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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims included in the prosecution are claims 1-6.
Acknowledgement of Receipt
The declaration and assignment filed 01/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application is a DIV of application 17/957,186 filed 09/30/2022 and PAT 12593838.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on Oct. 1, 2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202121044726 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 01/07/2025, 01/11/2025, 05/21/2025, and 08/18/2025 follow the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, these IDS(s) have been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The use of the terms to disclose sulphonic acid derivatives on page 9 paragraph 1 of the instant specification, e.g., baykanol SLTM, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1, 3 and all dependent claims thereof 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “said active ingredient” in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "at least one additional active ingredient or derivative thereof" in element a). It is not clear what the other active ingredient is.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 108323508 A, pub. 07/27/2018).
Zhang discloses a water dispersible granule formulation cornfield weedicide composition composed of amicarbazone, topramezone, dispersing agent, wetting agent, fatty acid ethylene oxide condensate and kaolin (abstract). Amicarbazone is the preferred active as it makes up over half the weight percentage of the composition (claim 1) to read on the instant claim’s triazolone herbicide. Zhang teaches topramezone as the second active agent which reads on the recited at least one additional active agent. The carrier for Zhang’s composition is a mixture of g fatty acid ethylene oxide condensate and kaolin to read on the kaolin as the preferred high surface hydrophilicity inert. Zhang discloses the uniformly mixed mixture of amicarbazone, topramezone, dispersing agent, wetting agent to obtain mixed powder, and the carrier and the mixed powder to obtain the product that is used for weeding in cornfield (abstract). Zhang discloses how the fatty acid ethylene oxide condensation product performance influenced by the molecular number is large, can be used as detergent, also can be used as emulsifier (page 3, paragraph 1). Kaolin is taught as having a sheet structure, is firstly mixed with the fatty acid ethylene oxide condensate, it is completely absorbed into the carrier and forms a special carrier particles (page 3, paragraph 1). Zhang’s disclosure of dispersing agent/wetting agent anticipates the interface additive as defined in the instant disclosure. Zhang provides Embodiment 1 comprising 80% of amicarbazone, 8% of topramezone, 4% dispersing agent G180, 2% of wetting agent KDS95, 1.2% of fatty acid ethylene oxide condensate, and 4.8% of kaolin (page 4, middle of the page).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fabri et al. (US 20220272979 A1, cited in the IDS) with evidence from Gruber (US 6231632 B1) and evidence from Kirkwood (Use and Mode of Action of Adjuvants for Herbicides: A Review of some Current Work, Pesticide Science 1993, 38, 93-1020).
Fabri teaches an herbicidal combination comprising at least one triazolone herbicide selected from amicarbazone, at least one photosystem II inhibitor selected from a group that includes a triazinone herbicide; and (c) at least a third herbicide selected from a 4-(4-hydroxyphenyl-pyruvate dioxygenase) HPPD inhibitor, bleaching inhibitor, cell division inhibitor, PPO inhibitor, ALS inhibitor, microtubule assembly inhibitor, or a cellulose biosynthesis inhibitor. (paragraphs [0008]-[0011], claim 1).
Regarding at least one interface additive and a high surface hydrophilicity inert, Fabri teaches that the composition may contain agriculturally acceptable adjuvants, carriers, diluents, emulsifiers ([0380]). Suitable agricultural adjuvants and carriers may include surfactants ([0381]) to read on the recited “at least one interface additive” of instant claim 1. Fabri teaches solid carriers that may be employed in the compositions include kaolin clay (i.e., kaolin) in paragraph [0383] which reads on the “kaolin” recited in instant claims 4 and 5. Evidenced by Gruber, kaolin is a microparticulate hydrophilic inert (column 2, line 44, column 3, lines 14, 21, 48). Here the prior art reads on high surface hydrophilicity inert of the claims.
Regarding claim 2, Fabri discloses triazinone herbicide (claim 1)
Regarding claim 3, Fabri teaches isoxaflutole in paragraph ([0186]). Additionally metribuzin is taught in paragraph [0143]. In an embodiment, the combination comprises (i) amicarbazone; (ii) at least a photosystem II inhibitor and (iii) flumioxazin ([0334]-[0337]). In an embodiment, the combination comprises (i) amicarbazone; (ii) isoxaflutole and (iii) Atrazine ([0342]-[0345], see Tables 1-3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have utilized the herbicidal combination comprising triazolone herbicide of Fabri. Fabri surprisingly found that the efficacy of a triazolinone herbicide is synergistically potentiated by the presence of at least one additional active, specifically another photo system II inhibitor (paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to at least one interface additive/ high surface hydrophilicity inert because one skilled in the art would know that by doing so it contributes active getting on the surfaces where you would want it to be so active can be ultimately effective. Evidenced by Kirkwood, surfactants improve foliar absorption and together with solid carrier fertilizer salt ammonium sulfate (recited in instant claim 6) greatly improves herbicidal activity (abstract, see sections 2.1 and 2.4).
2. Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fabri et al. (US 20220272979 A1, cited in the IDS) in view of Morris et al. (US 20180084778 A1).
Fabri teaches that the triazolone herbicide is amicarbazone ([0043], claim 3). Fabri teaches kaolin ([0383]). Fabri does not teach kaolin and sodium lignosulfonate (i.e., instant claim 4); kaolin and sodium lauryl sulfate (i.e., instant claim 5).
Morris teaches a composition comprising a compound of formula I. and one or more further herbicides selected from a group that includes amicarbazone, flumioxazin, isoxaflutole, and metribuzin; as well as the use of such composition in controlling plants or inhibiting plant growth (abstract, claim 1). A large number of surface-active substances can advantageously be used in both solid and liquid formulations and surface-active substances may be anionic, cationic, non-ionic or polymeric and they can be used as emulsifiers, wetting agents or suspending agents or for other purposes ([0061]).
Morris discloses that typical surface-active substances include salts of alkyl sulfates and salts of alkyl naphthalene sulfonates ([0061]). Morris uses surface-active agents and solid carriers used in preferred formulations (paragraphs [0067-0070]). Sodium lignosulfonate, sodium lauryl sulphate, sodium di-isobutyl naphthalene sulfonate, and kaolin are all shown as wettable powders in paragraph [0071].
Fabri discloses amicarbazone, metribuzin, flumioxazin, surfactants and kaolin. Both Fabri and Morris teach kaolin. It would be obvious to combine known adjuvants and carriers to improve spreadability and efficacy of the herbicides. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to substitute the surfactant(s) of Fabri with a specific surfactant, i.e., sodium lignosulfonate and sodium lauryl sulfate, taught by Morris to achieve improved spreadability, dispersibility, and efficacy.
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fabri et al. (US 20220272979 A1, cited in the IDS) in view of Bhoge et al. (US 20220202013 A1, filed May 23, 2020).
Fabri teaches amicarbazone and isoxaflutole. Fabri does not teach a sodium isopropyl naphthalene sulfonate and ammonium sulfate mixture.
Bhoge discloses a stable insecticide composition with good stability and dispersibility useful for the protection of crops (abstract). The composition comprises at least one agrochemical active ingredient, and a disintegration (i.e., make wettable) system comprising a polymer matrix and an inorganic salt (claim 1). The hydrophobic agrochemical active ingredients is selected from the group consisting of fipronil, flubendiamide, metribuzin, indoxacarb, diafenthiuron, and bifenthrin (claims 6, 13). The said inorganic salt is ammonium sulfate (claim 10). Exemplary formulations (Examples 1-19) include dispersion aid mixtures comprising sodium lignosulfonate, sodium isopropyl naphthalene sulfonate, ammonium sulphate, and kaolin (paragraphs [0218]-[0238]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to utilize the sodium naphthalene sulfonate and ammonium sulphate of Bhoge to the composition of Fabri with expected results. Both disclose similar or the same herbicide (e.g., metribuzin). One would have been motivated to apply the dispersion aids of Bhoge to the composition of Fabri because Bhoge provides a disintegration system that improves the stability of the formulations and provides instantaneous or fast release of active ingredients in the agrochemical formulation when intended to be used at desired site of application ([0008], see stability data [0239]) to suggest enhanced efficiency and an improved shelf-life of formulations.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karen Ketcham whose telephone number is (571)270-5896. The examiner can normally be reached 0830-1630.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/Karen A Ketcham/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights