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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/6/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20 are pending in this application. The restriction requirement of 4/30/2025 and Applicant’s 6/3/2025 election without traverse of the invention, wherein method comprises controlling arthropods/insects by applying (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one, are maintained.
Claim 4 stands withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to non-elected subject matter. Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20 will presently be examined to the extent that they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Withdrawn grounds of rejection
The outstanding ground of rejection of claims 5 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of cancellation of said claims.
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims filed on 4/9/2026.
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103, over Miyazawa et al. (hereinafter, Miyazawa) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims filed on 4/9/2026, which limits the method to insect spatial repellence (the broader arthropod “deterrence” has been deleted from the claims).
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 over KR 100496456 is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims filed on 4/9/2026, which limits the method to insect spatial repellence (the broader arthropod “deterrence” has been deleted from the claims).
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Miyazawa and KR 100496456 in view of Bessette (US 2002/0028256), RU 2513948, Pullen (US 2002/0018820), and Permethrin is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims filed on 4/9/2026, which limits the method to insect spatial repellence (the broader arthropod “deterrence” has been deleted from the claims).
The outstanding ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over the combined teachings of Miyazawa and KR 100496456 in view of Bessette (US 2002/0028256), RU 2513948, Pullen (US 2002/0018820), and Permethrin label, further in view of Zobele et al. (US 2002/0131888), is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims filed on 4/9/2026, which limits the method to insect spatial repellence (the broader arthropod “deterrence” has been deleted from the claims).
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 1, 3, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20 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.
(1) The claims are confusing because independent claim 1 is drawn to a method for insect spatial repellence but the applied composition is an arthropod control composition. The phylum Arthropoda includes non-insects such as shrimp and crabs. The claims should be consistent in its preamble and applied active ingredient.
(2) Independent claim 1 requires applying the composition “to a surface of a mammal.” Dependent claim 19 recites the composition as an article, wherein the article can be a detergent, bleach, carpet cleaner, curtain-care product, and various other articles that may not be suitable to apply “to a surface of a mammal” in the absence of additional steps or further clarification. Claim 19 is therefore additionally confusing and indefinite.
Statutory Basis
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.
35 USC 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 14969841.
CN 1496984 discloses the following plant-derived compounds (paragraph 28) as repellents of blood-sucking insects such as mosquitoes:
PNG
media_image1.png
124
152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
wherein R1 is n-butyl or butylene and R2, R3, R4, R5 are H or OH (claims 1-4).
3-butylidene phthalide is specifically disclosed (claims 3-4)2. 3-butylidene phthalide has the structure shown below, wherein stereochemistry of the alkene (Z or E) is not specified:
PNG
media_image2.png
205
417
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one of the instant claims has the following structure and has the alternative name (Z)-3-butylidene phthalide3.
PNG
media_image3.png
224
364
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
The phthalide repellent of CN 1496984 is formulated at a concentration range of
1-90% with a diluent such as camphor and/or wintergreen oil (paragraph 36; claims 12-14). Table 4 of CN 1496984 discloses mosquito repellent activity and repellency duration of 1.5 µl/cm2 of 3-butylidene phthalide applied to human hands (paragraphs 45-46, 77-86; see also Table 4 in the original document), results of which are summarized below:
Human subject
Untreated hand: number of mosquitos that landed on the hand after the indicated amount of time
Treated hand: number of mosquitos that landed on the hand treated with
3-butylidene phthalide after the indicated amount of time
1 hour
2 hour
3 hour
4 hour
5 hour
2 hour
3 hour
4 hour
5 hour
6 hour
7 hour
1
35
40
32
37
41
0
0
0
0
0
3
2
47
35
36
40
40
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
40
35
40
37
40
0
0
0
0
0
3
Thus, CN 1496984 provides data for insect spatial repellency of 3-butylidene phthalide for more than 6 hours. On page 17 of the original CN 1496984 document, starting from line 12, the following “twelfth embodiment” discloses a liquid liniment:
butylidene phthalide 25%
wintergreen oil 30%
paraffin 45%.
Additional solid and liquid formulations are disclosed (claims 9-10).
CN 1496984 does not explicitly state that its 3-butylidene phthalide is the (3Z) diastereomer. However, an alkene compound disclosed without stereospecificity is a racemate, which contains both the (3Z) and (3E) diastereomers. Thus, (3Z)-3-butylidene phthalide (i.e., (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one) would be inherently present in the 3-butylidene phthalide disclosed by CN 1496984.
Instant application claims 12 and 13 recite an arthropod control article, e.g., consumer product; claim 14 recites body-care or skin-care product. CN 1496984 teaches various formulations, including liquid liniment, which can be a consumer product, bod-care product, or skin-care product. Claim 18 requires 0.2-30 wt% of (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one. CN 1496984 discloses 1-90% and exemplifies 25%
For these reasons, claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are anticipated.
In the alternative, the claimed invention would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan. Even though CN 1496984 does not explicitly state that its 3-butylidene phthalide is the (3Z) diastereomer, it would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan that an alkene compound disclosed without stereospecificity would contain both the (3Z) and (3E) diastereomers. If the (3Z) diastereomer were not present, CN 1496984 would have had to disclose that its 3-butylidene phthalide was the (3E) diastereomer.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited reference.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 1496984 in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0042225; hereinafter, Nakagawa), RU 2513948, and Zobele et al. (US 2002/0131888).
Teachings of CN 1496984 were discussed in the previous ground of rejection, and the discussions there are incorporated herein by reference.
Nakagawa (US 2018/0042225) discloses a highly safe insect repellency, including mosquito repellency, of octahydro-2H-1-benzopyran-2-one (abstract; paragraphs 9, 24, 47-48, 60, 65-67; claim 1). It is noted that this compound is also known by its alternative name, 3,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydrochromen-2-one (see instant application claim 1). Insect repellency is by inhibition of thermoreception of an insect on the basis of a mechanism that is different from those of repellents such as DEET and PMD, wherein the insect repellency is described as “preventing an insect from approaching to an object or forcing an insect to avoid an object” (paragraphs 26, 49). Application to the skin of a mammal, an apparel article directly or indirectly contacting a skin, or a defined space is disclosed (paragraphs 12-16, 51, 57-58, 79-81). Concentration of 0.001-80% by mass is disclosed, including preferably range of 0.1-10% by mass (paragraphs 52, 77). See also claims 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16. Formulation with fragrances, plant extracts, and other repellents is disclosed (paragraph 55). Application of the insect repellent by packing in a container with a liquid absorbing wick and heating or evaporating through air blow is also disclosed (paragraph 57).
RU 25139484 discloses the following acaricides, all of which can be obtained from natural sources: butylidenephthalide, geraniol, eugenol, pyrethrin, rotenone, azadirachtin, myrcene, limonene, pine oil, eucalyptus oil, cinnamon oil, citronella oil5 (all of these are also listed in Applicant’s claim 9 as co-ingredients). Most of these natural plant extracts are disclosed to have repellent properties against ticks and insects and can be used as perfumes.6 Permethrin is further disclosed as a miticide.7 These miticides and repellents can be added at a level from about 0.01 to 20%.8 Vanillin may be added for its pleasant odor.9 Also, it is noted that butylidenephthalide disclosed by RU 2513948 is a synonym for 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one. Without indication of stereospecificity, such substance would naturally contain both (E) and (Z) diastereomers, which means disclosure of “butylidenephthalide” is a disclosure of a substance that includes (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one.
Zobele et al. (US 2002/0131888) disclose an electric diffuser for dispensing solutions containing active agents such as an insecticide, deodorants, disinfecting agents “and the like” (paragraph 2; claims 1-19).
CN 1496984 does not explicitly state that its 3-butylidene phthalide is the (3Z) diastereomer. However, it would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan that an alkene compound disclosed without stereospecificity would contain both the (3Z) and (3E) diastereomers. If the (3Z) diastereomer were not present, CN 1496984 would have had to disclose that its 3-butylidene phthalide was the (3E) diastereomer.
Claim 8 of the instant application requires at least two “substances,” such as for example (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one and 3,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydrochromen-2-one. CN 1496984 teaches and suggests the insect/mosquito spatial repellent application of 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one, including (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one. Nakagawa discloses insect repellency, including mosquito repellency, of 3,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydrochromen-2-one, wherein insect repellency is “preventing an insect from approaching to an object or forcing an insect to avoid an object” (paragraph 49) and formulation with fragrances, plant extracts, and other repellents is disclosed (paragraph 55). The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize several insect/mosquito repellents to obtain the repellent properties and benefits of each repellent.
Claim 9 of the instant application recites co-ingredients such as wintergreen oil, camphor, geraniol, eugenol, pyrethrin, rotenone, azadirachtin, myrcene, limonene, pine oil, eucalyptus oil, cinnamon oil, citronella oil. CN 1496984 discloses wintergreen oil and camphor as formulation additives; RU 2513948 suggests geraniol, eugenol, pyrethrin, rotenone, azadirachtin, myrcene, limonene, pine oil, eucalyptus oil, cinnamon oil, citronella oil as miticides with tick and insect repellent properties; and Nakagawa suggests combined use of insect repellents. Therefore, the embodiment of claim 9 would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan.
New claim 20 of the instant application is directed to a method for insect spatial repellence, which comprises applying an arthropod composition to an article and bringing an insect into proximity such that the insect is in direct contract or in contact with vapors of the composition, wherein the article is product such as a body-care product, cosmetic, clothes, fabric, or diffusor, including an electric diffuser (claim 15). CN 1496984 teaches various formulations, including liquid liniment, which can be a body-care product or skin-care product. Nakagawa teaches insect repellent by packing in a container with a liquid absorbing wick and heating or evaporating through air blow is also disclosed (paragraph 57), and Zobele teaches an electric diffuser for dispensing active agents such as an insecticide, deodorants, disinfecting agents “and the like.” Thus, it would have been well within the skill of the ordinary skilled artisan to dispense or apply a compound with insect repellency in a manner known in the art for dispensing or applying insecticides or similar active ingredients, such as by using an electric diffuser taught by Zobele.
Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because every element of the invention and the claimed invention as a whole have been fairly disclosed or suggested by the teachings of the cited references.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8, 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/730,196 (reference application) in view of CN 1496984, Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0042225), and RU 2513948. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending claim 8 discloses a method for arthropod control comprising bringing an insect into direct contact with a composition or vapors of the composition. The composition can contain 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one, 3,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydrochromen-2-one, 6-hexyloxan-2-one, 6-pentyloxan-2-one, chromen-2-one, and mixtures thereof (copending claim 7). The composition can be incorporated into a consumer product (claim 10), such as a fabric care product, body-care product, skin-care product, an electric diffuser (claims 12-13).
Teachings of CN 1496984, Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0042225), and RU 2513948 were discussed previously in this Office action, and the discussions there are incorporated herein by reference. In summary, CN 1496984 discloses that 3-butylidene phthalide, i.e., 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one, has insect/mosquito spatial repellence; 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one would necessarily contain (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one. CN 1496984 also teaches 1-90% formulation with camphor and/or wintergreen oil. Nakagawa discloses insect repellency, including mosquito repellency, of 3,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydrochromen-2-one and 0.001-80% formulation with fragrances, plant extracts, and other repellents. RU 2513948 discloses butylidenephthalide (synonym of 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one), geraniol, eugenol, pyrethrin, rotenone, azadirachtin, myrcene, limonene, pine oil, eucalyptus oil, cinnamon oil, citronella oil as acaricides, wherein most of these natural plant extracts are disclosed to having repellent properties against ticks and insects and can be used as perfumes. Permethrin is further disclosed as a miticide. Without indication of stereospecificity, an alkene such as 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one would naturally contain both (E) and (Z) diastereomers, which means disclosure of “butylidenephthalide” by RU 2513948 is a disclosure of a substance that includes (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one.
Copending claims do not specify the stereochemistry of 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one as (3Z), but disclosure without stereospecificity is a disclosure of the racemate, which contains both the (3Z) and (3E) diastereomers. CN 1496984 teaches insect spatial repellence of 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one, and it would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan that the (3Z) diastereomer would have insect spatial repellence because it is present in the racemic mixture. Incorporation of additional repellents such as 3,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydrochromen-2-one, and other ingredients with repellent or pesticidal properties would have been obvious for obtaining multiple repellent and insect control activities.
For these reasons, the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized the claimed invention as an obvious variation of the invention set forth in the copending claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 12-16, and 18-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 12-15 of copending Application No. 18/838,149 (reference application) in view of CN 1496984, Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0042225), and RU 2513948. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons.
Copending claims are directed to a method for arthropod control, which comprises bringing an insect into direct contact or in contact with vapors of an arthropod control composition comprising one or more substances, including 5-pentyloxolan-2-one, which composition can further contain 0.5-10% chromen-2-one (claim 5),
(3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one, 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde, 6-hexyloxan-2-one, 6-pentyloxan-2-one, 3,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydrochromen-2-one, geraniol, eugenol, pyrethrin, rotenone, azadirachtin, myrcene, limonene, eucalyptus oil, cinnamon oil, and/or citronella oil (claims 1, 5, 7, 9). The arthropod composition can be incorporated into a consumer article such as fabric care product, body-care product, skin-care product, air care product, electric diffuser (claims 12-15).
Teachings of CN 1496984, Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0042225), and RU 2513948 were discussed previously in this Office action, and the discussions there are incorporated herein by reference. In summary, CN 1496984 discloses that 3-butylidene phthalide, i.e., 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one, has insect/mosquito spatial repellence; 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one would necessarily contain (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one. CN 1496984 also teaches 1-90% formulation with camphor and/or wintergreen oil. Nakagawa discloses insect repellency, including mosquito repellency, of 3,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydrochromen-2-one and 0.001-80% formulation with fragrances, plant extracts, and other repellents. RU 2513948 discloses butylidenephthalide (synonym of 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one), geraniol, eugenol, pyrethrin, rotenone, azadirachtin, myrcene, limonene, pine oil, eucalyptus oil, cinnamon oil, citronella oil as acaricides, wherein most of these natural plant extracts are disclosed to having repellent properties against ticks and insects and can be used as perfumes. Permethrin is further disclosed as a miticide. Without indication of stereospecificity, an alkene such as 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one would naturally contain both (E) and (Z) diastereomers, which means disclosure of “butylidenephthalide” by RU 2513948 is a disclosure of a substance that includes (3Z)-3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one.
CN 1496984 teaches insect spatial repellence of 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one, and it would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan that the (3Z) diastereomer would have insect spatial repellence because it is present in the racemic mixture. Incorporation of additional repellents such as 3,4,4a,5,6,7,8,8a-octahydrochromen-2-one, and other ingredients with repellent or pesticidal properties would have been obvious for obtaining multiple repellent and insect control activities.
For these reasons, the ordinary skilled artisan would have recognized the claimed invention as an obvious variation of the invention set forth in the copending claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
For the foregoing reasons, all examined claims are rejected again. No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to JOHN PAK whose telephone number is (571)272-0620. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 AM to 5 PM.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's SPE, Fereydoun Sajjadi, can be reached on (571)272-3311. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JOHN PAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
1 Submitted by Applicant in the IDS filed on 5/6/2026. The Examiner provides herewith two machine translations, one by Espacenet and another by USPTO PE2E Search. Paragraph numbers referenced in this Office action are paragraphs numbers given in the Espacenet machine translation.
2 See the translations as well as the original document, which discloses 3-butylidene phthalide in English.
3 3-butylidene-2-benzofuran-1-one = 3-butylidene phthalide = butylidene phthalide.
4 Cited in the Office action of 2/10/2026.
5 Machine translation, page 5, first full paragraph of the translation.
6 Machine translation, page 5, first full paragraph of the translation, last sentence.
7 Machine translation, page 4 of the translation, line 8 of last paragraph.
8 Machine translation, page 5, second full paragraph of the translation.
9 Machine translation, paragraph bridging pages 6-7 of the translation.
Prosecution Insights