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 06/01/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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, 26-53, and 56-57 are canceled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claim 68 is newly added.
Claim 25 remains withdrawn.
Claims 1, 11-12, 21-23, 54-55, and 58-68 are examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/01/2026 is being considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendments
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 68 is 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 68 recites “wherein the triethyl citrate and the lauric acid are the sole emulsifiers present in the pest control composition”. However, the pest composition as claimed includes isopropyl myristate which is self-emulsifying component as evidenced by Rowe et al. (page 348, section 7; Rowe, R. C., Sheskey, P. J., & Quinn, M. E. (2009). Isopropyl Myristate. In Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients (Sixth, pp. 348–349). essay, RPS.). Therefore, Applicant’s claim to lauric acid and triethyl citrate being the sole emulsifiers is unclear as the composition comprises addition emulsifiers.
For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, the examiner will broadly interpret any composition comprising lauric acid and triethyl citrate to meet the “sole emulsifiers” limitation.
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 though 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 58-68 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Enan et al. (WO2010115065A1, published 10/07/2010, hereafter Enan) in view of Czarnota et al. (Czarnota, Mark, and Paul A. Thomas. "Using surfactants, wetting agents, and adjuvants in the greenhouse." (2010). (Year: 2010), hereafter Czarnota).
Enan claims a method for pest control employing microemulsion-based enhanced pest control formulations (title; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 21, and 68). Enan teaches the microemulsion comprises an active pest control ingredient and a microemulsifying agent (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Enan claims the microemulsifying agent comprises a mixture of unsaturated C12-C26 fatty acids and/or salts thereof and saturated C6-C14 fatty acids and/or salts thereof, and the active pest control ingredient comprises two or more compounds that act synergistically to control the target pest (claim 1; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 68). Enan claims the active pest-control ingredient comprises a synergistic combination of at least 3 ingredients from an ingredient family, wherein the ingredient family is an Ingredient Family listed in Table 2 having at least 3 ingredients (claim 4; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 68). Enan claims the ingredients are present within a range specified in Range 1 of Table 2 (claim 6; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Example 32 of Table 2 of Enan teaches a composition comprising geraniol at a concentration of 0.38 to 7.28%, vanillin at a concentration of 0.04 to 0.84%, isopropyl myristate at a concentration of 0.74 to 14.08%, triethyl citrate at a concentration of 0.74 to 14.12%, and mineral oil at a concentration of 1.91 to 36.23% (page 45; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 11-12, 54-55, and 58-67). Enan teaches the fatty acids and/or salts thereof are suitably present in a composition according to various methods of the present invention in the range from 3 to 50% (page 13, lines 68-29; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 54-55, and 68). Enan teaches the fatty acid is selected from a group to include lauric acid (page 13, lines 2-3; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 54-55, and 68). Enan teaches that in addition, suspension concentrates, dispersions of sparingly soluble active ingredients in water or in organic solvents, are also employed in conjunction with pesticidal compositions (page 2, lines 7-9; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 21). Enan teaches the emulsion is particularly suitable for use as a sprayable product (page 18, line 7; according to the claim limitation of the instant claims 22-23). Enan further teaches the spray formulation can be used as an aerosol or a pump spray or a burning formulation (page 19, lines 18-20; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 22-23).
Although the example compositions of Enan do not include sodium lauryl sulfate and Enan teaches fatty acid/salts thereof as the sole emulisifer and the effective ‘absence’ of any other emulsifiers and surfactants including anionic surfactants (pg 14, line 30-pg. 15, lines 5), Enan fails to explicitly teach the composition is free of an anionic surfactant including sodium lauryl sulfate as in instant claim 1. This deficiency is cured by Czarnota.
Czarnota teaches using surfactants in the greenhouse to overcome water solubility issues with pesticides (title and abstract). Czarnota teaches that anionic surfactants are negatively charged and enhance foaming (page 3, anionic surfactants). Further, Czarnota teaches for example sodium laureth sulfate is a preferred anionic surfactant in the shampooing of hair (page 3, anionic surfactants). Czarnota teaches that using anionic surfactant in the greenhouse can cause problems with sprayers or any system where the foam could disrupt the water flow or pump system (page 3, anionic surfactants)
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would modify a pest control composition comprising lauric acid, isopropyl myristate, vanillin, mineral oil, triethyl citrate and lauric acid as outlined by Enan by the selection of a surfactant other than an anionic surfactant, specifically sodium lauryl sulfate, as outlined by Czarnota under TSM, see MPEP 2143(G). As outlined by Czarnota, anionic surfactants are mostly used for hair products such as shampoo and when used in greenhouse spray systems or pump systems cause problems due to the foaming which would motivate someone skilled in the art to advantageously select a surfactant other than an anionic surfactant in the composition of Enan as it would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/01/2026 have been fully considered by the examiner.
In regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejection, Applicant’s amendments have necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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
Prosecution Insights