DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 11/20/2025 wherein claims 13 and 17 have been amended, claim 14 has been cancelled and claims 203 and 204 have been added.
Claims 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 26, 27, 203 and 204 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 27 are allowed.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/20/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 13, 16, 19 and 203 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Bessette et al. (US 2007/0299038; of record), evidenced by Biosynth: Chrysanthemic acid (of record), in view of Ando et al. (Magnetic Resonance Chem, 31, 1993, 90-93) have been considered but are not found persuasive and is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the Office Action mailed 7/20/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/20/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 17 and 20 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Bessette et al. (US 2007/0299038; of record), evidenced by Biosynth: Chrysanthemic acid (of record), in view of Ando et al. (Magnetic Resonance Chem, 31, 1993, 90-93), further in view of Songkro et al. (J Incl Phenom Macrocycl Chem, 2012, 72, 339-355) have been considered but are not found persuasive and is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the Office Action mailed 7/20/2026.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/20/2026 regarding the rejection of claim 204 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Bessette et al. (US 2007/0299038; of record), evidenced by Biosynth: Chrysanthemic acid (of record), in view of Ando et al. (Magnetic Resonance Chem, 31, 1993, 90-93), further in view of Peterson et al. (US 4085273) have been considered but are not found persuasive and is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the Office Action mailed 7/20/2026.
In regards to the 103 rejections, Applicant asserts the following
One would not be motivated to use a single essential oil because Example 16 of Bessette demonstrates that composition using a single essential oil had significantly worse morality than the mixtures with multiple essential oil.
In response to A, the Examiner is not persuaded. Claim 16 of Bessette is to a method using a pyrethrum and at least one plant essential oil. The limitation that the method use ‘at least one’ essential oil reasonably conveys a composition/method that comprises only one essential oil, such as that claimed. Regarding the argument that compositions which use only one essential oil perform worse than those with multiple essential oils is not persuasive. Example 16, which was pointed to by Applicant, does not include chrysanthemic acid which is a requirement of the present claims. To Applicants point that blends of essential oils outperform single essential oils, Example 19 demonstrates that a blend of essential oils and chrysanthemic acid exhibits 87.5% mortality after 48 hours exposure whereas Example 3, a combination of chrysanthemic acid and thymol (a single essential oil), exhibits 100% mortality at 1 hour and 3 days after treatment. The composition which contains a single essential oil together with chrysanthemic acid outperforms compositions comprising chrysanthemic acid and blends of essential oils. Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
New Rejections, Necessitated by Amendment and Maintained Rejections (see above)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 13, 16, 17, 19, 20, 203 and 204 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant has amended claim 13 to recite a ‘… wherein the composition comprises no more than one compound from each of groups (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h)”. After review of Applicant’s disclosure, the amendment lacks sufficient support for such a limitation. The limitation to “no more than one compound…” is not an embodiment that is described in the specification as filed and thus appears to be new matter. If Applicant contends that there is support for such a specific limitation, then Applicant is requested to point to the specific page and line of said support and/or rationale for such. Applicant’s attention is directed to MPEP 714.03, “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.” Applicant has not done so.
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, 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.
Claims 13, 16, 19 and 203 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessette et al. (US 2007/0299038; of record), evidenced by Biosynth: Chrysanthemic acid (of record), in view of Ando et al. (Magnetic Resonance Chem, 31, 1993, 90-93; of record).
Bessette is directed to synergistic pesticidal compositions comprising an essential oil and one or more pest control actives such as chrysanthemic acid (see [0031]).
Exemplified essential oils include alpha-terpineol, amyl cinnamic aldehyde, amyl salicylate, anisic aldehyde, benzyl alcohol, benzyl acetate, cinnamaldehyde, cinnamic alcohol, carvacrol, carveol, citral, citronellal, citronellol, dimethyl salicylate, eucalyptol (cineole), eugenol, iso-eugenol, galaxolide, geraniol, guaiacol, ionone, d-limonene, menthol, methyl anthranilate, methyl ionone, methyl salicylate, alpha-phellandrene, pennyroyal oil, perillaldehyde, 1- or 2-phenyl ethyl alcohol, 1- or 2-phenyl ethyl propionate, piperonal, piperonyl acetate, piperonyl alcohol, D-pulegone, terpinen-4-ol, terpinyl acetate, 4-tert butylcyclohexyl acetate, thyme oil (white and red), thymol, trans-anethole, vanillin, ethyl vanillin, geranium oil, cedar wood oil and so on (see [0026, 0043]). Pyrethroids such as allethrin and permethrin are also contemplated for inclusion in the pesticidal composition (see [0030]) (see instant claim 16). It would have been obvious to modify the thymol and chrysanthemic acid to include essential oils other than thymol (e.g. cedar wood oil) and to further include a pyrethroid (e.g. allethrin) with a reasonable expectation for success in inhibiting insect populations.
Bessette teaches that the concentration of the active agents (e.g. chrysanthemic acid, essential oils) are present in the composition in an amount of between 0.01-70% by weight (see [0040]) wherein the synergist is combined at a 1:10 ratio to the essential oil component (see Example 3). The composition is in the form of a suspension/emulsion (a carrier) (see instant claim 13). See MPEP 2144.05(I)(A) regarding obviousness of overlapping ranges as it pertains to the concentration of the actives.
Bessette provides the following table:
PNG
media_image1.png
261
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see Example 3) which teaches a mixture of chrysanthemic acid (C-acid) and tymol (see [0053]) which exhibit synergistic activity against pests. Thus, Bessette contemplates a composition which comprises chrysanthemic acid (the elected species) and a single essential oil which reads on the limitation of ‘no more than one compound’ required by instant claim 13. This limitation is also obviated by Bessette’s claim 16 as well which suggests a pyrethrum (e.g. chrysanthemic acid) and ‘at least one’ essential oil.
Chrysanthemic acid has the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
253
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which is overlaps with the elected species of Formula II’ (see evidence to Biosynth).
Regarding instant claim 203 (203d, specifically), a composition consisting of the recited active compounds claimed (e.g. chrysanthemic acid (a pyrethroid) and a compound selected from the group consisting of: a pyrethroid, methyl jasmonate, IR3535, 2-undecanone, picaridin, benzaldehyde, p-menthane-3,8-diol, alpha-terpineyl isovalerate, DEET, benzyl benzoate, ethyl hexanediol, diethyl phthalate, diethyl carbate, geraniol, citronellol, citronellal, citral, oil of lemon eucalyptus, cinnamaldehyde, and VUAA-1) in admixture with a carrier is considered obvious over Bessette’s claim 1. Claim 1 of Bessette teaches a method of controlling pests by applying a composition comprising 1) a pyrethrum (e.g. chrysanthemic acid) and 2) at least one plant essential oil such as citronellal and/or citronellol. Citronellal is known to be derived from and contain in citronella oil, use of the oil in Bessette’s formulation would have been an obvious modification. Regarding the narrow breadth of that claimed, claim 1 defines a sufficiently narrow method that one would envisage a method of applying a composition such as that defined.
Bessette fails to teach the chrysanthemic acid as being the R-trans isomer.
Ando is directed to the determining the stereochemistry of chrysanthemic acid derivatives. It is taught that chrysanthemic acid is an acid moiety of pyerthin I and one or of the most useful naturally occurring pesticides (see page 90) and exists as a (1R)-trans isomer (see page 90). It would have been obvious to use the 1R-trans isomer of chrysanthemic acid in Bessette’s composition given it was known as a widely utilized natural insecticide. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) which states that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is indicia of obviousness. See also MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessette et al. (US 2007/0299038; of record), evidenced by Biosynth: Chrysanthemic acid (of record), in view of Ando et al. (Magnetic Resonance Chem, 31, 1993, 90-93) as applied to claims 13, 16, 19 and 203 above, and further in view of Songkro et al. (J Incl Phenom Macrocycl Chem, 2012, 72, 339-355; of record).
Bessette and Ando fail to teach including citronella oil wherein the composition comprising between about 0.01-99.99% of a compound of the elected species (Formula II’) and about 99.99-0.01% citronella oil.
Songkro teaches that citronellal (as taught by Bessette) is a major component of citronella oil (see Table 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to utilize citronella oil as a source of citronellal with a reasonable expectation for success in maintaining the synergistic pesticidal activity give that citronella oil contains the ingredient required by Example 19 of Bessette.
Regarding instant claim 20 and the requirement that about 0.01-99.99% of a compound of the elected species (Formula II’) and about 99.99-0.01% citronella oil, given that Bessette teaches a composition that comprises 10% of the active ingredients wherein the synergist (Formula II’) is combined at a 1:10 ratio to the 5-blend (see Example 19), it would have been obvious to utilize this same concentration/ratio or manipulate it to ones desires and if the result was a ratio within the broad ratio claimed then such would be a product of ordinary skill and common sense. See MPEP 2144.05(I) and (II).
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 204 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessette et al. (US 2007/0299038; of record), evidenced by Biosynth: Chrysanthemic acid (of record), in view of Ando et al. (Magnetic Resonance Chem, 31, 1993, 90-93; of record) as applied to claims 13, 16, 19 and 203 above, and further in view of Peterson et al. (US 4085273; of record).
Bessette teaches that their combinations include chrysanthemic acid as well as its derivatives such as chrysanthemate esters (see Example 19).
However, Bessette fails to teach the structure of the ester as being overlapping with Formula I’:
PNG
media_image3.png
152
265
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where R1-R5 are each methyl and X is O.
Petersen is directed to the preparation of chrysanthemic acid compounds for use in pesticidal applications. An exemplified species is
PNG
media_image4.png
57
106
media_image4.png
Greyscale
where both R3 and R1 are methyl which results in chrysanthemate (the methyl ester of the acid). Given that Bessette generally teaches that the chrysanthemate esters can be included in their compositions, it would have been obvious to identify known ester in the prior art that shared similar characteristics and include them in the formulation of Bessette with a reasonable expectation for success in producing a method capable of controlling pests. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 13, 17, 19, 20 and 203 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (KR 2017/0012539; translation provided), evidenced by Biosynth: Chrysanthemic acid (of record), in view of Ando et al. (Magnetic Resonance Chem, 31, 1993, 90-93; of record).
Kim describes an insect repellent composition comprising 0.5-1 part by weight (1RS)-cis, trans-chrysanthemate (see instant claims 13, 19, 20(b), 203(c)) and 0.1-0.5 parts by weight a perfume (e.g. citronella essential oil, citronellol) (see pages 3 and 4; see instant claims 13(c, d), 17, 20(b), 203(c, d)). Compositions comprising a single essential oil would have been within the purview of an ordinarily skilled person. Moreover, given the overlap in weight percentages of the claims and the reference, it would be expected that the result would exhibit synergism despite being unrecognized as such.
Chrysanthemic acid has the following structure:
PNG
media_image2.png
253
381
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which is overlaps with the elected species of Formula II’ (see evidence to Biosynth). The chrysanthemate of Kim would be the deprotonated form of the above compound and an obvious variant of the acidified form.
Although Kim teaches using chrysanthemate, it is not clear from the reference if the chrysanthemate is the R-trans isomer.
Ando is directed to the determining the stereochemistry of chrysanthemic acid derivatives. It is taught that chrysanthemic acid is an acid moiety of pyerthin I and one or of the most useful naturally occurring pesticides (see page 90) and exists as a (1R)-trans isomer (see page 90). It would have been obvious to use the 1R-trans isomer of chrysanthemic acid in Kim’s composition given it was known as a widely utilized natural insecticide. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) which states that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is indicia of obviousness. See also MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights