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
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed 07/20/2026 wherein claims 1-15 have been withdrawn, and claim 16 has been amended.
Claims 16-20 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/29/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the references included have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicants’ amendments filed 07/20/2026 overcome the objection to the abstract made by Examiner. This objection is withdrawn.
NEW Rejections following Amendments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tasz (US 8465728 B2) in view of Huang (CN 111034716 A, see machine translation retrieved on 08/05/2026) in further view of Harada (US 20210315209 A1), as evidenced by Koppmann et. al (Volatile Organic Compounds in the Atmosphere, 2007, Chapter 2 pg. 50) hereinafter Koppmann.
Regarding claims 16, 17, and 19, Tasz teaches a dispensing system that has an actuator and spray performance parameters that provide optimum dispersion of a composition (col. 1, line 18). The dispensing system of Tasz has an overcap (col. 11, line 37) and comprises a composition with a propellant which is used to discharge liquid from the container (col. 1, line 35). Tasz describes that the container has an orifice diameter in with a maximum diameter of 0.030 inches (i.e. 0.762 mm, col., 4 line 45), and has a spray rate of 0.5-2.5 g/s (col. 4, line 50). The range of the orifice diameter disclosed in instant claims 16 and 17, as well as the spray rate of instant claim 19 overlaps with that of Tasz, and as such are obvious. See MPEP § 2144.05(I). The composition of Tasz comprises propane and isobutane as propellants (col. 8, line 52), which are known in the art as volatile organic compounds (i.e. VOCs), as taught in Koppmann (see Table 2.2). Tasz describes that the contents within the container are pressurized from about 3.743 atm (i.e. 55 psi) to 8.166 atm (i.e. 120 psi, col. 5, line 12). The pressure range within the container of instant claim 16 overlaps with that of Tasz, and as such is obvious. MPEP § 2144.05(I).
While Tasz teaches a dispensing container that has many of the same properties of that of instant claim 16, the composition within the container of Tasz is for sanitizing the air, whereas the instant invention functions as a pesticidal composition. Huang teaches a pest-repellant composition that can be dispensed as a spray (see abstract). The pesticidal composition of Huang comprises an active agent and a solvent (see formulation example 11), and can include water (see claim 1). Further, Huang teaches that the composition comprises propane and butane (i.e propellants and VOCs as above, para. [0109]), and comprises solvents such as isododecane (i.e. C12 aliphatic hydrocarbon) and glycol ethers (see claim 4).
Tasz and Huang are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of aerosol compositions and the method of dispensing compositions. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date would be motivated to utilize the dispensing system of Tasz to dispense the pesticidal composition of Huang, because Tasz teaches a dispensing system that has parameters for effectively dispense a formulation with maximum dispersions of the composition (see abstract). MPEP § 2143(I)(g).
While Tasz and Huang teach most elements of instant claim 16, they fail to disclose that the concentration of the propane and butane (i.e. VOCs) make up less than 8 wt.% of the composition. Harada teaches a composition that contains water and a propellant (see claim 1). The composition of Harada further contains hydrocarbon-based solvents such as n-paraffin and isoparaffin (i.e. saturated alkanes, para. [0037]), glycol ethers (para. [0025]), and active agents such as cypermethrin (para. [0024]). Harada describes that the aerosol composition has a VOC content of less than 15% (para. [0046]), for the benefit of not violating any VOC regulations (para. [0010]). This fully encompasses the range disclosed in instant claim 16.
Tasz, Huang, and Harada are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of dispensing systems comprising aerosol compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the concentration of VOCs taught in Tasz and Huang to be within the range taught in Harada. The compositions of Tasz, Huang, and Harada are described as aerosol compositions, and can be used in dispensing systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to further optimize the concentration of VOCs taught in Tasz and Huang to be less than 15%, because Harada teaches that this concentration range does not violate any VOC regulations (para. 0010]), and is effective in pesticidal compositions. MPEP § 2143(I)(g).
Regarding claim 18, while Tasz and Huang do not disclose the most effective aerosol particle size for the pesticidal composition, Harada teaches that the average particle size of the aerosol pesticidal composition is within the range of 70 to 160 microns (see claim 13), overlapping with the range disclosed in instant claim 18. MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the size of the aerosol particles in the pesticidal composition of Huang to be within the range disclosed in Harada, to yield predictable results, as Harada teaches that this particle size is effective for insect pest control. MPEP § 2143(I)(b).
Regarding claim 20, Tasz teaches that the dispensing system is effective to spray the aerosol composition at least 18 inches (col. 17, line 8). The spray range described in instant claim 20 overlaps with the range disclosed in Tasz, and as such is obvious.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claims 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the amendment to claim 16 prompts a new ground of rejection. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 above has been modified to reflect the amendments to the claims.
Applicant asserts the following:
Cited references in nonfinal mailed 05/08/2026 fail to teach or suggest a dispensing system having the properties of amended claim 16, such as propellant pressure and the solvents of the composition.
Majher and Harada mention glycol ethers and citric acid esters, but lack any teaching or suggestion of combining these solvents with C14-C16 saturated alkanes as claimed.
The cited references fail to teach the use of C14-C16 saturated alkanes and citric acid esters, C14-C16 saturated alkanes and glycol ethers, or C11-C16 aliphatic hydrocarbons.
The cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed propellant pressure.
Inventors found that the specific claimed exit orifice diameter, solvent components, and propellant pressure to allow for stable, low-VOC pest control compositions with desirable spray patterns and product performance. A skilled artisan viewing Majher, Harada, and Fujii would have lacked any basis to derive the claimed subject matter, and they would have no way to expect the benefits associated therewith.
In response to argument A, Applicant is correct that the cited references of Majher, Harada, and Fujii fail to teach a dispensing system that teaches each property of amended claim 16. However, Tasz and Huang are able to compensate for these deficiencies.
In response to argument B and C, Applicant is correct that Majher and Harada do not teach compositions that comprise the solvents as described in amended claim 16, however new prior art Huang teaches a pesticidal composition that comprises a C12 aliphatic hydrocarbon, as described in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 above.
Regarding argument D, new prior art Tasz teaches a dispensing system of an aerosol composition where the contents of the container have a pressure range that overlaps with that of amended claim 16.
In response to argument E, new prior art Tasz teaches that a dispensing container with an orifice diameter, spray rate and distance, and pressure within the container so as to allow for optimized dispersion of a composition. As above, it would be obvious to utilize the dispensing system disclosed in Tasz with the pesticidal composition taught in Huang since Tasz teaches parameters that allow for maximum dispersion of a composition, as described in rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 above. Further, as above the pesticidal composition of Huang teaches the solvents of claim 16, where the VOC concentration can be optimized to fall within VOC regulations, as disclosed in Harada.
Examiner thanks Applicant for the amendments and following arguments, but rejections of claims 16-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are newly made as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected.
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 Makenna Miller whose telephone number is (571)272-9852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EST.
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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/M.R.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights