CTNF 18/833,155 CTNF 87710 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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Each is capitalized but is not the beginning of a sentence or a proper noun. Claims 2-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: dependent claims should begin with the article “The” not “A”. Appropriate corrections are required. 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. 07-20-02-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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Menke et al. (US6602825) and further in view of Ko et al. (US20110224083) . Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01) Regarding claims 1-6, Menke broadly teaches/encompasses the claimed compounds by teaching an overlapping scope of compounds having the same core structure, PNG media_image1.png 386 736 media_image1.png Greyscale , wherein Menke’s R5 is broadly defined to be/include the claimed C1-alkyl thio group which is substituted with the claimed COOR8 or C(O)N(R8)R9 group(s), wherein their R8 can be the claimed D-C(=O)-R8, e.g. (C 1 -C 6 -alkoxy)carbonyl-C 1 -C 6 -alkyl, e.g. wherein the instant D is C1-C6 alkyl and the instant R8 is OR9, and the instant OR9 corresponds to the C1-C6 alkoxy groups disclosed in Menke, and wherein the claimed X1 is S and the claimed X2 and X3 are O, and wherein their Y which corresponds to the instant Y can be the claimed CH group and wherein the claimed B corresponds to the claimed O, NH or NMe when it is the COOR8 or C(O)N(R8)R9 discussed above and Menke teaches wherein their compounds are also herbicidal as claimed (see entire document; claims; abstract; Col. 1, ln. 1-Col. 2, ln. 46; Col. 36, ln.15-Col. 37, ln. 60 (inclusive); Col. 39, ln. 31-39). Regarding claims 7-8, Menke broadly teaches wherein their D can be C1-C6 alkyl which includes wherein n is 1 or 2 as claimed (see entire document; claims; abstract; Col. 1, ln. 1-Col. 2, ln. 46; Col. 36, ln.15-Col. 37, ln. 60 (inclusive); Col. 39, ln. 31-39). Regarding claims 9-10, Menke teaches wherein their R1 which corresponds to applicant’s instant R1 can be the claimed H or C1-C4 alkyl, and wherein their R2 which corresponds to applicant’s instant R2 is the claimed H or C1-C4 alkyl (see entire document; claims; abstract; Col. 1, ln. 1-Col. 2, ln. 46; Col. 36, ln.15-Col. 37, ln. 60 (inclusive); Col. 39, ln. 31-39). Regarding claims 11-12, Menke teaches wherein their R3 which corresponds to the instant R3 can be the claimed hydrogen or halogen and wherein their R4 which corresponds to the instant R4 can be the claimed cyano or halogen (see entire document; claims; abstract; Col. 1, ln. 1-Col. 2, ln. 46; Col. 36, ln.15-Col. 37, ln. 60 (inclusive); Col. 39, ln. 31-39). Regarding claim 13, Menke teaches wherein their R8 is a C1-C6 alkyl group which reads on wherein the instantly claimed R6 and R7 are both H (see entire document; claims; abstract; Col. 1, ln. 1-Col. 2, ln. 46; Col. 36, ln.15-Col. 37, ln. 60 (inclusive); Col. 39, ln. 31-39). Regarding claims 14-15, Menke teaches compositions which comprise their compounds which broadly include/encompass the claimed compounds and which further comprise the claimed agrochemically acceptable diluent or carrier and method of controlling or preventing undesirable plant growth comprising applying an herbicidally effective amount of their compounds to the plants, the plant parts or the locus of the plants which broadly include the claimed compounds which are encompassed within the compound scope of Menke (see entire document; claims; abstract; Col. 1, ln. 1-Col. 2, ln. 46; Col. 36, ln.15-Col. 37, ln. 60 (inclusive); Col. 39, ln. 31-39). Ascertainment of the difference between prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) Regarding claims 1-15, Menke does not exemplify the claimed compounds. The closest compound Menke exemplifies is for instance Ia.4 wherein applicant’s Y is CH, applicant’s R1 is CH3, applicant’s R2 is CH3, applicant’s R3 is F, applicant’s R4 is CN, and applicant’s R5 corresponds to Menke’s R5 and is different from the claimed S containing chain, specifically the closest example in Menke appears to be wherein their R5 is O-CH(CH3)-C(O)-OCH2-CH2-OCH3 which as discussed above is different from the S-containing chain which is instantly claimed and which is broadly disclosed in Menke. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have substituted the side chain of Menke at position R5 for the claimed sulfur containing chain which is broadly disclosed in Menke as discussed above, because for instance Ko teaches structurally similar herbicidal compounds which only differ in the left-most heterocyclic ring, e.g. in Ko the ring is a uracil/pyrimidinedione ring instead of the instantly claimed triazinetrione/triazine derivative heterocycle as the left most ring (see entire document), and wherein their side chain is the same sulfur containing sidechain as is/are instantly claimed (See entire document; Compounds in Table 1 of Ko, specifically cmpds 36-40, 60-61 in table 1; [0050]; [0053]; [0138-0156]; Table 4; Table 7; claims). Finding of prima facie obviousness Rationale and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant filing to have substituted the side chain of Ko which is the instantly claimed S atom containing sidechain into the compounds of Menke in order to form the claimed herbicidal compounds, compositions and methods because Menke already broadly teaches that the claimed S-containing sidechain is useful as a sidechain for forming the claimed herbicidal compounds, compositions and methods which are instantly claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select the claimed S atom containing sidechain of Ko to use in Menke because Ko’s compounds are structurally similar and this S-atom containing sidechain is useful for forming effective herbicidal compounds, compositions and methods for accomplishing the same control of plants/unwanted vegetation/weeds. Thus, it would be obvious to select the claimed S-containing sidechains of Ko for use in Menke since they are already broadly disclosed by Menke to be useful as herbicides in effort to form additional effective herbicidal compounds, compositions and methods within the scope of Menke which would read on/render obvious the claimed compounds, compositions and methods as discussed above. In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103(a). From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that 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, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Erin E Hirt whose telephone number is (571)270-1077. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-7:30 ET M-F. 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. /ERIN E HIRT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/833,155 Page 2 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/833,155 Page 3 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/833,155 Page 4 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/833,155 Page 5 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/833,155 Page 6 Art Unit: 1616 Application/Control Number: 18/833,155 Page 7 Art Unit: 1616
Prosecution Insights