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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 11-18 are newly added.
Claims 1-18 are currently under consideration.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Westerveld et al (2021)(IDS Reference).
Westerveld exemplifies application to glyphosate-resistant horseweed a combination of 25 or 50 g ai/ha tiafenacil with 400 g ai/ha metribuzin (see entire document, for instance, Table 4). Thes amounts result in a ratio of either 1:16 or 1:8.
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 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.
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) 1-18 (all claims currently under consideration) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Westerveld et al (2021)(IDS Reference) and Soltani et al (2020).
Westerveld exemplifies application to glyphosate-resistant horseweed (Conyza canadensis L. Cronquist) a combination of 25 or 50 g ai/ha tiafenacil with 400 g ai/ha metribuzin (see entire document, for instance, Table 4). Thes amounts result in a ratio of either 1:16 or 1:8. Westerveld further teaches that metribuzin in combination with S-metolachlor improved the control of horseweed (see entire document, for instance, page 818, left column, first full paragraph).
Westerveld, while teaching the instantly claimed components, amounts, and ratios for tiafenacil and metribuzin, does not expressly teach the amount of S-metolachlor.
Soltani teaches the advantageous combination of 1680 g ai/ha S-metolachlor and 400 g ai/ha metribuzin for the treatment of Conyza canadensis L. Cronquist (see entire document, for instance, Table 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to utilize 1680 g ai/ha of S-metolachlor in combination with the 400 g ai/ha metribuzin and 25 or 50 g ai/ha tiafenacil. One would have been motivated to do so since Westerveld teaches the advantageous combination of the metribuzin and tiafenacil for treating Conyza canadensis L. Cronquist, wherein Soltani teaches the advantageous combination of metribuzin and S-metolachlor for treating Conyza canadensis L. Cronquist. There would be a reasonable expectation of success since both references are directed toward control of Conyza canadensis L. Cronquist, and both references utilize 400 g ai/ha metribuzin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TREVOR M LOVE whose telephone number is (571)270-5259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F typically 6:30-3.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 5712726175. 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.
/TREVOR LOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights