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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11, 13, and 14 are currently amended. Claims 2, 7, and 9-10 are original. Claim 12 is cancelled. Claims 1-11 and 13-14 are pending and under examination.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/GB2023/051567, filed on 06/15/2023. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the No. INDIA 202211034495 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024, 05/13/2025, 08/04/2025, 07/17/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4, 7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4, 7, and 9 order the herbicides using letters (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f). This ordering scheme has already been used in claim 1 to define the components of the entire composition, which makes these two ordering schemes conflicting. A suggested amendment is to completely eliminate this ordering scheme for the herbicides in claims 4, 7, and 9, or to alter it (e.g., to (i), (ii), (iii), iv), (v), and (vi)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 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.
The term “very-long-chain fatty acid(s)” in claims 1, 4, 7, 9, 13, and 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “very-long” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8, and 10-11 are rendered indefinite for being dependent to indefinite claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "wherein the salt comprises". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A suggested amendment is to alter the claim language to “wherein the (a) L-glufosinate, salts, esters, or combinations thereof comprises…”.
Claim 3 is rendered indefinite for being dependent to indefinite claim 2.
Claims 4, 7, and 9 recites the limitation " to “cellulose synthesis inhibitor herbicide… fatty acid inhibitor herbicide…dioxygenase inhibitor herbicide…carboxylase inhibitor herbicide…auxin herbicide…herbicide with unknown…". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Their Independent claim 1 lists each of these herbicide classes in plural form (e.g., cellulose synthesis inhibitor herbicides), and it is thus unclear which of the multiple herbicides within each individual class is being referred to. A suggested amendment is to alter the claim language to “cellulose synthesis inhibitor herbicides… fatty acid inhibitor herbicides…dioxygenase inhibitor herbicides…carboxylase inhibitor herbicides…auxin herbicides…herbicides with unknown…”.
Claims 4, 7, and 9 use “and” before transitioning to (f) to connect the different herbicidal groups. Since these claims are dependent to claim 1 which allows for combinations, it is unclear if this is intended to be a combination of all of these items by use of “and” or if applicant is attempting to leave these as options but merely further defines what each can be. A suggested amendment is to instead use “or” or “and/or” instead before transitioning to (f) rather than “and”.
Claim 10 recites “selected from the group comprising…”. This is improper Markush format, as “selected from the group...” denotes a closed group, whereas adding “comprising” re-opens it to additional Eleusine genus weeds outside of the recited list. This renders the claim indefinite. A suggested amendment is to alter the claim language to ““selected from the group consisting of…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –(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.
Claims 1, 5, 8-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Burke et al. (Burke, I. C.; Askew, S. D; Corbett, J. L.; Wilcut, J. W. Glufosinate Antagonizes Clethodim Control of Goosegrass (Eleusine Indica). Weed Technology 2005, 19 (3), 664–668. https://doi.org/10.1614/wt-04-214r1.1.).
Burke et al. discloses greenhouse experiments that were conducted to determine goosegrass (Eleusine indica) control with clethodim (an acetyl CoA carboxylase inhibitor herbicide) and glufosinate at postemergence alone, in tank mixtures, and as sequential treatments. Herbicide treatments consisted of glufosinate at 0, 290, or 410 g ai/ha and clethodim at 0, 105, or 140 g ai/ha, each applied alone, in all possible combinations of the above application rates, or sequentially. Glufosinate at 290 or 410 g/ha when applied sequentially 7 or 14 d prior to clethodim reduced goosegrass control at least 50 percentage points compared to the control obtained with clethodim applied alone (¶abstract).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oeser et al. (US20180110231A1).
Oeser et al. discloses specific herbicide combinations comprising (i) L-glufosinate and/or salts thereof and (ii) indaziflam and compositions comprising said specific herbicide combinations. Oeser et al. teaches that the composition may contain additional agrochemical active compounds [¶101]. Oeser et al. teaches that the composition is applied to the green part of harmful plants [¶27].
Regarding Claim 1: Oeser et al. teaches the composition may include (i) L-glufosinate and/or agronomically acceptable salts thereof and (ii) indaziflam [¶13]. Oeser et al. teaches that the composition can be applied to Eleusine spp. [¶¶75, 78].
Regarding Claim 2: Oeser et al. teaches that L-glufosinate and/or agronomically acceptable salts thereof may be used, including potassium or ammonium (NH4 +) salts of L-glufosinate [¶¶53-54, 59].
Regarding Claim 3: Oeser et al. expressly identifies sodium, potassium or ammonium (NH4 +) salts of L-glufosinate for the composition [¶¶53-55, 59].
Regarding Claim 4: Oeser et al. identifies indaziflam as the second herbicide combined with L-glufosinate [¶¶13, 17, 61-63]. The additional species of herbicide subsections b-f are not required, as claim 4 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 specifies herbicides b-f as optional/alternative components.
