DETAILED 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 (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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 59-78 are pending. Claims 1-58 are cancelled. Claims 68-78 are withdrawn. Claims 59-67 are under consideration in this action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 59-67) in the reply filed on February 3, 2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II should be examined together as Group II is drawn to a method for controlling animal pests comprising applying an effective amount of the composition of Group I. Applicant further notes that the International Search Authority for this national stage application found that the claims possess unity, which evidences that the pending claims possess unity and should be examined together.
This is not found persuasive because as discussed in the Restriction Requirement mailed November 5, 2025, Groups I and II lack unity of invention under PCT Rule 13.2 as they lack the same or corresponding special technical feature. In particular, even though these groups require the technical feature of a composition comprising at least one insecticide which is substantially insoluble in water; ammonium salt; at least one anionic surfactant containing sulfate or sulfonate group; and a carrier, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Walter et al. (US 2015/0264934 A1), whose teachings are discussed in detail in the Restriction Requirement and below. It is not a requirement that the same conclusion regarding lack of unity be reached as the International Search Authority.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 68-78 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 February 3, 2026.
Examiner’s Suggestions
With regards to Claim 60, it is noted that the claim lists the species of “the at least one anionic surfactant” as “a)” and “b)”. However, as the components of the composition in claim 59 are already listed using “a)”, “b)”, etc., to put the claim in better form, it is suggested that the species of the components (e.g., those in claim 60) be listed using a differing listing form (e.g., i), ii), etc.).
With regards to Claim 61, the claim recites, at its broadest, three alternative limitations using “(a)”, “(b)”, and “(c)”. However, as claim 59 already uses “a)”, “b)”, etc. to list the components of the composition, to put the claim in better form, it is suggested that the alternative limitations in claim 61 be listed using a differing listing form.
With regards to Claim 65, to put the claim in better form, it is suggested to remove “wherein” at the end of claim 65.
Claim Objections
Claim 63 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “pyrethroide” should be “pyrethroid”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 61, 63, 64, 66, and 67 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 61, the term "preferably" (in line 5) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 63, the term "preferably" (in second to last line) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 64, the term "preferably" (in line 3) and the phrase “more preferably” in line 5 render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 66, the term "preferably" (in line 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding Claim 67, the term "preferably" (in line 3) renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 59-67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walter et al. (Walter) (US 2015/0264934 A1; published Sept. 24, 2015).
Walter discloses an insecticidal composition, particularly a solid formulation, comprising an organothiophosphate in which the negative odor is effectively controlled, with the formulation being stable over time (para.0007, 0037).
With regards to Claims 59-63, 65, and 66, the composition comprises a pyrethroid; a water-soluble solid organothiophosphate insecticide; one or more odor-absorbing components; and one or more odor-masking components (Walter claim 1; Walter claims 1-3, 6, 8-12).
Walter exemplifies a wettable powder formulation (reading on solid formulation) containing bifenthrin (reading on insecticide which is substantially insoluble in water), a lignosulfonate (POLYFON® H) (reading on anionic surfactant containing sulfate or sulfonate group), ammonium sulfate (reading on ammonium salt), and acephate (reading on phosphoramidothioate insecticide) (para.0041-0044l; Table 1).
In an embodiment, the pyrethroid (e.g., bifenthrin) is coated or absorbed on a solid carrier. Among the suitable carriers include a silica, a hydrated aluminum-magnesium silicate, montmorillonite, and attapulgite. Preferably, the solid carrier is amorphous precipitated silica (para.0014, 0033; Walter claim 12).
With regards to Claims 64 and 67, in an embodiment, the solid composition comprises about 2-10% of bifenthrin and about 25-60% of acephate (para.0039).
Conclusion
Claim 59-67 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONICA A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7138. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM 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, Sue X Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/MONICA A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616