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
Claims 2-4 and 10-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/14/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Sub-species VIII, A, I, i, and one in the reply filed on 08/14/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “a search and examination of all of the species would not be unduly burdensome on the Examiner”. This is not found persuasive because each of the Species requires a unique search not required in the search for the other Species. If applicant is traversing on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the Examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 07/19/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-115037 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 5-9, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura et al. 2015/0027033 in view of Gaugler et al. 10,258,027.
In regard to claim 1, Matsuura et al. disclose a cartridge (1 in Figs. 1a-b) having a structure including a member (2) composed of a material (see para. 0035) that is resistant to decay or corrosion in soil and that is resistant to feeding damage by termites, thereby reducing feeding damage by termites, the structure having a passage (14) through which the termites can move, and the structure containing an unavoidable, slow-acting insecticide active ingredient (exterminating agent 13 comprising fipronil; see paras. 0065-66), but do not disclose wherein the member is treated with the insecticide active ingredient. Gaugler et al. disclose a structure including a member (transfer mesh in Figs. 4A-B of cotton mesh fabric), and the structure containing an unavoidable, slow-acting insecticide active ingredient (insecticide-impregnated cotton mesh fabric; see col. 4, line 58 to col. 5, line 64 & claim 12, wherein the insecticide can be a carbamate, nicotinoid, etc.), wherein the member is treated with the insecticide active ingredient (Fig. 4B shows transfer mesh coated with pyriproxyfen-impregnated silica particles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the member of Matsuura et al. such that it is treated with the insecticide active ingredient so as to increase the likelihood of the termites coming into contact with and being exposed to the slow-acting insecticide active ingredient as they attempt to access the termite attractant 4 of Matsuura et al.
In regard to claim 5, Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the structure (2) is a mesh-like structure (2 is mesh-like due to the presence of termite entrances 14 or partition plate 6 with termite invasion ports 5) consisting of a mesh member made of the material (see Fig. 1b & para. 0035).
In regard to claim 6, Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the structure (2) is a mesh-like structure (2 is mesh-like due to the presence of termite entrances 14 and also includes partition plate 6 with termite invasion ports 5) composed of the material (see Fig. 1b & para. 0035) and including a support member (2) having an opening (termite entrances 14 or upper end opening of 2 closed off by overcap 9) and a mesh member (partition plate 6 with termite invasion ports 5) provided on the support member (see Fig. 1b).
In regard to claim 7, Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the insecticide active ingredient (exterminating agent 13 comprising fipronil; see para. 0066) adheres to the surface of the mesh member (exterminating agent storage container 11 and moisture-proof film 12 may be adhered to each other using well-known adhesive) and/or is kneaded (exterminating agent 13 is pressed into 11 and thereby pressed into 2 by being contained within the interior volume of 2) into the mesh member.
In regard to claim 8, Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the insecticide active ingredient is at least one type selected from the group consisting of a phenylpyrazole insecticide active ingredient, a neonicotinoid insecticide active ingredient, a diamide insecticide active ingredient, a metadiamide insecticide active ingredient, a phenylurea insecticide active ingredient, a sulfoxyimine insecticide active ingredient, a butanolide insecticide active ingredient, a meso-ionic insecticide active ingredient, a pyridylidene insecticide active ingredient, and an isoxazoline insecticide active ingredient (see para. 0066).
In regard to claim 9, Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the phenylpyrazole insecticide active ingredient is at least one type selected from the group consisting of fipronil, ethiprole, and pyriprole (see para. 0066).
In regard to claim 19, Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the material is composed of a resin material, a metal material, a ceramic material, or a composite of these materials (see para. 0035).
In regard to claim 20, Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the resin material is an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resin, a polylactic acid resin, an acrylate-styrene-acrylonitrile resin, a polypropylene resin, a polyethylene terephthalate resin, an epoxy resin, an acrylic resin, a polycarbonate resin, a nylon resin, a thermoplastic polyurethane resin, a polymethyl] methacrylate resin, a polyvinylidene fluoride resin, or a polyethylene resin (see para. 0035).
Claim(s) 1, 5-9, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klein et al. 7,647,723 in view of Matsuura et al. 2015/0027033 and Gaugler et al. 10,258,027.
In regard to claim 1, Klein et al. disclose a cartridge (475) having a structure including a member (mesh-like member 500) composed of a material (thin plastic or metal mesh) that is resistant to decay or corrosion in soil and that is resistant to feeding damage by termites, thereby reducing feeding damage by termites, the structure having a passage (mesh configured to allow termites to be able to proceed through the mesh into the interior of 475) through which the termites can move, and the structure containing an unavoidable, insecticide active ingredient (toxic bait material 450), but does not disclose the structure containing a slow-acting insecticide active ingredient. Matsuura et al. disclose the structure (2) containing an unavoidable, slow-acting insecticide active ingredient (exterminating agent 13 comprising fipronil; see paras. 0065-66). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the insecticide active ingredient of Klein et al. such that it is a slow-acting insecticide active ingredient in view of Matsuura et al. in order to utilize an effective ingredient for termite extermination that can be spread over the entire colony so as to effectively exterminate termites by allowing the exterminating agent taken into the bodies of the termites to be carried back to their colony or by allowing the exterminating agent 13 by itself to be carried back to their colony (as stated in para. 0065 of Matsurra et al.). Klein et al. disclose the bait cartridge (475) may be comprised of a thin plastic or metal mesh, wherein the mesh may be configured so as to allow termites and other wood-destroying insects to be able to proceed through the mesh into the interior of the bait cartridge 475---see col. 4, lines 11-16, but Klein et al. and Matsuura et al. do not disclose do not disclose wherein the member is treated with the insecticide active ingredient. Gaugler et al. disclose a structure including a member (transfer mesh in Figs. 4A-B of cotton mesh fabric), and the structure containing an unavoidable, slow-acting insecticide active ingredient (insecticide-impregnated cotton mesh fabric; see col. 4, line 58 to col. 5, line 64 & claim 12, wherein the insecticide can be a carbamate, nicotinoid, etc.), wherein the member is treated with the insecticide active ingredient (Fig. 4B shows transfer mesh coated with pyriproxyfen-impregnated silica particles). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the member of Klein et al. and Matsuura et al. such that it is treated with the insecticide active ingredient so as to increase the likelihood of the termites coming into contact with and being exposed to the slow-acting insecticide active ingredient as they attempt to access the bait material (450) of Klein et al.
In regard to claim 5, Klein et al. and Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the structure (500 of Klein et al.; 2 of Matsurra et al.) is a mesh-like structure (mesh-like member 500 of Klein et al.; 2 is mesh-like due to the presence of termite entrances 14 or partition plate 6 with termite invasion ports 5 of Matsurra et al.) consisting of a mesh member made of the material (mesh-like member 500 of Klein et al.; see Fig. 1b & para. 0035 of Matsurra et al.).
In regard to claim 6, Klein et al. and Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the structure (mesh-like member 500 of Klein et al.; 2 of Matsuura et al.) is a mesh-like structure (mesh-like member 500 of Klein et al.; 2 is mesh-like due to the presence of termite entrances 14 and also includes partition plate 6 with termite invasion ports 5 of Matsuura et al.) composed of the material (500 of Klein et al. is made of material; see Fig. 1b & para. 0035) and including a support member (100 of Klein et al.; 2 of Matsuura et al.) having an opening (400 of Klein et al.; termite entrances 14 or upper end opening of 2 closed off by overcap 9) and a mesh member (500 of Klein et al.; partition plate 6 with termite invasion ports 5 of Matsuura et al.) provided on the support member (see Fig. 1b of Matsuura et al.).
In regard to claim 7, Klein et al. and Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the insecticide active ingredient (toxic bait material 450 of Klein et al.; exterminating agent 13 comprising fipronil---see para. 0066 of Matsuura et al.) adheres to the surface of the mesh member (exterminating agent storage container 11 and moisture-proof film 12 may be adhered to each other using well-known adhesive of Matsuura et al.) and/or is kneaded (bait material 450 disposed in and sealed within bait cartridge 475; exterminating agent 13 is pressed into 11 and thereby pressed into 2 by being contained within the interior volume of 2) into the mesh member.
In regard to claim 8, Klein et al. and Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the insecticide active ingredient is at least one type selected from the group consisting of a phenylpyrazole insecticide active ingredient, a neonicotinoid insecticide active ingredient, a diamide insecticide active ingredient, a metadiamide insecticide active ingredient, a phenylurea insecticide active ingredient, a sulfoxyimine insecticide active ingredient, a butanolide insecticide active ingredient, a meso-ionic insecticide active ingredient, a pyridylidene insecticide active ingredient, and an isoxazoline insecticide active ingredient (see para. 0066 of Matsuura et al.).
In regard to claim 9, Klein et al. and Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the phenylpyrazole insecticide active ingredient is at least one type selected from the group consisting of fipronil, ethiprole, and pyriprole (see para. 0066 of Matsuura et al.).
In regard to claim 19, Klein et al. and Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the material is composed of a resin material, a metal material, a ceramic material, or a composite of these materials (see para. 0035 of Matsuura et al.).
In regard to claim 20, Klein et al. and Matsuura et al. disclose wherein the resin material is an acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene resin, a polylactic acid resin, an acrylate-styrene-acrylonitrile resin, a polypropylene resin, a polyethylene terephthalate resin, an epoxy resin, an acrylic resin, a polycarbonate resin, a nylon resin, a thermoplastic polyurethane resin, a polymethyl] methacrylate resin, a polyvinylidene fluoride resin, or a polyethylene resin (see para. 0035 of Matsuura et al.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-9, 19, and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Oi et al. 6,928,770 discloses a mixture 550 of slow acting toxicants which include fipronil and a non-edible foraging matrix through which the termites must tunnel through the non-edible particles treated with the slow-acting toxicant and the termites remove contaminated particles of the non-edible foraging matrix as they pass back the soil and the contaminated termites 259 incorporate the treated non-edible foraging matrix particles into their tunnels 156 and contaminate the rest of the colony 250.
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 DARREN W ARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/DARREN W ARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
DWA
Prosecution Insights