventional soybean ) . Nelson’s teachings are delineated above and incorporated herein. Nelson lacks a specific disclosure on the second agrochemical being S-metolachlor part encapsulated and part free, or the solvent being encapsulated as in claim 17. These modifications and limitations would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Nelson, Findley et al and Belfry et al. Findley et al teach methods of reducing injury to crop foliage and achieving weed control using encapsulated acetamide herbicides in pre-plant or preemergence crop plant applications and a composition comprising a first population of a particulate microencapsulated acetamide herbicide and a second population of a particulate microencapsulated acetamide herbicide wherein the application mixture exhibits a bimodal acetamide release profile. The compositions provide reduced crop injury through controlled herbicide release (See abstract). Regarding claims 1-2 and 4-7, Findley et al teach particulate microencapsulated acetamide herbicide comprising a shell wall of limited permeability , and the acetamide herbicide particles are in suspension in an aqueous continuous phase and an herbicidal core material that is a liquid at temperatures of less than about 50° C and may comprise solids or liquids suspended in a liquid phase (See [0027], [0042], [0085] and claim 15). The acetamide herbicide is selected from the group consisting of acetochlor, metolachlor, S-metolachlor, etc, (See [0025] and claim 8). The application mixture further comprises one or more co-herbicides, selected from PS II inhibitors including metribuzin, PPO inhibitors including sulfentrazone and carotenoid biosynthesis inhibitors including mesotrione , ALS and AHAS inhibitors including cloransulam-methyl , and glyphosate (See [0138], [0140], [0141] and [0148]). In some embodiments the said herbicidal microcapsules can be dispersed with two co-herbicides to form a three-way herbicidal composition. The compositions can be concentrate compositions or application mixtures. A weight ratio of acetamide to total co-herbicide of from 10:1 to 1:10 or from 5:1 to 1:5 is preferred. The “1st co-herb” and “2nd co-herb” refer to the first and second non-encapsulated co-herbicide classes that are combined with the encapsulated acetamide (e.g. acetanilide ), which include isoxaflutole , mesotrione , sulfentrazone , metribuzen , saflufenacil,etc, and mixtures thereof (See [0141] and [0148]). Regarding claim 11 , Findley et al teach a population of particulate microcapsules has mean particle size, of at least about 7 μm, more preferably from about 7 μm to about 15 μm (See [0035]). Regarding claim 12 in part , Findley et al teach other useful additives include, for example, biocides or preservatives, antifreeze agents , and antifoam agents (See [0119] and that dispersants and thickeners are useful to inhibit the agglomeration and settling of the microcapsules, a pH buffer can be used to maintain the pH of the dispersion (See [0109]) and surfactants (See [0114]). Regarding claim 13 , Findley et al tech that in order to enhance shelf stability and prevent gelling of the aqueous dispersion of microcapsules, particularly upon storage in high temperature environments, the formulated microcapsule dispersions may further include urea or similar structure-breaking agent at a concentration of up to about 20% by weight, typically about 5% by weight (See [0113]). Regarding claims 14-15, Findley et al teach a method for weed control , the method comprises applying to a field an application mixture to the field in an herbicidally effective amount , wherein the application mixture comprises at least one particulate microencapsulated acetamide herbicide and the application mixture is applied to the field (i) prior to planting the corn or (ii) pre-emergence to the corn (See [0010]-[0011], [0016]-[0019], [0022] and claim 1). Regarding claim 17 in part, Findley et al teach a diluent , such as a solvent , may be added to change the solubility parameter characteristics of the core material to increase or decrease the release rate of the active from the microcapsule, once release has been initiated. For example, the core material may comprise from 0% to about 35% by weight of a diluent (See [0034]). Also, regarding claim 17, Findley et al teach that the microcapsules have an internal phase that comprises a solvent (See [0158], [0168] and [0179]). Belfry et al teach that various preemergence (PRE), PRE followed by postemergence (POST), and POST weed control options for conventional soybean were evaluated. More than 90% control of selected weed species were observed for most treatments. However, weed interference in plots treated with S -metolachlor + metribuzin or S -metolachlor + metribuzin + cloransulam-methyl resulted in reduced soybean yield (See abstract). Regarding claims 1and 4 , Belfry et al teach a weed control aqueous solution composition comprising S-metolachlor + metribuzin or S - metolachlor + metribuzin + cloransulam-methyl that were effective in controlling weed (See 1 st and 2 nd pages, Table 2 and Results and Discussion). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Belfry et al and Findley et al with that of Nelson to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been obvious to do so because both references disclose agrochemical compositions comprising at least one active agent encapsulated and one agent free in a liquid phase. Nelson teaches a formulation comprising an encapsulated chloroacetamide or an isoxazoline herbicide in suspension in the aqueous phase, and an HPPD inhibitor is suspension. Nelson also teaches that the said HPPD may be isoxaflutole, i.e. an isoxazole compound. Thus, Nelson teaches a composition wherein the same agrochemical agent is both encapsulated and free in the liquid phase. While Nelson teaches that the encapsulated agent maybe S-metolachlor, they do not expressly teach an embodiment wherein the second agrochemical agent, S-metolachlor is also present free in the liquid phase of the composition (as in instant claim 4). Nelson also teaches compositions wherein the second herbicide comprises metribuzin, mesotrione, etc. Findley et al teach particulate microencapsulated acetamide herbicide comprising a shell wall of limited permeability, wherein the acetamide herbicide is S-metolachlor, and the application mixture further comprises one or more co-herbicides, including metribuzin, sulfentrazone, mesotrione, cloransulam-methyl, and glyphosate. Findley et al also teach that the said co-herbicides are non-encapsulated and combined with the encapsulated acetamide, which include isoxaflutole, mesotrione, sulfentrazone, metribuzen, saflufenacil,etc, and mixtures thereof. Belfry et al teach a weed management method comprising applying an aqueous solution formulation comprising S-metolachlor + metribuzin or S - metolachlor + metribuzin + cloransulam-methyl and teach that the said combinations were effective in controlling certain weed. Thus, the combination of references would have taught one of skilled artisan that it would be beneficial to incorporate the same active agent both as microencapsulated and free in the formulation in order for the application mixture to exhibit a bimodal acetamide release profile or to prevent injury to plants/crops. That is, the claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reasons to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. From the combined teaching of the cited references, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-11 and 13-17 are rejected under rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 20140213450 or WO 2009103455) (Recitations are from the US document) in view of Findley et al (US 20130029847), Belfry et al ( Weed management options for conventional soybean ) and Hemminghaus et al (US 2020163331) . The teachings of Nelson, Findley et al and Belfry et al are delineated above and incorporated herein. The references lack a specific disclosure on the amount of second agrochemical and that the first active agent of the composition does not crystalize after 4 weeks. These are known in the art as taught by Nelson, Findley et al and in further view of Hemminghaus et al. Hemminghaus et al teach herbicidal microcapsules containing a combination of herbicides, the microcapsules include a core material comprising an acetamide herbicide and a second herbicide and a shell wall encapsulating the core material (See abstract). Hemminghaus et al further teach that compositions that contain microcapsules containing multiple herbicides actives would be advantageous , especially when herbicide actives have the potential to cause crop injury under certain methods of application. Regarding claim 8 , Hemminghaus et al teach a composition w herein the second herbicide concentration is from about 1 wt. % to about 20 wt. %, or from about 1 wt. % to about 10 wt. % (See [0063]). Regarding claim 13 , Hemminghaus et al teach that the microcapsules were uniform and that the microencapsulation process was complete and free from crystallization and other abnormalities (See [0149]). Regarding claims 14 and 17 in part , Hemminghaus et al teach that the core material may further comprise a diluent . A diluent, such as a solvent, may be added to change the solubility parameter characteristics of the core material to increase or decrease the release rate of the herbicides from the microcapsule once release has been initiated. The core material may comprise from 0% to about 35 wt. % of a diluent (See [0038] and [0040]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Hemminghaus et al, Belfry et al and Findley et al with that of Nelson to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Reasons for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Nelson, Findley et al and Belfry et al are delineated above and incorporated herein, It further would have been obvious to have incorporated the teachings of Hemminghaus et al because Hemminghaus et al also teach an agrochemical composition comprising encapsulated active agents, namely acetamides and other active agents and provide guidance on the concentration ranges of the second active agent and discloses that the said compositions are free from crystals. Hemminghaus et al further teach that compositions that contain microcapsules containing multiple herbicides actives would be advantageous, especially when herbicide actives have the potential to cause crop injury under certain methods of application. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reasons to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. From the combined teaching of the cited references, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made . 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1-7, 9-1 2 and 14-17 are rejected under rejec ted under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelso n (US 20140213450) or WO 2009103455 (Recitations are from the US document) in view of Findley et al (US 20130029847), Belfry et al ( Weed management options for conventional soybean ) and Szamosi (6,440,902). The te achings of Nelson, Findley et al and Belfry et al are delineated above and incorporated herein. The references lack a specific disclosure on the amount of excipients as recited in claim 12. These are known in the art as taught by Nelson, Findley et al and in further view of Szamosi. Szamosi teach a method of encapsulating clomazone and a second biological agent comprising: (a) mixing (i) an aqueous phase , (ii) an emulsifier and (iii) a water-immiscible phase containing clomazone, the second biological agent, and at least one first polyfunctional compound; (b) forming a dispersion of water-immiscible droplets throughout the aqueous phase; and (c) adding at least one second polyfunctional compound into the dispersion and reacting the second polyfunctional compound(s) with the first polyfunctional compound(s) to form a polymer shell around the water-immiscible droplets (See abstract). Regarding claim 11, Szamosi disclose that the capsules formed by the polyurea shell are about 1 μm to about 100 μm, more preferred about 1 μm to about 20 μm (See Col. 3, lines 37-38). Regarding claim 12 , Szamosi teaches co-microencapsulated formulations containing one or more of the following additional components in the following amounts (in weight percent) based on the total weight of the formulation: 1) emulsifier —up to about 1.5%; 2) antifoam agent —up to about 0.5 %; 3) dispersing agent —about 0.1 to about 5 %, 4) antifreezes and/or thickeners —about 0.1 to about 9 %, water —about 40 to about 60%. One or more additives, such as propylene glycol, xanthan gum, urea, bactericides, amphoteric surfactants , dyes or ionic dispersing agents can be added to the microcapsules. The pH of the formulation is adjusted to neutral to improve stability (See Col. 2, line 60 to Col. 3, line 36). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the teachings of Szamosi et al, Belfry et al and Findley et al with that of Nelson to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Reasons for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Nelson, Findley et al and Belfry et al are delineated above and incorporated herein. It further would have been obvious to have incorporated the teachings of Szamosi et al because Szamosi et al also teach an agrochemical composition comprising encapsulated active agents for effective control of weeds in a crop field and provide suggestions for the type and amounts of excipients/additives effective in such formulations. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have taken advice from a closely related disclosure in preparing an effective weed control formulation comprising two or mor active agents. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reasons to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. From the combined teaching of the cited references, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Claims 1-17 are rejected. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mina Haghighatian whose telephone number is (571)272-0615. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7-5 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, Sue X. Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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. /Mina Haghighatian/ Mina Haghighatian Primary Examiner Art Unit 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 2 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 3 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 4 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 5 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 6 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 7 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 8 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 9 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 10 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 11 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 12 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 13 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 14 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 15 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 16 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 17 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 18 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 19 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 20 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 21 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/720,050 Page 22 Art Unit: 1616