Regarding Claim 5: Oeser et al. teaches l- glufosinate-to-indaziflam weight ratios of 10:1 to 45:1, 12:1 to 30:1, 15:1 to 25:1, and 18:1 to 24:1 [¶¶13-15, 17-19].
Regarding Claim 6: Oeser et al. teaches L-glufosinate concentrations ranging from 0-600 g/L [¶¶34-35, 37-41].
Regarding Claim 8: Oeser et al. discloses embodiments where L-glufosinate is applied at concentrations of 225 g/ha [¶¶93-95, 133-139, table 2].
Regarding Claim 9: Oeser et al. teaches embodiments where (a) indaziflam is at concentrations of 12 and 20 g/ha [¶¶93, 96-99, 133-140; tables 2, 4, 6]. The additional species of herbicide subsections b-f are not required, as claim 4 depends on claim 1, and claim 1 specifies herbicides b-f as optional/alternative components.
Regarding Claim 10: Oeser et al. teaches that the composition can be applied to Eleusine spp. [¶¶75, 78]. Oeser et al. specifies Eleusine indica as such species [¶¶79].
Regarding Claim 11:
Oeser et al. teaches that the formulation may be a combined spray mixture composed from separate formulations of the single active compounds, such as a “tank-mix”, or said composition can be a combined use of the single active ingredients when applied in a sequential manner [¶52]. Oeser et al. further states the formulation of L-glufosinate and indaziflam may be applied simultaneously [¶66].
Oeser et al. teaches that the harmful plant growth may be reduced by 60% to 100% via using the composition [¶89].
Regarding Claim 13: See section a. as written above.
Regarding Claim 14: See section a. as written above. Additionally, Oeser et al. teaches that the composition may also have additives and/or customary formulation auxiliaries, both of which are forms of excipients [¶101].
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and use Oeser et al.’s expressly disclosed L-glufosinate/indaziflam combination, including the disclosed salts, ratios, concentrations, application rates, formulation auxiliaries, and joint, sequential, or simultaneous application modes, for controlling Eleusine weeds. This is because Oeser et al. specifically identifies those active ingredients, treatment parameters, and target weeds as suitable for the same herbicidal purpose. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have thus been motivated to make such selections to obtain effective broad-spectrum weed control using such known compatible herbicides and routinely optimized formulation and application parameters. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Oeser et al. teaches these elements as compatible combinations for reducing harmful plant growth, including Eleusine, by up to 100%.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oeser et al. (US20180110231A1) in view of Li et al. (US20150105254A1).
Li et al. discloses aqueous based pesticide compositions having a high concentration of a water-soluble salt of an herbicide and a water-insoluble pesticide are provided therein [¶abstract].
Regarding claim 7: Li et al. teaches that the composition may contain herbicides such as indaziflam ((a) the cellulose synthesis inhibitors) (¶¶47, 60, 69-70); pyroxasulfone, propisochlor, metolachlor, S-metolachlor ((b) very-long-chain fatty acid inhibitor herbicides) (¶¶47, 58, 60, 69-70); isoxaflutole, mesotrione, tembotrione ((c) hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase inhibitor herbicide) (¶¶47, 54, 60, 69-70); quizalofop, quizalofop-P, quizalofop-P-ethyl ((d) the acetyl CoA carboxylase inhibitor herbicide) (¶¶31, 47, 53-4, 60, 69-70); Dicamba salts and 2,4-D Choline ((e) auxin herbicide) (¶¶37, 39-43); napropamide ((f) herbicide with unknown mode of action) (¶47, 60, 69-70); and combinations thereof at concentrations ranging from 0.1 to 400 g/L.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate Oeser et al.’s L-glufosinate/indazifam herbicidal combination at an indaziflam concentration within Li et al.’s disclosed range, which overlaps with the range of present claim 7. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Li et al. expressly teaches concentrated aqueous formulations containing a water-soluble herbicide salt together with a water-insoluble pesticide, including indaziflam, which would thus provide a practical and stable formulation of Oeser et al.’s expressly disclosed active ingredient for the purpose of optimizing herbicidal efficacy. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Li et al. identifies the same type of herbicidal components as suitable for use within the disclosed concentration range, while Oeser et al. established their suitability for the intended weed-control application.
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 1-11, 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 19/153,395 (referred to as co-pending ‘935): 1, 4, 10, 12 (for present claim 1); 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 2); 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 3); 1, 4, 11, 12 (for present claim 4); 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 5); 1, 4, 6, 10, 11 12 (for present claim 6); 1, 7, 11, 12 (for present claim 7); 1, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 8); 1, 9, 11, 12 (for present claim 9); 1, 4, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 10); 1, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 (for present claim 11); 1, 10 (for present claim 13); 1, 4, 10, 11, 15 (for present claim 14).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘395 teach all required limitations of
their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘395 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction, made with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 19/150,390 (referred to as co-pending ‘390): 1, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 1); 2, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 2); 3, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 3); 4, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 4); 5, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 5); 6, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 6); 7, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 7); 8, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 8); 9, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 9); 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 10); 10, 11, 12, 13 (for present claim 11); 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 13); 10, 11, 12, 15 (for present claim 14).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘390 teach all required limitations of
their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘390 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction, made with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of co-pending ‘390 have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 19/142,876 (referred to as co-pending ‘876): 1, 4, 5, 11, 12 (for present claim 1); 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 12 (for present claim 2); 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12 (for present claim 3); 1, 4, 5, 11, 12 (for present claim 4); 1, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12 (for present claim 5); 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 (for present claim 6); 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12 (for present claim 7); 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 8); 1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12 (for present claim 9); 1, 4, 5, 11, 12 (for present claim 10); 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13 (for present claim 11); 1, 4, 5, 11, 12 (for present claim 13); 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15 (for present claim 14).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘876 teach all required limitations of
their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘876 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction, made with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of co-pending ‘876 have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 18/877,427 (referred to as co-pending ‘427): 1, 4(for present claim 1); 1, 2, 4 (for present claim 2); 1, 2, 3, 4(for present claim 3); 1, 4 (for present claim 4); 1, 4, 5 (for present claim 5); 1, 4, 7 (for present claim 6); 1, 4, 8 (for present claim 7); 1, 4, 9 (for present claim 8); 1, 4, 10 (for present claim 9); 1, 4 (for present claim 10); 1, 4, 12 (for present claim 11); 14 (for present claim 13); 15 (for present claim 14)––in view of Oeser et al. (US20180110231A1).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘427 teach all required limitations of
their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application except for the following difference: Co-pending ‘427 does not explicitly teach the composition being applied to Eleusine indica species. Oeser et al. remedies this by teaching herbicidal compositions may be applied to Eleusine indica [¶¶79]. The substitution of one weed species with another for use of herbicide is a matter of routine variation to optimize crop and agricultural conditions, obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘427 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of co-pending ‘427 have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 18/876,937 (referred to as co-pending ‘937): 1, 4 (for present claim 1); 1, 2, 4 (for present claim 2); 1, 2, 3, 4 (for present claim 3); 1, 4 (for present claim 4); 1, 4, 5 (for present claim 5); 1, 4, 6 (for present claim 6); 1, 4, 7 (for present claim 7); 1, 4, 8 (for present claim 8); 1, 4, 9 (for present claim 9); 1, 4 (for present claim 10); 1, 4, 11 (for present claim 11); 13 (for present claim 13); 14 (for present claim 14)––in view of Oeser et al. (US20180110231A1).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘937 teach all required limitations of
their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application except for the following difference: Co-pending ‘937 does not explicitly teach the composition being applied to Eleusine indica species. Oeser et al. remedies this by teaching herbicidal compositions may be applied to Eleusine indica [¶¶79]. The substitution of one weed species with another for use of herbicide is a matter of routine variation to optimize crop and agricultural conditions, obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘937 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of co-pending ‘937 have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 18/877,001 (referred to as co-pending ‘001): 1, 4(for present claim 1); 1, 2, 4 (for present claim 2); 1, 2, 3, 4(for present claim 3); 1, 4 (for present claim 4); 1, 4, 5 (for present claim 5); 1, 4, 7 (for present claim 6); 1, 4, 8 (for present claim 7); 1, 4, 9 (for present claim 8); 1, 4, 10 (for present claim 9); 1, 4 (for present claim 10); 1, 4, 12 (for present claim 11); 14 (for present claim 13); 15 (for present claim 14)––in view of Oeser et al. (US20180110231A1).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘001 teach all required limitations of
their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application except for the following difference: Co-pending ‘001 does not explicitly teach the composition being applied to Eleusine indica species. Oeser et al. remedies this by teaching herbicidal compositions may be applied to Eleusine indica [¶¶79]. The substitution of one weed species with another for use of herbicide is a matter of routine variation to optimize crop and agricultural conditions, obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘001 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of co-pending ‘001 have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 18/877,040 (referred to as co-pending ‘040): 1 (for present claim 1); 1, 3 (for present claim 2); 1, 3, 4(for present claim 3); 1, 5 (for present claim 4); 1, 6 (for present claim 5); 1, 7 (for present claim 6); 1, 8 (for present claim 7); 1, 9 (for present claim 8); 1, 10 (for present claim 9); 1 (for present claim 10); 1, 12 (for present claim 11); 14 (for present claim 13); 15 (for present claim 14)––in view of Oeser et al. (US20180110231A1).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘040 teach all required limitations of
their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application except for the following difference: Co-pending ‘040 does not explicitly teach the composition being applied to Eleusine indica species. Oeser et al. remedies this by teaching herbicidal compositions may be applied to Eleusine indica [¶¶79]. The substitution of one weed species with another for use of herbicide is a matter of routine variation to optimize crop and agricultural conditions, obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘040 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of co-pending ‘040 have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 18/874,469 (referred to as co-pending ‘469): 1 (for present claim 1); 1, 2 (for present claim 2); 1, 2, 3 (for present claim 3); 1, 4 (for present claim 4); 1, 5 (for present claim 5); 1, 6 (for present claim 6); 1, 7 (for present claim 7); 1, 8 (for present claim 8); 1, 9 (for present claim 9); 1 (for present claim 10); 1, 11 (for present claim 11); 13 (for present claim 13); 14 (for present claim 14)––in view of Oeser et al. (US20180110231A1).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘469 teach all required limitations of
their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application except for the following difference: Co-pending ‘469 does not explicitly teach the composition being applied to Eleusine indica species. Oeser et al. remedies this by teaching herbicidal compositions may be applied to Eleusine indica [¶¶79]. The substitution of one weed species with another for use of herbicide is a matter of routine variation to optimize crop and agricultural conditions, obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘469 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of co-pending ‘469 have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 18/872,142 (referred to as co-pending ‘142): 1 (for present claim 1); 1, 2 (for present claim 2); 1, 2, 3 (for present claim 3); 1, 4 (for present claim 4); 1, 5 (for present claim 5); 1, 6 (for present claim 6); 1, 4, 7 (for present claim 7); 1, 8 (for present claim 8); 1,, 4, 9 (for present claim 9); 1 (for present claim 10); 1, 11 (for present claim 11); 12 (for present claim 13); 13 (for present claim 14)––in view of Oeser et al. (US20180110231A1).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘469 teach all required limitations of
their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application except for the following difference: Co-pending ‘142 does not explicitly teach the composition being applied to Eleusine indica species. Oeser et al. remedies this by teaching herbicidal compositions may be applied to Eleusine indica [¶¶79]. The substitution of one weed species with another for use of herbicide is a matter of routine variation to optimize crop and agricultural conditions, obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘142 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of co-pending ‘142 have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1-11, 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 18/871,354 (referred to as co-pending ‘354): 1 (for present claim 1); 1, 2 (for present claim 2); 1, 2, 3 (for present claim 3); 1, 4 (for present claim 4); 1, 5 (for present claim 5); 1, 6 (for present claim 6); 1, 4, 7 (for present claim 7); 1, 8 (for present claim 8); 1, 4, 9 (for present claim 9); 1 (for present claim 10); 1, 11 (for present claim 11); 12 (for present claim 13); 13 (for present claim 14) ––in view of Oeser et al. (US20180110231A1).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘354 teach all required limitations of their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application except for the following difference: Co-pending ‘354 does not explicitly teach the composition being applied to Eleusine indica species. Oeser et al. remedies this by teaching herbicidal compositions may be applied to Eleusine indica [¶¶79]. The substitution of one weed species with another for use of herbicide is a matter of routine variation to optimize crop and agricultural conditions, obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘354 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of co-pending ‘354 have not yet in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 5-10, 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the following claims of co-pending U.S. Patent application No. 18/800,855 (referred to as co-pending ‘855): 1 (for present claim 1); 1, 5, 6 (for present claim 5); 1, 7 (for present claim 6); 1, 3, 8 (for present claim 7); 1, 9 (for present claim 8); 1, , 10 (for present claim 9); 1 (for present claim 10); 1, 2, 3 (for present claim 13)--––in view of Oeser et al. (US20180110231A1).
Each of the above claims (or claim groups) of co-pending ‘855 teach all required limitations of their corresponding claim(s) listed in the present application except for the following difference: Co-pending ‘855 does not explicitly teach the composition being applied to Eleusine indica species. Oeser et al. remedies this by teaching herbicidal compositions may be applied to Eleusine indica [¶¶79]. The substitution of one weed species with another for use of herbicide is a matter of routine variation to optimize crop and agricultural conditions, obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success. Accordingly, the present claims differ from the claims of co-pending ‘855 only by an obvious variation that does not impart a patentable distinction.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims of co-pending ‘855 have not yet in fact been patented.
Conclusions
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYA AHMADI BAZARGANI whose telephone number is (571)272-0211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571) 272-0581. 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.
Arya A. Bazargani, Ph.D.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1613
/MARK V STEVENS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights