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 Claims
Claims 1-27 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 17-27, in the reply filed on 19 December 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant further elected D-limonene as the degreasing solvent, ammonium hydroxide as the base, isopropyl alcohol as the monohydric alcohol and sodium lauryl sulfate as the surfactant. Applicant further elected applying directly to flatworm, application by spray, and New Guinea Flatworm (Platydemus manokwari) as the specific form of the flatworm.
Claims 1-16 and 20-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 December 2025.
Claims 17-19 and 26-27 are presented for examination herein to the extent that the degreasing solvent is D-limonene, the surfactant is sodium lauryl sulfate, the base ammonium hydroxide, the monohydric alcohol is isopropyl alcohol, the application location is directly to flatworm, the method of applying is spraying and the flatworm being treated is New Guinea Flatworm (Platydemus manokwari), e.g., applicant's elected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 02/22/2024 and 04/10/2025 have been considered by the Examiner. A signed and initialed copy of the IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-19 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENAN (WO 2009/038599 A1) in view of SORACE (“Texas woman discovers horde of black worms known to carry dangerous parasite in backyard”, an electronic article obtained from URL: https://www.foxnews.com/science/texas-woman-black-lungworm-parasite, published 03 July 2019, obtained on 07 March 2026) and LI (CN113229290A).
Enan is primarily directed towards pest control compositions, blends, and formulations (abstract).
Regarding claims 17-18 and 27, Enan discloses pest control blends, including, in a synergistic combination, at least two ingredients that includes D-limonene (paragraph [0005]). Enan discloses that the compositions can be used to control including platyhelminthes (flat worms) (paragraph [0006]). Enan discloses that the compositions can include a stabilizer (paragraph [00008]). Enan discloses contacting the pest with the composition (paragraph [000033]). Enan discloses amount range of d-limonene of including 0.4% to 12.09% (Table 2, on page 157). Enan discloses that d-limonene is the odour constituent of citrus and is found in including citrus oils (paragraph [0000242]). Enan discloses that a surfactant is provided to facilitate mixture of the composition with water and includes sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)(paragraph [0000261]). Enan discloses that the amount of the surfactant is between about 1% to about 99%, by weight, of the composition mixture (paragraph [0000260]). Enan discloses that the blend can include isopropyl alcohol (paragraph [0000708]) and amount of isopropyl alcohol includes between 0.5 and 3% (e.g., monohydric alcohol)(paragraph [0000711]).
Regarding claim 19, Enan discloses contacting the pest with the composition (paragraph [000033]). Enan discloses that the composition can be in the form of a spray (paragraphs [0000240] and [0000268]).
Regarding claim 26, Enan discloses treating including larvae (paragraph [00001152]). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to treat other life stages of the target pest.
Enan does not specifically teach that the pest is New Guinea Flatworm (Platydemus manokwari) and that composition comprises a base and that the base is ammonium hydroxide. The deficiencies are made up for by the teachings of Sorace and Li.
Sorace is primarily directed towards New Guinea flatworm that carry dangerous parasite (See entire copy of the electronic article).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Sorace teaches New Guinea flatworm that host rat lungworm, a nematode parasite (first page of the copy). Sorace teaches that the parasite could cause eosinophilic meningitis and severe gastrointestinal or central nervous system disease in humans (second page of the copy).
Li is primarily directed towards a pesticidal composition (page 2, first paragraph of the English translation).
Regarding claims 17-18 and 27, Li teaches a pesticidal composition (page 3, third paragraph of the English translation). Li teaches stabilizing agent and pH regulator to inhibit degradation of a pesticide (page 3, last paragraph of the English translation). Li teaches that pH value regulator is including ammonium hydroxide (page 4, last paragraph of the English translation). Li teaches that the amount of the pH regulator is 0.01-2% (e.g., wt%) (page 5, third and fourth paragraphs of the English translation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control flatworms including New Guinea flatworm (Platydemus manokwari) by contacting the flatworms with a composition by including spraying the composition, wherein the composition comprises at least two ingredients that includes D-limonene (e.g., degreaser solvent), a stabilizer and a pH regulator, isopropyl alcohol (e.g., monohydric alcohol) between 0.5 and 3% by weight, a surfactant including sodium lauryl sulfate that is in an amount of between about 1% to about 99% by weight; wherein the pH regulator is including ammonium hydroxide and is present in an amount of 0.01-2 wt%. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make those modifications in order to: 1) control other flatworms including New Guinea flatworm which can be harmful to humans because they are host to rat lungworm, as taught by Sorace, by applying the composition to New Guinea flatworm; and 2) obtain a composition for application that contains actives that are inhibited from degradation by including pH regulator including ammonium hydroxide along with a stabilizer, as taught by Li. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected success because Enan discloses pest control blends, including, in a synergistic combination, at least two ingredients that includes D-limonene (paragraph [0005]). Enan discloses that the compositions can be used to control including platyhelminthes (flat worms) (paragraph [0006]). Enan discloses that the compositions can include a stabilizer (paragraph [00008]). Enan discloses contacting the pest with the composition (paragraph [000033]). Enan discloses amount range of d-limonene of including 0.4% to 12.09% (Table 2, on page 157). Enan discloses that d-limonene is the odour constituent of citrus and is found in including citrus oils (paragraph [0000242]). Enan discloses that a surfactant is provided to facilitate mixture of the composition with water and includes sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)(paragraph [0000261]). Enan discloses that the amount of the surfactant is between about 1% to about 99%, by weight, of the composition mixture (paragraph [0000260]). Enan discloses that the blend can include isopropyl alcohol (paragraph [0000708]) and amount of isopropyl alcohol includes between 0.5 and 3% (e.g., monohydric alcohol)(paragraph [0000711]). Sorace teaches New Guinea flatworm that host rat lungworm, a nematode parasite (first page of the copy). Sorace teaches that the parasite could cause eosinophilic meningitis and severe gastrointestinal or central nervous system disease in humans (second page of the copy). Li teaches a pesticidal composition (page 3, third paragraph of the English translation). Li teaches stabilizing agent and pH regulator to inhibit degradation of a pesticide (page 3, last paragraph of the English translation). Li teaches that pH value regulator is including ammonium hydroxide (page 4, last paragraph of the English translation). Li teaches that the amount of the pH regulator is 0.01-2% (e.g., wt%) (page 5, third and fourth paragraphs of the English translation).
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is clearly prima facie obvious over the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion and Correspondence
No claims are found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5877. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-6pm 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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571) 272-0827. 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.
/John P Nguyen/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600