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 .
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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/9/2026 has been entered.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3. 6, 7, 14, 21, 47, 57, and 69-72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frandon et al. (WO 97/34468), made of record by Applicant.
A machine translation of the WO publication is used in the following rejection, and has been supplied by the Examiner.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Frandon teaches a food source for predatory mites and/or insects comprising a mixture of a carrier material and individuals of at least one mites species suitable as being a prey for said predatory mites and/or insects, wherein said mixture is seen as being formulated in a “mite-coated carrier (MCC) form”, such that said carrier material is essentially coated by said prey individuals, wherein at least a portion of said prey individuals is adhered to the surface of particles or elements of said carrier material, as Frandon teaches a food source including insects such as ladybugs that feed on aphids, which are known predatory insects. Frandon teaches a food source comprising a mixture of a carrier material and individuals of the ladybugs, where the ladybug larvae are used for the biological control of plant pests like aphids (Paragraphs 17-18 of the machine translation), where the ladybug are the predatory pests feeding on the prey which is the feed dose. Frandon teaches supports or carrier materials such as popped corn kernels are coated with a gluing agent, the specific feed dose is stuck to the popped corn kernels which are then transferred from a container to a rearing box, each box left open and the appropriate number of egg masses or inoculum of the beneficial insect are deposited in it (Paragraph 25). Frandon teaches the feed or food dose stuck to the popped corn kernels can be eggs of the flour moth, other insects or a mite (Paragraph 26). Therefore, Frandon teaches or renders obvious a mite-coated carrier (MCC) form, such that said carrier material (popped corn kernels) is essentially coated by said prey individuals (mites disclosed), wherein at least a portion of the prey individuals is adhered to the surface of particles or elements of the carrier material, as set forth above. Frandon also therefore teaches that at least a portion of the prey individuals (mites) is immobilized to form an immobilized MCC mixture, by virtue of being stuck or glued to the popped corn kernels, where the immobilization performed by mechanical treatment of being stuck or glued to the popped corn kernels, therefore also teaching immobilizing with an adhesive, as recited in Claim 3.
Regarding Claims 6, 7, the teaching of the popped corn kernels which have surfaces to which mites can adhere meets the limitation of Claim 6. Since Claims 6 and 7 recite the limitations regarding the developmental stage of the prey mite individuals as alternatives, Claim 7 is also deemed to be met by Frandon by the teaching of the carrier materials recited in Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 14, since Claims 1 and 14 recite either insects or mites and Frandon teaches the lady bugs are predatory insects, Frandon is deemed to meet the limitation of Claim 14 as it is merely reciting more specifics for the alternative limitation recited in Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 21, Frandon teaches the food source further comprises a predatory insect population preying on the food source, as Frandon teaches supports or carrier materials such as popped corn kernels are coated with a gluing agent, the specific feed dose (mites) is stuck to the popped corn kernels which are then transferred from a container to a rearing box, each box left open and the appropriate number of egg masses or inoculum of the beneficial insect (predatory insects/ladybugs) are deposited in it (Paragraph 25), and also teaches the food source is contained in a container configured to hold the food source with or without the predatory insect population preying on the food source, as set forth above.
Regarding previously amended Claim 47, 57, Frandon is taken as cited above and teaches or renders obvious the food source according to Claim 1 and teaches a method for rearing and conditioning beneficial insects for the biological control of plant pests and teaches providing a rearing population of at least one mites species suitable as being a prey for a preselected predatory mite or insect species (Paragraph 18 of the machine translation), and therefore also teaches a rearing composition comprising a predatory insect population (ladybugs), together with a food source according to Claim 1, as set forth above.
Regarding previously amended Claim 69, Frandon is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claims 1, 47 and 57, and teaches a method of rearing predatory insect individuals (ladybugs), said method comprising providing a preselected predatory insect population (ladybug eggs) and allowing the predatory insect individuals to prey on the food source including the combination of the mites and carrier coated composition, as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding previously amended Claims 70 and 71, Frandon teaches a method for rearing and conditioning beneficial insects for the biological control of plant pests and teaches providing a rearing population of at least one mites species suitable as being a prey for a preselected predatory mite or insect species (Paragraph 18 of the machine translation), and teaches selecting one or more boxes or packaging bags of the appropriate dimensions for rearing approximately the desired number of individuals of a given beneficial insect (predatory ladybugs), selecting the feed dosage, which can be mites (Frandon, Paragraph 26 of machine translation), along with the eggs masses or inoculum of the beneficial insect into a box, closing the lid of the box or boxes and allowing the auxiliary to develop until it reaches a desired stage (Frandon, Paragraph 18 of the machine translation). Frandon further teaches the rearing continues until the desired stage and the boxes are opened to proceed with release of mobile life stage of the predatory insect species (Paragraph 18 of machine translation). Therefore, Frandon teaches the claimed device for containing the composition according to Claim 57, wherein the device comprises an exit suitable for providing sustained release of mobile life stages of predatory insect species, and also teaches or renders obvious the claimed method for crop protection against pests comprising exposing the crop to the device, as Frandon teaches the predatory insects, ladybugs, feed on aphids which are known pests (Paragraph 12 of machine translation).
Regarding previously added Claim 72, since the claim depends from Claim 14, and neither requires a predatory mite species to be chosen from Claim 1, Frandon is deemed to meet the limitation as set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 and the teaching of a predatory insect species, as set forth above.
Claims 20 and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frandon et al. (WO 97/34468), made of record by Applicant, in view of Wheeler-Dubas (2018) and Groot et al. (USPA 2019/0014759).
Regarding amended Claims 20 and 73, Frandon is taken as cited above and teaches the predatory insect is the ladybug, but does not specifically teach the order as recited.
Wheeler-Dubas teaches that ladybugs belong to the order Coleoptera and are actually beetles (Page 2). Therefore, the use of a predatory insect from one of the claimed orders would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Frandon in view of Wheeler-Dubas teach the use of mites as prey for the ladybug/predatory insects as set forth above, but do not specifically teach where the prey species is a non-Tetranychid such as from the Astigmatid species selected from one of the claimed families.
Groot teaches of mite species that can be used beneficially to be employed to control pests such as in the field of agriculture (Abstract) and examples of such beneficial mites that can be used as a food source for predatory arthropods include Astigmatid mites species, in particular from the Carpoglyphidae family (Paragraphs 41-43). Therefore, the use of the claimed mite as the prey species to use by Frandon would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, in light of the teachings of Groot.
Claims 24, 31-33, 74 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frandon et al. (WO 97/34468) in view of Tabic (WO 2019/171374), both made of record by Applicant.
USPA 2021/0100250 is used in the following rejection for the US equivalent of the WO publication and has been previously made of record.
Regarding previously amended Claim 24, Frandon is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claim 1 and teaches a method for rearing and conditioning beneficial insects for the biological control of plant pests and teaches providing a rearing population of at least one mites species suitable as being a prey for a preselected predatory mite or insect species (Paragraph 18 of the machine translation), said rearing population comprising individuals of the at least one prey species, as Frandon teaches using mites as prey for the ladybug/predatory insects as set forth above, but is silent as to the step of obtaining at least one preselected developmental stage fraction of said prey population by a separating means. Frandon does teach mixing the mites with carrier material particles or elements so that the mite individuals essentially coat the carrier particles or elements to form a mite coated carrier (MCC) type mixture, as set forth above. Frandon also does not specifically teach drying said MCC type mixture, although as previously set forth, Frandon does teach immobilizing with adhesive.
Tabic teaches preparing a rearing composition of mites for use as prey for use as a crop pest biological control (Paragraph 215) and teaches providing non-viable mites or eggs which are produced by or exposed to treatment including freezing, freeze-drying, mechanical treatment including immobilizing with an adhesive and combinations of methods in order to provide the rearing composition (Paragraphs 225-226). The use of non-viable mites or eggs is deemed to read on a separation means as one preselected stage fraction of eggs has been obtained. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined known methods of producing non-viable mites or eggs including freeze-drying and immobilization by adhesive in order to successfully prepare a rearing population of mites suitable for use as prey for predators to be used as a crop pest biological control, an objective that is also taught by Frandon.
Regarding previously amended Claims 31 and 32, Frandon in view of Tabic teaches holding said predatory mites and/or insects, with or without said MCC in a device or container configured to hold the predatory mites and/or insects, as Frandon teaches selecting one or more boxes or packaging bags of the appropriate dimensions for rearing approximately the desired number of individuals of a given beneficial insect (predatory ladybugs), selecting the feed dosage, which can be mites (Frandon, Paragraph 26 of machine translation), along with the eggs masses or inoculum of the beneficial insect into a box, closing the lid of the box or boxes and allowing the auxiliary to develop until it reaches a desired stage (Frandon, Paragraph 18 of the machine translation). Therefore, Frandon in view of Tabic teach the further method steps of mixing said MCC with a predatory insect population capable of preying on said prey mite species, rearing said predatory population on said MCC mixture for a predetermined period of time to obtain a rearing product and packaging said rearing product in predetermined amounts and/or concentration.
Regarding previously amended Claim 33, Frandon in view of Tabic are taken as cited above in the rejection of Claim 24 and teach the use of non-viable mites or eggs which, as previously set forth, is deemed to read on separating eggs from the preselected prey rearing population. As previously set forth in the rejection of Claim 24, Frandon in view of Tabic teach and render obvious mixing the separated eggs with carrier material to coat the carrier material with layer of eggs of mites and freezing or freeze-drying. As previously set forth above, Frandon in view of Tabic teach selecting the feed dosage, which can be mites, along with the eggs masses or inoculum of the beneficial insect into a box, closing the lid of the box or boxes and allowing the auxiliary to develop until it reaches a desired stage (Frandon, Paragraph 18 of the machine translation), therefore teaching the step of rearing the predatory mite or insect individuals on the mixture as a food source. While Frandon in view of Tabic may not specifically teach adding water, Frandon teaches the adhesive can be liquid honey (Paragraph 23 of machine translation), which would be reasonably expected to contain some amount of water. In addition, since the prior art teaches and render obvious the immobilization of the mites with adhesive and coating of the carrier material with the mites as claimed, the particular composition of the adhesive would not expect to result in a final result significantly different from what is claimed by Applicant.
Regarding previously added Claim 74, Frandon is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claims 1 and 24 also therefore teaches that at least a portion of the prey individuals (mites) is immobilized to form an immobilized MCC mixture, by virtue of being stuck or glued to the popped corn kernels, where the immobilization performed by mechanical treatment of being stuck or glued to the popped corn kernels, therefore also teaching immobilizing with an adhesive.
Regarding previously added Claim 75, Frandon is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claims 1, 24 and 74 and teaches selecting one or more boxes or packaging bags of the appropriate dimensions for rearing approximately the desired number of individuals of a given beneficial insect (predatory ladybugs), selecting the feed dosage, which can be mites (Frandon, Paragraph 26 of machine translation) and immobilizing them on the popped corn kernels via adhesive, adding the eggs masses or inoculum of the beneficial insect into the box, closing the lid of the box or boxes and allowing the auxiliary to develop until it reaches a desired stage (Frandon, Paragraph 18 of the machine translation). Therefore, Frandon in view of Tabic teach the further method steps of mixing said IMCC with a predatory insect population (ladybugs) capable of preying on said prey mite species, rearing said predatory insect population on said IMCC mixture for a predetermined period of time to obtain a rearing product and packaging said rearing product in predetermined amounts and/or concentration.
Examiner’s Comments
In light of the prior art considered in the IDS submitted, the Examiner has set forth a non-final rejection of Applicant’s claims. Therefore, the NOA has been withdrawn at this time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA A WATTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 9am-2:30pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
JENNA A. WATTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1791
/JENNA A WATTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791 9/22/2026
Prosecution Insights