DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 19 March 2025 and 9 March 2026 were filed before mailing of an Office action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 16-35 are pending. The examiner had previously called applicants about a restriction/election requirement. However, upon searching the examiner decided to withdraw the election/restriction requirement (See included interview summary)
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Tables 1 and 2 on pg. 26 and 28 are rotated 90 degrees and parts of the text are missing. Therefore, the Tables are not complete and legible.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weil et al. (Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 1979).
Regarding claims 33-35, Weil et al. disclose the compound C8H17CO2(C2H4O)6CH3, which corresponds to the fatty acid derivative of formula (I) wherein R1 is octyl, R2 and R3 are each H, n and p are both 0, m is 6, and R8 is methyl (Table IV, No. 6).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marrs et al. (US 4,975,113).
Regarding claim 33, Marrs et al. disclose herbicidal compositions comprising methyl glycol laurate, which corresponds to the fatty acid derivative of formula (I) wherein R1 is undecanyl, R2 and R3 are each H, n and p are both 0, m is 1, and R8 is methyl (col. 2, ln. 19; col. 9, ln. 24-26; Example 2).
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Allen et al. (US 2016/0102271 A1).
Regarding claim 33, Allen et al. disclose compositions comprising a fatty acid selected from the group consisting of ([0071]-[0079]; Tables 5A, 5B, 6):
PNG
media_image1.png
74
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
C10-8: C10 eFAME
PNG
media_image2.png
106
432
media_image2.png
Greyscale
C10-9: C10 6EO eFAME
PNG
media_image3.png
68
418
media_image3.png
Greyscale
C12-8: C12 eFAME
PNG
media_image4.png
84
424
media_image4.png
Greyscale
C12-9: C12 6EO eFAME
PNG
media_image4.png
84
424
media_image4.png
Greyscale
C12-49: C12 15EO eFAME
PNG
media_image5.png
102
594
media_image5.png
Greyscale
C16-8: C16 11EO eFAME.
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 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.
Claims 16-17, 19-21, 23, 28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marrs et al. (US 4,975,113).
Regarding claim 16-17, 19-21, 23, 28 and 30-31, Marrs et al. teach herbicidal compositions comprising an herbicidal cyclohexane dione and a surfactant, wherein the surfactant includes methyl glycol laurate (i.e., the instantly claimed fatty acid derivative of formula (I) wherein R1 is undecanyl, R2 and R3 are each H, n and p are both 0, m is 1, and R8 is methyl) (col. 1, ln. 4-6; col. 1, ln. 64 to col. 2, ln. 19; Example 2; Claims 1-2). Marrs et al. teach an emulsifiable composition comprising 10% herbicide (Compound VIII), 40% monochlorotoluenes (i.e., liquid carrier), 3% sodium dioctylsulphosuccinate, 2% methyl capped nonyl phenol polyoxyethylene, 10% methyl glycol laurate, and trimethylbenzenes solvent to 100% (Example 2c).
Marrs et al. do not explicitly disclose a method of controlling unwanted vegetation comprising applying to the unwanted vegetation the composition comprising methyl glycol laurate, as instantly claimed. However, Marrs et al. teach a method of controlling the growth of unwanted plants by applying to the plant or the locus thereof a herbicidally effective amount of a composition comprising the herbicidal cyclohexane dione and surfactant (col. 6, ln. 52-68; Claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to apply the herbicidal composition of Marrs et al. comprising an herbicidal cyclohexane dione and methyl glycol laurate to unwanted plants.
Claims 18, 22, 24, 26-27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marrs et al. (US 4,975,113) as applied to claims 16-17, 19-21, 23, 28 and 30-31 above, further in view of Weil et al. (Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 1979).
The teachings of Marrs et al. and Weil et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claims 18, 22, 24, 26-27 and 33, Marrs et al. teach methyl glycol laurate as a nonionic surfactant for use in herbicidal compositions comprising a cyclohexane dione herbicide, but they do not explicitly disclose nonionic surfactants comprising C8H17CO2(C2H4O)6CH3, as instantly claimed.
Weil et al. teach that methyl polyethylene glycol esters of heptanoic acid, octanoic acid and nonanoic acid are surfactants and wetting agents for soil (Table IV). Weil et al. teach the compound C8H17CO2(C2H4O)6CH3, which corresponds to the fatty acid derivative of formula (I) wherein R1 is octyl, R2 and R3 are each H, n and p are both 0, m is 6, and R8 is methyl (Table IV, No. 6).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions according to Marrs et al. wherein the nonionic surfactant methyl glycol laurate is replaced with the nonionic surfactant of Weil et al., such as C8H17CO2(C2H4O)6CH3. Such would have been obvious because the fatty acid derivatives according to Weil et al. are structurally similar to the methyl glycol laurate of Marrs et al. and they are taught to possess wetting properties for soil.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." See MPEP 2144.09(I).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marrs et al. (US 4,975,113) in view of Weil et al. (Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 1979) as applied to claims 16-24, 26-28, 30-31 and 33 above, further in view of Zorner et al. (US 5,284,819).
The teachings of Marrs et al. and Weil et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 29, Marrs et al. and Weil et al. do not explicitly disclose a method for controlling unwanted plants comprising applying a composition consisting of one or more fatty acid derivatives of formula (I), as instantly claimed.
Zorner et al. teach that glycol esters of fatty acids, including ethylene glycol monopelargonate (MP), mono-glycol esters of C6, C7, C9, C10, C12 and C14 fatty acids, are herbicidally effective against grasses and weeds (Examples 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to apply the nonionic surfactants of Marrs et al. and Weil et al., such as methyl glycol laurate or C8H17CO2(C2H4O)6CH3, to unwanted plants with the reasonable expectation that the fatty acid derivatives would possess herbicidal activity similar to the glycol esters of fatty acids according to Zorner et al.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." See MPEP 2144.09(I).
Claims 16-17, 19-21, 23, 28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2016/0102271 A1).
Regarding claims 16-17, 19-21, 23, 28 and 30-31, Allen et al. teach alkoxylated fatty acid ester compositions for agricultural use ([0009], [0014], [0053], [0114]-[0131]). Allen et al. teach agricultural compositions comprising 2,4-D ester, 480 g/L (8.90 g), Exxsol® D-110 (ExxonMobil, 2.50 g), Ninate 60E (0.36 g), and nonionic sample (C10-8, C10-9, C12-8, C12-9 or C16-8 (depicted above)) or Toximul 8240 (0.24 g) ([0119]; Tables 5A, 5B); and compositions comprising 2,4-D diester, 480 g/L (8.90 g), Hallcomid M-8-10 (2.38 g), Ninate 60E (0.09 g), Toximul 8320 (0.22 g), Toximul 8242 (0.29 g), and nonionic sample (C10-8, C10-9, C12-8, C12-9 or C16-8 (depicted above)) or Ninex MT-630F (0.13 g) ([0125]; Table 6). Allen et al. also teach compositions comprising 2,4-D acid or trifluralin as herbicides and C12-8 (Table 7).
Allen et al. do not explicitly disclose a method of controlling unwanted vegetation comprising applying to the unwanted vegetation the composition comprising the alkoxylated fatty acid ester, as instantly claimed. However, Allen et al. teach agricultural compositions comprising an herbicide, such as 2,4-D ester, 2,4-D acid or trifluralin, and the alkoxylated fatty acid ester.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to apply the compositions according to Allen et al. to unwanted vegetation in order to control said vegetation. Such would have been obvious because the herbicides taught by Allen et al., 2,4-D ester, 2,4-D acid and trifluralin, are known herbicidal compounds used for the control of unwanted weeds.
Claims 18, 22, 24, 26-27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2016/0102271 A1) as applied to claims 16-17, 19-21, 23, 28 and 30-31 above, further in view of Weil et al. (Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 1979).
The teachings of Allen et al. and Weil et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claims 18, 22, 24, 26-27 and 33, Allen et al. teach herbicidal compositions comprising a nonionic surfactant alkoxylated fatty acid ester, but they do not explicitly disclose nonionic surfactants comprising C8H17CO2(C2H4O)6CH3, as instantly claimed.
Weil et al. teach that methyl polyethylene glycol esters of heptanoic acid, octanoic acid and nonanoic acid are surfactants and wetting agents for soil (Table IV). Weil et al. teach the compound C8H17CO2(C2H4O)6CH3, which corresponds to the fatty acid derivative of formula (I) wherein R1 is octyl, R2 and R3 are each H, n and p are both 0, m is 6, and R8 is methyl (Table IV, No. 6).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare compositions according to Allen et al. wherein the nonionic surfactant alkoxylated fatty acid ester is replaced with the nonionic surfactant of Weil et al., such as C8H17CO2(C2H4O)6CH3. Such would have been obvious because the fatty acid derivatives according to Weil et al. are structurally similar to the alkoxylated fatty acid ester of Allen et al. and they are taught to possess wetting properties for soil.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." See MPEP 2144.09(I).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allen et al. (US 2016/0102271 A1) in view of Weil et al. (Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 1979) as applied to claims 16-24, 26-28, 30-31 and 33 above, further in view of Zorner et al. (US 5,284,819).
The teachings of Allen et al. and Weil et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 29, Allen et al. and Weil et al. do not explicitly disclose a method for controlling unwanted plants comprising applying a composition consisting of one or more fatty acid derivatives of formula (I), as instantly claimed.
Zorner et al. teach that glycol esters of fatty acids, including ethylene glycol monopelargonate (MP), mono-glycol esters of C6, C7, C9, C10, C12 and C14 fatty acids, are herbicidally effective against grasses and weeds (Examples 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to apply the nonionic surfactants of Allen et al. and Weil et al., such as C10-8, C10-9, C12-8, C12-9, C16-8, or C8H17CO2(C2H4O)6CH3, to unwanted plants with the reasonable expectation that the fatty acid derivatives would possess herbicidal activity similar to the glycol esters of fatty acids according to Zorner et al.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." See MPEP 2144.09(I).
Claims 16-28, 30 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mainx et al. (US 2004/0171492 A1).
Regarding claims 16-27 and 33-35, Mainx et al. teach a process for decreasing the amount of agricultural chemical composition deposited on the surface of a plant that is removed by exposure to rain (Abstract; Claim 16). Mainx et al. teach compounds corresponding to formula (I): RO-(C2H4O)n(C3H6O)m-R’ for improving the rain resistance of agrochemical formulations after their application to the surfaces of plants ([0004]-[0010]; Claims 1-2, 7). Mainx et al. teach that the compounds of formula (I) include alkoxylated fatty acid esters (i.e., R’ is -CO-R”) containing at least one mol, preferably between 1 and 30 mol, ethylene oxide groups per mol ester, wherein suitable fatty acid groups include C6-30 fatty acids, special examples being caprylic and capric acid, and the alcohol component includes methanol ([0014], [0016]-[0020]). Mainx et al. also teach that agrochemical formulations in the context of the present invention are broadly understood to be any compounds which contain active substances from the group of fertilizers, pesticides, plant fortifying agents or other active substances for use in horticulture ([0011]). Mainx et al. further teach rain resistance tests wherein sprayable formulations were applied to plants and the plants were exposed to artificial rain ([0033]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare agricultural compositions according to Mainx et al. comprising an alkoxylated fatty acid ester, such as a compound of formula (I) wherein R is methyl, n is a number of 1 to 50, m is 0 or a number of 1 to 5, and R’ is -CO-R” and the fatty acid group (-O-CO-R”) is a combination of caprylic acid and capric acid, and applying said compositions to plants. Such would have been obvious because Mainx et al. teach the use of alkoxylated fatty acid esters for improving the rain resistance of agrochemical formulations after their application to the surfaces of plants.
Regarding claim 28, Mainx et al. teach the compounds of formula (I) according to the invention are present in the agrochemical preparations directly suitable for application in quantities of preferably 0.05 to 5% by weight ([0030]-[0031]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine through routine experimentation the effective concentration of the compound of formula (I) to include in an agrochemical composition within the range taught by Mainx et al.
Regarding claim 30, Mainx et al. teach that agrochemical formulations in the context of the present invention are broadly understood to be any compounds which contain active substances from the group of fertilizers, pesticides, plant fortifying agents or other active substances for use in horticulture ([0011]).
Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the compound of formula (I) with a plant growth regulator or herbicide since they are compositions used in horticulture.
Regarding claim 32, Mainx et al. do not teach inclusion of an organic solvent with their compound of formula (I).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mainx et al. (US 2004/0171492 A1) as applied to claims 16-28, 30 and 32-35 above, further in view of Zorner et al. (US 5,284,819).
The teachings of Mainx et al. are discussed above.
Regarding claim 29, Mainx et al. do not explicitly disclose a method for controlling unwanted plants comprising applying a composition consisting of one or more fatty acid derivatives of formula (I), as instantly claimed.
Zorner et al. teach that glycol esters of fatty acids, including ethylene glycol monopelargonate (MP), mono-glycol esters of C6, C7, C9, C10, C12 and C14 fatty acids, are herbicidally effective against grasses and weeds (Examples 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to apply the nonionic surfactants of Mainx et al., such as compounds corresponding to formula (I): RO-(C2H4O)n(C3H6O)m-R’, to unwanted plants with the reasonable expectation that the fatty acid derivatives would possess herbicidal activity similar to the glycol esters of fatty acids according to Zorner et al.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." See MPEP 2144.09(I).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/ERIN E HIRT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights