Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Status
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered. Further, the terminal disclosure filed 11/14/2025 is considered and approved. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 2-10, 13-20, 24, 16-53, and 56-57 are canceled.
Claim 25 remains withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 60 are amended.
Claims 1, 11-12, 21-23, 54-55, and 58-67 are examined on the merits.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendments
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 11-12, 21-23, 54-55, and 58-67 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Enan (US 11,241,008) in view of Jones (US 8,142,801).
Enan teaches a composition (i.e. as a pest control composition in the form of a spray or cream) for the intended purpose of pest control comprises or may comprise (often within various preferred embodiments) geraniol, mineral oil and isopropyl myristate, as isopropyl alcohol (i.e. isopropanol), triethyl citrate, vanillin, a surface-active agent (i.e. emulsifying agents), a surfactant and a carrier (i.e. water and/or emulsion) (see entire document including e.g. title, abstract, paragraphs, Tables and claims). Furthermore, Enan provides multiple example blends that teach geraniol at concentrations of 0.1-30%, isopropyl alcohol at concentrations of 0.1-30%, isopropyl myristate at concentrations of 0.1-99%, vanillin at concentrations of 0.002-8%, mineral oil at concentrations of 8-99%, and triethyl citrate at concentrations of 0.1-55% (table 1). Enan provides an example composition with the following parameters: geraniol at 0.5-30%, tetrahydrolinalool (an alcohol) at 0.5-30%, vanillin at 0.05-20%, isopropyl myristate at 0.5-30%, triethyl citrate at 0.5-30%, and mineral oil at 3-90% (table 2, last example). Enan teaches multiple examples comprising sodium lauryl sulfate (column 25, blends 113-114, and 118; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Enan, however, does not teach a specific example the further inclusion of lauric acid therein.
Jones beneficially teaches a composition (as a pesticide composition) for the intended p
purpose of pest control comprises or may comprise (often within various preferred embodiments) lauric acid (as a fatty acid within therapeutic effective amounts/ranges therein, see examples and especially column 23 lines 1-28 of formulation z) (see entire document including e.g.- title, abstract, claims and especially claims 1 and 7). Jones teaches the present invention is based on the discovery that sodium lauryl sulfate and C6-C12 fatty acids, preferably lauric acid, are unexpectedly and highly effective as pest-combating active ingredients in the pest control formulations (column 5, lines 25-29; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a composition (as a spray powder/formulation and/or cream) comprising lauric acid, isopropyl alcohol, isopropyl myristate, triethyl citrate, vanillin, mineral oil, geraniol, a surfactant and a carrier-for their known individual activities/purposes, based upon the beneficial teachings provided by the cited references (as fully discussed above)- and for the following reasons: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to combine the instant ingredients for their known benefit since each is well known in the art for the same purpose (used for the intended purpose of pest control) and for the following reasons: In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court reaffirmed "the conclusion that when a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976)). The Supreme Court also emphasized a flexible approach to the obviousness question, stating that the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418; see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is... a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). The Supreme Court thus implicitly endorsed the principle, stated in In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted), that: It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose. [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. Applicant’s invention is predicated on an unexpected result, which typically involves synergism - an unpredictable phenomenon, highly dependent upon specific proportions and/or amounts of particular ingredients. Accordingly, the instant claims, in the range of proportions where no unexpected results are observed, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill having the above cited references before him/her. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g. determining suitable amount/ratios of each active ingredient within the claimed composition and the substitution of one type of formulation for another) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Moreover, if not expressly taught thereby, based upon the overall beneficial teaching provided therein with respect disclosed such as for the intended purpose used as a pest control therein in a subject and in the manner disclosed therein, the adjustment of a particular conventional working condition therein (e.g. determining one or more suitable ranges, including dosing, amounts, and proportions, in which to provide therapeutically effective amounts in the composition), is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization that are well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
With respect to the art rejections above, please note that the intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is intrinsic to the composition reasonably suggested by the cited references, as a whole. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting (see, e.g., MPEP 2112).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/14/2025 have been fully considered.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments against the 35 USC § 103 rejection, Applicant first argues that Enan does not teach or suggest a pest control composition comprising 2.5 to less than 10 weight percent lauric acid and that Jones does not cure the deficiencies. Applicant further argues that Jones only provides one example comprising lauric acid and further argues that the example is not an emulsion and does not include a mineral oil or any other oil. Applicant claims that Formulation 4228, in example 8 of table 9 is commensurate with the scope of instant claim 1 and demonstrates unexpected results.
It is first noted that Applicant’s claims are not commensurate with the formulation 4228, example 8 of table 9, as this example includes denatured ethanol which is currently absent from instant claim 1. Further, it is noted that formulation 4228 was only tested on mosquitos and ticks specifically (figures 3, 5, and 9; specification [0015], [0017], and [0021]). This data is not commensurate with instant claim 1 which claims “a pest control composition” generically thus encompasses all pests while the data only demonstrates the formulation against mosquitos and ticks. Additionally, as outlined above in the 103 rejection, Jones teaches that sodium lauryl sulfate and C6-C12 fatty acids, preferably lauric acid, are unexpectedly and highly effective as pest-combating active ingredients in the pest control formulations (column 5, lines 25-29). Further, as cited for interest, Jones et al. (A. Maxwell P. Jones, Jerome A. Klun, Charles L. Cantrell, Diane Ragone, Kamlesh R. Chauhan, Paula N. Brown, and Susan J. Murch Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2012 60 (15), 3867-3873,DOI: 10.1021/jf300101w) teaches lauric acid is a mosquito, specifically Aedes egypti, detergent that is significantly more active than N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) (abstract). Therefore, Applicants findings that lauric acid is useful in pest control is not unexpected as it is commonly known in the art.
In summary, Applicants arguments are not found persuasive. The 35 USC § 103 rejection of record are updated to account for claim amendments.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments against the Non-Statutory Double Patenting rejection, Applicant argues the submitted the terminal disclaimer overcomes the rejection of record.
The terminal disclaimer submitted on 11/14/2025 is considered and approved by the examiner. As such, the non-statutory double patenting rejection of record is withdrawn.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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 (571) 272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1611