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 .
Applicants amendment filed 12/22/2025 has been entered. Claim 2 was cancelled. Claims 1, 6, 8 and 14 were amended. Claims 1 and 3-14 are pending.
Withdrawn rejections
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 12/22/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
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 8 and 14 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 8 recites “another material” which is indefinite. The specification states that the composite material is composed of the resin composition and other materials [0059]. Examples of the material include resins, metals, ceramics, glass, plants, animal skins and hairs [0059]. Materials also include fibrous materials including cloth, paper, cellulose fibers, polyethylene fibers, polypropylene fibers, polyethylene terephthalate fibers, metal fibers, animal hairs and binders, fillers, dyes, pigments and paints [0065]. However, the metes and bounds of the term “another material” is not clearly defined therefore the full scope of the term is vague and unascertainable. For the purpose of examination the term is taken to refer to any material used in manufacturing which can be used to make a composite.
Claim 14 depends on claim 8 and recites “a sustained release insecticide preparation in which composite material according to claim 8 is installed in a container, a frame, or a device for insecticide volatilization” which is also vague and indefinite. First, it is unclear how the sustained release insecticide preparation differs from the composite material in claim 8 because the it is unclear if the composite material is a container, a frame or device or a specific construction material used in the container, frame or device for insecticide volatilization. Furthermore, the limitation that the composite material “is installed” in a container, a frame, or a device for insecticide volatilization is not a clear structural limitation. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: how the sustained release insecticide preparation structurally differs from the composite material in claim 8.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamatsu et al. (5,948,832; patented September 7, 1999) in view of Gourdin et al. (US 2016/0326346; published November 10, 2016).
Applicant claims a resin composition comprising 10-87% by mass (A) a copolymer of ethylene and an organic carboxylic acid derivative having an ethylenically unsaturated bond, 3-30% by mass (B) a linear or branched carboxylic acid ester having molecular weight 255-380 and a saturated vapor pressure of 1.0x10-4 Pa or more at 25 degrees Celsius and 10-60% by mass (C) an insecticide having a saturated vapor pressure of 1.0x10-4 Pa or more at 25 degrees, wherein the mass ratio of (B) to (C) is 2.1 to 1.5.
With respect to claims 1, 3-8 and 14, Nagamatsu et al. teach a resin composition comprising 0.01-200 parts by weight and active compound, 0.1-100 parts by weight a vaporizable plasticizer having a vapor pressure of 0.001 mmHG or higher (0.133 Pa) (abstract). The vaporizable plasticizer can be selected from esters which are liquid at room temperature, such as phthalic esters, straight chain dibasic acid esters and liquid alcohols (column 3, lines 37-48). The amount of plasticizer is preferably 1-50 parts by weight, most preferably 5-30 parts by weight of the resin from the viewpoint of more stable retention of the active ingredient in the resin composition and the retention of the plasticizer stability in the resin composition (column 3, lines 49-55; limitation of claim 1). The insecticidal compounds include pyrethroids selected from transfluthrin and empenthrin (column 4, lines 15-35; limitation of claims 4 and 5). Resins used include copolymers of ethylene and organic carboxylic acid derivatives having an ethylenically unsaturated bond, such as ethylene-vinyl acetate (column 5, lines 59-65; limitation of claim 1). The combination of the plasticizer and the active compound satisfies the formula P1/P2> or equal to 2, preferably P1/P2> or equal to 10 wherein the upper limit is 1010, wherein P1 is the vapor pressure of the plasticizer and P2 is the vapor pressure of the active compound (column 4, lines 57 through column 5, lines 4; limitation of claim 6). With respect to claim 7, Nagamatsu et al. do not specify a solubility index R1 of the resin and the carboxylic acid ester, a solubility index R2 of the resin and insecticide and the solubility index R3 of the carboxylic acid ester and the insecticide are all 5.0 or less, however using resins such as polyvinyl chloride has higher dissolvability of the active and plasticizers having a lower vapor pressure provides the effect of a lower saturation solubility of the active compound in the resin to enhance bleedability, particularly with the plasticizers diisononyl adipate, 2-ethylhexyl sebacate and diisononyl adipate (column 6, line 52 through column 7, line 10; limitation of claim 7). Using the resins to make shaped and molded products by various methods including laminates by multi-layer extrusion molding wherein the resin composition is applied to any layer is also taught (column 7, lines 26-49; limitation of claims 8 and 14).
With respect to claim 1, Nagamatsu et al. does not specify the vaporizable plasticizer has a molecular weight of 255-380. With respect to claim 3, Nagamatsu et al. do not specify the carboxylic acid ester (B) is selected from an ester of saturated fatty acid having 8-20 carbon atoms, an ester of a dicarboxylic acid having 2-8 carbon atoms, a carbonic acid ester and an acetylcitric acid ester. It is for this reason that Gourdin et al. is joined.
Gourdin et al. teach improved phthalate-free polyvinyl chloride plastisol compositions with low emission of volatile organic compounds (abstract). The compositions comprise 10-200 parts of polyvinyl chloride of a plasticizer blend of primary plasticizers with a vapor pressure of less than 5X10-3 and secondary plasticizers with a vapor pressure of less than 10-1 [0023-25]. The ratio of the first phthalate-free primary plasticizers to the secondary phthalate-free plasticizers is between 0.1-10 [0029]. Examples of primary plasticizers include dialkyl esters of aliphatic dicarboxylic acids, such as diheptyl esters of adipic acid and examples of secondary plasticizers include citrates such as triethyl citrate and acetyl triethyl citrate and preferably acetyl tributyl citrate and diethylene glycol dibenzoate and mixtures thereof [0076-85; Tables 1&2]. The molecular weight of the plasticizer used include those with a molecular weight ranging from 248-425, including diethyleneglycol dibenzoate which also has a molecular weight of 342 and a vapor pressure of 1X10-5 mmHg (0.00133 P) (Table 4).
Nagamatsu et al. and Gourdin et al. are both drawn to polymer products comprising plasticizers. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings Nagamatsu et al. and Gourdin et al. to include plasticizers with a molecular weight 255-380 that are an ester of a dicarboxylic acid having 2-8 carbon atoms or an acetylcitric acid ester with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Nagamatsu et al. and Gourdin et al. and include plasticizers of a molecular weight of 248-425 that are an ester of a dicarboxylic acid having 2-8 carbon atoms or an acetylcitric acid ester because Gourdin et al. teach diheptyl adipate, acetyl triethyl citrate and diethyleneglycol dibenzoate as plasticizers with weight of 342 that are preferably used with polyvinyl polymers to produce phthalate-free products with low emission of volatile organic compounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Nagamatsu explicitly states that P1 and P2 are vapor pressures and therefore cannot teach the claimed mass ratio. Applicant further argues that Gourdin and Galiasatos fail to remedy the deficiencies in Nagamatsu and therefore a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established. The Examiner is not persuaded by this argument because Nagamatsu et al. teach a resin composition comprising 0.01-200 parts by weight and active compound, 0.1-100 parts by weight a vaporizable plasticizer having a vapor pressure of 0.001 mmHG or higher (0.133 Pa). This allows for a ratio of total plasticizer to insecticide of 2:1 and a ratio of 1:5 as claimed. Nagamatsu et al. does not specify the vaporizable plasticizer has a molecular weight of 255-380. It is for this reason that Gourdin was joined. The molecular weight of the plasticizer used include those with a molecular weight ranging from 248-425, including diethyleneglycol dibenzoate which also has a molecular weight of 342 and a vapor pressure of 1X10-5 mmHg (0.00133 P) (Table 4). Gourdin teach combinations of two plasticizers wherein the ratio of the first phthalate-free primary plasticizers to the secondary phthalate-free plasticizers is between 0.1-10 [0029]. This encompasses a 1:1 ratio which would met the ratio of component B) to insecticide ratio of 2:1 to 1:5. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been able to achieve the claimed ratio by routine optimization.
Applicant further argues that Tables 2 & 3 display examples that satisfy the mass ratios in claim 1 which both demonstrate superior sustained release and bleeding properties. The Examiner is not persuaded by the data because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. The samples that are compared are limited to laminates consisting of A) resins selected from A1) ethylene-methyl acrylate copolymer with 35% methyl acrylate comonomer and weight-average molecular weight 4.0 X104 (ACRYFT), A2) ethylene-methyl methacrylate copolymer with 25% methyl methacrylate comonomer and weight-average molecular weight 6.1 X104 (ACRYFT), A3) ethylene-methyl methacrylate copolymer with 18% methyl methacrylate comonomer and weight-average molecular weight 6.4 X104 (ACRYFT), A4) ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer with 28% vinyl acetate comonomer and X1) Low density polyethylene (Sumikasen F101), weight-average molecular weight 6.1 X104; carboxylic acid ester B) selected from B1) Diisopropyl sebacate, B2) triethyl acetyl citrate, insecticide C1) selected from methofluthrin and C2) transfluthrin; Layer E) selected from E1) linearly low density polyethylene film or E2) laminated kraft paper and layer F) selected from F1) polyethylene terephthalate film, 100 µm thickness. Applicant has failed to show that the mass ratios alone demonstrate unexpected results over the claimed range and a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the range do not show criticality because comparative examples also show similar properties. Therefore, Applicant has failed to demonstrated that the data is commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagamatsu et al. (5,948,832; patented September 7, 1999) in view of Gourdin et al. (US 2016/0326346; published November 10, 2016), as applied to claims 1-8 and 14 in further view of Galiatsatos et al. (US 2013/0251773; published September 26, 2013).
Applicant claims a laminate comprising a first layer (D) containing the resin composition of claim 1 and a second layer (E) having the permeability to the carboxylic acid ester (B) and the insecticide (C).
Nagamatsu et al. teach laminates formed by multi-layer extrusion molding wherein the resin composition is applied to any layer (column 7, lines 26-49). Gourdin et al. also teach multi-layer decorative surface coverings that are phthalate-free [0113]. However, with respect to claim 9, a first layer containing the resin composition and a second layer having permeability to (B) and (C) is not specified. With respect to claim 10, a first layer (D) and second layer (E) in contact with (D) where (E) is an outer surface of the laminate is not specified. With respect to claim 11, a layer constitution of layer (E)/layer (D)/layer(E) wherein (E) may be the same or different from each other is not specified. With respect to claim 12, a further third layer (F) different from (E) and (D) is not specified. With respect to claim 13, selecting the third layer (F) from an adhesive, protective layer, colored layer, insecticide permeable layer, design layer or ultraviolet absorbing layer is not specified. It is for this reason that Galiatsatos et al. is joined.
Galiatsatos et al. teach controlled release insect repellent materials comprising at least one polymer, at least one insect repellent and optionally at least one insect repellent synergist, additive and additional polymer and articles formed from the materials (abstract). The insecticide is selected from the pyrethroids, specifically empenthrin [0026]. The polymers included ethylene monomers and at least one monomer of vinyl acetate, vinyl ester or acrylates that are tailored to achieve desired diffusion rates [0030-33]. The preferred embodiment comprises a first ethylene vinyl acetate and a second ethylene vinyl acetate [0035]. The configurations of the layered articles are illustrated in Figures 2A-F including release modulation layer 204, insect repellent layer 201, backing layer 202, and adhesive layer 203, structural layer 205 and peelable layer 206 [0071]. The layered articles can be made by lamination [0079].
PNG
media_image1.png
540
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 9 and 10, Galiatsatos et al. disclose Figure 2D, wherein 205 is the structural (first) layer and 201 is the second layer is permeable to B and C. Since claim 9 recites a first layer containing the resin composition and a second layer having permeability to (B) and (C) the configuration would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill. With respect to claim 10, a first layer (D) and second layer (E) in contact with (D) where (E) is an outer surface of the laminate is disclosed.
With respect to claims 11-13, Galiatsatos et al. discloses Figures 2A, 2C and 2F wherein the insect repellent layer 201, the backing layer 202 and the adhesive layer 203 are unison and layer 201 is in contact with either release modulation layer 204, the peelable layer 206 or and additional second insect repellent layer 201. With respect to claim 11, a layer constitution of layer (E)/layer (D)/layer(E) wherein (E) may be the same or different from each other is disclosed. With respect to claim 12, a further third layer (F) different from (E) and (D) is disclosed. With respect to claim 13, selecting the third layer (F) from an adhesive, protective layer or insecticide permeable layer is disclosed.
Nagamatsu et al., Gourdin et al. and Galiatsatos et al. all teach layered polymer products. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings Nagamatsu et al., Gourdin et al. and Galiatsatos et al. to include different layered configurations disclosed by Galiatsatos et al. to form plastic products comprising pyrethroids with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Nagamatsu et al., Gourdin et al. and Galiatsatos et al. to include the above configurations because Galiatsatos et al. teach layered laminate products can be configured this way by routine optimization to form insecticidal polymer products.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
DANIELLE D. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1611
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights