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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 12 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 January 2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, the phrases in the 3d through 5th paragraphs should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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 1 (from which claims 2-12 depend), at lines 15-17, recites “at least one polymeric resin,” “optionally at least one pigment”, “optionally at least one filler,” and “at least one acrylic block copolymer, said acrylic block copolymer comprising at least one alkyl polymethacrylate block and at least one polyacrylate block”. It is unclear whether this these refer to the same polymeric resin, optional pigment, optional filler, and acrylic block copolymer previously recited at lines 3-4 and 10-11.
Claims 2 and 13 recite “a substrate”. It is unclear whether this refers to the substrate of claim 1, or refers to some other substrate.
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 2 recites the broad recitation “secured to a substrate”, and the claim also recites “in particular in the form of a thin layer”. which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. 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.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3187046 A1 (“Guerret”) in view of WO 2020/081661 (“McCarthy”).
EP 3187046 A1 was included in applicant’s IDS. A partial machine translation is enclosed.
As to claims 1, 2, and 4-8, Guerret teaches a method for diffusing a semiochemical substance by providing a solid composition (para. 0004), having a polymer matrix (para. 0054), thus a polymer resin. Guerret teaches contacting a composition having a semiochemical substance with the solid composition and impregnating the solid composition (para. 0054-0055). Guerret teaches diffusing the semiochemical substance from the solid (para. 0067), which process can then be repeated.
Guerret teaches the solid composition includes acrylic block copolymer (para. 0016), in particular including an alkyl methacrylate block and alkyl acrylate block (para. 0019). This block copolymer is a polymeric resin, and therefore a composition can be considered to be a block copolymer dispersed and immobilized in a polymeric resin.
Guerret teaches that the method can be carried out on any shape of object (para. 0066), but does not discuss applying onto a substrate with a solvent and evaporating solvent. However, it is known from McCarthy, that methyl methacrylate-butyl acrylate-methyl methacrylate block copolymer as required by claims 1 and 4-8 may be applied as a topcoating with solvent, being applied in solvent (abstract, para. 0040), applied to a substrate and dried (abstract), thus evaporating solvent. The block copolymer is a polymeric resin, and is deemed to meet both recitations. The resulting material is secured to the substrate as required by claim 2.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to render the solid composition of Guerret as a coating on a substrate, given that McCarthy teaches that the same type of block copolymer may be applied as a substrate coating in the recited manner.
As to claim 3, Guerret does not discuss securing to a substrate, but teaches forming into any suitable shape. McCarthy teaches applying the same type of polymeric composition to steel, thus metal substrate (para. 0065).
As to claims 9 and 10, Guerret teaches that the semiochemical may be animal pheromone (para. 0053), in particular for cats as require by claim 10.
As to claim 11, Guerret teaches the method may be used for calming (appeasing) pheromone (para. 0088).
As to claims 12 and 13, Guerret teaches the use of the composition for control of mammalian behavior (para. 0038). While not explicitly recited, this suggests use in a living area of an animal. Further, Guerret teaches its use in collars (para. 0066), which would necessarily be use in the living area of an animal.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3187046 A1 (“Guerret”) in view of US 20100261832 (“Magnet”).
EP 3187046 A1 was included in applicant’s IDS. A partial machine translation is enclosed.
As to claims 1, 2, and 4-8, Guerret teaches a method for diffusing a semiochemical substance by providing a solid composition (para. 0004), having a polymer matrix (para. 0054), thus a polymer resin. Guerret teaches contacting a composition having a semiochemical substance with the solid composition and impregnating the solid composition (para. 0054-0055). Guerret teaches diffusing the semiochemical substance from the solid (para. 0067), which process can then be repeated.
Guerret teaches the solid composition includes acrylic block copolymer (para. 0016), in particular including an alkyl methacrylate block and alkyl acrylate block (para. 0019). This block copolymer is a polymeric resin. Specifically, Guerret teaches triblock copolymer of PMMA-PABu-PMMA type (para. 0027), which meet the recitation of claims 4-8
Guerret teaches that the method can be carried out on any shape of object (para. 0066), but does not discuss applying onto a substrate with a solvent and evaporating solvent. To the extent that claim 1 requires a polymeric resin different from the block copolymer, Guerret does not teach a separate block copolymer in which the block copolymer is dispersed and immobilized. However, it is known from Magnet, that methyl methacrylate-butyl acrylate-methyl methacrylate block copolymer (para. 0102) can be applied to with a second polymer (para. 0103) in aqueous dispersion (para. 0100), thus a solvent and a liquid composition and applied to a substrate and dried (para. 0302), thus evaporating solvent. The block copolymer is a polymeric resin, and is deemed to be dispersed and immobilized in the second polymer, and secured to the substrate as required by claim 2.
It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to render the solid composition of Guerret as a coating on a substrate in the recited manner, given that Magnet teaches that the same type of block copolymer may be applied as a substrate coating in the recited manner.
As to claim 3, Guerret does not discuss securing to a substrate, but teaches forming into any suitable shape. Magnet teaches applying the same type of polymeric composition to paper substrate (para. 0302), and thus paper is an obvious substrate for a coating of the block copolymer as taught by Magnet.
As to claims 9 and 10, Guerret teaches that the semiochemical may be animal pheromone (para. 0053), in particular for cats as require by claim 10.
As to claim 11, Guerret teaches the method may be used for calming (appeasing) pheromone (para. 0088).
As to claims 12 and 13, Guerret teaches the use of the composition for control of mammalian behavior (para. 0038). While not explicitly recited, this suggests use in a living area of an animal. Further, Guerret teaches its use in collars (para. 0066), which would necessarily be use in the living area of an animal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KREGG T BROOKS whose telephone number is (313)446-4888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9 am to 5:30 pm.
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, Arrie Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/KREGG T BROOKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764