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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants’ submission filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-10, 12-15, 17-20, 25-28 and 30 are pending.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration due to the restriction requirement.
Claims 11, 16, 21-24, and 29 are cancelled.
Claims 1-10, 12-15, 17-19, 25-28 and 30 are pending and included in this examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/19,2026, 12/05/2024, 11/01/2024, 10/30/2023 and 9/25/2020 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements has been considered by the examiner. Please see the attached PTO-1449
Modified Rejections
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.
Claims 1-10, 12-15, 17-19, 25-28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Common Host-Derived Chemicals Increase Catches of Disease-Transmitting Mosquitoes and Can Improve Early Warning Systems for Rift Valley Fever Virus, hereinafter reference is referred as Tchouassi in view of New methods for field collection of human skin volatiles and perspectives for their application in the chemical ecology of human pathogen vector interactions, hereinafter reference is referred as Dormont, Eiras (WO 2004/034783), Prohaska (US 2013/0142753) and further in view of Fink et al. (WO 2019/101890 with Priority Date of 11/22/2017) hereinafter reference is referred as Fink.
Tchouassi teaches mosquito composition comprising skin-derived aldehydes heptanal, octanal, nonanal and decanal common to Rift Valley Fever Virus (RVFV) hosts including sheep, cow, donkey, goat and human serve as potent attractants for RVFV mosquito vectors and a blend formulated from the four aldehydes and combined with CO2-baited CDC trap without a light bulb doubled to tripled trap captures compared to control traps baited with CO2 alone (abstract).
Regarding claims 1-3, Tchouassi teaches mosquito composition comprising heptanal, octanal, nonanal and decanal, wherein composition (Blend F) is formulated from the four aldehydes based on the doses of individual components that elicited optimal attraction comprising heptanal (2 mg/ml); octanal 0.5 mg/ml; nonanal (0.1 mg/ml); and decanal (0.1 mg/ml), and also various blends reflecting the mean ratio of occurrence of these aldehydes in each of the animals; Blend A (cow); Blend B (human); Blend C (goat); Blend D (sheep); Blend E (donkey), wherein the subsequent dose-response field assays, comparison to the attractiveness of blends (A-F) to individual components at their optimal respective doses, heptanal recorded the highest captures (61 % increase at 2 mg/ml), followed by nonanal (44 % increase at 0.1 mg/ml), decanal (36 % increase at 0.1 mg/ml) and octanal (34 % increase at 0.5 mg/ml) (page 6, right column, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, Tchouassi is silent on 2-octanone. Therefore, the limitation of not comprising 2-octanone is met. It is noted in page 9 of Specification (lines 9-10) that 2-octanone has been found not to be associated with attractiveness to mosquitoes, and therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to exclude 2-octanone from the composition.
Regarding claim 7, Tchouassi teaches organic solvent hexane or dichloromethane (page 3, right column, last paragraph; page 5, left column, 2nd paragraph, line 2).
Regarding claim 8, Tchouassi teaches ratios of synthetic blends were also compared to the ratios in the naturally occurring blends and similar chromatographic data were used to estimate release rates of the constituent aldehydes from each of the animals (page 5, left column, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claims 9-10, Tchouassi teaches the total amount of these aldehydes in the volatiles varied with the host: for example cow, 29-43%; goat, 45-56%; donkey, 36-63%; sheep, 26-44%; and human, 18-40% (page 6, left column, Chemical identification of animal skin odors paragraph). Therefore, the limitation of at least 0.5 % (v/v) with the synthetic attractant blend, and/or in combination as more than 15 % (v/v), more than 60 %(v/v) of total volatiles in the composition is taught.
Regarding claim 12, Tchouassi teaches a natural human or animal odour source in its crude skin-odor field trials, wherein skin odor collected directly from cow, donkey, goat, sheep, and human hosts via stockinette material was evaluated in combination with a CO2-baited trap without further modification (page 2, right column, Odor collection and field evaluation of crude skin odors section; Table 1). Tchouassi further and separately teaches that heptanal, among the four tested aldehydes, elicited the greatest individual enhancement of mosquito capture, recording the highest increase of any single component (61% at 2 mg/ml), exceeding octanal, nonanal, and decanal (page 6, right column, 1st paragraph; Table 2), and Tchouassi expressly states that heptanal, octanal, and decanal individually "can also be exploited in a similar manner to increase field captures of RVFV mosquito vectors" (page 9, right column, last paragraph). A PHOSITA would have been motivated to supplement the natural host odor source of Tchouassi's crude odor trials with added heptanal specifically, based on Tchouassi's own comparative data identifying heptanal as the most effective single enhancing compound, with a reasonable expectation of success given the demonstrated dose-response relationship between heptanal concentration and mosquito capture (Table 2; Figure S1). Combining Tchouassi's natural host-odor teaching with Tchouassi's own heptanal-enhancement teaching meets the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claims 13, Tchouassi teaches heptanal as a quantifiable and variable component of natural host odor, with total aldehyde content (including heptanal) ranging from approximately 18-40% in human odor to 29-63% across the animal hosts tested (page 6, left column, Chemical identification of animal skin odors paragraph), and further teaches a clear dose-dependent relationship between heptanal concentration and mosquito capture across the tested range of 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 mg/ml, superimposed on the natural odor context (page 5, right column, 1st paragraph; Table 2; Figure S1). The specific amount of heptanal added relative to the amount naturally present in the host odor source is a result-effective variable directly correlated with the degree of enhanced mosquito attraction demonstrated by Tchouassi's own dose-response data, and which a PHOSITA would have been motivated to optimize through routine experimentation to arrive at the claimed "about 10% greater (v/v)" amount, absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results commensurate with that specific value. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980) (discovery of an optimum value of a result-effective variable is ordinarily within the level of ordinary skill in the art). It would therefore have been prima facie obvious to a PHOSITA to arrive at the claimed amount of added heptanal through routine optimization of the dose-response relationship taught by Tchouassi.
Regarding claims 14-15, Tchouassi's Blend F constitutes a synthetic mosquito attractant comprising heptanal, octanal, nonanal, and decanal formulated at heptanal 2 mg/ml, octanal 0.5 mg/ml, nonanal 0.1 mg/ml, and decanal 0.1 mg/ml (page 6, right column; Table 2), such that heptanal represents approximately 74% (2 mg/ml of 2.7 mg/ml total aldehyde content) of the total volatile odor compounds present in the blend upon volatilization, well in excess of the claimed "at least 0.7% v/v" (claim 14) and "at least 0.9% v/v" (claim 15) limitations. Claim 14 requires only a natural or synthetic mosquito attractant and heptanal, and does not require heptanal to be chemically distinct from, or additional to, the named attractant components. Accordingly, Blend F, a synthetic mosquito attractant that itself comprises heptanal at the claimed proportion, meets the limitations of claims 14 and 15 under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 17, Tchouassi teaches all lures either singly or blends were released by diffusion (page 5, left column, last 3 lines). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to formulate the release of the mosquito attractant in a gaseous form as the alternative.
Regarding claims 25-26, Tchouassi teaches in a recent study, CO2 was reported to synergize nonanal to increase trap captures of Culex mosquito vectors of West Nile Virus, and their data stresses a fascinating dose dependent behavioral blend effect of four aldehydes as kairomones which in combination with CO2 significantly increase trap captures for Rift Valley Fever Virus (RVFV) mosquito vectors and furthermore, the data also suggest that individually, heptanal, octanal and decanal can also be exploited in a similar manner to increase field captures of RVFV mosquito vectors (page 9, right column-last paragraph). Therefore, the limitation of synergy with combination of the claims aldehydes to attract mosquitos is taught.
Regarding claim 27, as discussed above regarding claim 12, Tchouassi's crude skin-odor field trials teach a natural human or animal odour source (page 2, right column, Odor collection and field evaluation of crude skin odors section), and Tchouassi separately teaches added heptanal as the individually most effective enhancing component (Table 2; page 9, right column, last paragraph). The carbon dioxide employed in Tchouassi's field evaluations is generated and released from a physically separate Igloo thermos container mounted near the trap fan, independent of the canister containing the odor source itself (page 3, right column-page 4, left column, Odor collection and field evaluation of crude skin odors section; Figure 2A). CO2 is therefore properly understood as part of the trap/delivery apparatus rather than a component of the claimed composition. Accordingly, a composition consisting of the natural odor source and added heptanal, without further additives, meets the closed "consists of" language of claim 27.
Regarding claims 28, Tchouassi's Blend F, discussed above regarding claims 14 and 15, comprises a synthetic mosquito attractant (octanal, nonanal, and decanal) together with heptanal, formulated and released by diffusion from a 0.5 ml polyethylene tube physically distinct from the CO2 source (page 5, left column, last paragraph; Figure 2B, depicting synthetic compounds released from a tube placed under the Igloo container in the air flow of CO2, i.e., from a source separate from the CO2 itself). Because CO2 is supplied from a physically separate source and is not a component of the synthetic blend, a composition consisting of the synthetic attractant components and heptanal, without further additives, i.e., Blend F, meets the closed "consists of" language of claim 28.
Tchouassi fails to teach hexanal, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-decenal, 2-octenal, 2-decenal, 1-octen-3-one, insecticides and adhesive in the mosquito attractant/trapping composition.
Dormont teaches methods and techniques for field collection of human skin volatiles for examining the olfactory cue mediating the host-seeking behavior of mosquito vectors (Summary), specifically focusing on odors emitted by human feet, as these odors have been proven to strongly influence the behavior of several blood-sucking mosquitoes (page 2783, right column, last 2 lines to page 2784, left column, 1st two lines) and collection of human skin odors are actually attractive to mosquitoes, in fact, many of the foot volatile compounds isolated in study have already been reported to be physiologically active to different mosquito species, e.g. nonanal, decanal, octanal, as well as other minor components of foot volatiles ,m including hexanal, octanoic acid, nonanoic acid, decanoic acid, for example (page 2786, left column, last paragraph).
Regarding claims 1-2, 10, and 25, Dormont teaches isolation of 44 volatile compounds detected in human foot (page 2785, Table 1) wherein the volatile profile was dominated by the presence of nonanal (34%), decan (18%), octanal (6%) and small amounts of (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-nonenal and (E)-2-undecenol for example. The present at a very low amounts (less than 0.05% of the total volatiles) were known to be attractive for some blood-sucking insects, e.g., (E)-2-octenal) (page 2786, right column, last paragraph). Therefore, small amounts of (E)-2-octenal) inclusion to a mosquito attractant composition is taught.
Eiras teaches traps to catch and method to capture the mosquito of species Aedes aegypti, Aedes albopictus, Anopheles specie and Culex quinquefasciatus in order to monitor, detect and control (page 1, lines 1-4) comprising attractants C3-C12 aldehydes hexanal, heptanal, octanal, nonanal, decal, undecanal, dodecanal and acceptable salts thereof (page 15, lines 1-2; claim 10 ; example 10-11), trapping mosquitoes on the internal wall of the adhesive structure and thus reducing the rate of transmission of diseases, for example malaria (page 5, lines 9-21).
Regarding claim 4, as noted above, Eiras teaches hexanal in mosquito composition.
Regarding claim 18, as noted above, Eiras teaches adhesive substance in the mosquito attractant composition.
Regarding claim 19, Eiras teaches addition of any type of insecticide or attractant to the mosquito trap can be used (page 14, lines 18-19, claim 6).
Prohaska teaches device and method for generating carbon dioxide as an attractant for biting arthropods in combination with a trap (abstract), wherein the term “biting arthropods” is understood to describe members of the phylum Arthropoda that feed on the blood of warm blooded animals which includes mosquitoes, bedbugs, biting flies, biting midges, fleas, gnats and the like (paragraph 0013). Prohaska further disclose improved method of generating carbon dioxide as an attractant for biting arthropods connected to an insect trap, comprising a reaction chamber charged with an aqueous acid solution, providing a gas outlet from the reaction chamber for connecting between the reaction chamber and the trap (paragraph 0017) and additional organic attractants, for example, 1-octen-3-one can be useful to target trapping biting arthropods (paragraphs 0029-0030).
Regarding claim 5, Prohaska teaches mosquito attractant apparatus comprising an organic insect attractant 1-octen-3-one (paragraph 0029 and claim 9).
Regarding claim 17, as noted above, Prohaska teaches gaseous form of the mosquito attractant composition.
Fink teaches pesticide composition comprising one or more pesticide volatile compounds (VOCs) for attracting Drosophila spp. comprising ketone, aldehyde, alcohol or ester (abstract) to control or prevent Drosophila spp. infestation. The intended use of Fink’s composition differs from instant claims as a mosquito attractant, however the components in Fink’s composition are identical.
Regarding claim 1, Fink teaches pesticide composition comprising heptanal, octanal, nonanal, (E)-2-octenal and (E)-2-decenal (page 2, paragraph 1, and page 43, paragraph Chemicals) and (page 32, Table 0, shown below) exemplifies the identity of the compounds listed in Figures 2A and 2B. The recitation in the preamble as a mosquito attractant does not impart patentable weight because it is regarded as intended use of the composition. The claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. The claim is limited to the structure implied by the composition, and thus the claim has been met because the composition is a mosquito attractant with heptanal, octanal, nonanal, (E)-2-octenal and (E)-2-decenal. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. Attracting and/or trapping mosquitoes with the mixtures heptanal, octanal, nonanal, (E)-2-octenal and (E)-2-decenal in specific varying amounts, is regarded as intended use of the composition and does not impart patentability to the product claim. The recited amounts are relative to the process in how much would be applied to humans or animals infected by the Plasmodium parasite or to Plasmodium-free humans or animals, and therefore is a future intended step of the composition and is not given patentable weight to a product claim.
Table 0
PNG
media_image1.png
604
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Fink teaches pesticide composition comprising lowest concentration at which full lethality is observed (page 35, paragraph 2), with (E)-2-octenal and (E)-2-decenal were most potent and toxic at concentrations from below 3% vol. to as low as 0.3% vol. (claim 22), and wherein the one or more pesticide VOCs are nonanal, heptanal, (E)-2-octenal and (E)-2-decenal are each present at a concentration of between 0.3% vol and 10% vol. (clause 53, claim 18) and each of the one or more VOCs can be at a concentration of between about 0.1 and about 50% w/w or about 0.3% to about 45% by volume of the composition (clause 34). Therefore, this broad range encompass and overlaps the instant ratios of each of the VOCs components and thus the limitation and structural features are met.
Regarding claim 3, Fink teaches pesticide composition comprising concentrations of each of the one or more pesticide VOCs (Nonanal, Octanal, Heptanal, 2-octanal, and 2-decenal) is present at a concentration in the range of at least 0.1% to at most 50%. Therefore, this broad range encompass and overlaps the instant concentrations of each of the VOCs components and thus the limitation and structural features are met.
Regarding claim 9, Fink teaches the pesticide composition wherein each of the one or more pesticide VOCs is present in the composition of at least 0.1%, 0.3%, 0.5%, 1% to 5% by volume of composition (page 3, paragraph 6; claim 11). Therefore, encompass 0.5% v/v of instant range, thus the limitation and structural features are met.
Regarding claim 10, Fink teaches the pesticide composition comprising each of the one or more VOCs is present in the composition at a concentration in the range of at least 0.1% to 50% by volume of the composition. Therefore, encompass instant range of 15% and/or 60% of total volatiles in the composition, thus the limitation and structural features are met (page 3, paragraph 6; claim 11).
Regarding claims 14-15, in the alternative, Fink teaches a pesticide/attractant composition comprising heptanal in combination with other VOCs at a concentration of between 0.3% vol and 10% vol (page 6, paragraph 2; page 17, claim 18), a range that encompasses and overlaps the claimed heptanal concentrations of at least 0.7% v/v (claim 14) and at least 0.9% v/v (claim 15). See In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257 (CCPA 1976); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art). Fink's VOC composition, which produces a behavioral effect on insect olfactory systems (pages 14, 26-27), reads on the claimed "synthetic mosquito attractant" of claim 14 under the broadest reasonable interpretation, and any of the uses may comprise applying the composition in liquid or gas form, such as spraying, vaporizing or fumigating (page 9, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 17, Fink teaches pesticide composition may comprise of applying the pesticide composition in liquid or gas form, such as spraying, vaporizing or fumigating (page 9, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 30, the recitation of the composition of claim 1, “further comprising malathion, resmethrin, sumithrin, or permethrin” are known insecticides in a mosquito attractant that yields predictable results (attract and kill) and represents routine vector control practice. Claim 30 does not introduce a patentably distinct limitation relative to the teachings of prior art Eiras. Eiras expressly teaches mosquito traps comprising attractants in combination with insecticides, and the newly recited claimed insecticides are well known mosquito control agents. As noted in the rejection above, Eiras teaches addition of any type of insecticide or attractant to the mosquito trap can be used (page 14, lines 18-19, claim 6) and use of any type of attractant for mosquitoes or any other type of insect attractant, which the composition comprising an effective amount of at least one compound of C3-C12 aldehydes and acceptable salts thereof, selected from the group consisting of propanal, pentanal, pentanal, hexanal, heptanal, octanal, nonanal, decal, undecanal, and dodecanal and acceptable salts thereof (Eiras, claims 10 and 11).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed mosquito attractant compositions by combining the teachings of Tchouassi, Dormont, Eiras, Prohaska, and Fink, because each reference is directed to insect attractant compositions and vector control, and collectively they disclose structurally similar volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are well known to interact with insect olfactory systems in a predictable manner.
Tchouassi teaches that aldehydes, for example heptanal, octanal, and nonanal are host-derived kairomones that increase mosquito attraction when presented individually or in combination, thereby establishing that aldehyde blends can be used to mimic host odors and enhance mosquito capture. Dormont further teaches that human skin odors relevant to mosquito host-seeking behavior comprise additional aldehydes, including (E) 2-octenal, thereby expanding the set of mosquito-relevant VOCs beyond those expressly tested in Tchouassi. Eiras teaches mosquito trapping systems employing C3-C12 aldehydes, adhesive capture surfaces, and optional insecticides, demonstrating that aldehyde attractants are routinely combined with trapping and killing mechanisms in mosquito control. Prohaska teaches deployment of organic insect attractants in gaseous or volatilized form, confirming that volatilization of such VOCs is known and predictable delivery approach. Fink teaches compositions comprising one or more VOCs selected from aldehydes including heptanal, octanal, nonanal, (E) 2-decenal, and further teaches that these VOCs are biologically active insect interacting compounds. Although Fink is directed to Drosophila species, the claims at issue are composition based claims, and the recited “mosquito attractant” language is an intended use that does not impart patentable weight on composition claims. The structural characteristics of the claimed VOCs with those disclosed in Fink, in combination with mosquito specific teachings of Tchouassi and Dormont, provides a sufficient basis for obviousness. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA that the combination of prior art that provides the same characteristics and structural limitations of the claimed compositional VOCs would be reasonably capable of performing the same claimed function in the mosquito attractant composition.
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references to select and combine a finite number of known, structurally similar aldehydes in order to better approximate host odor profiles and improve insect attraction in vector control systems. Such selection represents routine optimization from a known set of alternatives and does not require an express example of the identical combination in the prior art. It would have been obvious and sufficient to combine familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Accordingly, the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, and a prima facie case has been properly established.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/19/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. No amendments to the claims were made; thus, no new matter is introduced.
Argument 1 (Fink does not disclose the claimed combination)
Applicant’s contention that Fink fails to teach a combination of heptanal, octanal, nonanal, (E)-2-octenal, and (E)-2-decenal is not persuasive. Fink discloses a specific, limited embodiment in which a is between 4 and 10 and b is 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, or 18, in which the VOCs “may be selected from” a defined list that includes, among others, heptanal, octanal, (E)-2-octenal, nonanal, and (2E)-2-decenal (Fink, page 17). This is not one of the roughly 8.8 trillion theoretical combinations calculable from Fink’s full 43-compound Table 0; it is a single, expressly delineated sub-genus of approximately 20 compounds from which the invention’s VOCs “may be selected,” and all five claimed compounds fall within it. Selecting members from an expressly identified, narrowed Markush grouping — rather than from the reference’s outer, unbounded compound list — is squarely the kind of selection contemplated by In re Jones and does not require an exemplified working combination to support a prima facie case; a finite, identified list of alternatives from which to select is sufficient reasonable guidance under MPEP § 2144.08.
Argument 2 (No motivation because Fink is non-analogous / directed to repellency, not attraction)
Applicant’s characterization of Fink as directed exclusively to lethality/repellency, and therefore non-analogous to a mosquito attractant composition, is not persuasive. Fink expressly contemplates VOC pesticide compounds functioning as attractants, including for use in traps: “an active compound may be an attractant for a pest in at least one of its stages of life. For example, this may be useful when the pesticide composition is to be used in traps” (Fink, page 14). Fink further states that “the VOCs used in the pesticide compositions of the invention are attractant or repellent to Drosophila species by aerial exposure,” and that “a pesticide VOC may be attractant to a pest on aerial exposure… and toxic to the pest on direct contact” (Fink, page 26). Fink is therefore not confined to a repellency/toxicity mechanism as applicant contends; it is directed to the same general field of endeavor — VOC-mediated insect behavioral response, including attraction for trapping purposes — as the instant claims and the Tchouassi/Dormont references. Fink is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, namely selecting VOCs that interact with insect olfactory systems to produce a desired behavioral outcome, and is therefore analogous art under In re Bigio and In re Clay.
Argument 3 (Isolated VOC activity is not predictive of higher-order combination activity; conflicting art on (E)-2-octenal)
Applicant’s citations to Isberg, Siegal, Lin, and Bezerra-Santos, offered to show that (E)-2-octenal and related aldehydes may function as repellents rather than attractants in certain contexts, do not defeat the prima facie case. Obviousness under § 103 does not require certainty of outcome or unanimity among references as to a compound’s precise behavioral classification in every context; it requires only that a person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success, which may exist notwithstanding some degree of unpredictability (In re O’Farrell, 853 F.2d 894). Here, Tchouassi and Dormont — the primary references directed specifically to mosquito host-seeking behavior — affirmatively and expressly teach that heptanal, octanal, nonanal, and (E)-2-octenal function as mosquito attractants or kairomone constituents in the relevant host-odor context. Fink independently confirms that VOCs of this same structural class, including (E)-2-decenal, are recognized as behaviorally active compounds capable of functioning as attractants (Fink, pages 14, 26). That other, non-mosquito-specific literature reports repellency for some of these compounds under different conditions (different insect species, different concentrations, or different odor-blend contexts, as Isberg itself acknowledges) reflects the ordinarily-understood, art-recognized variability of VOC behavioral effects — it does not negate the specific, on-point teaching of the primary references as applied to mosquitoes. Applicant’s own cited art (Isberg) confirms that repellency effects typically arise “at higher than natural doses or outside the context of the host odor blend,” which is consistent with, rather than contrary to, the Office’s position that the claimed compounds function as attractants at the natural-ratio concentrations taught by Tchouassi and Dormont.
Argument 4 (Unexpected, superior synergistic results)
Applicants’ showing of synergy, while acknowledged, is not commensurate in scope with the full breadth of claim 1, which recites no concentration ranges, ratios, or delivery format. The data relied upon (Figures 5, 6, and 8) is limited to a specific synthetic MB5 base blend supplemented with heptanal at three unspecified concentrations, and to a particular Plas5-in-MB5 formulation; it does not establish that the claimed synergistic effect is obtained across the full scope of claim 1, including all recited component ratios addressed in dependent claims 2 and 3. Moreover, Tchouassi itself teaches that combinations of these aldehydes with CO2 produce a “dose dependent behavioral blend effect” and reports that individual components “can also be exploited in a similar manner” to enhance capture (Tchouassi, page 9), evidencing that some degree of combinatorial enhancement among these host-derived aldehydes was already an art-recognized property, not a wholly unexpected one. An asserted unexpected result limited to a narrow, unclaimed formulation is insufficient to rebut a prima facie case reaching the full scope of the claims. See MPEP § 716.02(d).
Regarding claims 12–15, 27, and 28
Applicant's argument regarding claims 12-15, 27, and 28 is not persuasive.
Applicant correctly observes that Tchouassi's Blends A-E, which are wholly synthetic reconstructions formulated to reflect the mean ratio of aldehyde occurrence in various host species, do not themselves constitute "a natural human or animal odour source" with heptanal "added." The rejection of claims 12, 13, and 27, however, does not rely on Blends A-E for the natural odor source limitation. As set forth above, Tchouassi's crude skin-odor field trials, conducted separately from and prior to the synthetic blend evaluations, use unmodified natural host odor collected directly on stockinette material from cow, donkey, goat, sheep, and human subjects (page 2, right column-page 3, left column; Table 1). This natural odor source satisfies the "natural human or animal odour source" limitation of claims 12, 13, and 27 without resort to Blends A-E.
Tchouassi separately and expressly teaches that heptanal, among the four tested aldehydes, produced the greatest individual enhancement of mosquito capture (61% increase at 2 mg/ml, exceeding nonanal, decanal, and octanal), and that heptanal, along with octanal and decanal, "can also be exploited in a similar manner to increase field captures of RVFV mosquito vectors" when added individually (page 9, right column, last paragraph; Table 2). This teaching provides the requisite motivation, with a reasonable expectation of success, for a PHOSITA to supplement Tchouassi's natural host-odor source with added heptanal specifically, rather than with octanal, nonanal, or decanal, because Tchouassi's own comparative dose-response data identifies heptanal as the most effective single enhancing compound. The combination of these two teachings, both drawn from Tchouassi itself, meets the "natural... odour source plus added heptanal" limitation of claims 12, 13, and 27, and does not rely on the synthetic Blends A-E that applicant's argument addresses.
Applicant's statement that "[a] similar conclusion can be drawn starting from Fink" is addressed separately as to claims 14, 15, and 28, which do not require a natural odor source and instead recite "a natural or synthetic mosquito attractant, and heptanal." Tchouassi's Blend F, a synthetic aldehyde blend comprising heptanal at 2 mg/ml together with octanal, nonanal, and decanal (page 6, right column; Table 2), constitutes a synthetic mosquito attractant that itself comprises heptanal at a proportion, approximately 74% v/v of total aldehyde content, well in excess of the claimed 0.7% and 0.9% v/v limitations, meeting claims 14 and 15 without reliance on Fink. Because claim 14 does not require heptanal to be a component distinct from or additional to the named attractant, Blend F's own heptanal content satisfies the claim. Fink's overlapping concentration range (0.3-10% vol) is maintained as a cumulative, alternative ground.
As to the closed "consists of" language of claims 27 and 28, applicant has not argued, and the record does not support, that CO2 is a component of the claimed composition itself. In both Tchouassi's crude odor trials and its synthetic Blend F field evaluations, CO2 is generated and released from a physically separate source, an Igloo thermos container mounted near the CDC trap fan, independent of the canister or tube containing the natural odor source or synthetic aldehyde blend, respectively (page 3, right column-page 4, left column; Figure 2). CO2 is therefore properly understood as part of the trap/delivery apparatus rather than a component of the claimed composition, and its presence in Tchouassi's field system does not preclude a "consists of" reading of claims 27 and 28 as met by the natural odor source plus added heptanal (claim 27) or the synthetic attractant plus heptanal, i.e., Blend F (claim 28), respectively.
Regarding claim 13's numerical limitation specifically, Tchouassi does not expressly quantify an "about 10% greater (v/v)" delta between added and baseline heptanal; however, Tchouassi's demonstrated dose-response relationship between heptanal concentration and mosquito capture establishes the amount of added heptanal as a result-effective variable that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to optimize through routine experimentation, absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results commensurate with the specific claimed value. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272 (CCPA 1980).
For at least the foregoing reasons, claims 12-15, 27, and 28 remain properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDRE MACH whose telephone number is (571)272-2755. The examiner can normally be reached 0800 - 1700 M-F.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached at 571-272-0323. 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.
/ANDRE MACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights