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 .
Status of Application
Applicants' arguments/remarks filed 04/16/2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1, 4 and 19 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are examined on the merits within and are currently pending.
Withdrawn Rejections
With applicants' amendment, filed 12/17/2024:
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claim 1-2, 8-15, 19 and 20, by JP 5066575 B2 has been withdrawn in view of the amendments;
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 1-2 and 8 and 3-4 and 7 over Coelho et al., or JP 5066575 B2 as applied in claims 1-2 and 8, and Yadagani et al. has been withdrawn in view of the amendments;
the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 1 and 7 over Coelho et al., or JP 5066575 B2 as applied in claims 1, and Gosh et al. has been withdrawn in view of the amendments;
Modified Rejections
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 19 is/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 is indefinite because it recites: “a wax emulsion that becomes less viscous under agitation”. The relative words “less viscous” has unclear metes and bounds and fails to set clear boundaries, making it impossible for the public or competitors to know exactly where the claimed invention ends and infringement begins. For examining purposes, examiner will remove “less viscous” in claim 1. That phrase becomes “a wax emulsion”.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it recites: “a flowable wax-based matrix that cures to become rainfast.”. The relative word “rainfast” has unclear metes and bounds and fails to set clear boundaries of volume, duration and intensity, which distinguishes a rainfast product from a non-rainfast one and make it impossible for the public or competitors to know exactly where the claimed invention ends and infringement begins. For examining purposes, examiner will remove “rainfast” in claim 19. That phrase becomes “a flowable wax-based matrix”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coelho et al. (US 20220151237Al).
Claims 1-2, 19 and 20,
Coelho et al. teach Systems and methods of preventing or reducing crop damage from pests are provided. In one embodiment, the method comprises: a) applying a mating disruption tactic to a field plot; and b) disrupting expression of one or more target genes in one or more pests, wherein crop damage is reduced in the field plot. In another embodiment, the method comprises applying an attract-and-kill tactic to a field plot, wherein said attract-and-kill tactic comprises: a) applying one or more semiochemicals or factors; and b) disrupting expression of one or more target genes in one or more pests, wherein said disruption is capable of killing the one or more pests, wherein crop damage is reduced in the field plot. (Abs). In some embodiments, the one or more pests is a member of the order Hemiptera. (0029). Pest behavior-modifying semiochemicals such as pheromones to trap pests, (0010), which are aggregation pheromones. “Attractant” refers to a natural or synthetic agent that attracts or lures, for example, animals, insects, birds, etc. Attractants can include: sexual attractants, food attractants, (0054), which include both attractant pheromones and aggregation pheromones and kairomone is attractant kairomone.
Food substrate at these lures can be treated with an RNAi to affect the mortality or reproductive behaviors of the attracted females. The use of pheromones and ds/siRNA specific to a particular species, ensures that there will be no non-target effects. (0291). In another embodiment, the one or more semiochemicals or factors comprise one or more attractants. In another embodiment, the one or more attractants comprise one or more host plant chemical, non-host plant chemical, synthetic volatile chemical, or natural volatile chemical. In another embodiment, the one or more attractants are identified through binding to one or more pest odorant binding proteins. In another embodiment, the one or more attractants comprise one or more host plant volatile chemical. In another embodiment, the one or more host plant volatile chemicals comprise heptanal or benzaldehyde. In another embodiment, the one or more attractants comprise one or more kairomones. In some embodiments, the one or more attractants comprise one or more pheromones or pheromone blends. (0026). Heptanal and benzaldehyde can both function as aggregation pheromones for certain species of Hemiptera, particularly within aldehyde blends. In many cases, the compounds' function can depend on their concentration and the other chemicals present in the blend. In one embodiment, the killing agent can comprise an insecticide or pesticide. In another embodiment, the insecticide or pesticide can comprise a biological insecticide or pesticide, a chemical insecticide or pesticide, a plant incorporated insecticide or pesticide, or any combination thereof. In one embodiment, the insecticide or pesticide is an RNAi-based insecticide or RNAi-based pesticide. (0052). The pheromone formulations may be provided alone or may be included in a carrier and/or a dispenser. (0161). The carrier may be an inert liquid or solid. Examples of solid carriers include but are not limited to fillers such as wax. (0163). the pheromone formulations may comprise carriers such as microcapsules, biodegradable flakes and paraffin wax-based matrices. In some instances, the pheromone composition is provided by direct release from the carrier. (0164). Pheromone is formulated as a sprayable emulsion concentrate. siRNA is sprayed on corn ears via drop sprayers. (0332). With a wax as a carrier, the emulsion is a wax emulsion.
With regard to claims 5-6,
Coelho et al. teach the pheromone compositions disclosed herein can be formulated as a microencapsulated pheromone. Microencapsulated pheromones (MECs) are small droplets of pheromone enclosed within polymer capsules. The capsules control the release rate of the pheromone into the surrounding environment, and are small enough to be applied in the same method as used to spray insecticides. The effective field longevity of the microencapsulated pheromone formulations can range from a few days to slightly more than a week, depending on inter alia climatic conditions, capsule size and chemical properties. (0199). The present disclosure provides a wick or trap capable of emitting pheromone for a period of time, especially about two weeks, and generally between about 1 and 4 weeks and up to 6 weeks, which may be rotated or replaced by subsequent similar traps. A plurality of traps containing the pheromone composition may be placed in a locus, e.g., adjacent to a crop field. The locations of the traps, and the height of the traps from ground may be selected in accordance with methods known to one skilled in the art. (0224). As will be apparent to one of skill in the art, the amount of a pheromone or pheromone composition used for a particular application can vary depending on several factors such as the type and level of infestation; the type of composition used; the concentration of the active components; how the composition is provided, for example, the type of dispenser used; the type of location to be treated; the length of time the method is to be used for; and environmental factors such as temperature, wind speed and direction, rainfall and humidity. Those of skill in the art will be able to determine an effective amount of a pheromone or pheromone composition for use in a given application. (0226).
With regard to claims 8-15,
Coelho et al. teach at least one pesticide is Pyrethroids, Bifenthrin, Thiamethoxam, gamma-Cyhalothrin, Ethiprole, Imidacloprid, Cypermethrin, or Fipronil. (0059, Table 1).
JP 2010507390 A teaches Pyrethrin I & II, Bifenthrin, Thiamethoxam, gamma-Cyhalothrin, Ethiprole, Imidacloprid, Cypermethrin, or Fipronil. (pg. 17, 1st par.).
With regard to claims 16,
Coelho et al. teach applying an attract-and-kill tactic comprises applying one or more semiochemicals or factors and disrupting expression of a target gene in one or more pests. In one embodiment, the one or more semiochemicals comprise one or more pheromones or pheromone blends. In one embodiment, the disruption in expression of the target gene injures or kills the pest. In another embodiment, the one or more pests is a sucking pest. In a further embodiment, the sucking pest is a stink bug. (0158). An aggregation pheromone is a type of semiochemical. Semiochemical is the broad term for any chemical signal that influences the behavior of another organism, while pheromones are semiochemicals that only affect members of the same species. Aggregation pheromones, a category of pheromones, are produced by an individual to attract other members of its own species to a specific location, such as a feeding or breeding site. So Coelho et al. teach aggregation pheromones on stink bugs. https://www.depts.ttu.edu/animalwelfare/Research/Pheromones/Index.php#:~:text=Semiochemicals%2C%20Pheromones%2C%20Interomones%20and%20other,from%20growing%2C%20and%20much%20more.
With regard to claim 18,
Coelho et al. teach In another embodiment, the one or more attractants comprises one or more kairomones. (0153).
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 3-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Coelho et al. (US 20220151237Al), in view of Yadagani et al. (US 20240315251 A1).
The teachings of Coelho et al. are described in claims 1-2 and 8 above.
Coelho et al teach as will be apparent to one of skill in the art, the amount of a pheromone or pheromone composition used for a particular application can vary depending on several factors such as the type and level of infestation; the type of composition used; the concentration of the active components; how the composition is provided, for example, the type of dispenser used; the type of location to be treated; the length of time the method is to be used for; and environmental factors such as temperature, wind speed and direction, rainfall and humidity. Those of skill in the art will be able to determine an effective amount of a pheromone or pheromone composition for use in a given application, (0226), so Coelho et al. do not teach the exact concentration of pesticides or the administration of composition volume per hectage.
Yadagani et al. teach the amount of bifenthrin pesticide in the composition is of about 0.1% to about 90% by weight by weight, based on the total weight of the composition. In a preferred embodiment, the amount of bifenthrin in the composition is of about 0.5% to about 50% by weight by weight, based on the total weight of the composition. In a more preferred embodiment, the amount of bifenthrin in the composition is of about 1% to about 10% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition, (0089), to control Stink Buds Adults. (0401). In an embodiment, the solid agrochemical composition is applied in an amount from about 0.1 L/ha to of about 1 L/ha. In a more preferred embodiment, the solid agrochemical composition is applied in an amount of about 0.8 L/ha. (0324).
The percentage of the pesticide is used should be varied depending on the hemiptera species to control, on the efficacy of the pesticides, its formulation, the conditions of the infection, how fast the control should be and environmental conditions. It is not possible to specify a specific percentage of a pesticide used for Hemiptera in general, or for any other specific group of pests. Use data is not categorized by how much of a chemical is applied to control a particular type of insect. Instead, the available data focuses on the efficacy of these pesticides in controlling various hemipteran pests, as well as the active ingredient concentration in specific products and the overall annual usage of pesticides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to prepare the combination of at least one insecticide, at least one pheromone and at least one kairomone attractant to the field, taught by Coelho et al. and to have a percentage of the Bifenthrin within 1-10% and to be applied about 0.1-1L/ha, taught by Yadagani et al., since they have provide the concentration of that specific pesticide, with a specific formulation, for specific type of hemiptera species. These data depend on the hemiptera species to control, on the efficacy of the pesticides, its formulation, the conditions of the pest infection, how fast the control should be and environmental conditions.
Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Coelho et al. (US 20220151237Al) in view of Gosh et al. (US 20180023083 A1).
The teachings of Coelho et al. are described in claim 1 above.
Coelho et al. teach pheromones, natural or synthetic agent that attracts or lures, for example, animals, insects, birds, etc. Attractants can include food attractants, (0054) and nymphs, (0297), but do not explicitly teach the aggregation pheromone is attractive to stink bug nymphs.
Ghosh et al. teach compositions and methods to control insect pest, the brown marmorated stink bug, (Abs), and stereoisomers of the male aggregation pheromone bisabolane skeleton and its epoxides, 3S,6S,7R,10S)-10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol and (3R,6S,7R,10S)-10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol that attracted males, females and nymphs. (0110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to prepare the combination of at least one insecticide, at least one pheromone and at least one kairomone attractant to the field, taught by Coelho et al. and to include aggregation pheromone bisabolane skeleton and its epoxides, 3S,6S,7R,10S)-10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol and (3R,6S,7R,10S)-10,11-epoxy-1-bisabolen-3-ol that attracted males, females and nymphs, taught by Ghosh et al. so they could be used to control insects more effectively.
Response to Arguments
Rejections of Claim 1-2, 5-6, 8-16, and 18-20 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Applicant argues that independent claims I and 19 have been amended to incorporate specific wax-based matrix features. Claim 1 has been amended to recite that the composition comprises a wax emulsion that becomes less viscous under agitation. Claim 19 has been amended to recite a flowable wax-based matrix that cures to become rainfast. Regarding claim 1, the prior art lacks any disclosure of a wax emulsion exhibiting shear-thinning properties (i.e., becoming less viscous under agitation). Regarding claim 19, the prior art fails to teach a flowable wax-based matrix that cures to a rainfast state upon application. Dependent claims 2, 5-6, 8-16, 18, and 20 are patentable for at least the same reasons as their respective base claims, as well as for their own additional limitations.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with the amended words “less viscous (Claim 1) and rainfast (Claim 19)”. Please see the 112b rejections of these claims because of these relative words above. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are persuasive about emulsion wax-based formulation regarding JP 5066575 B2, who does not teach emulsion wax-based formulation, so it was removed from the 102 rejection. However, the arguments are not persuasive with Coelho since Coelho teach The pheromone formulations may be provided alone or may be included in a carrier and/or a dispenser. The carrier may be an inert liquid or solid. Examples of solid carriers include but are not limited to fillers such as wax, paraffin wax-based matrices and pheromone is formulated as a sprayable emulsion concentrate. siRNA is sprayed on corn ears via drop sprayers, with a wax as a carrier, the emulsion is a wax emulsion. Claim 1 has limitation of general wax-based formulation only and does not recite any specific wax-based formulation. For these reasons, the rejection of dependent claims 2, 5-6, 8-16, 18, and 20 are maintained.
Rejections of Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 17 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant argues that independent claims 1 and 19 have been amended to include specific wax-based matrix features. Claim 1 requires a wax emulsion that becomes less viscous under agitation, and claim 19 requires a flowable wax-based matrix that cures to become rainfast.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since as explained above.
Applicant argues that Coelho discloses methods of preventing crop damage using semiochemicals and mentions carriers such as microcapsules, biodegradable flakes, and paraffin wax-based matrices (Coelho, par. [0164]). However, Coelho's microencapsulated pheromones are described as small droplets enclosed within polymer capsules, which is structurally and functionally distinct from the claimed flowable and curable wax matrices. Yadagani discloses solid water-dispersible granules. Ghosh discloses dsRNA delivery via green beans. None of the secondary references cure the deficiencies of the primary references regarding the claimed wax emulsion and flowable wax-based matrix.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since the basis for 103 rejection is that no one reference has to teach all the claim limitations for an obviousness rejection and therefore several references are combined to render the claims obvious. One with ordinary skill in the art can learn from and select specific parts of several prior arts’ teachings before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve better outcome results even though some prior arts may teach more and may teach different things. Coelho teaches wax as one of a carrier, (0163), such as paraffin wax-based matrices, formulated as a sprayable emulsion concentrate. siRNA is sprayed on corn ears via drop sprayers. (0332). With a wax as a carrier, the emulsion is a wax emulsion, and sprayable, so it is flowable. Yadagani teaches bifenthrin pesticide. One with skill in the art, is known for solving the same problem, is represented with design choices, may modify the teachings of the prior arts until they can achieve better outcome results.
Applicant argues that the claimed features provide distinct technical contributions. As described in the specification, the shear-thinning wax emulsion of claim 1 allows the composition to be applied through a wide variety of manual and mechanized technologies because it flows easily when agitated but thickens upon resting. The flowable, curable matrix of claim 19 ensures the composition quickly becomes rainfast, providing sustained release of the semiochemicals over 3-4 weeks without being washed away by environmental moisture (specification, par. [0032], [0034]). These represent fundamentally different formulation approaches from the microcapsules or solid granules of the cited art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to modify the combined teachings of the cited references to arrive at the claimed wax matrix features, as the prior art provides no motivation toward these specific approaches. The references do not teach or suggest a wax emulsion that becomes less viscous under agitation or a flowable wax-based matrix that
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive since the relative words “less viscous and rainfast” are indefinite as explained above. Applicant argues with more information from Specification, but they are not in the claim limitations. Perhaps, Applicant can amend the claims to include more details from specification. Again, one with skill in the art, is known for solving the same problem, is represented with design choices, may modify the teachings of the prior arts until they can achieve better outcome results.
Conclusion
Applicants' 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
No claim is 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 NGOC-ANH THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am.
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 A Wax can be reached on 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.
/NGOC-ANH THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights