DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendments, and arguments, filed January 02, 2026, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 23-42 are pending and currently under consideration. Claims 23-26, 32-36, 38 and 42 have been amended; and claims 1-22 were previously cancelled. 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 Office Action: Final
Withdrawn Claim Objections & Rejections
The objections to claims 23-26 and 32-36 (items A., B., C., D., E., F., G., H. and I. at par. 1-2 of the 10/02/2025 Office action) are withdrawn in light of applicant’s 01/02/2026 amendments. Applicant’s 01/02/2026 remarks at p. 6, par. 2-4, are acknowledged.
The rejection of claims 38 and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite (items A. and B. at par. 3-4 of the 10/02/2025 Office action), is withdrawn in light of applicant’s 01/02/2026 amendments. Applicant’s 01/02/2026 remarks at p. 6, par. 5-7, are acknowledged.
The rejection of claims 33-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over DICKEY (US 2,904,577), in view of COOPER (US 2012/0071444 A1) (at par. 5-10 of the 10/02/2025 Office action), is withdrawn in light of applicant’s 01/02/2026 arguments, at p. 7, par. 1 to p. 8, par. 1, which are found to be persuasive.
The provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 21-37 over claims 2, 7-13 and 16 of US copending Appl. No. 18/392,850 (at par. 11-32 of the 10/02/2025 Office action), is maintained, but has been corrected to indicate instant claims 23-37 and 39-41, since claims 21-22 were previously cancelled.
Maintained Claim Rejections - Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 23-37 and 39-41 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 2, 7-13 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/392,850 (‘850 Application). This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the instant claims as well as the copending claims recite an adduct of an agent and biochemical analyte secreted by pests, and carriers including a polymer gel.
Claim 23 is anticipated by claims 2, 7 and 13 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 24 is anticipated by claim 7 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 25 is anticipated by claim 7 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 26 is anticipated by claim 7 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 27 is anticipated by claim 7 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 28 is anticipated by claim 8 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 29 is anticipated by claim 9 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 30 is anticipated by claim 10 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 31 is anticipated by claim 11 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 32 is anticipated by claim 12 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 33 is obvious over claims 2-3, 4, 13 of the ‘850 Application. See MPEP § 2123 [R-5] regarding the obviousness of rearranging a reference according to the teachings of that same reference.
Claim 34 is anticipated by claim 16 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 35 is anticipated by claim 16 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 36 is anticipated by claim 16 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 37 is anticipated by claim 16 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 39 is obvious over claims 2-3, 4, 13 of the ‘850 Application. See MPEP § 2123 [R-5] regarding the obviousness of rearranging a reference according to the teachings of that same reference.
Claim 40 is anticipated by claim 7 of the ‘850 Application.
Claim 41 is anticipated by claim 9 of the ‘850 Application.
Claims 38 and 42 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 2, 7-13 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/392,850 (‘850 Application), as applied to claims 23-37 and 39-41, above, and in view of the disclosure of COOPER (US 2012/0071444 A1, Publ. Mar. 22, 2012; hereinafter, “Cooper”). This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
The teachings of the ‘850 Application, as set forth above are hereby incorporated. To the extent the ‘850 Application DOES NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH a particular polymer gel material/component such as “polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS),” the incorporation thereof would be obvious per Cooper in order to obtain the advantage of “polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS)” (Cooper, par. [0018]) as a suitable carrier for pest control (Cooper, abstract).
Thus, claim 38 and 42 are obvious over the ‘850 Application per Cooper.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on January 02, 2026 have been fully considered, and it is acknowledged that applicants will take appropriate action in the event that the claims of one or both of the pending applications are allowed, or determined to have allowable subject matter therein. Remarks, p. 8, par. 6 to p. 9, par. 1. Until such an appropriate event as noted by applicant is taken, the provisional double patenting rejection of record is maintained.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 23-42 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-2845. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30am to 5:00pm EST; alternating Fridays out.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BETHANY BARHAM can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOMINIC LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611