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 .
Claims Status
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 12/09/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden due to the overlapping inventions of Groups I through III. This is not found persuasive because each of the inventions has a separate classification which shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search and a search for one invention may not result in finding pertinent art for the other invention. As evidenced by the restriction requirement mailed on 11/19/2025, each of the separate groups have a separate classification in the art and thus would require a separate filed of search. Examiner reminds Applicant that where Applicant elects claims directed to the product and the product claims are found allowable, withdrawn process claims that depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable product will be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must require all the limitations of an allowable product claim for that process invention to be rejoined. Similarly, examiner should a generic claim 1 be found allowable, examiner will reconsider potential rejoinder of all withdrawn species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the following species in the reply filed on 05/19/2026 is acknowledged.
-Active ingredient: 3-methyl-2-cyclohexen- 1-one (MCH)
-Biodegradable carrier: soy wax
-Dispenser body: pellet
-Further ingredient: bees wax
Claims 9 and 12-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/09/2025.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are under current examination as directed to the elected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 11/28/2023 has been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy of the IDS is included with the present Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: For grammatical completeness of the claim, claim 4 should recite The controlled-release dispenser article according to claim 1, comprising from about 0.1 wt% to about 20 wt% active ingredient, and from about 50 wt% to about 99 wt% biodegradable carrier.
Claim 11 appears to have accidentally deleted beeswax in the last line.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0204411) in view of Albanna et al. (United States Patent Publication 20190023398) and Silvestre et al. (Chemical transformation of 1,8-cineole: synthesis of seudenone, an insect pheromone).
The instant claims are being examined as directed to the elected species of: Active ingredient: 3-methyl-2-cyclohexen- 1-one (MCH); Biodegradable carrier: soy wax; Dispenser body of: a pellet; and Further ingredients: bees wax.
Ward et al. teach compositions for treating insects which can comprise a biodegradable wax carrier, see paragraph [0504]. Such carrier includes at least about 10% of wax carrier including beeswax and soy wax, see paragraph [0504]. Ward et al. teach such compositions can be in the form of a bait or sprayable, wherein the bait can take a pellet form, see paragraphs [0004], [0028] and [0093]. The bait composition can comprise pheromone attractant, see paragraphs [0042] and [0093] and [0507]. The pheromone attractant or insecticide is present at 0.002-25% by weight, see paragraphs [0507-[0509]. Release modifiers can be added to help further control release, see paragraph [0479].
Ward does not expressly teach the elected active of 3-methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one.
Albanna et al. teach controlled release pest control compositions which include pellet form, see abstract and paragraphs [0077] and [0138] and [0167]. The pesticidal active includes 3-methyl-2-cyclohexenone (aka 3-methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one), see paragraph [0104] at Table 1.The composition can be biodegradable, see paragraph [0008].
Silvestre et al. teach that 3-methyl-2-cyclohexenone also known as seudenone is an insect pheromone taken from the indguts of the Douglas-fir beetle which is a well-known destructive pest, see introduction.
It would have been prima facie obvious to provide 3-methyl-2-cyclohexenone as the pheromone taught in Ward’s pest control composition.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because the insecticidal composition of Ward is taught to further comprise a pheromone and from the teachings of Albanna et al., 3-methyl-2-cyclohexenone is known in the art to be applied in pest control formulations. Furthermore, Silvestre et al. teach that 3-methyl-2-cyclohexenone is a pheromone compound.
Regarding the limitation “when combined with the active ingredient provides a controlled release of the active” the controlled release is considered the natural result of combining the soy plus beeswax carrier material with the elected 3-methyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one as the combination of Ward et al. with Albanna et al. and Silvestre et al. arrives at biodegradable wax carries with 3-methyl-2-cychlohexen-1-one.
Claims 4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (United States Patent Publication 2017/0204411) in view of Albanna et al. (United States Patent Publication 20190023398) and Silvestre et al. (Chemical transformation of 1,8-cineole: synthesis of seudenone, an insect pheromone) as applied to all claims 1-3 and 5-8 above and further in view of Delwiche et al. (United States Patent 6001346), Boucher et al. (United States Patent Publication 2010/0216730)and Fungaia Farms (1lb Soy/Bees Wax Blend-2021).
Regarding instant claim 4, Ward expressly teaches at least 10% by weight of wax carrier which covers numerical values from 10-100% by weight, and from 0.002-25% by weight additional compound including pheromone. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Ward does not expressly teach 50-99% by weight of biodegradable carrier or from 27-33% soy wax with 24-28% beeswax and from 29-31% soy wax with 25-26.5% beeswax.
However, Delwihce et al. teach that biodegradable wax carriers for pheromones can include beeswax which can be present from 10-100% by weight, or from 10-40% by weight, see column 6, lines 15-25 and 54-59 and claims 1-2 and 13.
Boucher et al. teach insecticide formulations comprising pheromone attractant, see abstract. The composition includes a wax carrier including soybean alone or in mixture with beeswax wherein the wax carrier is 10-90% by weight, see paragraph [0016] and claim 1.
Fungaia Farm teaches that a soy-bees wax blend is advantageous due to the low meting point of soy wax mixed with malleability of bees wax, see page 2.
In view of the teachings of Delwiche, Boucher and Fungai Farm, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the soy wax in an amount within 10-90% by weight and beeswax in an amount within 10-40% by weight in order to provide a soy-bees wax blend with the desired malleability of the pellet formulation taught in Ward. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, beeswax is taught in Fungaia Farm as a wax which contributes to the malleability of the soy wax-beeswax blend. 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).
Conclusion
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected and no claims are currently allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)270-7678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-6:30pm 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 at 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.
/SARAH ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights