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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 9/2/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it does fulfill one of the two requirements for properly requiring restriction. According to both MPEP 803 and 808.02 in order for a restriction requirement to be appropriate not only must the claimed inventions be independent and distinct it must be shown that “There would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required...” [MPEP 803 I (B)] Here, while the claimed inventions are independent and distinct there is not only no proof that there is a serious search or examination burden but the only justification for there being an allegation of a serious search or examination burden are six words on page 3 of the Action: “They differ in structure and function.” Applicant is unaware of any decision by the Commissioner, Appeals Board, or any Court that finds that the six word allegation here is sufficient proof of a search or examination burden. In fact according to MPEP 808.02 it must be shown that there is a separate classification, a separate status in the art if they are classified together, or a different field of search in order for the “serious burden” requirement to be met. None of those criteria apply here. As prior art references submitted in the Citation of prior art indicate there is no basis for making an argument about separate classifications, separate status, or separate field of search. For example, US 5,792,467 in claims 1-8 claim compositions for repelling a pest, while claims 9-12 claim methods for repelling pests in the vicinity of a mammal’s body. In this regard they are comparable to claims 1-9 and claims 10-14 here. Similarly US 10,842,726 claims 1-6 claim methods of repelling and deterring arthropods while claims 7-12 claim compositions for repelling and deterring arthropods. It is respectfully submitted that in order to properly search the invention of any of claims 1-20 of the instant application the other claims would also necessarily be searched since they are so overlapping in the applicable art. Therefore, the restriction requirement is respectfully traversed, according to applicant.
This is NOT found persuasive because of the reasons of record.
Therefore, claims 10-18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant petitioned this requirement and it was dismissed, thus applicant’s arguments are moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4 and 7 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.
It is simply NOT clear what “wherein the repellent includes about seven-fourteen parts each Marigold extract and isopropyl alcohol and less than one part each zinc nanoparticles and grapefruit seed extract” means. What does that mean ? “ [L]ess than one part each zinc nanoparticles and grapefruit seed extract” reads on zero. The units have no art recognized meaning. Claim 7 is confusing since different units of measurement are used, ounces versus milligrams. This is like comparing apples to oranges.
Applicant has failed to address this rejection, thus it is maintained for the reasons of record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims are drawn to a composition comprising marigold extract, grapefruit seed extract, isopropyl alcohol, and zinc nanoparticles. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP 2106.07.
Effective January 7, 2019, subject matter eligibility determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 follow the procedure explained in the Federal Register notice titled 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No.4, 50-57), which is found at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf. Applicants are kindly asked to review this guidance as well as MPEP 2106.
The statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101 are processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. However, certain members of these categories constitute judicial exceptions, i.e., the courts have determined that these entities are not patentable subject matter. These judicial exceptions include abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. The Office released guidance on December 16, 2014 for the examination of claims reciting natural products under 35 U.S.C. 101 in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972 (2013)) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)), Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)) and Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. - 333 U.S. 127 (1948)). (inter alia). See eg. MPEP 2106.04(b)
The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are "the basic tools of scientific and technological work", and are thus excluded from patentability because "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2116, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). The Supreme Court’s concern that drives this "exclusionary principle" is pre-emption. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 110 USPQ2d at 1980. The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena; i.e., one may not patent every "substantial practical application" of an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon, even if the judicial exception is narrow.
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible.
Products of Nature: When a law of nature or natural phenomenon is claimed as a physical product, the courts have often referred to the exception as a "product of nature". Products of nature are considered to be an exception because they tie up the use of naturally occurring things, but they have been labeled as both laws of nature and natural phenomena. See Myriad 133 S. Ct. at 2116-17, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 (claims to isolated DNA held ineligible because they "claim naturally occurring phenomena" and are "squarely within the law of nature exception"); Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130, 76 USPQ 280, 281 (1948) (claims to bacterial mixtures held ineligible as "manifestations of laws of nature" and "phenomena of nature"). Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis uses the terms "law of nature" and "natural phenomenon" as inclusive of "products of nature".
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is important to keep in mind that product of nature exceptions include both naturally occurring products and non-naturally occurring products that lack markedly different characteristics from any naturally occurring counterpart. Instead, the key to the eligibility of all non-naturally occurring products is whether they possess markedly different characteristics from any naturally occurring counterpart.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When a claim recites a nature-based product limitation, examiners use the markedly different characteristics analysis discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(c) to evaluate the nature-based product limitation and determine the answer to Step 2A. Nature-based products, as used herein, include both eligible and ineligible products and merely refer to the types of products subject to the markedly different characteristics analysis used to identify product of nature exceptions.
The Markedly Different Characteristics Analysis
The markedly different characteristics analysis is part of Step 2A, because the courts use this analysis to identify product of nature exceptions. If the claim includes a nature-based product that has markedly different characteristics, then the claim does not recite a product of nature exception and is eligible. If the claim includes a nature-based product that does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its closest naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, then the claim is directed to a "product of nature" exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis in Step 2B to determine whether any additional elements in the claim add significantly more to the exception.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nature-based Product Claim Analysis
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claim is to a nature-based product by itself, the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied to the entire product.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claim is to a nature-based product produced by combining multiple components, the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied to the resultant nature-based combination, rather than its component parts. Where the claim is to a nature-based product in combination with non-nature based elements, the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied only to the nature-based product limitation. For a product-by-process claims, the analysis turns on whether the nature-based product in the claim has markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart.
The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. Markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function, and/or other properties, and are evaluated based on what is recited in the claim on a case-by-case basis. If the analysis indicates that a nature-based product limitation does not exhibit markedly different characteristics, then that limitation is a product of nature exception. If the analysis indicates that a nature-based product limitation does have markedly different characteristics, then that limitation is not a product of nature exception.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Because the markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, the first step in the analysis is to select the appropriate counterpart(s) to the nature-based product.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature).
Markedly changed characteristics can include structural, functional, chemical changes. In order to show a marked difference, a characteristic must be changed as compared to nature, and cannot be an inherent or innate characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart or an incidental change in a characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart. Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2111, 106 USPQ2d at 1974-75. Thus, in order to be markedly different, applicant must have caused the claimed product to possess at least one characteristic that is different from that of the counterpart.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If there is no change in any characteristic, the claimed product lacks markedly different characteristics, and is a product of nature exception.
The claims are drawn to a repellant for blood feeding arthropods of the Order Diptera comprising as active ingredients an effective amount to repel arthropods of Marigold extract, isopropyl alcohol, and zinc nanoparticles which is not markedly different from its closest naturally-occurring counterpart because there is no indication that their combination, amounts or preparation has caused the nature-based product to have any characteristics that are markedly different from the closest naturally-occurring product and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Step 1: Determine if the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. YES, the claims are directed to a composition of matter (i.e., marigold extract, grapefruit seed extract, isopropyl alcohol and zinc nanoparticles), which is a statutory category within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A: PRONG ONE: Evaluate whether the claim recites a Judicial Exception
(e.g., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). YES, the claims are product claims reciting something that appears to be a nature-based product (i.e., marigold extract, grapefruit seed extract, isopropyl alcohol and zinc nanoparticles) which is not markedly different from the closest naturally-occurring counterpart (i.e., the individual nature-based products).
Note: with respect to extracts of natural products such as grapefruit seed extract and/or marigold extract, the closest naturally-occurring counterpart is always the same compounds found in the extract, present in the non-isolated form in the source plant material. Extracts that are made simply by separating the extracted components from the non-extracted components, is a partitioning process that absent any specific chemical modification, merely separates the compounds leaving their activities unchanged (as is evidenced by the instantly claimed invention).
Ingredients recited in the claims are natural products that would occur naturally; thus, the claims involve the use of judicial exceptions. There is no indication in the record of any markedly different characteristics (either structural or functional) of the composition as broadly claimed. For example, there is no evidence of record of a structural difference between the extract(s) in the claimed composition and that of their nature-based counterparts. Consequently, the claimed compositions are structurally the same as their closest naturally- occurring counterparts.
Nor is there any difference in functional characteristics. To show a marked difference, the characteristic(s) must be changed as compared it closest natural-occurring counterpart. Furthermore, inherent or innate characteristics of the naturally occurring counterpart cannot show a marked difference. Likewise, differences in the characteristics that came about or were produced independently of any effort or influence by Applicant cannot show a marked difference.
The recitation of specific amounts of the ingredients does not affect this analysis because it is well known and routine in the art to mix specific amounts of active ingredients with additional ingredients. The same holds true for whether the composition is a cosmetic, pharmaceutical or food composition since there is nothing which imparts a markedly different characteristic on the composition. Therefore, the claim is not meaningfully limited and does not amount to significantly more than each product of nature by itself. Finally, the claimed composition is like the novel bacterial mixture of Funk Brothers, which was held ineligible because each species of bacteria in the mixture continued to have “the same effect it always had”, i.e., it lacked markedly different characteristics. Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 131 (1948), discussed in Myriad Genetics, 133 S. Ct. at 2117. While not discussed in the opinion, it is noted that several of the claims held ineligible in Funk Brothers recited specific amounts of the bacterial species in the mixture, e.g., claims 6, 7 and 13. Funk Brothers, 333 U.S. at 128 n.1.
Thus, there is no evidence of record to indicate that the claimed product is markedly different, structurally, chemically, functionally, than its closest naturally occurring counterpart.
PRONG TWO: Evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed to a composition, not its practical use such as a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.
Thus, the cited claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentable subject matter.
Step 2b: Determine whether the claim directed to a judicial exception provides an inventive concept. For example, the claims may recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In the instant case, NO, the claims are directed to an extract composition without any other components that could add significantly more to the exception. No other specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field at a high level of generality have been added to the claimed nature-based product (e.g., addition of well-known ingredients).
Thus, the claimed composition is not eligible subject matter under current 35 USC 101 standards. See MPEP 2106.07.
Applicant argues that allegedly while Marigold extract is a natural product, isopropyl alcohol and zinc nanoparticles are not naturally occurring; they do not exist in the natural world. Thus, two of the three ingredients in claim 1 are "additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception" [second paragraph of MPEP 2106 I] according to applicant. The invention is not properly effective without the two non- natural, man-made, products according to applicant. With respect to isopropyl alcohol being a man-made, manufactured, product see the attached Exhibit A, the NIH Library of Medicine description of how isopropyl alcohol is manufactured; and Exhibit B, the AI overview of isopropyl alcohol production techniques according to applicant. With respect to zinc nanoparticles being a man-made manufactured not naturally occurring product see the attached Exhibit C, description of the commercial form of zinc nanoparticles mentioned in the specification; Exhibit D, the AI overview of how zinc nanoparticles are believed to be constructed; and Exhibit E, the abstract of the article "Biogenic Synthesis of Zinc Nanoparticles according to applicant..." Therefore, applying Myriad to this situation it is clear that original claims 1-9 and new 21 are directed to patentable subject matter, according to applicant.
While all of the above is noted, it is also noted that the legal standard is that there is a markedly different characteristic created by the combination of the three components in claim 1 which there is not. Thus, the claims do not create a markedly different characteristic and thus are properly rejected under this section.
With respect method claims 10-18 and 20 as the first paragraph of MPEP 2106 I makes clear they are processes (methods) within the clear purview of 35 USC §101 according to applicant. This is also clear from Natural Alternatives v Creative Compounds, 918 F.3d 1338, 1344, 129 USPQ2d 1571 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and Vandu Pharmaceuticals v West-Ward Pharmaceuticals 887 F.3d 1117, 1134- 1136, 126 USPQ2d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2018) according to applicant.
While this is noted, it is also noted that claims 10-18 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner and thus this argument is moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/083326 in view of Yadav (US 2004/0091417) and KR 20170055877.
WO teaches that zinc oxide, isopropyl alcohol (isopropanol), Tagete minuta (marigold) oil, and grapefruit oil, are used in compositions to clean pet skin, see entire reference, especially pages 5, 6, 7, 15, and 16.
JP does not teach that the zinc is liquid of zinc nano-particles or that the grapefruit oil (extract) is from grapefruit seeds.
Yadav teaches that zinc oxide nanoparticles are well known in the prior art to be used in pet skin care formulations, see paragraphs 3, 6, 68, and 73.
KR teaches that grapefruit seed extract is well known in the prior art to be used in pet cleaning compositions (skin, shampoo), see abstract, the claims, paragraphs 12, 51, etc.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed components together in the same composition since they were all known to be used in the prior art for the same purpose, namely to be used in a pet skin care (cleaning) compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to combine the instant ingredients for their known benefit since each is well known in the art for the same purpose and for the following reasons: In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court reaffirmed "the conclusion that when a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976)). The Supreme Court also emphasized a flexible approach to the obviousness question, stating that the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418; see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is... a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). The Supreme Court thus implicitly endorsed the principle, stated in In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted), that: It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
To use the claimed amounts of the claimed components is also obvious since clearly the claimed components are all result effective variables and it would have been well within the purview of the ordinary artisan to use such amounts in an effort to optimize the desired results.
MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
B. There Must Be an Articulated Rationale Supporting the Rejection
In order to properly support a rejection on the basis that an invention is the result of "routine optimization", the examiner must make findings of relevant facts, and present the underpinning reasoning in sufficient detail. The articulated rationale must include an explanation of why it would have been routine optimization to arrive at the claimed invention and why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to formulate the claimed range. See In re Stepan, 868 F.3d 1342, 1346, 123 USPQ2d 1838, 1841 (Fed. Cir. 2017). See also In re Van Os, 844 F.3d 1359,1361,121 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2017 ("Absent some articulated rationale, a finding that a combination of prior art would have been ‘common sense’ or ‘intuitive’ is no different than merely stating the combination ‘would have been obvious.’"); Arendi S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., 832 F.3d 1355, 1362, 119 USPQ2d 1822 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[R]eferences to ‘common sense’ … cannot be used as a wholesale substitute for reasoned analysis and evidentiary support … .").
The Supreme Court has clarified that an "obvious to try" line of reasoning may properly support an obviousness rejection. In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding. However, in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court held that "obvious to try" was a valid rationale for an obviousness finding, for example, when there is a "design need" or "market demand" and there are a "finite number" of solutions. 550 U.S. at 421 ("The same constricted analysis led the Court of Appeals to conclude, in error, that a patent claim cannot be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of elements was ‘[o]bvious to try.’ ... When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103."). Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use zinc nanoparticles in WO since Yadav teaches that zinc oxide nanoparticles are well known to be used in pet skin care applications.
MPEP 2111.03 states:
“For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, "consisting essentially of" will be construed as equivalent to "comprising." See, e.g., PPG, 156 F.3d at 1355, 48 USPQ2d at 1355 ("PPG could have defined the scope of the phrase consisting essentially of' for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention."). See also > AK Steel Corp. v. Sollac, 344 F.3d 1234, 1240-41,68 USPQ2d 1280, 1283-84 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Applicant's statement in the specification that "silicon contents in the coating metal should not exceed about 0.5% by weight" along with a discussion of the deleterious effects of silicon provided basis to conclude that silicon in excess of 0.5% by weight would materially alter the basic and novel properties of the invention. Thus, "consisting essentially of" as recited in the preamble was interpreted to permit no more than 0.5% by weight of silicon in the aluminum coating)”.
Thus, the claims can still be interpreted as reading, "comprising". Thus, the claims are not limited in any way by the "consisting essentially of" language. It is noted that in claim 6, “consist of” is used, but by not defining what “a minor part of an ingredient that helps prevent the itching, redness, and/or swelling that arthropod bites typically cause” is, “consist of” is not in any way limiting.
A “conventional manual” as claimed in claim 9 is so broad that it reads on anything because anything can be seen or interpreted as “conventional”. Further, it is not clear what is meant by “manual”.
It is simply NOT clear what “wherein the repellent includes about seven-fourteen parts each Marigold extract and isopropyl alcohol and less than one part each zinc nanoparticles and grapefruit seed extract” actually means. The units have no art recognized meaning. Further, it is noted in claim 7, that different units are used.
The “effective amount to repel arthropods” is inherently met since the same components are claimed are used in WO.
To use organic “Tagete minuta (marigold)” is an obvious variant in an effort to optimize the desired results. Medical grade isopropyl alcohol is obvious to use in an effort to use the best isopropyl alcohol to achieve the best results with the pet cleaning care. Liquid zinc nanoparticles are obvious to use since they are already present in Yadav, see paragraph 68.
To use grapefruit seed extract as the grapefruit extract would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art since KR teaches that grapefruit seed extracts are well known in the prior art to be used in pet cleaning compositions (skin, shampoo).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL V MELLER whose telephone number is (571)272-0967. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5:30 pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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.
MICHAEL V. MELLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1655
/MICHAEL V MELLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights