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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/13/2026 has been entered.
Receipt of Applicants’ Arguments, Remarks and amended claims filed on 04/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending.
Claim 7 remains cancelled.
Claims 1, 18 and 21 have been amended.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are pending and under examination in this application.
Maintained Rejections
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 1-6 and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cottrell et al. (US 2011/0144166 A1) hereinafter the reference is referred as Cottrell in view of Kellerby (WO 00/40084), (US Patent 3852416) hereinafter the reference is referred as Grubb and further in view of Efficacy of slow-release collar formulations of imidacloprid/flumethrin and deltamethrin and of spot-on formulations of fipronil/(s) - methoprene, dinotefuran/pyriproxyfen/permethrin and (s) –methoprene/amitraz/fipronil against Rhipicephalus sanguineus and Ctenocephalides felis on dogs (hereinafter the reference is referred as Horak).
Claim 1 (as amended) recites, “wherein the collar releases an effective amount of the neonicotinoid, pyrethroid, and methoprene to protect an animal against fleas and ticks with an efficacy of greater than 90% for at least 180 days.”
Claim 18 (method claim) contains substantially similar efficacy and duration language.
Claim 21 (as amended) specifies: “i) a neonicotinoid, which is either acetamiprid or dinotefuran together with a pyrethroid, which is deltamethrin; ii) methoprene; iii) a filling agent together with a plasticizer; wherein the formulation is impregnated and molded into a collar; and wherein the collar releases an effective amount … with an efficacy of greater than 90% for at least 180 days.”
The amendments to claims 1, 18, and 21 do not overcome the prior art. The rejections set forth in the prior Office Action are maintained for the reasons set forth below.
Cottrell teaches spot-on topical insecticide formulation comprising a combination of a first pyrethroid insecticide effective for killing fleas, a second pyrethroid insecticide effective for killing ticks, and an insect growth regulator (IGR). The topical insecticide preparation can be packaged together or packaged so that the first and second pyrethroid insecticides are stored separately prior to administration of the insecticide preparation to the animal. The combination of the first and second pyrethroid insecticides with an insect growth regulator results in an insecticide preparation formulated to have enhanced insecticidal activity against fleas and ticks compared to the effectiveness of the first and second insecticides used alone. Furthermore, Cottrell discloses that the combination of the first and second pyrethroid insecticides with an insect growth regulator produces an insecticide preparation having enhanced insecticidal activity against fleas and ticks while advantageously minimizing the total amount of insecticide needed for its effectiveness (abstract, ¶ 0007).
Regarding claims 1-5, as noted above, Cottrell teaches an insecticide formulation comprising acetamiprid, dinotefuran (¶ 0011) (corresponding to neonicotinoid of instant component i)); bifenthrin, permethrin, cypermethrin, flumethrin, tau-fluvalinate, fenpropathrin, fenvalerate, flucythrinate (¶ 0058, page 5) (corresponding to pyrethroid of instant component i)); pyripoxyfen and methoprene (¶ 0014) (corresponding to insect growth regulator of instant component ii)); Polyvinylpyrrolidone-vinyl acetate copolymer (Table 2, page 9; Table 4, page 12) (corresponding to filling agent a plasticizer of instant component iii)).
Regarding claims 12-13, Cottrell teaches Polyvinylpyrrolidone-vinyl acetate copolymer PVP/VA (Table 2, page 9; Table 4, page 12) (corresponding to filling agent is a plastic resin of instant component iii)).
Regarding claim 15, in an embodiment, Cottrell teaches a method for controlling insect infestation comprising acetamiprid in a concentration range of 5% to 50 % (¶ 0081). Therefore, overlaps with instant neonicotinoid range of about 5 % to about 15 % w/w.
Regarding claim 16, in an embodiment, Cottrell teaches a method for controlling insect infestation comprising methoprene in a concentration range of 1 % to 2 % (¶ 0074), and pyriproxyfen in a concentration range of 0.5 % to 5 % (¶ 0081) (corresponding to the insect growth regulator of instant component ii). Therefore, overlaps with the instant insect growth regulator range of about 0.5 % to about 5 % w/w.
Regarding claims 18-20, in an embodiment, Cottrell teaches a method for controlling insect infestation in a dog and/or cat comprising administering acetamiprid, dinotefuran (¶ 0076) (corresponding to neonicotinoid of instant component i)); and permethrin (¶ 0076) (corresponding to pyrethroid of instant component i)); and pyripoxyfen and methoprene (¶ 0076) (corresponding to insect growth regulator of instant component ii)); and Polyvinylpyrrolidone-vinyl acetate copolymer PVP/VA (Table 2, page 9; Table 4, page 12) (corresponding to instant filling agent is a plasticizer). Therefore, the limitations of the method comprising i) a neonicotinoid optionally with a pyrethroid; ii) an insect growth regulator; and iii) a filling agent together with a plasticizer is taught.
Cottrell fails to specifically teach pyrethroid is deltamethrin.
Kellerby teaches a free-swinging, slow-release insecticidal tag (10) designed for attachment to the neck collar (30) of a domesticated animal for the prevention and treatment of tick and flea infestation, comprising at least one pyrethroid compound zeta-cypermethrin, in combination with piperonyl butoxide to produce a synergized insecticide (abstract). Furthermore, Kellerby discloses the synergized insecticide is then impregnated into a resin base polyvinyl chloride and then formed into an odorless sustained-release device in the shape of a tag or medallion, to be attached to the neck collar of the animal in such a manner so as to allow the tag to physically contact various parts of the animal’s body, and over the course of several months, it is particularly effective against all of the parasitic life stages of various domestic animal pests, for example, ticks and fleas (abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
668
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Kellerby teaches deltamethrin (page 12, line 12) (corresponding to the pyrethroid of instant component i)).
Regarding claims 8-9, Kellerby teaches other materials for example, lubricants (page 15, line 30) and polyesters of polyols, polycarboxylic acids, adipic acids which can function as lubricants (page 15, lines 15-17). Therefore, the limitation of lubricants is a member selected from the group consisting of esters thereof is taught.
Regarding claims 10-11, Kellerby teaches synthetic and natural elastomers (e.g., rubber obtained from hevea brasiliensis), epoxidized soybean oil, epoxidized linseed oil, epoxidized tall oils (page 15, lines 19-20). Therefore, the limitation of preservatives are taught.
Regarding claims 12-13, Kellerby teaches resins may be thermoplastic (page 13, line 36), polyvinyl chloride (page 14, line 8), polybutadiene styrene-butadiene copolymer (SBR) (page 14, line 13), acrylonitrile-butadiene copolymer, polyurethane, polyvinyl chloride (claim 12).
Regarding claim 14, Kellerby teaches examples of plasticizers are phthalates, dioctyl phthalate, dimethyl phthalate, dihexyl phthalate, di (2-ethylhexyl) isophthalate (page 15, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 17, in an embodiment, Kellerby teaches about 10 % zeta-cypermethrin (page 12, lines 2-3). Therefore, overlaps with instant pyrethroid range of about 0.5 % to about 10 % w/w.
Grubb teaches solid the subject matter and scope of pet collar comprising a solid pesticidal composition, substantially non-volatile carbamate, thermoplastic resin characterized by being essentially dry and self-replenishing of carbamate particles on the surface of the composition (abstract) and for the control of ectoparasites on animals which is nonirritating to the animal, that is long lasting, continuous control, formation into a collar or band attachment to the collar (column 1, lines 34-44). Grubb teaches use of carbamates as the active insecticides. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use an alternative insecticide in place of the carbamates to fabricate the pet collar.
Regarding claims 1, 8-14, 18, 21, Grub teaches a solid pesticidal composition comprising a mixture of effective amount of a solid, a plasticized solid thermoplastic resin (column 2, lines 51-57), wherein the resin is polyvinyl chloride (column 3, line 7), dioctyl phthalate (column 3, line 22), epoxidized soybean oils (column 3, line 26-27) corresponding to preservative; low molecular weight polyethylene are examples of lubricants which can be used (column 3, line 40-41); wherein the preparation of a mixture of a solid, plasticized solid thermoplastic resin is processed into a fused product, e.g., a collar or a band (column 3, line 60-61); Moreover, Grubb teaches in formulating the solid pesticidal compositions, various ingredients are mixed and conveniently processed by means of known techniques of dry blend extrusion or injection molding to form a solid fused product in whatever shape is desired, wherein the product can be extruded or molded in an elongated rectangular shape, punched with holes and have a buckle attached for use as an animal collar for dogs and cats (column 3, line 44-53), and in Examples 1 -7, fabrication of dog collars with polyvinyl chloride, dioctyl phthalate, epoxidized soybean oil and carbamate as the insecticide.
Horak teaches several chemicals, or combinations of chemicals, with acaricidal or insecticidal properties and are safe for treatment of domestic dogs and cats, that have been formulated for application either orally, parenterally, topically or as medicated collars, lasting for serval weeks to months (page 2, left column, last ¶).
Regarding claims 1-6, 15-21, Horak teaches pet collar comprising neonicotinoid imidacloprid 10% and pyrethroid flumethrin 4.5 % and methoprene 5.8 % (page 3 & 4, ¶ Methods: study 1 -2) and immediate efficacies were similar on the imidacloprid/flumethrin, deltamethrin, fipronil/(s)-methoprene and
dinotefuran/pyriproxyfen/permethrin treated groups of dogs (78.3%, 86.5% 89.1% and 79.9%) (page 5, right column, ¶ 1). Therefore, the limitation of a pet collar comprising neonicotinoid together with pyrethroid and an insect growth regulator methoprene are safely used, known and taught in prior art.
Examiner clarifies prima facie obviousness and motivation to combine:
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate an insecticide composition comprising (i) a neonicotinoid optionally together with a pyrethroid; (ii) an IGR; and (iii) a filling agent together with a plasticizer, as taught by Cottrell and Horak, and to incorporate that formulation into a wearable collar using the impregnation, compounding, and molding techniques taught by Kellerby and Grubb, for the following reasons.
First, Cottrell establishes that the particular combination of neonicotinoid actives (acetamiprid, dinotefuran), pyrethroid actives, and IGR (methoprene) is an effective and known insecticide combination, and identifies PVP/VA as a compatible excipient class. The active ingredient selection from Cottrell is independent of Cottrell's choice of spot-on delivery. A PHOSITA understands that the identity of active ingredients in a pesticidal formulation can be decoupled from the delivery vehicle: the same active classes that kill fleas and ticks in a spot-on can be incorporated into a collar matrix to achieve sustained, extended-release efficacy. There is no technical barrier to this transfer; the active ingredients, once selected, are incorporated into the polymer matrix at the time of manufacture, where molecular mobility is restricted and the stability concerns Cottrell identifies for liquid concentrates do not apply.
Second, Kellerby independently teaches the impregnated collar as a known delivery vehicle, provides the manufacturing process (co-extrusion, compounding, injection molding, page 14 lines 3–8), and specifically identifies deltamethrin as a suitable pyrethroid (page 12, line 12). Kellerby expressly acknowledges that flea collars comprised of plasticized thermoplastic polymer impregnated with insecticide are well known (page 6, lines 16–22), providing the skilled artisan with a ready-made format into which Cottrell's actives can be incorporated.
Third, Grubb confirms the collar format, demonstrates sustained-release delivery of pesticidal compositions in extruded or injection-molded thermoplastic collars, and shows that the insecticide identity is substitutable within the matrix (column 3, lines 44–61). Horak demonstrates that the neonicotinoid/pyrethroid/methoprene combination is effective and safe when delivered in a collar format over multiple months in vivo, providing a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would therefore have been motivated to: (a) select Cottrell's identified active ingredients (neonicotinoid, pyrethroid, methoprene) and excipients; (b) substitute deltamethrin as the pyrethroid, as taught by Kellerby (page 12, line 12) and demonstrated in Horak's deltamethrin collar arm; (c) incorporate the combined formulation into Kellerby's and Grubb's known impregnated thermoplastic collar format using known molding and extrusion techniques; and (d) optimize the active ingredient concentrations within the ranges taught by Cottrell and Kellerby to achieve target efficacy and release duration, which is routine formulation experimentation. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416–417 (2007).
Regarding claim 21 specifically: Claim 21 recites a neonicotinoid that is acetamiprid or dinotefuran together with deltamethrin as the pyrethroid, methoprene as the IGR, a filling agent and plasticizer, wherein the formulation is impregnated and molded into a collar, with >90% efficacy for at least 180 days. Each of these limitations is taught by the combination: Cottrell teaches acetamiprid and dinotefuran (¶ 0011), methoprene (¶ 0014), and filling agent/plasticizer (PVP/VA, Table 2); Kellerby teaches deltamethrin (page 12, line 12) and the impregnated/molded collar format (page 14, lines 3–8); Grubb teaches the molded thermoplastic pesticidal collar (column 3, lines 44–61); and the >90%/180-day efficacy limitation is a result-effective variable that does not confer patentability, as discussed under Argument 2 below. A PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these known elements to produce a functional collar.
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP § 2141(III)(A)–(G).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Cottrell is relied upon for its disclosure of active ingredient identities and concentration ranges, not for its delivery vehicle (spot-on liquid). As explained in the motivation section above, the active ingredient selection is analytically independent of the collar delivery format, which is independently supplied by Kellerby and Grubb. Although Grubb exemplifies carbamates as the active insecticide, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute an alternative, known insecticide class for carbamates in Grubb's collar matrix, where the carrier matrix, processing technique, and collar format are the inventive contribution, not the choice of insecticide per se.
ARGUMENT 1: Cottrell teaches incompatibility of neonicotinoids and pyrethroids
Applicant argues that Cottrell teaches that neonicotinoids and pyrethroids are "technically incompatible in high concentrations," and therefore a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine them in a molded collar.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons below:
First, Applicant mischaracterizes Cottrell's disclosure. The Examiner has reviewed Cottrell in its entirety. Cottrell does not state that neonicotinoids and pyrethroids are universally incompatible. Rather, Cottrell addresses a specific problem with long-term storage stability in liquid concentrate formulations intended for spot-on application. See Cottrell ¶ 0012 (stating it was "preferable to package the insecticide composition in a manner so that the first insecticide and second insecticide are not permitted to interact prior to application") (emphasis added). The concern is pre-application interaction during liquid storage, not fundamental chemical incompatibility across all formulation types.
Second, Cottrell expressly permits mixing. Cottrell ¶ 0065 states: "The first and second compositions may be combined immediately prior to administration." Cottrell thus explicitly teaches that mixing the actives is acceptable at the point of use. The claimed collar is a solid matrix in which the actives are combined at the time of manufacture and thereafter immobilized within the polymer matrix. A PHOSITA would recognize that a solid polymer matrix imposes severe restrictions on molecular mobility and thus presents materially fewer stability concerns than a liquid concentrate.
Third, Cottrell does not teach away under Federal Circuit law. A reference teaches away only if it "criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages" the claimed solution. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Cottrell does none of these with respect to a solid impregnated collar. Cottrell does not mention collars, does not criticize mixing in solid matrices, and does not state that neonicotinoids and pyrethroids cannot coexist in any formulation. At most, Cottrell identifies a problem in one formulation context (liquid storage instability) and solves it through separate packaging. Identifying one solution does not teach away from a different solution in a different formulation context. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("A reference does not teach away if it merely discloses alternative solutions.").
Fourth, Applicant's own efficacy data undermines this argument. Applicant has filed in vivo efficacy data showing the claimed collar is stable and effective. That the collar functions demonstrates that the alleged incompatibility does not prevent a functional product in a solid matrix. However, showing that the invention works does not rebut obviousness. Applicant must show that a skilled artisan would have had no reasonable expectation of success at the time of the invention. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Horak (deltamethrin collar, in vivo efficacy), Kellerby (slow-release solid matrix), and Cottrell (identified active classes) together establish such a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion: Cottrell does not teach away. Cottrell identifies the active ingredients; Kellerby and Grubb independently supply the collar delivery format; and Horak confirms that the neonicotinoid/pyrethroid/methoprene combination works in a collar context. The rejection stands.
ARGUMENT 2: No reference teaches >90% efficacy for at least 180 days
Applicant argues that none of the cited references explicitly teach the claimed efficacy (greater than 90% for at least 180 days).
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons below:
First, obviousness does not require a prior art reference to explicitly recite a claimed numeric performance parameter. The test is whether the claimed result is a predictable outcome of optimizing variables that the prior art teaches. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 427 (2007). Here, the prior art teaches the identical active ingredient combination (Cottrell, Horak), the identical collar delivery format (Kellerby, Grubb), and sustained-release activity lasting "several months" (Kellerby, abstract). A PHOSITA would understand that optimizing active ingredient concentrations and matrix composition to achieve a specific efficacy target (e.g., >90%) over a specific duration (e.g., 180 days) within ranges taught by the prior art is routine formulation work, not invention.
Second, the 180-day duration is a predictable optimization of known extended-release collar technology. Kellerby teaches sustained release over "several months" (abstract), a term that to a PHOSITA reasonably encompasses six months (180 days). Achieving a target release duration by adjusting polymer matrix composition, plasticizer concentration, and active loading is a routine parameter optimization. In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Optimizing a known parameter is obvious.").
Third, the >90%/180-day efficacy limitation is a result-effective variable that recites a desired outcome rather than a specific structural feature distinguishing over the prior art. Applicant has not provided: (a) comparative data showing that prior art collars fail to achieve 90% efficacy at 180 days; (b) evidence that extending release to 180 days required overcoming a specific technical hurdle not present in the prior art; or (c) any unexpected results demonstrating that the claimed combination uniquely achieves this performance. Without such evidence, the claimed efficacy and duration limitation does not confer patentability over the prior art combination. In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052 (CCPA 1976) ("Reciting a desired result does not render a claim patentable when the prior art teaches that the result can be achieved by routine optimization.").
Conclusion on Argument 2: The >90%/180-day efficacy limitation does not overcome obviousness. It is a predictable optimization outcome of applying known actives in a known slow-release collar matrix.
ARGUMENT 3: Kellerby's "free-swinging" tag is different from a collar
Applicant argues that Kellerby requires a "free-swinging" tag and states that a neck collar is "not free-swinging," therefore Kellerby teaches away from a collar.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons below:
First, Applicant ignores Kellerby's express independent disclosure of collars. Kellerby page 6, lines 16–22 states: "Neck collars having a releasable impregnated insecticide composition are well known. Generally, the neck collar, also commonly referred to as a flea collar, is comprised of some type of plasticized thermoplastic polymer that is extruded, coextruded or injection molded, or compounded with an insecticide." Kellerby thus affirmatively acknowledges impregnated collars as a known, conventional delivery device for insecticides. The free-swinging tag is Kellerby's preferred embodiment; a reference is not limited to its preferred embodiment. In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (CCPA 1976).
Second, Kellerby's statement that a neck collar is "not free-swinging" does not teach away. It is an accurate factual description of a collar. It does not criticize, discredit, or discourage the use of an impregnated collar as a pesticidal delivery vehicle. Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. The claimed invention is a collar; Kellerby independently confirms that impregnated collars are well known.
Third, In re Ratti is inapplicable. Ratti applies where modifying a reference would change its principle of operation. Here, the Examiner does not propose modifying Kellerby's free-swinging tag. The Examiner relies on Kellerby's separate, independent acknowledgment that impregnated collars are conventional, and on Kellerby's disclosure of active ingredients (deltamethrin, page 12, line 12) and manufacturing techniques (page 14, lines 3–8). The principle of operation of the free-swinging tag is irrelevant to these independent disclosures.
Fourth, even if Kellerby's tag embodiment were the sole embodiment, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to adapt the impregnated resin tag technology to a collar. The tag attaches to a collar; the collar itself can be impregnated using identical resin technology. This is a straightforward substitution of one known slow-release device form (tag) for another known slow-release device form (collar), yielding predictable results. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Conclusion on Argument 3: Kellerby does not teach away from collars. To the contrary, Kellerby teaches that impregnated collars are well known and provides both the active ingredient (deltamethrin) and the manufacturing techniques applicable to a collar format.
ARGUMENT 4: Molded collar distinguishes over spot-on and tag
Applicant argues that the claimed molded collar is distinct from Cottrell's spot-on formulations and Kellerby's free-swinging tag.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons below:
First, Grubb explicitly teaches a solid pesticidal collar. Grubb, column 1, lines 34–44: "This invention relates to a solid pesticidal composition … which may be formed into a collar or band attachment to be placed around the neck of an animal." Grubb further teaches sustained release over time (column 2, lines 40–55). The collar format itself is not new.
Second, Kellerby teaches the manufacturing process for impregnated resin devices applicable to collars. Kellerby, page 14, lines 3–8 teaches co-extrusion, compounding, and blending to impregnate insecticides into a resin base, followed by injection molding or profile extrusion. These are the same manufacturing techniques used for impregnated collars, and Kellerby itself identifies them as applicable to neck collars (page 6, lines 16–22).
Third, Cottrell independently teaches the active ingredients: neonicotinoid (acetamiprid, dinotefuran, ¶ 0011), pyrethroid (¶ 0058), IGR (methoprene, ¶ 0014), and filling agent/plasticizer (PVP/VA, Tables 2 and 4).
Fourth, the combination is a straightforward application of known active ingredients (Cottrell), known delivery format (Kellerby, Grubb), and known manufacturing techniques (Kellerby, Grubb) to produce a collar. Each step is routine and the result is predictable. KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("[T]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."). The test is whether the combination of references would have rendered the claimed subject matter obvious, not whether any single reference teaches the entire claim. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion on Argument 4: The molded collar is well known in the prior art. Applying known actives to a known collar using known manufacturing techniques is obvious.
ARGUMENT 5: Support in original paragraphs [0061] and [0088]
Applicant states that written description support for the amendments is found in paragraphs [0061] and [0088] of the application as-filed, and that no new matter is added. The Examiner does not dispute this. Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) is acknowledged. However, written description compliance is irrelevant to patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103; the two statutes address entirely different issues. In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 382 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This argument does not overcome the obviousness rejections.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are found to be unpersuasive.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights