DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/11/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obviousness
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 15, 17, 23, 25-27, 37, 46, 52 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al (WO 2007/034250), further in view of Barrett et al (US 2016/0345584 A1) and Bhami et al (J Vector Borne Dis, 52, June 2015, 147-152), as evidenced by UL Solutions (https://www.ul.com/news/slime-news-and-its-not-all-childs-play-according-governing-bodies, 8/7/2018) and further in view of Galvin et al (https://community.preproom.org/index.php?threads/problem-with-making-slime.187/, 04/07/2015).
Becker taught carrier materials for mosquito-larvae killing pesticides (carrier composites), and mosquito-larvae killing products containing these carrier composites and one or more known larvicides (larvicide composites) and procedures of their manufacture [page 1, 1st paragraph]. A preferred use of the larvicide compositions was as a mixture of floatable and non-floatable larvicide composite granules [page 6, 3rd paragraph], where the composites, which have lower density than the density of water, comprised one or more hydraulic binders, including cement, and one or more foamed aluminosilicates [abstract; page 3, 1st paragraph]. Also taught as binders were modified starch, flour or cellulose derivatives (e.g., reads on polymers and dry plant materials) [page 2, last paragraph]. At Examples 1-4 and 7-10, Becker taught a mixture of ingredients that were dried.
Although Becker generally taught binders, as previously discussed, Becker did not teach slime, as recited in claim 1.
Barrett taught larvicidal compositions [title] comprising binders that included polyvinyl alcohol [0030]. Mixtures of ingredients were taught [0052, Examples 1-11]. At Example 10, Barrett taught drying of ingredients.
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, it is prima facie obvious to select polyvinyl alcohol for incorporation into a larvicide, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use as a binder, as taught by Barrett at [0030].
The combined teachings of Becker and Barrett did not teach boric acid.
Bhami taught boric acid for the management of mosquito larvae. Boric acid is less toxic compared to different pesticides, and in low concentrations, it attracts the ovipositing female mosquito as well as fertile males. Dilute boric acid solution is an effective ovitrap since the eggs laid by mosquitoes either die or the larvae that hatch out from them do not survive in boric acid [abstract].
Since Becker taught larvicides for killing mosquitoes, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include boric acid within the combined teachings of Becker and Barrett. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to manage mosquito larvae. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been so motivated, since boric acid is less toxic compared to different pesticides, and in low concentrations, it attracts the ovipositing female mosquito as well as fertile males. Furthermore, dilute boric acid solution is effective, since mosquito larvae do not survive in boric acid, as taught by Barrett [abstract].
UL Solutions evidences that slime is a substance produced from the crosslinked reaction of polyvinyl alcohol and borate ions [section entitled What is it?].
And, Galvin [2nd box] taught that slime results when two solutions, one each of polyvinyl alcohol and borax, are mixed together; slime will dry when exposed to air and not stored in an airtight container.
The instant claim 1 recites “wherein the silicate, larvicide and binder are mixed and dried”. The limitation of mixing and drying the silicate, larvicide and binder is a product-by-process limitation. Product by process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps.
Even though the product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, the determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, then the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In the instant case, the floatable larvicide of the combined teachings of Becker, Barrett, Bhami and Galvin, as evidenced by UL Solutions, reads on the claimed buoyant larvicidal article. As such, the patentability of the instant composition does not depend on its method of production, and the Applicant’s limitation regarding the mixing and drying of the silicate, larvicide and binder, is not patentable, in view of the combined teachings of Becker, Barrett, Bhami and Galvin, as evidenced by UL Solutions. MPEP 2113.
Becker, in view of Barrett and Bhami, and as evidenced by UL Solutions, and further in view of Galvin, reads on claims 1, 8, 27, 37 and 55.
Claims 2, 23 and 52 are rendered prima facie obvious because Becker taught that the density of the inner solid nucleus is lower than the density of the water, which makes the carrier composite float for at least 48-72 h [page 5, 4th full paragraph].
Further regarding claim 52, the instant claim recites that the article remains buoyant for about 24 hours to about 168 hours. Becker taught flotation for at least 48-72 h. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A.
Claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious because Becker taught that the open pores of the carrier composite grains absorb the liquid containing the active larvicide and the closed pore systems, which cannot be filled with water or liquids, ensure the low density of the grains [page 3, 3rd paragraph].
Becker does not specifically teach the instantly recited limitation of “expandable to a volume of 0.5-20X an original volume of the silicate.” However, at the 3rd paragraph of page 3, Becker disclosed that the process of filling the pores with water (e.g., absorption) determines the density of the composite, which controls the dissolution and release of the larvicide, and thereby, the extermination of the larvae. Therefore, hydrating the silicate is controlled, and it would be prima facie obvious for the ordinarily skilled artisan to do so, motivated by the desire to optimize dissolution of the larvicide and to exterminate larvae, as taught by Becker at page 3 [3rd paragraph].
Claim 6 is rendered prima facie obvious because Becker taught aluminosilicates at 0.5-99 % [page 3, 2nd paragraph].
The instant claim 6 recites the silicate at about 5 % to about 75 %. Becker taught aluminosilicates at 0.5-99 %. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as discussed above.
Claims 15 and 17 are rendered prima facie obvious because Becker taught 0.1-25 % of Bacillus Sphaericus [claim 23].
The instant claim 15 recites larvicide present at about 0.01 % to about 20 %. Becker taught 0.1-25 % of Bacillus Sphaericus. A prima facie case of obviousness exits because of overlap, as discussed above.
Claim 25 is rendered prima facie obvious because Becker taught the binder at 10-99 % [claim 7].
The instant claim 25 recites binder present at about 5 % to about 95 %. Becker taught the binder at 10-99 %. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Regarding claim 26, Becker was not specific synergistic action by the binder and silicate to provide buoyancy, as instantly recited. However, Becker taught the silicate and binder within the nucleus, as previously discussed. And, Becker taught that the granule floats and releases the larvicide at the surface of the water [page 6, 4th paragraph].
Furthermore, Becker taught [page 1, 3rd paragraph] that since mosquito-larvae mainly live at the water surface, their extermination can be limited to the living area of mosquito larva. Since the mosquito larva live on the water surface, some floating carriers have been developed to carry biological larvicides [page 1, last paragraph]; and since no prior art carriers have been developed which would ensure all of the required abilities such as a controlled floating and sinking time, the present disclosure (Becker) was developed and manufactured [page 2, 3rd and 4th full paragraphs]. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a greater than additive (e.g., synergistic) effect on the buoyancy of Becker’s granules. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to control floating and release of the larvicide, thereby controlling mosquito-killing, as guided by Becker’s teachings.
Claim 46 is rendered prima facie obvious because Becker taught that the open pores of the carrier composite grains absorb the liquid containing the active larvicide and the closed pore systems, which cannot be filled with water or liquids, to ensure the low density of the grains. The partial filling of open pores with liquids containing the larvicide, which solidify during the drying process of the larvicide composite, provide a barrier for water to fill these pores completely. When the liquid containing larvicide dissolves out after contact with water during the larvae extermination, the slow dissolution and release of the larvicide containing “plug" opens a way before filling up the pores completely with water. At this point, the extermination has already been finished (the larvicide completely dissolved out and killed the larva), and the water-filled pores cause increase in density of the grains.
When this density becomes more than the density of the water, the grains sink. The time of dissolution of larvicide from the open pores and filling with water (this process is the cause of controlled sinking of the grains) is between 24-48 h [page 3, last paragraph]. Since the carrier can conserve the efficacy of the larvicides carried on the surface/in pores of the composites, the larvicide containing dried products can be stored for a long period of time (24/48 h) [page 7, 4th full paragraph].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Becker does not teach slime as a binder; neither Becker nor Barrett teaches boric acid; separate and independent teachings of polyvinyl alcohol and boric acid in distinct references is not a teaching of slime, which contains components that need to be mixed; there is no teachings of mixing and drying components in the prior art; it is against common general practice to allow slime to dry.
The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant is reminded against attacking references individually, as one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections were based on a combination of references. MPEP 2145 IV. In the instant case, both Becker and Barrett taught larvicides formed as a mixture of ingredients; both Becker and Barrett taught drying; Barrett taught polyvinyl alcohol; Bhami taught boric acid; and, UL Solutions evidenced that slime is a crosslinked reaction of polyvinyl alcohol and borate ions. Additionally, Galvin taught that slime is a mixture of polyvinyl alcohol and borax, which will dry when exposed to air too long, and not stored in an airtight container.
Claim(s) 40, 42-43 and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al (WO 2007/034250), further in view of Barrett et al (US 2016/0345584 A1) and Bhami et al (J Vector Borne Dis, 52, June 2015, 147-152), and as evidenced by UL Solutions (https://www.ul.com/news/slime-news-and-its-not-all-childs-play-according-governing-bodies, 8/7/2018), further in view of Galvin et al (https://community.preproom.org/index.php?threads/problem-with-making-slime.187/, 04/07/2015) and further in view of Cohen et al (USP 6,898,898 B1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Becker, Barrett, Bhami and Galvin, and as evidenced by UL Solutions, was previously described. Additionally, Becker taught that the composites were dried [page 4, 1st paragraph at the last line; page 7, 4th full paragraph at the 1st line].
Further, in an embodiment of Becker, another possible form of the larvicide composition is a granule which has an outer heavy layer containing an active ingredient. This kind of the granule can be used to exterminate live larva at the bottom of ponds, because the sunken granules release the active larvicide in the sunken state. Once the outer layer is peeled off, the granule becomes lighter than the water, and floats to the surface. The inner part now starts to release the larvicide at the surface of the water [page 6, 4th paragraph].
Although Becker taught larvicide release at the bottom or surface of water, Becker was silent a unit dose form; ready to use; sheet-like, and section-able into a plurality, as recited in claims 40 and 57; a unit dose form that has an amount of the larvicide that is based on surface area of a liquid and/or volume of the liquid, as recited in claim 43.
Cohen taught a package containing a plurality of articles for the control of mosquitos in a body of water, comprising:
a tray having a plurality of spaced-apart wells formed therein, each well having an open top and circumferential walls connected to a bottom of the well, at least one well of said wells having a center post formed therein, said center post terminating at the bottom of the well, with a plurality of spokes being connected between the center post and the circumferential wall, the spokes radiating outwardly from the center post forming segments within the at least one well, each article of said plurality of articles for control of mosquitos having at least one removable section, the at least one removable section having a predetermined quantity of an active ingredient for control of mosquitos contained therein (e.g., article having a sheet-like shape that is section-able into a plurality of unit doses), each article of said plurality of articles for control of mosquitos being received in a separate well, the removable sections of the article being disposed into the respective segments within the at least one well, the removable sections conforming to the respective segments, wherein each at least one section of the article is individually removable from the open top of the respective well such that the entire article, or one or more sections thereof, may be removed from the open top of the respective well as desired and as needed to treat the body of water [abstract and claim 1].
Since Becker taught mosquito-killing carrier materials, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a predetermined amount of the larvicide, in a ready to use form, within Becker, as taught by Cohen. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to control mosquitos, as taught by Cohen at the abstract and at claim 1.
Since Becker taught larvicide release at the bottom or surface of water, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within Becker, the dose of the larvicide, based on the surface area and/or volume of the liquid. The ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to treat the body of water, as needed and as desired, as taught by Cohen at claim 1 and at the abstract.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that claims 40, 42-43 and 57 depend from claim 1, and as such, the rejection over the claims should be withdrawn.
The Examiner disagrees, as the rejection over claim 1 has not been withdrawn. No claims are found allowable. The rejection over claims 40, 42-43 and 57 is maintained.
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 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.
/CELESTE A RONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612