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 .
Amendment filed December 22, 2025 has been acknowledged. Newly presented claims 18-20 have been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-11, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansfield (5651908) in view of O’Brien (20190127201) and Rettori et al. (20170112126).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Mansfield discloses a pesticide product comprising a pesticide composition contained within a bottle (col. 2, lines 49-51), wherein the bottle is configured to affix to a liquid dispensing fixture (7) adapted to spray the pesticide composition and comprises a neck (3) terminating in a rim (3’) circumscribing and defining a main opening through the neck to the interior volume, and a removable cap (col. 2, lines 54-59) disposed over the main opening.
Mansfield DIFFERS in that it does not disclose a fluid passage fitting configured to fit over the rim and/or within the main opening of the bottle and fluidly connected to a draw tube disposed inside the bottle and extending from proximity of the main opening down to proximity of a bottom extent of the interior volume, and the pesticide composition comprising from about 45% to about 99% by weight of the composition of water, from about 0.1% to about 10% by weight of the composition of at least one active ingredient selected from the group consisting of peppermint oil, corn mint oil, spearmint oil, rosemary oil, thyme oil, citronella oil, clove oil, cinnamon oil, cedarwood oil, garlic oil, geranium oil, lemongrass oil, geraniol, eugenol, nerol, vanillin, 2-phenylethyl propionate, menthol, menthone, thymol, carvone, camphor, methyl salicylate, p-cymene, linalool, eucalyptol/1,8-cineole, alpha-pinene, bornyl acetate, gamma-terpinene, and mixtures thereof, and from about 1% to about 15% by weight of the composition of an anionic surfactant.
Regarding the fluid passage fitting, attention is directed to the O’Brien reference, which discloses a fluid passage fitting (3) configured to fit over the rim and/or within the main opening of a bottle and fluidly connected to a draw tube (11) disposed inside the bottle and extending from proximity of the main opening down to proximity of a bottom extent of the interior volume (Fig. 2). O’Brien teaches that the claimed feature allows the entire contents of the container to be dispensed (par. 0030).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Mansfield reference in view of the teachings of the O’Brien reference by employing a fluid passage fitting and draw tube as claimed for the purpose of dispensing the entire contents of the bottle.
Regarding the composition, attention is directed to the Rettori reference, which discloses a pesticide composition comprising from about 45% to about 99% by weight of the composition of water (par. 0140), at least one active ingredient selected from the group consisting of peppermint oil, corn mint oil, spearmint oil, rosemary oil, thyme oil, citronella oil, clove oil, cinnamon oil, cedarwood oil, garlic oil, geranium oil, lemongrass oil, geraniol, eugenol, nerol, vanillin, 2-phenylethyl propionate, menthol, menthone, thymol, carvone, camphor, methyl salicylate, p-cymene, linalool, eucalyptol/1,8-cineole, alpha-pinene, bornyl acetate, gamma-terpinene, and mixtures thereof (par. 0110), and an anionic surfactant (par. 0124).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Mansfield reference in view of the teachings of the Rettori reference by employing the claimed composition because Mansfield teaches that the bottle is useful for storing and dispensing such compositions (see abstract and col. 1, lines 58-61).
Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for from about 0.1% to about 10% by weight of the composition of the at least one active ingredient and from about 1% to about 15% by weight of the composition of the anionic surfactant. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amounts of the at least one active ingredient and the anionic surfactant as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 2 and 20, the pesticide composition comprises urea (par. 0111 of Rettori). Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for from about 0.5% to about 10%, by weight of the composition of urea. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of urea as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 4, Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for the pesticide composition has a viscosity of from about 1 cps to about 500 cps. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the viscosity from about 1 cps to about 500 cps, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for the pesticide composition has a service tension ranging from about 10 mN/m to about 60 mN/m. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the service tension from about 10 mN/m to about 60 mN/m, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for the composition has a turbidity less than about 20 NTU and greater than about 0 NTU. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the turbidity less than about 20 NTU and greater than about 0 NTU, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, the composition is an oil-in-water emulsion (par. 0096 of Rettori).
Regarding claim 8, Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for the composition has a b* value of about 0 to about 5. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the b* value to about 0 to about 5, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9, the composition comprises volatile organic compounds (par. 0110 of Rettori). Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for about 3% by weight or less. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust amount of VOCs to about 3% by weight or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 10, the composition comprises a volatile organic compound (par. 0110 of Rettori). Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for from about 3% to about 35% by weight. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust amount of VOC to from about 3% to about 35% by weight, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, the composition is substantially free of synthetic pesticides, mineral oil, colorants, or a combination thereof (par. 0058 of Rettori).
Regarding claim 13, the composition comprises only food grade ingredients (par. 0117 of Rettori).
Regarding claim 14, Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for the liquid composition has a pH of about 5.0 to about 8.0. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH to about 5.0 to about 8.0., since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, the composition comprises geraniol (par. 0110 of Rettori). Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for from about 0.5% to about 7% by weight of the composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of geraniol to from about 0.5% to about 7% by weight of the composition, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 16, the composition comprises peppermint oil, spearmint oil, rosemary oil, thyme oil, citronella oil, clove oil, cinnamon oil, cedarwood oil, garlic oil, geranium oil, lemongrass oil, eugenol, nerol, vanillin, 2-phenylethyl propionate, menthol, menthone, thymol, carvone, camphor, methyl salicylate, p-cymene, linalool, eucalyptol/1,8-cineole, alpha-pinene, bornyl acetate, gamma-terpinene, and mixtures thereof (par. 0110 of Rettori). Mansfield discloses the claimed invention except for from about 0.005% to about 7% by weight of the composition of. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the amount of the ingredient to from about 0.005% to about 7% by weight of the composition, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, the composition further comprises a pH adjusting agent selected from the group consisting of citric acid or a salt thereof, malic acid or a salt thereof, acetic acid or a salt thereof, fumaric acid or a salt thereof, humic acid or a salt thereof, and mixtures thereof (par. 0111 of Rettori).
Regarding claim 19, the anionic surfactant is sodium lauryl sulfate (par. 0125 of Rettori).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansfield in view of O’Brien and Rettori et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pedersen et al. (20050032668).
Regarding claim 3, the pesticide composition comprises from about 0.1% to about 30% by weight of the composition of a solvent (par. 0141of Rettori).
Mansfiedl DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the solvent is selected from the group consisting of isopropyl alcohol, triethyl citrate, isopropyl myristate, propylene carbonate, ethyl lactate, butyl lactate, butyl stearate, glycerin, and mixtures thereof. Attention, however, is directed to the Pederson reference, which discloses a solvent selected from the group consisting of isopropyl alcohol, triethyl citrate, isopropyl myristate, propylene carbonate, ethyl lactate, butyl lactate, butyl stearate, glycerin, and mixtures thereof (claim 23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Mansfield reference in view of the teachings of the Pedersen reference by including isopropyl alcohol because isopropyl alcohol is a suitable solvent (par. 0141 of Pedersen).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mansfield in view of O’Brien and Rettori et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knuutila (2026234).
Regarding claim 12, Mansfield DIFFERS in that it does not disclose the composition is packaged in a transparent or translucent container. Attention, however, is directed to the Knuutila reference, which discloses a composition is packaged in a transparent or translucent container (col. 1, lines 44-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the Mansfield reference in view of the teachings of the Knuutila reference by employing a translucent container for the purpose of allowing a user to view the composition through the container walls. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that O’Brien depends on a sealed insert, void, and gas-permeable membrane is not persuasive because these features are not necessary to achieve the benefits of utilizing a dip tube disclosed in par. 0030 of O’Brien (i.e., allowing the entire contents of the container to be dispensed). Applicant’s argument that O’Brien and Rettori teach away from the claimed invention because they disclose sealed pressurized dispensing and “static coating” is not persuasive for similar reasons. O’Brien’s pressurized dispensing method is not necessary to achieve the benefits of a dip tube (i.e., O’Brien does not disparage or discredit the use of dip tubes in containers like the Mansfield container) and the coating methods disclosed in Rettori include spraying (Rettori discloses that the insecticide is preferably applied by spraying in par. 0142-0144).
Applicant’s argument that the pressurization system of O’Brien would complicate the Mansfield invention is unpersuasive for the reasons stated in section 8 above.
Applicant’s argument that Rettori’s composition is not formulated for spraying is unpersuasive because Rettori discloses that the composition is preferably applied by spraying (par. 0142-0144).
Applicant’s argument that integrating the pressurization system of O’Brien into the Mansfield invention would alter the principle of operation of Mansfield is unpersuasive for the reasons stated in section 8 above.
Applicant’s argument that the Mansfield invention would destroy the adhesion of the Rettori formulation is unpersuasive for the reasons stated in section 10 above.
Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention addresses a distinct problem is unpersuasive because effective pest control, optimized spraying, and container simplicity are not unique to the claimed invention (see par. 0063-0064, 0124, and 0142-0144 of Rettori; as noted by Applicant on page 12 of Remarks, Mansfield’s container is designed for simplicity).
Applicant’s argument that there is no factual support for optimizing the various claimed ranges is unpersuasive because Rettori discloses that amounts should be optimized to obtain a formulation that is effective to deliver a lethal and/or repellant dose of insecticide (par. 0063-0064, 0124, and 0142-0144 of Rettori).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DONNELL ALAN LONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5610. 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, PAUL DURAND can be reached at 571-272-4459. 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.
/DONNELL A LONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754