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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/06/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-10, 12-15, 17-20, and 25-28 are pending.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration due to the restriction requirement.
Claims 11, 16, 21-24, and 29 are cancelled. Claim 30 is new.
Claims 1-10, 12-15, 17-20, 25-28 and 30 are pending and included in this examination.
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 1-10,12-15,17-20, 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, as noted above, Tchouassi teaches human and animal odor source.
Regarding claims 13, 14 and 15, Tchouassi teaches two milligrams (10% of individual component) of heptanal, octanal, nonanal decanal and antioxidant (butylated hydroxytoluene) was added to 20 mg of each component in 1 ml of hexane to obtain a stock concentration and this was serially diluted to obtain various concentrations (page 5, left column, last paragraph) wherein the concentrations of individual compounds (heptanal, octanal, nonanal, decanal) at 0.1, 0.5, 1, 2, and 5 mg/ml were evaluated in preliminary field assessments to determine optimal attractive doses of each compound (page 5, right column, 1st paragraph). Therefore, the limitation of heptanal present at least 0.7, 0.9, and not more than 1.5 % v/v heptanal present in the composition it taught.
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 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 noted above, Tchouassi teaches animal odor source and human odor used in the experiment consisted of four pieces of worn stockinette containing trapped foot odors (page 2, right column-Material and Methods-2nd paragraph) and heptanal.
Regarding claims 28, Tchouassi teaches blends of synthetic aldehydes representing different host animals worked in combination with CO2 to attract RVFV mosquito vectors differentially (page 9, left column-last paragraph) and additional of heptanal to the blend as a component exemplified in Tables 2 and 3 (page 9).
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 in (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 claim 13, Fink teaches the pesticide composition comprising heptanal at a concentration of between 0.% vol to 10% vol. (page 5, paragraph 2; claim 18). Therefore, encompass instant range of about 10% greater v/v, thus the limitation and structural features are met.
Regarding claims 14, 15, and 16, Fink teaches VOC heptanal (page 2, paragraph 2) wherein each VOCs present in a concentration of between 0.3% vol and 10% (page 6, paragraph 2), and any of the uses may comprise of applying the pesticide composition in liquid or gas form, such as spraying, vaporizing or fumigating (page 9, paragraph 4). Therefore, encompass instant range of at least 0.7%, 0.9% and 1.5%, thus the limitation and structural features are met.
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 teach 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 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues unexpected and superior/synergistic results, Fink does not disclose the claimed combination of VOCs, intended use, insect specificity and further argues no motivation.
Applicant argues unexpected synergistic results. This is not persuasive. Any alleged synergistic effect would have been reasonably expected because the known properties of aldehydes in combination disclosed in prior art would reasonably enhance attraction. Applicant further argues that Fink is limited to fruit flies and not mosquitoes and intended use. This is not persuasive. Applicant’s argument of intended use is not persuasive because the claims are directed compositions, not methods of use, and the prior art need not recognize the same utility so long as the structure is the same and capable of performing that claimed function. Structural identity with the prior art is sufficient for obviousness, regardless of whether the prior art recognizes the same utility. Moreover, Tchouassi and Dormont provides the mosquito-specific context for using aldehyde blends as attractants. The prior art establishes that aldehydes interact with insect olfactory systems and that combining such aldehydes enhances attraction. A PHOSITA would reasonably expect that combining known host-odor aldehydes would function in insect attractant compositions, even if the degree of effectiveness varies.
Applicant argues Fink does not disclose the claimed combination of VOCs. This is not persuasive. Obviousness does not require that the prior art expressly exemplify the identical combination. Fink teaches compositions comprising one or more VOCs selected from a defined group that includes each of the claimed aldehydes, and selecting multiple components from a finite list of known alternatives constitutes routine optimization. The combination of VOCs is further motivated by Tchouassi and Dormont, which teach that mosquito attraction is mediated by blends of aldehydes rather than single compounds.
Applicant argues motivation to combine. A reasonable expectation of success would have accompanied the motivation to combine because all references rely on the same olfactory-based mechanism of insect attraction, exposure to volatile aldehydes. Although Fink is directed to Drosophila specie, it teaches the same aldehyde structures claimed and confirms their biological activity in insects. As noted above, Tchouassi and Dormont provides the mosquito-specific context for using aldehyde blends to attract mosquitoes. Thus, a PHOSITA would have reasonably expect that incorporating structurally similar aldehydes known to interact with insect olfactory systems into a mosquito attractant composition would produce predictable attractant effects, even if the degree of effectiveness varies.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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