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 .
Receipt of claim amendments filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 16-18 and 20 were canceled. Claims 1-15 and 19 are pending in this application and are under examination.
Rejections and objections not reiterated herein have been withdrawn in view of the claim amendments.
The claim amendments have necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Final Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is ambiguous for the recitations “the structural elements R1, R2 and R5 have the meanings given in Configuration (1-2)”, “or the meanings given in Configuration (2-2)”, “or the meanings given in Configuration (3-2)”, “or the meanings given in Configuration (4-2)”, “or the meanings given in Configuration (5-2)”. The claim contains various definitions for variables R1, R2 and R5, and it is unclear how the above recitations define or limit the structural elements in R1, R2 and R5. In addition, the claim appears to be referring to subject matter contained in the specification, and this is improper. Removal of the above recitations would overcome this rejection.
Claim 8 is ambiguous for the recitations “the structural elements R1, R2 and R5 have the meanings given in Configuration (1-2)”, “or the meanings given in Configuration (2-2)”, “or the meanings given in Configuration (3-2)”, “or the meanings given in Configuration (4-2)”, “or the meanings given in Configuration (5-2)”. The claim contains various definitions for variables R1, R2 and R5, and it is unclear how the above recitations define or limit the structural elements in R1, R2 and R5. In addition, the claim appears to be referring to subject matter contained in the specification, and this is improper. Removal of the above recitations would overcome this rejection.
In claims 7 and 8, it is unclear what is a substituent for the groups for R1 and R2 and what is R1 and R2.
For example, are R1 and R2
PNG
media_image1.png
92
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
?
Or are they
PNG
media_image2.png
82
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
?
Or are they
PNG
media_image3.png
54
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
?
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). For example, claims 7 and 8 recite the broad recitation “R1 is
PNG
media_image4.png
142
616
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and the claims also recite
PNG
media_image5.png
198
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
These and similar recitations which are redundant and contain narrow and broad language are also found for R2 and R3. Applicant is requested to correct this issue.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
In claims 7 and 8, at the end of the first configuration the claims recite
PNG
media_image6.png
126
626
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This is ambiguous because the definition for R5 in the phrase is not required due to the “or R5”. Therefore, what is R5 when R1 and R2 are selected from their list? This rejection can be overcome by reciting “and R5 is …”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
claim 14 recites the broad recitation “the pest is an animal pest”, and the claim also recites “and comprises an insect, an arachnid or a nematode”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim is considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. In addition, a Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group “consisting of” rather than “comprising”, “having” or “including”. Pursuant to MPEP 2173.05(h), if a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives, the claim should generally be rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. Applicant should change the phrase “and comprises” to “selected from”.
Conclusion
Claims 7-8 and 14 are rejected. Claims 1-6, 9-13, 15 and 19 are in condition for allowance.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 VALERIE RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-5865. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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.
/VALERIE RODRIGUEZ-GARCIA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621