CTNF 18/723,084 CTNF 95282 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. Priority This application is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2022/086095, filed 12/15/2022. This application Claims Foreign Priority to EP22151241.1, filed 01/12/2022, and EP21216845.4, filed 12/22/2021. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS filed on 06/21/2024 has been considered. See the attached PTO 1449 form. Claim Status Claims 1-15 are currently pending and under examination. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Dependent claims 2-13 should begin with the article “The” not “A”. In claim 1, the recitations “wherein each X1, X2 and X3 is independently selected from oxygen and sulfur” are duplicates and should be recited only once. In claim 1, the recitation “D is a group (CR6R7)n” should recite “D is a group represented by (CR6R7)n”. In claim 1, the recitation “1-3 groups R15” should recite “1-3 groups represented by R15”. In claim 1, the recitation “1-3 groups R13” should recite “1-3 groups represented by R13”. In claim 1, the recitation “1-4 groups R13” should recite “1-4 groups represented by R13”. In claim 11, the recitation “is selected hydrogen” should recite “is selected from hydrogen” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. 07-07-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 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1)/(a)(2 ) as being anticipated by Menke et al. (US 6,602,825 B1) . Menke throughout the reference teaches 1-Aryl-1,3,5-triazine-4-thione-2,6-diones, production thereof and use thereof as herbicides. Menke specifically discloses formula Ia.205 in Table 1, which reads on the compound recited in instant claim 1-8 and 10-13. Menke discloses the compound of formula Ia (shown below). PNG media_image1.png 174 410 media_image1.png Greyscale In compound of formula Ia.205, Menke teaches R1 is CH3; R3 is F; R4 is Cl; and R5 is CO-OCH2-CO-OCH3. Compound of formula Ia.205 is expressly disclosed by Menke and thus anticipates claims 1-8 and 10-13. (see e.g. Table 1; Col. 12; Title; Abstract; Entire Document) . 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1-8 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2023/0227415 A1)(having prior filing date of June 23, 2020) . Chen throughout the reference discloses triazine benzoate compounds and application thereof as herbicides. In embodiment 6, Chen disclose compound 222 which is shown below: PNG media_image2.png 174 472 media_image2.png Greyscale This reads on the claimed compound of claims 1-8 and 10-13. The claimed B in this compound of Chen is O, the claimed D in this compound of Chen is CH2, and the claimed R9 in this compound of Chen is C3 haloalkyl. As such, these claims are anticipated by Chen. (see e.g. para 0109; entire document) . 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 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menke et al. (US 6,602,825 B1) as applied to claims 1-8 and 10-13 above . The teachings of Menke have been set forth above. Menke does not expressly teach wherein n is 2 as recited in claim 9. However, Menke teaches R5 in the compound of formula I (or Ia discussed above) can be CO-OR20 (i.e., B in the present claims is O), R20 can be C1-C6 alkyl (i.e. D in the present application) substituted by hydroxycarbonyl or (C1-C6-alkoxy)carbonyl. (see e.g. col. 1-2; entire document). Menke also does not teach expressly teach the claimed compound (such as the compound of formula Ia.205 in Menke) in an agrochemical composition comprising herbicidally effective amount and an agrochemically acceptable diluent or carrier. Menke also does not expressly teach the herbicidally effective amount of the compound is applied to the plants. However, Menke generally teaches herbicidal composition which comprises a herbicidally active amount of the compounds of formula I and a carrier. Menke also teaches the herbicidal composition comprising the compounds of formula I is applied to crop plant to control unwanted vegetation at an herbicidally active amount. (see e.g. claims; col. 2; col. 38-39; entire document). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have formulated the instantly claimed compound wherein n is 2. As discussed supra, in compound of formula Ia.205, Menke teaches R1 is CH3; R3 is F; R4 is Cl; and R5 is CO-OCH2-CO-OCH3. Menke generally teaches R5 in the compound of formula I (or Ia discussed above) can be CO-OR20, R20 can be C1-C6 alkyl (i.e. D in the present application) substituted by hydroxycarbonyl or (C1-C6-alkoxy)carbonyl. In the formula Ia.205 of Menke, R20 represents CH2 (CO-O CH2 -CO-OCH3). Since Menke teaches R20 can be C1-C6 alkyl (i.e. D in the present application), it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add an additional CH2 because “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH 2 - groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have formulated the compounds taught (e.g. compound of formula Ia.205) in an agrochemical composition comprising herbicidally effective amount and an agrochemically acceptable carrier, and apply to crop plant to control unwanted vegetation because Menke teaches the herbicidal compositions comprise a herbicidally active amount of the compounds of formula I and a carrier. Menke also teaches the herbicidal composition comprising the compounds of formula I are applied to crop plant to control unwanted vegetation at an herbicidally active amount. As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use any of the compounds taught by Menke in an agrochemical composition having a carrier and an effective amount and apply to plants to control unwanted vegetation. 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). Thus, absence unexpected effect, the amount of the claimed compound would have been obvious and which would depend on parameters such as amount of unwanted vegetation, land area, etc. From the combined teaching of the cited reference, 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 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2023/0227415 A1) as applied to claims 1-8 and 10-13 above . The teachings of Chen have been set forth above. Chen does not teach expressly teach the claimed compound (such as the compound 222 in embodiment 6 of Chen) in an agrochemical composition comprising herbicidally effective amount and an agrochemically acceptable diluent or carrier. Chen also does not expressly teach the herbicidally effective amount of the compound is applied to the plants. However, Chen generally teaches the invention comprises herbicidal composition using the compounds taught as an active ingredient and the composition further comprises a carrier. Chen also teaches a method for controlling weeds (unwanted vegetation) by the herbicidal composition characterized in that a herbicidally effective dose is applied to a weed (plant). (see e.g. para 0065-0071; claims). Chen does not expressly teach wherein n is 2 as recited claim 9. As discussed supra, the claimed D in the compound 222 of Chen is CH2. “Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH 2 - groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties.” In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977). As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add an additional CH2 as it is a homolog which would be expected to possess similar properties. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have formulated the compounds taught (e.g. compound 222) in an agrochemical composition comprising herbicidally effective amount and an agrochemically acceptable carrier, and apply to weed plant to control (weed) unwanted vegetation because Chen teaches the invention comprises herbicidal composition using the compounds taught as an active ingredient and the composition further comprises a carrier. Chen also teaches a method for controlling weeds (unwanted vegetation) by the herbicidal composition characterized in that a herbicidally effective dose is applied to a weed (plant). As such, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use any of the compounds taught by Chen in an agrochemical composition having a carrier and an effective amount and apply to weed plants to control the unwanted vegetation. 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). Thus, absence unexpected effect, the amount of the claimed compound would have been obvious and which would depend on parameters such as amount of unwanted vegetation (weed), land area, etc. From the combined teaching of the cited reference, 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI SAEED whose telephone number is (571)272-2371. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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 5712725539. 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. /ALI S SAEED/Examiner, Art Unit 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/723,084 Page 2 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/723,084 Page 3 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/723,084 Page 4 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/723,084 Page 5 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/723,084 Page 6 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/723,084 Page 7 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/723,084 Page 8 Art Unit: 1616
Prosecution Insights