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 .
Status of Application
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/02/2026 has been entered.
Receipt of Applicants’ Arguments, Remarks and amended claims filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 14-18 are pending.
Claims 2, 9-13 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3 and 14 are amended.
Claim 19 is new.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 14-19 are pending and under examination in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as previously set forth in the Office Action of November 28, 2025 is hereby WITHDRAWN.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant has amended the upper limit of water (C) from 86.95% by mass to 75% by mass, and has correspondingly amended the mass ratio [(A)/(C)] to 0.173 or more and 2.86 or less. These amended ranges are internally consistent with the recited content of component (A) of 13% by mass or more and 99.95% by mass or less, and component (C) of 35% by mass or more and 75% by mass or less, as confirmed by the boundary calculations (A)/(C) lower bound = 13/75 = 0.173 and (A)/(C) upper bound = 99.95/35 = 2.86. The indefiniteness arising from the incompatible ratio recitation has been resolved by the amendment.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant has amended the claim to recite an oil-in-water emulsion rather than a water-in-oil type composition. This amendment is supported by specification paragraph [0076], which discloses an emulsion with an oil phase, and is consistent with the substantial water content recited in amended claim 1. The indefiniteness regarding the type of emulsion has been resolved. No further response to the § 112(b) arguments is required.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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, 3-8 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yusuke et al. (JP 2016069294 A) hereinafter the reference is referred to as Yusuke in view of Nakagawa (JP 2016172715 A), Onishi et al. (JP H0858447 A) hereinafter the reference is referred to as Onishi, Goldblum (WO 2014/031790), (JP20180308106 A) hereinafter the reference is referred as Yomogida, evidentiary reference Bioinspired Slippery Cone for Controllable Manipulation of Gas Bubbles in Low-Surface-Tension Environment (hereinafter the reference is referred as Xiao) and further in view of Okpara (Toxicity and Repellent Effects of Eugenol, Thymol, Linalool, Menthol, and other pure compounds on Dinoderus Bifloveatus (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae).
Yusuke teaches insect repellent composition for human body, wherein the insect repellent effect, high sustainability, high utilization efficiency and favorable spray property, comprises insect repelling component, water and hydroxyl substituted cellulose fiber having average fiber diameter of 2 nm or more and 500 nm or less, a substituent introduced into a hydroxyl group in a cellulose molecule, a substitution degree of 0.01 or more and 0.5 or less, I type and/or II type crystal structures, and an aspect ratio of 50 or more. Thus, Yusuke teaches (A) an insect repelling component, (B) an insect repelling component, and (C) water, where the insect repelling component functions as component (A), a non-volatile liquid oily component (pages 2-3, Abstract, Use, Advantage). Yusuke specifically discloses that the insect repelling component may comprise silicone oil, vegetable oil, animal oil, and synthetic oil, including silicone oil (page 10/27, arbitrary components list). Silicone oil is a well-known non-volatile liquid oily component having a surface tension at 25°C of 40 mN/m or less, consistent with the limitation of component (A) as recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies on Yusuke's broad disclosure of silicone oil as the non-volatile liquid oily component (A) generally, rather than any specific phthalate ester, to meet the surface tension and viscosity limitations of component (A).
Regarding claims 1, 17 and 18, for amended component (C) now requires water to between 35% - 86.95%, Yusuke teaches insect repellent composition comprising water and in Example 1, Yusuke disclose water was added for the cellulose fiber 1 to make 100 parts (page 14/27), and that water for density and concentration adjustment.
Therefore, the water content is taught in the composition and it would have been reasonably obvious to adjust the water content to the amended range of 35% and 86.95% by mass or less in the composition in order to achieve the desired density, securing long-term stability and improving the repellent sustaining effect. Moreover, Yusuke teaches insect repellent composition comprises, wherein the insect repelling component quantity is in the range of 1 mass % to 30 mass % or less (when it is a N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide, although it changes with kinds of insect repelling component (page 11/27, , and viscosity range is 2,000 mPa*s or more and 80,000 mPa*s or less at 25 degree C (page 11/27, paragraphs 6-8). Notably, Yusuke disclose the viscosity of the insect repellent composition can be adjusted by increasing or decreasing the amount of cellulose fiber to generate the desired flowability in the finishing gel form or cream type (page 11/27, last paragraph). Additionally, Yusuke teaches component (D) thickener (page 6/27, paragraph 4). Moreover, Yusuke discloses insect repelling component comprising of dioctyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate, an N-diethyl-m-toluamide, a 2-ethyl-1, 3-hexadiol, , a N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET) and these may be use two or more types together (page 9/27, paragraph 5) corresponding to recitation of a pest repellant comprising at least one non-volatile liquid oily component (A) and that is other than instant component (A) and component (B) as defined in specification (paragraph 0057). Furthermore, Yusuke discloses these insect repelling component of more than normally 1 mass % to 30 % mass or less, when it is a N, N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET), and if it is less than 1 mass %, even if sufficient insect repellent effect is not obtained but it adds more than 30 mass %, wherein the insect repellent effect corresponding to addition amount is not obtained (page 11/27, paragraph 6). Therefore, limitation of wherein the composition comprises non-volatile liquid oily component, 0.1 % by mass or less of a pest repellant that is other than component (A) and component (B); 0.01 % by mass or less other than component (A) and component (B); and 0% other than component (A) and component (B) by mass is taught. Moreover, the requirement of component (A) having a surface tension at 25°C of 40 mN/m or less, a Yusuke teach dibutyl phthalate which have surface tension of 37.0 mN/m at 20°C as evidenced by (Xiao, page 4084, right column, ¶ 1).
Furthermore, claim 1 is structurally identical, the recitation of “a pest repellent” and “a “pest stay inhibition” are intended use and the claims are duplicated. Yusuke teaches the insect repellent composition for skin (page 6/27, paragraph 4). Claim 1 is directed to a composition of intended use as a pest repellent and/or a pest stay inhibition, respectively, which are given little patentable weight to a composition claim. The claim is limited to the structure implied by the composition, and thus the claim limitation has been met because the composition is a silicone oil, an ester oil, an ether oil, a hydrocarbon oil, an aliphatic alcohol, and a polyhydric alcohol, at least one fragrance, water and thickener.
Regarding claim 3, as noted above, Yusuke teaches silicone oil, an ester oil, and a hydrocarbon oil in the pest repellent composition.
Regarding claims 1 and 4, as noted above, Yusuke teaches the insect repelling component quantity is in the range of 1 mass % to 30 mass % or less. Therefore, overlaps with the instant range of 13% by mass or more and 75% or 99.95% by mass or less of at least one non-volatile liquid oily component selected from the group consisting of a silicone oil, for example.
Regarding claim 5, Yusuke teaches the insect repellent composition is to be applied to the skin of human body (page 6/27 to 7/27).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, as noted above, Yusuke teaches the insect repellent composition with surface tension, viscosity and mPa*s. However, differs from instant claims which specifies that a nonvolatile liquid oil having a predetermined surface tension and a predetermined viscosity has a specific surface tension of 13 mass % or more and 99.95 mass % or less, and the repellent component has a content of 0.05 mass % or more and 3.5 mass % or less. However, Yusuke disclose that it is well known that the viscosity and the surface tension of the repellent composition can affect the durability of the repellent effect (pages 7/27 to 11/27), and to obtain the desired repellent lasting effect of a composition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to optimize the viscosity, the surface tension, and the content of the component contained in the pest repellent composition in order to achieve the desired insect repellency and/or insect stay-inhibition, stability of the formulation and safety with respect to a human body (pages 6-7/27).
Regarding claim 15, Yusuke teaches insect repellent composition comprising the cellulose fiber was prepared to the 0.6 mass % of slurry, 0.1 M aqueous hydrochloric acid was added (page 13/27, paragraph 1). Therefore, the thickener (D) of cellulose overlaps the instant content of component (D) thickener in the range of 0.01 % by mass or more and 5% by mass or less.
Regarding claim 16, Yusuke teaches insect repellent composition comprises water-soluble polymers, natural water-soluble polymer, a synthetic water-soluble polymer, a cellulose derivative, and an acryl type polymer (page 10/27, paragraph 1) and in example 5, Yusuke disclose xanthan gum in the composition (page 15/27, paragraph 2). Therefore, a thickener (component D) comprises a water-soluble cationic polymer is taught.
Yusuke fails to specifically teach at least one fragrance selected from the group consisting of the following (B1) to (B9).
Nakagawa teaches insect repellent comprising active ingredients fragrance, one or more compounds selected from octahydro-7-methyl-1, 4-methanonaphthalen-6(2H)-one (claim 1), 9-ethylidene-3-oxacyclo(6.2.1.02,7)undecane-4-one, octahydro-2h-1-benzoyran-2-one (abstract). Notably, Nakagawa discloses that use of fragrance has suppression effect of the insect’s thermal and carbon-dioxide responses, the induction (attraction) lure action to the human of an insect was also suppressed favorably and discovered that fragrance was more useful as the insect repellent (page 8, MEANS to solve the problem paragraph). Furthermore, Nakagawa disclose the compound suppresses the heat/fever acceptance system of Aedes albopictus, and can be used in order to be able to become heat/fever acceptance inhibitor wherein the compound and the fragrance/flavor component has carbon-dioxide response suppression effect when used together (page 10/24, paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 1, as noted above, Nakagawa teaches octahydro-7-methyl-1, 4-methanonaphthalen-6(2H)-one corresponding to component (B) wherein the content is 0.001-80 mass % (page 11/24, paragraph 6). Therefore, overlaps the instant range of 0.05 % by mass or more and 3.5 % by mass or less.
Regarding claim 5, Nakagawa teaches insect repellent method can apply to skin of mammal (page 7, claims 8, 9).
Nakagawa specifically fails to disclose stay inhibitor activity and method of application to the limbs of the insect.
Onishi teaches skin protective agent comprising a mixture of fluorine/polyether co-modified silicone and a compound having an ultraviolet protection and insect repellent effect (page 3/25), paragraph 0009), wherein the amount of the fluorine/polyether co-modified silicone is 0.1 to 98 parts by weight and examples of the insect repellent are diethyl toluamide, citronella oil, rose oil, lavender oil, anise oil, paramethane-3,8-diol, cinnamic acetate, and methyl anthranilate (page 15/25, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 1, as noted above, Onishi teaches insect repellent comprising fluorine/polyether co-modified silicone corresponding to component (A) and cinnamic acetate and methyl anthranilate corresponding to component (B), wherein the amount of fluorine/polyether co-modified silicone is 0.1 to 98 parts by weight.
Goldblum teaches pest repellent, pesticidal compositions, methods of formulating and using the compositions, containing one or more active ingredients (Abstract), and additional carrier in the composition can be silicone oil (page 9, paragraph 2), and in one example, the composition comprising a carrier selected from the group consisting of water, an alcohol, an aldehyde, an ester, an ether, silicone, tall oils, a terpene hydrocarbon, and the alcohol can be aromatic alcohol, a C2-C6 polyhydric alcohol (page 7, paragraph 3), and in another example, a non-volatile silicone oil is selected from the Markush listing provided in (page 9, paragraph 2). Notably, Goldblum discloses the carrier forms a viscous fluid or gel when dispensed, and in another example, the carrier contains 0.2% to 20% of a viscosity modulating agent that is selected from among an acrylate copolymer, a carrageenan, a cellulosic polymer, xanthan gum (page 18, paragraphs 2; page 19, paragraph 1). Therefore, the above satisfy limitation and structural features of component (A) wherein at least one non-volatile liquid oily component is taught.
Regarding claim 6, Goldblum teaches that a carrier selected to adhere to the insect or pest to penetrate the exoskeleton of the insect or pest (page 18, paragraph 2). Therefore, the limitation of the composition applying onto limbs of a pest is met.
Regarding claim 14, Goldblum teaches insect repellent composition can be prepared in water-in-oil (page 81, paragraph 1).
Yomogida teaches insect repellent comprising water in the quantity 80 mass % or more (page 11/36,¶ 6, line 1) as recited in amended claim 1.
Okpara directly teaches the toxicity and repellent effects of eugenol against insects. Specifically, Okpara evaluates eugenol's repellent activity against Dinoderus bifloveatus using an area preference method and reports a mean percent repellency of 43.33 ± 1.04%, placing eugenol in Repellency Class III (40.1-60% repellency range) (Table 3). Okpara thus directly establishes that eugenol is a known insect repellent compound. Okpara further establishes that repellency and toxicity are distinct, separately measurable endpoints of eugenol's bioactivity against insects, confirming that eugenol's repellent properties are independent of its contact or fumigant toxicity.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is directed to a pest stay inhibition composition comprising components (A) through (D) with the same structural limitations as claim 1 — including the component (A) non-volatile liquid oily component physical property limitations, compositional ratios, water content, and pest repellant upper limit — with the exception that component (B) is restricted to a subset of fragrance compounds consisting of: gamma decalactone, delta decalactone, delta nonalactone, gamma undecalactone, 7-hydroxy-3,7-dimethyloctanal, phenylethyl methyl ethyl carbinol, eugenol, 2-(4-methyl-2-thiazolyl) ethanol, (3-pentyloxan-4-yl) acetate, and phenylethyl dimethyl carbinyl acetate.
For all structural limitations of claim 19 other than the specific fragrance (B) options, the rejection rests on the same basis as claim 1 above. Specifically, Yusuke teaches the base insect repellent composition with components (A), (C), and (D) and the compositional ratios; Yomogida teaches the water content range; Goldblum and Onishi support the component (A) structural and physical property requirements; and the ester oil formulae (1)-(4) are supported as set forth above. These limitations are therefore met for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 supra.
Yusuke fails to specifically teach any of the fragrance compounds recited in claim 19 as component (B). However, it would have been obvious to a POSA to incorporate eugenol as the fragrance component (B) in Yusuke's insect repellent composition for the following reasons.
A PHOSITA would have been motivated to incorporate eugenol as the fragrance component (B) in Yusuke's insect repellent composition because: (1) Nakagawa establishes that fragrance compounds having insect-deterrent activity are suitable as component (B) in insect repellent compositions directed to suppressing insect behavioral responses to humans; (2) Okpara directly establishes that eugenol is a known insect repellent compound exhibiting Class III repellency; and (3) Yusuke itself lists "fragrance/flavors" among the arbitrary optional additives that may be incorporated into the insect repellent composition (page 10/27), confirming that a POSA would have contemplated fragrances as suitable optional components. The incorporation of a known fragrance compound with established insect repellent activity into a known insect repellent composition constitutes obvious optimization within a recognized class of active ingredients. See MPEP § 2144.06 ("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").
Regarding the remaining fragrance options in claim 19(B) other than eugenol — gamma decalactone, delta decalactone, delta nonalactone, gamma undecalactone, 7-hydroxy-3,7-dimethyloctanal, phenylethyl methyl ethyl carbinol, 2-(4-methyl-2-thiazolyl) ethanol, (3-pentyloxan-4-yl) acetate, and phenylethyl dimethyl carbinyl acetate — these represent recognized fragrance/flavor compounds of the type broadly taught by Nakagawa as suitable insect-behavioral-suppression compounds. The selection of any one of these specific fragrance compounds from among the known class of fragrance compounds with insect-deterrent properties would have represented routine optimization to a POSA. Under KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), it is sufficient that a POSA would have had reason to combine known elements of the prior art to achieve a predictable result. The substitution of one known fragrance repellent compound for another within a recognized class of insect-deterrent fragrances represents exactly such a predictable substitution.
A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating eugenol or the other recited fragrance compounds as component (B) in Yusuke's composition because: (i) the fragrance compounds are structurally compatible with the oil-in-water emulsion formulation taught by Yusuke; (ii) Yusuke itself confirms that fragrance/flavor components are suitable optional additives to the composition; and (iii) Okpara establishes that eugenol's repellent activity is demonstrable at defined concentrations that overlap with the 0.05-3.5% by mass range recited in claim 19 for component (B).
Nakagawa teaches that fragrance compounds suppress the insect's thermal and carbon-dioxide responses, directly inhibiting the insect's ability to locate human hosts, and specifically teaches that "fragrance was more useful as the insect repellent" (page 8, MEANS to solve the problem paragraph). Nakagawa thus establishes the general motivation to incorporate known fragrance compounds having insect-deterrent properties into insect repellent compositions as component (B).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the insect repellent composition as taught by Yusuke and incorporate the fragrance options, for example octahydro-7-methyl-1, 4-methanonaphthalen-6(2H)-one into the pest repellent composition as taught by Nakagawa and alternatively incorporate skin protective agent comprising a mixture of fluorine/polyether co-modified silicone to improve the composition when application to surface of human skin as taught by Onishi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the fragrance option because the use of fragrance has improvement in odor control, and favorable suppression effect of the insect’s thermal and carbon-dioxide responses and repellent sustaining effect as disclosed by Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 1, wherein the mass ratio [(A)/(B)] of the component (A) to the component (B) is 30 or more and 400 or less, Onishi’s polyether co-modified silicone amount is 0.1 to 98 parts by weight corresponding to (component A) and Nakagawa’s octahydro-7-methyl-1, 4-methanonaphthalen-6(2H)-one corresponding to (component B) is 0.001-80 mass %, calculating the mass ratio (A/B) = [(0.1)/(0.001)] equates to 100; therefore, the mass ratio overlaps with instant range of 30 or more and 400 or less. MPEP 2144.06 states: "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 .... IT]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine said actives with a reasonable expectation of success because each active is taught to be useful for the same purpose and it is prima facie obvious to combine said actives to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.
Additionally, the teachings of Yusuke discloses that it is well known that the viscosity and the surface tension can affect the durability of the repellent effect (pages 7/27 to 11/27), and in order to obtain the desired repellent lasting effect of a composition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to optimize the viscosity, the surface tension, and the content of the component contained in the pest repellent composition as taught by Yusuke.
The teachings of Goldblum’s insect repellent composition contains similar components of a C2-C6 polyhydric alcohol (page 7, paragraph 3), and the composition can be prepared in water-in-oil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because the reduced surface tension characteristics of the repellent emulsion allow for improved adhesion of the composition to the surface to which it is applied and as a result, the repellent effectiveness of the composition is maintained for long periods of time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because all cited references are drawn to components used in pest repellent compositions. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to include the components such as hydrocarbon oils, fragrances, optimization of surface tension and viscosity as taught by the references.
From the combine teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention.
Response to Amendments/Remarks
Applicant argues: that the ester oil structural formulae (1)-(4) added to claim 1 exclude dibutyl phthalate, and therefore the prior art combination relying on Xiao's surface tension data for dibutyl phthalate no longer supports the component (A) surface tension limitation of ≤40 mN/m at 25°C.
The Examiner acknowledges that the ester oil formulae (1)-(4) may structurally exclude dibutyl phthalate as argued. However, this argument is not persuasive to overcome the § 103 rejection because the surface tension limitation of component (A) is independently met by Yusuke's broad disclosure of silicone oil as a non-volatile liquid oily component suitable for insect repellent compositions (page 10/27, arbitrary components list). Silicone oil is a well-established non-volatile liquid with a surface tension at 25°C substantially below 40 mN/m — for example, polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) has a surface tension of approximately 20-21 mN/m at 25°C, which is well within the claimed range. This property of silicone oil is a well-known, art-recognized physical characteristic that does not require evidentiary support from Xiao. Accordingly, even if Xiao's dibutyl phthalate surface tension data is excluded from consideration, Yusuke's teaching of silicone oil as an arbitrary component independently satisfies the surface tension limitation of component (A) recited in claim 1. The rejection of claim 1 is maintained on this independent basis.
Applicant argues: Applicant argues that Yusuke does not teach adjusting water as a result-effective variable, but only uses water as the q.s. remainder to reach 100 wt%, and that another machine translation of Yusuke does not use the word "density" in the same context as cited by the Office. Applicant further argues that the amended water range of 35-75% by mass is distinguished from Yomogida's disclosure of 80 mass% or more water.
This argument is not persuasive for two independent reasons.
First, even accepting Applicant's characterization of Yusuke's water disclosure, the rejection of the water content range does not rest solely on Yusuke. As set forth above, Yomogida independently teaches an insect repelling composition comprising water in the quantity 80 mass% or more (page 11/36, ¶ 6). While Yomogida's disclosed amount exceeds the amended upper limit of 75% by mass, this does not negate the obviousness of the claimed water range. Yomogida's teaching establishes that high water content (significantly above 35%) is known in the insect repellent art, and the amended range of 35-75% falls entirely within a range bounded at the lower end by what Yusuke teaches and at the upper end below what Yomogida teaches. A POSA would have been motivated to optimize the water content within these disclosed bounds to achieve the desired balance of repellent sustaining effect and long-term formulation stability. The selection of an intermediate water content range between what is taught in the prior art constitutes obvious optimization. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955).
Second, the specification itself confirms at paragraph [0044] that for an oil-in-water type composition — which amended claim 14 now explicitly recites — the water content is preferably 35% by mass or more, and the upper limit is stated as preferably 86.95% by mass or less, more preferably 80% by mass or less, still more preferably 75% by mass or less. Applicant's own specification thus confirms that 75% by mass is simply the "still more preferable" upper limit within a range that is otherwise broadly taught by the specification and the prior art. A POSA would have been motivated to select the 75% upper limit as the optimal value within this recognized range, consistent with MPEP § 2144.05.
3. Applicant argues: Applicant argues that claim 19 is distinguished as unobvious because the specific fragrance (B) compounds recited therein are not taught or suggested by the prior art references. Withdrawal of the rejection is requested.
This argument is not persuasive. As set forth above in the new rejection of claim 19, Okpara directly teaches eugenol — one of the specific fragrance compounds expressly recited in claim 19's (B) Markush group — as a compound having measured insect repellent activity (43.33% mean repellency, Class III; Table 3). Nakagawa establishes the general motivation to incorporate fragrance compounds with insect-deterrent properties as component (B) in insect repellent compositions. The combination of Okpara's direct teaching of eugenol's repellent activity with Nakagawa's motivation to use fragrance compounds as insect repellents provides a clear reason for a POSA to incorporate eugenol into Yusuke's base composition as component (B). Applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach or suggest the specific fragrance (B) compounds is unpersuasive as to eugenol because Okpara directly and unambiguously teaches eugenol's repellent activity. With respect to the remaining fragrance options in the Markush group, Applicant has not provided evidence that these compounds lack the repellent properties that characterize the claimed class of fragrance (B) components, nor that there is anything unexpected or non-obvious about selecting these compounds from among known fragrance compounds for use in insect repellent compositions. Absent such evidence, the rejection is properly maintained under KSR. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 19 is maintained.
4. Claim 19 — Intended Use / "Pest Stay Inhibition" Argument
To the extent Applicant argues that the "pest stay inhibition" recitation distinguishes claim 19 over the prior art insect repellent compositions, this argument is not persuasive. Specification paragraph [0007] itself discloses that the invention is a "pest repellent composition or a pest stay inhibition composition" and that these terms encompass compositions having identical structural components. As set forth in the Office Action of November 28, 2025, a composition claim is limited to the structural features of the composition, and intended use language ("pest stay inhibition composition") is given patentable weight only to the extent it structurally distinguishes the claimed composition from the prior art. See MPEP § 2111.02. The structural components of claim 19 are fully taught by the prior art combination as set forth above. The designation of the composition as a "pest stay inhibition" composition rather than a "pest repellent" composition does not create a structural distinction that overcomes the rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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