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
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections:
Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 18. Similarly claim 23 is a substantial duplicate of claim 19, claim 24 is a duplicate of claim 20, claim 25 is a duplicate of claim 21. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15-16 and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN1860872A, ‘872) in view of Paterson et al. (ES 2241128 T3) and further in view of Baird et al. (US PG Pub. 2009/0241410A1) and TOKUOKA et al. (1996, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 655-660, TOKUOKA, Naochika- Liquid Atomization and Its Applications. Turbomachinery, non-official translation 4. Spray characteristics, presented in IDS).
‘872 discloses a flying insect repellent composition, characterized in that it contains 0.5-5.0 wt. of a fragrance component, 03-3.0 wt. of a higher alkylamine oxide surfactant, 7.0-8.0 wt.% of a non-ionic surfactant, and 3.0-12 wt% of a lower alcohol and water, see claim 1. The reference teaches that the flying insect repellent composition is an aqueous formulation in which there is 6.3 to 3.0 wt. % of a higher alkylamine oxide surfactant, 1.0 to 8.0 wt. 8.0 wt.% of a nonionic surfactant, 3.0 to 12 wt. % of a lower alcohol and water are blended in a fragrance component, and in particular, a higher alkylamine oxide surfactant is used as the surfactant, see [0029]. The reference teaches that the flying insect pest repellent composition comprises lower alcohol is ethanol and the higher alkylamine oxide-based surfactant is laurylamine oxide, see [0013]. The reference teaches examples of the nonionic surfactant include polyoxyethylene hydrogenated castor oil, polyoxyethylene higher alkyl ethers (polyoxyethylene lauryl ether, polyoxyethylene oleyl ether), polyoxyethylene higher fatty acid esters and polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene alkyl, see [0032]. (Thus, the reference teaches use of surfactant claimed as (A2).
The reference does not teach use of the claimed surfactant (A1), which are lauryl-trimethylammonium chloride and lauryl-trimethylammonium salt as claimed. The reference does not teach an assembly of the pest spray container.
Paterson et al. teaches lauryl-trimethylammonium used in biocide composition, see title and claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized lauryl-trimethylammonium along with the known surfactants used in the flying repellant composition of ‘872 for added biocidal effect motivated by the teachings of Paterson et al.
The reference does not teach an assembly of pest spray container.
Baird discloses an assembly for stopping an attack of aggressive flying stinging insects on an operator of a ridable vehicle, the assembly comprising: a tank configured to contain a surfactant solution; a pump in fluid communication with the tank; a delivery system having at least one nozzle; a first tubular member fluidly connecting the tank and the delivery system; and an actuator coupled to said pump and operable by the operator, for activating the pump; wherein the tank, the pump, the delivery system, and the first tubular member are attached to said ridable vehicle and configured to deliver said surfactant solution onto the operator and the attacking insects at a flow rate in the range of 1-3 gallons/min, to dispel the insect attack, upon operation of said actuator when said assembly is used to stop an attack of aggressive flying stinging insects, see claim 1. Baird teaches in (claims, paragraph [0042], fig. 3A, 3B, 3C, 4), a flying insect extermination spray comprising a trigger spray type spray container and a flying insect extermination composition that is filled in the trigger spray type spray container, wherein the flying insect extermination composition includes a surfactant (A) and water as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have utilized the tank configured as above for attacking insects motivated by the teachings of Baird et al. teaching delivery system for delivering surfactant.
The instant claim of the present application differs from the invention disclosed in the references discussed above by specifying predetermined values for the volume particle distribution of the spray material of the flying insect extermination spray, measured at a position 30 cm in the horizontal direction from the spray port of the trigger spray type spray container.
Tokuoka et al. discloses purpose of atomization and research content atomization of a liquid is to reduce the particle size and increase the number of particles by forming a liquid mass into a group of microparticles. This makes it possible to increase the total surface area of the liquid, promote evaporation, reaction, dissolution, drying, etc., spread the liquid over a wide surface or space, and effectively utilize the heat capacity of the liquid, see page 1.
Thus, using the particle size distribution or the flight state of spray particles in order to express the characteristics of the spray particles created when a liquid is sprayed is well as taught by Spray Characteristics in Tokuoka et al. Therefore, measuring the particle size distribution of a spray material for a spray at a desired spray distance so as to satisfy the stipulations of the instant claims would be obvious to a person skilled in the art based on the teachings of Tokuoka et al. Furthermore, optimizing the component amount included in a flying insect extermination composition and optimizing a spray container in order to obtain the desired flying insect extermination effect and spray material flight distance would be obvious to a person skilled in the art based on the guidance provide by Tokuoka et al.
Applicant argues that primary reference discloses that by releasing the fragrance component in the air, it is possible to achieve a practical repelling effect on flying insect pests such as mosquitoes. In a preferred embodiment, it discloses a fragrance diffuser in which a container body having a wick is filled with the flying insect repellent composition, and the composition is introduced into an evaporation section through the wick (lotion wick) to be diffused in the space (see paragraphs 0034 and 0035 of CN '872. Thus, CN '872 merely discloses evaporating the flying insect repellent composition, and there is no disclosure or suggestion of spraying such composition.
These arguments are not persuasive because Baird was cited for use of the known spray containers and spray types used for extermination of flying insects. As discussed in the rejections of record, Baird teaches in (claims, paragraph [0042], fig. 3A, 3B, 3C, 4), a flying insect extermination spray comprising a trigger spray type spray container and a flying insect extermination composition that is filled in the trigger spray type spray container, wherein the flying insect extermination composition includes a surfactant (A) and water as claimed. ‘872 was cited for disclosing a flying insect repellent composition. Thus, based on the guidance provided by Baird et al., one of ordinary skill would have utilized the known spray tank or container for extermination of flying insects.
Applicant argues that Paterson et al. merely discloses an antimicrobial composition in which a 2-bromo-2- (bromomethyl)-glutaronitrile as an insect pest control agent is used together with a quaternary ammonium compound (see Claim 1). Thus, there is no disclosure or suggestion in Paterson et al. that the flying pest exterminating agent containing the specific surfactant is sprayed with the specific volume particle size distribution. Thus, if the skilled person reads such disclosure of Paterson et al., it is not conceivable of or arrive at a spray which contains the presently claimed surfactant with the specific volume particle size distribution.
These arguments are not persuasive because Paterson was only cited for the use of lauryl-trimethylammonium used in biocide composition and not for he spray container or the volume.
Applicant further argues that Baird et al. discloses a continuous spray from a ridable vehicle and merely refers to a 1:10 mixture of soap and water as a surfactant solution. Accordingly, Baird et al. does not disclose or suggest the specific surfactant is used to the repellent composition or how particle size the composition is sprayed. Thus, if the skilled person reads such disclosure of Baird et al., it is not possible to conceive of or arrive at the kind of the surfactant or the volume particle size distribution of the sprayed product, which are defined in the present claims.
These arguments are not persuasive because Baird teaches in (claims, paragraph [0042], fig. 3A, 3B, 3C, 4), a flying insect extermination spray comprising a trigger spray type spray container and a flying insect extermination composition that is filled in the trigger spray type spray container, wherein the flying insect extermination composition includes a surfactant (A) and water as claimed. Therefore, use of spray container would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
According to Applicant, Tokuoka et al. merely relates to the atomization of a liquid and fails to disclose or suggest that it is possible to reduce the flying ability of flying pests by atomizing the flying pest exterminating agent containing the specific surfactant.
These arguments are not persuasive because as discussed in the rejections of record, Tokuoka et al. discloses purpose of atomization and research content atomization of a liquid is to reduce the particle size and increase the number of particles by forming a liquid mass into a group of microparticles. This makes it possible to increase the total surface area of the liquid, promote evaporation, reaction, dissolution, drying, etc., spread the liquid over a wide surface or space, and effectively utilize the heat capacity of the liquid, see page 1. Thus, using the particle size distribution or the flight state of spray particles in order to express the characteristics of the spray particles created when a liquid is sprayed is well as taught by Spray Characteristics in Tokuoka et al. Therefore, measuring the particle size distribution of a spray material for a spray at a desired spray distance so as to satisfy the stipulations of the instant claims would be obvious to a person skilled in the art based on the teachings of Tokuoka et al. Tokuoka et al. was not cited for the claimed surfactants. Additionally, it is noted that the instant specification demonstrates excellent reducing flying ability of mosquitoes in Tables 1 and 2. However, the instant independent claims do not recite both the sets of surfactants (A1) and (A2) in the specific amounts that has been shown to improve extermination effect.
Action is final
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights