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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 10-14 have been amended.
Claims 15-20 are newly added.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-9) and new claims 15-20 in the reply filed on 2/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-14 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 2/18/2026. Claim 17 is withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected species.
Claims 1-9, 15-16 and 18-20 are under consideration to the extent that the polymer matrix is ethylene vinyl acetate, the mixture of volatile fatty acid derivatives is methyl oleate, methyl palmitate, methyl laurate, methyl myristate, methyl linoleate and methyl stearate as the semiochemical composition, and the control agent is sepiolite, i.e., applicants elected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 14, 2023, December 17, 2024, June 10, 2025, and February 9, 2026 have been received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 6 and 9 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.
a. Claim 6 is indefinite in reciting “selected from the group constating…”. Proper Markush terminology is “selected from the group consisting of…” (see MPEP 2173.05(h)). Thus it is unclear what is contemplated by “selected from the group constating” and if it is meant to be a list of alternatives. As written, one skilled in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claim.
b. Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 1-9, 15-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Witchey-Lakshmanan (Adv. Drug Delivery Reviews, published July 26, 1999) in view of Pageat (US 2018/0169053A1, published June 21, 2018) and Canos et al. (US Patent No. 6,569,440 B1, published May 27, 2003), , and Suty-Heinze at al. (US20090247511A11, published October 1, 2009).
Witchey-Lakshmanan reviews in their journal article collar technologies for companion animals such as cats and dogs that are effective in control ectoparasites. They reference various polymer matrices that are suitable for collars, and include ethylene-vinyl acetate in their review (paragraph [0023]). This teaching therefore relates to the polymer matrix aspect of claim 1, claim 2, and claim 5. Witchey-Lakshmanan does not teach a semiochemical composition of volatile fatty acid derivatives and their percentages (claims 6, 7, 8, and 17-20), nor does it teach a diffusion controlling agent for the release of said semiochemical composition (claims 3, 15, and 16). Witchey-Lakshmanan also does not teach a flow agent with an ingredient to improve stability of the semiochemical composition. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Pageat and Canos.
Pageat teaches semiochemical composition comprised of various volatile fat acid derivatives, such as methyl laurate, methyl myristate, etc., as well as salts, derivatives, and isomers thereof, and/or structural analogs that maintain semiochemical capabilities (paragraph [0014]) with the intention of modifying the behavior of domestic pets. Pageat’s preferred embodiments of these semiochemical compositions include a mixture of between about 1% to 8% (w %/w %) methyl laurate, between about 1% to 8% (w %/w %) methyl myristate, between about 10% to 18% (w %/w %) methyl palmitate, between about 3% to 10% (w %/w %) methyl linoleate, between about 40% to 55% (w %/w %) methyl oleate, between about 1% to 8% (w %/w %) methyl stearate, between about 5% to 15% (w %/w %) dimethyl pimelate, between about 4% to 15% (w %/w %) dimethyl azelate, salts thereof, derivatives thereof, isomers thereof and/or structural analogs thereof that maintain their semiochemical capabilities (paragraphs [0016]). This preferred embodiment overlaps with claims 6 and 17, as well as several specific amounts of the semiochemicals in instant claim 7. The amount of a specific ingredient is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize, and could optimize based on the teachings of Pageat to reach the claimed result. Pageat also teaches that the composition may also be in the form of a collar which releases the semiochemical at a slow rate (paragraph [0061]), and this further relates to Canos and introducing a diffusion control agent. Pageat also teaches that the final concentration of the semiochemical composition in the final product can range from about 0.1% to about 10% (paragraph [0053]), covering the ranges claimed in instant claims 8 and 18-20. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
The inclusion of a diffusion controlling agent is taught by Canos et al. Canos teaches an emitter of semiochemical substances via a support to control the emitting speed, that support being sepiolite (col 2 line 50). The intended use of these semiochemicals and support for the semiochemicals is cited as being related to insect and parasite control as well, similar to Witchey-Lakshmanan. Said support is referenced as sepiolite, given its properties as a diffusive clay and is recited in claim 1 of Canos (claim 1). This therefore refers to the control agent aspect of claim 1 and claim 3.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce a collar made of ethylene-vinyl acetate as taught by Witchey-Lakshmanan combined with semiochemicals as taught by Pageat. The introduction of sepiolite would be obvious to one in the art in an effort to control the diffusion of said semiochemicals. One skilled in the art of semiochemical compositions for pets could use the known technique of diffusive emanation of said semiochemical composition (taught by Pageat in paragraph [0016]) via a mineral substrate including sepiolite to control diffusion (recited by Canos in claim 1). The polymer matrix is also obvious as taught by Wichey-Lakshmanan. It is logical to find the inclusion of a semiochemical composition to promote wellbeing in companion animals as taught by Pageat could be diffusively controlled via sepiolite as taught by Canos. It also follows that this semiochemical composition combined with sepiolite could be included in an ethyl-vinyl acetate support in the form of a collar for said companion animals. Therefore, the instant claims are obvious as the addition of an “improvement” via a semiochemical composition as taught by Pageat and a mineral diffusion substrate in sepiolite as taught by Canos would be an obvious improvement to an already established ethylene-vinyl collar as taught by Witchey-Lakshmanan (see MPEP 2143 (I)(C)).
This obvious combination is still deficient in regards to the inclusion of colloidal silica and an ingredient to improve stability of the semiochemical composition (claim 9). This is made up for by the teachings of Suty-Heinze et al. Their teachings demonstrate insecticide/fungicide mixtures that function as semiochemicals. They reference silica as an appropriate carrier for their semiochemical mixture, as well as the addition of stabilizers such as preservatives and antioxidants, as well as light stabilizers (paragraph [0136]). Given that the teachings are related to semiochemical control for pest control similar to Witchey-Lakshmanan, it would be logical to apply these teachings and therefore prima facie obvious to include stabilizers to promote the stability of a semiochemical composition as claimed in instant claim 9. The introduction of the stabilizers as taught by Suty-Heinze would apply in the instant case of a collar infused with a diffusively-controlled semiochemical mixture, as described supra. As these stabilizers are introduced in an effort to prevent degradation of a semiochemical mixture, combination of these teachings would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Combining these teaching would have a reasonable expectation of success to develop a collar that includes semiochemicals for behavioral control, along with a diffusive control agent and preservatives to enhance the overall function of said collar towards companion animals.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one skilled in the art to develop a collar similar to that taught by Witchey-Lakshmanan (related to instant claims 1, 2, 5) made of ethylene-vinyl acetate that includes semiochemical compositions as taught by Pageat (related to instant claims 6, 7, 8, 17-20), using a diffusion control agent sepiolite as taught by Canos (related to instant claims 3, 4, 15-16), in combination with a stabilizer as taught by Suty-Heinze (related to instant claim 9).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW RYAN BURKE whose telephone number is (571)272-8949. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm.
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, David Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/MATTHEW RYAN BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights