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 .
Detailed Action
Status of Application
1. Applicants’ arguments/remarks filed 14 January 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1-8, 11-15, and 93-95 are currently pending. Claims 9-10 and 16-92 are cancelled. Claims 93-95 are newly added. Claims 1-4 and 14-15 are amended. Claims 1-8, 11-15, and 93-95 are examined on the merits within.
Withdrawn Rejections
2. Applicants’ arguments, filed 14 January 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. The 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections of DeMark et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0081030) as evidenced by Arch has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new rejection is made in view of DeMark et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0081030) in view of Morales-Ramos et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,628,979) as evidenced by Arch. The 35 U.S.C. 103 Rejection of DeMark et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0081030) as evidenced by Arch as applied to claims 1-7 and 11-15 above and further in view of French (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0162236) has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration a new rejection is made in view of DeMark et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0081030) in view of Morales-Ramos et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,628,979) as evidenced by Arch as applied to claims 1-7, 11-15, and 93-95 above and further in view of French (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0162236).
New Rejections
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(a) New Matter
3. 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1-8, 11-15, and 93-95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
5. Claim 1 recites “wherein the composition comprises a fluid having a viscosity of a least 200 Pas.” Although the specification provides numerous recitations of the viscosity, it is with regards to the composition, the mixture, or the bait. There is no mention of viscosity of a fluid added to the composition. Thus the claims lack sufficient written description for this amendment.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-4 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.
8. Claim 1 recites “wherein the composition comprises a fluid having a viscosity of at least 200 Pas.” However, dependent claims 2-4 are directed to the viscosity of the composition, not a fluid within the composition. Are these claims intended to further limit the viscosity of the fluid added to the composition, or the composition? Since the specification does not provide support for an additional fluid with a viscosity of at least 200 Pas, the claims will be interpreted as being directed to the composition having a specific viscosity. However, clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 103
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1-7, 11-15, and 93-95 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMark et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0081030) in view of Morales-Ramos et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,628,979) as evidenced by Arch.
Regarding instant claims 1-6, DeMark et al. teach a termite bait comprising cellulose (filler), at least one sugar, at least one acid, and at least one insecticide. See abstract. The composition may also comprise binders. See paragraph [0032]. Example 1 comprises an insecticide concentrate including water. See paragraphs [0038-0041].
Regarding instant claims 7 and 11, insecticides include noviflumuron or hexaflumuron. See paragraphs [0009-0013].
Regarding instant claims 12-13, optional ingredients include preservatives such as 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one (PROXEL GXL.RTM. Arch Chemicals, Inc.). See paragraph [0036]. PROXEL GXL comprises a solution of 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one in dipropylene glycol and water as evidenced by Arch. See page 2.
Regarding instant claim 14, the insecticide is present in amounts of 0.0001 to 20 weight percent. See paragraph [0033].
DeMark et al. do not teach at least 20%, 50% or 70% water.
Morales-Ramos et al. teach that subterranean termites prefer moist foods to be more attractive than other available foods. Enough water should be used to allow mixing of the matrix material and/or completely hydrate the particulate or solid cellulose materials and to provide excess water to maintain a humid environment. Water content should range from 20% to 90 % by weight of the composition. See column 6, lines 21-30. The termite bait matrix consists essentially of cellulose, 9,10-anthracenedion, 1,4-bis[(2-ethylhexyl)amino], and a termite toxicant (i.e., chitin synthesis inhibitor). See claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the water content dependent on the type of termite to make the formulation more appealing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the amount of each ingredient to achieve the desired viscosity and therapeutic effect. One would have been motivated, with a reasonable expectation of success, to optimize the ease of administration and effectiveness of the formulation.
11. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMark et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0081030) in view of Morales-Ramos et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,628,979) as evidenced by Arch as applied to claims 1-7, 11-15, and 93-95 above and further in view of French (U. S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0162236).
DeMark et al. and Morales-Ramos et al. do not teach methylcellulose.
French is directed to a bait station for use in the elimination of termites comprising a cellulosic matrix and a termiticide. See abstract. A cellulosic feed, such as alpha-methyl cellulose, water, and a chitin synthesis inhibitor are combined to form a paste. See paragraph [0013].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to use the alpha-methyl cellulose of French in the termite bait of DeMark et al. because French teaches the effectiveness of the specific methyl cellulose when combined with a chitin synthesis inhibitor.
Conclusion
12. 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.
Correspondence
13. No claims are allowed at this time.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WORSHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8-5).
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 Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/JESSICA WORSHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights