DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission, filed 08/28/2026, has been entered.
Status of Application
Receipt of the amendments to the claims and applicant arguments/remarks, filed 08/19/2026 (Response After Final Action), is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 are pending in this action. Claim 5 has been cancelled previously. Claims 1, 4 have been amended. Claims 1-4, 6-7 are currently under consideration.
Any rejection or objection not reiterated in this action is withdrawn. Applicant's amendments necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
Priority
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. Patent Application No. 16/760,675, filed Apryl 30, 2020 and now abandoned, which is a 371 of PCT/US2018/058636, filed November 1, 2018, which claims benefit of provisional U.S. Application No. 62/581,225, filed November 3, 2017.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Newly amended claim 1 recites the limitation “bioinsecticide composition does not include an insecticide synergist or any other compound exhibiting insecticidal activity” that is not reasonably clear. In the present case, it is noted that it is well known in the field that synergist activity, i.e., the ability of a compound to enhance the effect of another, is not a fixed property. It depends entirely on the specific compounds present in the mixture and their interactions. First, it is noted that neither the claims nor the instant specification provides a clear teaching what compounds should be excluded from the claimed composition as insecticide synergists. Second, it is noted that claim 1 discloses a method for controlling an insect pest by using compositions identified by the presence of compound of Formulae I, wherein the other constituents that should not be used in the claimed method are characterized by their assumed function and not by the chemical structure essential for said composition. When functional language is recited in a claim without connection to any structure, material or acts, it raises concerns of whether the boundaries of the claim limitation can be understood and whether any limits are imposed by the language. In the present case, it is noted that the function of a particular compound may change and/or depend on conditions, e.g., on compounds included into the claimed multicomponent system/composition. Therefore, claim 1 does not clearly define the composition to be used in the claimed method, it does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. MPEP § 2173.05(c), 2173.05(g). Similar is applied to claim 4. Clarification is required.
Newly amended claim 4 recites the limitation “the method comprises fumigating the space or soil with a monoterpene” that is not reasonably clear. In the present case, it is unclear what is used in the claimed method - monoterpene (i.e., a compound) as instantly claimed, OR a composition comprising a monoterpene as instantly claimed. Clarification is required.
Claim 2-3, 6-7 is rejected as being dependent on rejected independent claims 1 and 4 and failing to cure the defect.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bessette, US 2010/0144888A1 (cited in IDS; hereinafter referred to as Bessette) and Manhas et al., (US 2018/0255787A1 (priority date 10/04/2011hereinafter referred to as Manhas).
Bessette teaches method for controlling pests (e.g., against flies/Drosophila melanogaster, thrips, etc.), by contacting a pest, animal, plant or inanimate object, e.g., by fumigation, with a pesticidally-effective amount of a pesticidal composition comprising a pesticidally-acceptable carrier and at least one GABA receptor modulator such as pulegone, carvacrol, estragole, linalool, trans-anethole, anethole. i.e., compounds/monoterpenes of Formula I (Claims 1-2, 7-8, 13-14; Abstract; Para. 0002, 0018, 0033-0034, 0048, 0109, 0117-0118). Bessette further teaches that said compositions may optionally include such additional compounds as a synergist, a surface-active agent, carrier vehicle assistants (Abstract; Para. 0019, 098, 0111).
Manhas teaches pest control formulations (e.g., against flies, thrips, etc.) and methods of using them, e.g. by fumigation, wherein said formulations may include trans-anethole, carvacrol, anethole estragole, linalool, i.e., compounds/monoterpenes of Formula I (Claims 1, 6, 11-15; Title; Abstract; Para. 0045, 0052-0053, 0059, 0069, 0077). Manhas further teaches that said compositions may optionally include such additional compounds as surfactants, other pesticidal ingredients, stabilizers, carriers, diluents, or other non-pesticidal ingredients (Abstract; Para. 0065).
Therefore, the cited references disclose compositions, which appear to be identical to the presently claimed compositions to be used in the claimed method for controlling insect pests. Consequently, said claims appear to be anticipated by the references recited. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare the compositions as taught by the references cited to be used for controlling insect pests with controllable optional additives. One would do so with expectation of beneficial results, because the cited prior art teaches compositions that have a broad spectrum of activity and are particularly advantageous in terms of its relative non-toxicity (i.e., Bessette) and also teaches compositions having a prolonged residual activity (i.e., Manhas).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/19/2026, have been fully considered, but they were not found to be persuasive for the reasons set forth above. New arguments and/or references have been added to the record to address newly introduced amendments and to clarify the position of the examiner. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language, the structure of the claimed composition to be used in the claimed method and clearly point out the patentable novelty, which the applicant thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited, to place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLGA V. TCHERKASSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3672. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. 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.
/OLGA V. TCHERKASSKAYA/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
