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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 24 September 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the common special technical feature in all claims is a formulation as recited in claim 1, and unity of invention is evidenced by the International Search Report, the Office action fails to indicate whether Groups I and II are classified in different (sub)classes, and serious search and examination burden on the examiner is lacking. This is not found persuasive because although the formulation is a technical feature, it is not a special technical feature because it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Taranta et al. and Zagar et al. (both of record) as discussed in the restriction requirement; “The examiner may make a lack of unity requirement in a national stage application even if no such requirement was made by the ISA or IPEA”, per MPEP 1893.03(d); and “unity of invention analysis (not an independent and distinct analysis) is applicable in national stage applications”, per MPEP 1893.03(d), and thus different classification and burden are not relevant in national stage applications.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 24 September 2026.
Claims 1-13 are under current consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “the dispersants” in line 2 is plural whereas the dispersant previously recited in parent claim 1 is singular. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taranta et al. (WO 2020/126508 A1; published 25 June 2020; of record) in view of Zagar et al. (EP 3603399 A1; published 05 February 2020; of record).
Taranta et al. discloses agrochemical formulation comprising a) a continuous oil phase comprising a water-immiscible solvent; b) an agrochemical active in the form of particles, which particles are suspended in the continuous oil phase; and c) water droplets that are emulsified in the continuous oil phase; wherein the agrochemical formulation is substantially free of a thickener (claim 1) wherein the formulation further comprises a dispersant (claim 4) wherein suitable dispersants may be ethoxylated glycerol esters of hydroxy fatty acids (i.e., types of alkoxylated fatty acid esters) (page 9 lines 21-26) wherein the agrochemical active may be a herbicide such as saflufenacil or trifludimoxazin (page 3 lines 33-35) wherein further herbicides may be added to the active substances or the compositions comprising them as premix (page 21 lines 24-26) wherein suitable herbicides are herbicides from the classes of pyrazoles and pyridines (page 4 lines 21, 28) wherein the formulation may include ethoxylated sorbitan oleate, alkoxylated fatty alcohols, and/or alkyl-aryl-sulfonates as dispersants at a concentration of at least 1 wt% and preferably at least 3 wt% (page 9 lines 17-34) wherein dispersant(s) are preferably in a concentration of 5-15 wt% in the formulation (page 10 lines 1-2) wherein the formulation contains at least 1 wt% of water (claim 2) wherein the formulation comprises at least 1 wt% W/O emulsifier (page 8 lines 17-19) wherein the formulation comprises at least 1 wt% O/W emulsifier (page 9 lines 5-7) wherein the water-immiscible solvent is selected from hydrocarbon solvents, vegetable oils, fatty acid esters, methyl- or ethyl esters of vegetable oils, and mixtures thereof (claim 8) wherein the formulation comprises 20-80 wt% of the water-immiscible solvent (claim 11) wherein the formulation comprises 1-60 wt% of the agrochemical active (claim 12) wherein the formulation comprises 3 to 30 wt% of water droplets emulsified in the continuous oil phase (page 11 lines 8-13) wherein the water-droplets have a mean diameter of up to 25 µm (claim 10) wherein the formulation comprises not more than 1 wt% thickener (page 14 lines 5-9).
Taranta et al. does not disclose pyroxasulfone and imazethapyr as claimed.
Zagar et al. discloses herbicidal mixtures comprising pyroxasulfone and an imidazolinone such as imazethapyr (claim 1) wherein such mixtures may include particularly suitable active compounds saflufenacil/trifludimoxazin (paragraph [0046]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Taranta et al. and Zagar et al. by making the agrochemical formulation of Taranta et al. as discussed above with dispersant ethoxylated glycerol esters of hydroxy fatty acids (i.e., types of alkoxylated fatty acid esters) and with a mixture of agrochemical actives therein of saflufenacil and trifludimoxazin as suggested by Taranta et al. and pyroxasulfone (i.e., a pyrazole herbicide) and imazethapyr (i.e., a pyridine herbicide) as suggested by Zagar et al., with a reasonable expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so to make an effective herbicide mixture as suggested by Taranta et al. given that Taranta et al. suggests adding further herbicides to the active substances and suggests that pyrazole and pyridine herbicides are suitable herbicide classes, and Zagar et al. suggests herbicide combinations including saflufenacil, trifludimoxazin, pyroxasulfone (i.e., a pyrazole herbicide) and imazethapyr (i.e., a pyridine herbicide).
Further regarding claim 2, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to also include in the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above ethoxylated sorbitan oleate as a further dispersant, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 3, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to also include in the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above alkoxylated fatty alcohols and alkyl-aryl-sulfonates as further dispersants, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 4, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to include in the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above the dispersant(s) in a concentration of at least 3 wt%, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 5, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to include in the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above at least 1 wt% of water, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 6, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to include in the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above at least 1 wt% of W/O emulsifier, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 7, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to include in the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above at least 1 wt% of O/W emulsifier, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 8, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to include in the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above the water-immiscible solvent as being selected from hydrocarbon solvents, vegetable oils, fatty acid esters, methyl- or ethyl esters of vegetable oils, and mixtures thereof, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 9, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to include in the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above 20-80 wt% of the water-immiscible solvent and 1-60 wt% of the agrochemical active mixture, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 10, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to include in the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above 3 to 30 wt% of the water droplets emulsified in the continuous oil phase, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 11, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to include in the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above dispersant(s) in a concentration of 5-15 wt%, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 12, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to make the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above with the water-droplets having a mean diameter of up to 25 µm, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Further regarding claim 13, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Taranta et al. as discussed above and to make the formulation of Taranta et al. in view of Zagar et al. as discussed above wherein the formulation comprises not more than 1 wt% thickener, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B. PALLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 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.
/MICHAEL B. PALLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights