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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06 August 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 6 and 12-16 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-5, 7-11 and 17-20 presented for examination herein to the extent that the carrier is mineral oil, e.g., Applicant elected species.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Rejections Modified After Further Consideration
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nature-based product without significantly more, is maintained.
Claims 1 and 3 recites a composition comprising (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone. As evidenced by the instant specification, volatiles including (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone are collected from a headspace and enfleurage collections of test enclosures housing bed bugs (Example 1 and Table 1). Therefore, as evidenced by the instant specification, all five of the compounds can occur together in nature (e.g. compounds obtained from head space and enfleurage collections in containers housing bed bugs). As evidenced by Mendki, bed bug fecal matter includes (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-octenoic acid (page 225, first column, third paragraph; Table 1). As evidenced by Gries ("Bed Bug Aggregation Pheromone Finally Identified", Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2015, 54: 1135-1138; cited in IDS filed 04/21/2021), 2-hexanone is in bed bug feces along with E-2-hexenal and E-2-octenal (page 1136, second column, first paragraph). The claims are to a composition of matter and the claims recites judicial exceptions, i.e., compounds are naturally occurring compounds collected from a headspace and enfleurage collections of test enclosures housing bed bugs or compounds that are in bed bug feces. None of the compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone, which are each “product of nature”, are markedly different. The compounds are the same as the compounds that are collected from head space and enfleurage collections in containers housing bed bugs. The claim does not include any elements in addition to the natural products, i.e., there is nothing in the claim other than the compounds. The instant specification discloses that a combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone exerts the largest attraction on female bed bugs and almost the largest attraction on males too (page 37, lines 20-23). All five of the compounds can occur together in nature because the compounds can be obtained from head space and enfleurage collections in containers housing bed bugs. The combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone that can occur together in containers housing bed bugs, would necessarily have the same properties of attracting female and male bed bugs. The claimed combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone recites something that appears to be a natural product that is not markedly different in structure from the naturally occurring products.
Claim 2 recites a composition comprises 0.5 to 2 parts (E)-2- hexenal, 2 to 5 parts (E)-2-hexenoic acid, 0.5 to 2 parts (E)-2-octenal, 1 to 10 parts 2-octenoic acid and 0.5 to 2 parts 2-hexanone. The compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone are each naturally occurring (e.g. compounds obtained from head space and enfleurage collections in containers housing bed bugs). There is no indication that the combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone markedly changes any characteristics of any of the compounds, which can be collected from a headspace and enfleurage collections of test enclosures housing bed bugs. Additionally, there is no indication that mixing them in the recited proportions changes the structure, function, or other properties of any one of the compounds. Thus, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 4 recites a composition comprising (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone and that the composition further comprises a carrier. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim is (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone and a carrier such as water (e.g., claim 5 includes water as the carrier). The compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone and water are each naturally occurring. Because there is no evidence that all the compounds and a carrier including water occur together in nature, there is no naturally occurring counterpart mixture for comparison, and so the claimed mixture is compared to its naturally occurring components, i.e., compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone and water. There is no indication that mixing the compounds and water would markedly change the characteristics of any of the components, because each component continues to have the same properties in the mixture as it had alone. Thus, for at least one embodiment within the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed mixture as a whole does not display markedly different characteristics compared to the naturally occurring counterparts. Thus, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 5 recites a composition comprising E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone and that the composition further comprises a carrier selected from including water. The compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone and a carrier including water are each naturally occurring. Because there is no evidence that all the compounds and a carrier including water occur together in nature, there is no naturally occurring counterpart mixture for comparison, and so the claimed mixture is compared to its naturally occurring components, i.e., compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone and a carrier including water. There is no indication that mixing the compounds and carrier including water would markedly change the characteristics of any of the components, because each component continues to have the same properties in the mixture as it had alone. Thus, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 7 recites a composition comprising 100-300 mg/l (E)-2- hexenal, 100-1500 mg/l (E)-2-hexenoic acid, 100-300 mg/l (E)-2-octenal, 100-3000 mg/l 2-octenoic acid and 100-300 mg/l 2-hexanone. The compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone are each naturally occurring. There is no indication that the combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone markedly changes any characteristics of the compounds. Additionally, there is no indication that mixing them in the recited amounts changes the structure, function, or other properties of any of the compounds. Thus, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 8 recites a composition comprising (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone, wherein a dose of the composition comprises 0.1 to 100 g or 0.1 to 100 ml. The compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone are each naturally occurring. There is no indication that the combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone markedly changes any characteristics of the compounds. Additionally, there is no indication that recited dose of the mixture changes the structure, function, or other properties of any of the compounds. Thus, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 9 recites a composition comprising (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone, wherein the volatiles given off by the composition at a temperature of 20ºC and at a standard atmospheric pressure of 101.3 kPa (e.g. intended use) comprises 0.001 to 37.4 % (E)-2-hexenal, 0.01 to 2.2% (E)-2-hexenoic acid, 40.4 to 90.9%(E)-2-octenal, 0.001 to 2.8% 2-octenoic acid and 5.9 to 39.8% 2-hexanone, wherein the sum of the percentages is less than, or equal to, 100%. There is no indication that the combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone markedly changes any characteristics of the compounds. Additionally, there is no indication that recited amounts of each compound changes the structure, function, or other properties of any of the compounds. Thus, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 17 recites a composition comprising (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone, wherein a dose of the composition comprises 0.5 to 10 g. The compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone are each naturally occurring. There is no indication that the combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone markedly changes any characteristics of the compounds. Additionally, there is no indication that recited dose of the mixture changes the structure, function, or other properties of any of the compounds. Thus, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 18 recites a composition comprising (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone, wherein a dose of the composition comprises 0.5 to 3.5 g. The compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone are each naturally occurring. There is no indication that the combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone markedly changes any characteristics of the compounds. Additionally, there is no indication that recited dose of the mixture changes the structure, function, or other properties of any of the compounds. Thus, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 19 recites a composition comprising (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone, wherein a dose of the composition comprises 0.5 to 10 ml. The compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone are each naturally occurring. There is no indication that the combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone markedly changes any characteristics of the compounds. Additionally, there is no indication that recited dose of the mixture changes the structure, function, or other properties of any of the compounds. Thus, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claim 20 recites a composition comprising (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone, wherein a dose of the composition comprises 0.5 to 3.5 ml. The compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone are each naturally occurring. There is no indication that the combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone markedly changes any characteristics of the compounds. Additionally, there is no indication that recited dose of the mixture changes the structure, function, or other properties of any of the compounds. Thus, the claim does not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Rejections Maintained
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PEARSON (“Building a Better Bed Bug Trap”, electronic article obtained from wired.com. Publication date of 29 December 2014; cited in IDS 04/21/2021) in view of WU (US 2011/0293553 A1, cited in IDS 04/21/2021) as evidenced by MENDKI ("Aggregation responses of Cimex hemipterus F. to semiochemicals identified from their excreta", J. ector Bome Dis 51, 2014, pp. 224-229; cited in IDS 04/21/2021).
Pearson is primarily directed building a bed bug trap (see entire publication).
Regarding claim 1, Pearson teaches that scientists knew that bed bugs were attracted to bed bug feces (second page, fifth paragraph of the provided copy of the electronic publication). As evidenced by Mendki, bed bug fecal matter includes (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-octenoic acid (page 225, first column, third paragraph; Table 1).
Regarding claim 11, Pearson teaches traps that attract and catches bed bugs (fourth page of Pearson).
Pearson does not specifically teach the composition includes 2-hexanone. The deficiency is made up for by the teachings of Wu.
Wu is primarily directed towards compounds, compositions, kits, devices, and method of attracting, detecting, eradicating, controlling, or killing an insect such as a bed bug (abstract).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Wu teaches bed bug attractant or aggregation compound isolated from bed bug feces with an insecticide (paragraphs [0009] and [0015]). Wu teaches that the compound includes 2-hexanone (paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches a trap containing the compound (paragraph [0012]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a trap containing a bed bug attractant composition including bed bug feces that contains compounds including (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-octenoic acid, and compounds including 2-hexanone. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications because bed bug feces are known to attract bed bugs and compounds including 2-hexanone are known as attractants for bed bugs therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would combine them to attract bed bugs and place them in a trap to make a more effective trap for bed bugs by being able to attract and trap bed bugs. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the combination (e.g., bed bug feces (contains (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-octenoic acid, as evidenced by Mendki) and 2-hexanone) would also be effective for attracting bed bugs. "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 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." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious). The person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success because Pearson teaches that scientists knew that bed bugs were attracted to bed bug feces (second page, fifth paragraph of the provided copy of the electronic publication). As evidenced by Mendki, bed bug fecal matter includes (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-octenoic acid (page 225, first column, third paragraph; Table 1). Pearson teaches traps that attract and catches bed bugs (fourth page of Pearson). Wu teaches bed bug attractant or aggregation compound isolated from bed bug feces with an insecticide (paragraphs [0009] and [0015]). Wu teaches that the compound includes 2-hexanone (paragraph [0102]). Wu teaches a trap containing the compound (paragraph [0012]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Wu as evidenced by Mendki as applied to claims 1 and 10-11 above, and further in view of LELAND (US 2015/0373994 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, the composition of claim 1 is described above in section 8. Wu teaches composition including components including carriers (paragraph [0190]).
Pearson and Wu do not specifically teach that the carrier is mineral oil (e.g., applicant elected species of carrier). The deficiency is made up for by the teachings of Leland.
Leland is primarily directed towards composition and method of controlling pests including bed bugs (abstract).
Regarding claims 4-5, Leland teaches compositions for controlling pests including bed bugs (paragraph [0020]). Leland teaches that the composition includes a carrier and that carriers including mineral oils (paragraphs [0061-0062]). Leland teaches that the composition comprises attractants (paragraph [0125]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a trap containing a bed bug attractant composition including bed bug feces that contains compounds including (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-octenoic acid, compounds including 2-hexanone and a carrier including mineral oil. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications because suitable carriers for a composition that is for controlling bed bugs and contains an attractant include mineral oil as taught by Leland. The person of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the teachings of Leland, would expect that mineral oil can be substituted in as a carrier for the composition that is prima facie obvious in light of the teachings of Pearson and Wu. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success because Wu teaches composition including components including carriers (paragraph [0190]). Leland teaches compositions for controlling pests including bed bugs (paragraph [0020]). Leland teaches that the composition includes a carrier and that carriers including mineral oils (paragraphs [0061-0062]). Leland teaches that the composition comprises attractants (paragraph [0125]).
Claims 8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pearson in view of Wu as evidenced by Mendki as applied to claims 1 and 10- 11 above, and further in view of BEDOUKIAN (US 2016/0302413 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 17-18, the composition of claim 1 is described above in section 8.
Pearson and Wu do not specifically teach that the composition comprises 0.1 to 100 g of the composition (e.g., claim 8), 0.5 to 10 g of the composition, or 0.5 to 3.5 g of the composition. The deficiency is made up for by the teachings of Bedoukian.
Bedoukian is primarily directed towards a method and composition for controlling or killing pests including bed bugs (abstract).
Regarding claims 8 and 17-18, Bedoukian teaches compositions for including attracting pests including bed bugs (paragraph [0012]). Bedoukian teaches that the composition comprising from about 1 mg to about 1 g of an attractant (paragraph [0057]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a trap containing a bed bug attractant composition including bed bug feces that contains compounds including (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-octenoic acid, and compounds including 2-hexanone; wherein the attractant composition is in an amount of about 1 mg to about 1 g. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications because Bedoukian which also teaches composition for attracting including bed bugs teaches that suitable amount of attractant is from about 1 mg to about 1 g of an attractant, thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would use the amount taught by Bedoukian to optimize the amount of the composition that is prima facie obvious in light of the teachings of Pearson and Wu to obtain a composition that is effective at attracting bed bugs. The amount of bed bug attractant composition is an art-recognized result-effective variable, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably would expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal amount of a composition for attracting bed bugs that contains bed bug feces that contains compounds including (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-octenoic acid, and compounds including 2-hexanone, in order to obtain a composition that is able to attract bed bugs. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of ingredient amount would have been obvious at the time of Applicant's invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that argues that the composition of claim 1 has markedly different characteristics, compared to the individual components as they occur in nature, because the combination provides a statistically significant attraction of bed bugs. Applicant argues that this functional characteristic of the combination is not found for the individual components themselves, which is evidenced by the lowered attraction for the respective individual components as most notably seen in Example 6, as well as in Example 2 and tables 2 and 3 of the instant specification.
Applicant's arguments filed on 06 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response, as evidenced by the instant specification, all five of the compounds can occur together in nature (e.g. compounds obtained from head space and enfleurage collections in containers housing bed bugs). As evidenced by Mendki, bed bug fecal matter includes (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-octenoic acid (page 225, first column, third paragraph; Table 1). As evidenced by Gries ("Bed Bug Aggregation Pheromone Finally Identified", Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2015, 54: 1135-1138; cited in IDS filed 04/21/2021), 2-hexanone is in bed bug feces along with E-2-hexenal and E-2-octenal (page 1136, second column, first paragraph). The claims are to a composition of matter and the claims recites judicial exceptions, i.e., compounds are naturally occurring compounds collected from a headspace and enfleurage collections of test enclosures housing bed bugs or compounds that are in bed bug feces. None of the compounds (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone, which are each “product of nature” and can be found together in nature, are markedly different. The compounds are the same as the compounds that are collected from head space and enfleurage collections in containers housing bed bugs and compounds found in bed bug feces. The claimed composition does not include any elements in addition to the natural products, i.e., there is nothing in the claim other than the compounds. The instant specification discloses that a combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone exerts the largest attraction on female bed bugs and almost the largest attraction on males too (page 37, lines 20-23). All five of the compounds can occur together in nature because the compounds can be obtained from head space and enfleurage collections in containers housing bed bugs. The combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone that can occur together in containers housing bed bugs, would necessarily have the same properties of attracting female and male bed bugs. The claimed combination of (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-2-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, 2-octenoic acid and 2-hexanone recites something that appears to be a natural product that is not markedly different from the naturally occurring products.
Applicant argues that Wu teaches 2-hexanone oxime which is not the same as 2-hexanone because they have different structures and properties.
In response, Pearson discloses that bed bugs are known to be attracted to bed bug feces and shed exoskeletons (second page, fifth paragraph of the provided copy of the electronic publication), so it is prima facie obvious from the disclosure of Pearson to use bed bug feces and shed exoskeleton as attractants. Wu teaches bed bug attractant or aggregation compound isolated from bed bug feces with an insecticide (paragraphs [0009] and [0015]). Wu teaches that the compound includes E-2-hexanone and Z-2-hexanone (e.g., 2-hexanone)(paragraph [0102]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a trap containing a bed bug attractant composition for including Cimex hemipterus species of beg bugs that includes bed bug Cimex hemipterus feces and shed exoskeleton that contains compounds including (E)-2-hexenal, (E)-hexenoic acid, (E)-2-octenal, (E)-2-octenoic acid, and compounds including E-2-hexanone and/or Z-2-hexanone (e.g., 2-hexanone).
Thus, for the reasons of record and for the reasons presented above claims 1-5, 7-9, 11 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Conclusion and Correspondence
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm EST.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571) 272-0827. 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.
/JOHN P NGUYEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner., Art Unit 1600