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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species in the reply filed on 06/16/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly state whether election of species was made with or without traversal, therefore the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Applicants elected composition of pest control from each group:
Group A: isocycloseram
Group B: imiprothrin
Group C: cyhalothrin.
Examiner did not find 102 prior art for applicant elected species, but 103 prior art was found. Therefore Markush search was not extended to other species according to Markush search practices.
Elected species read on claims 1-3 and 9.
Claim 4-8 and 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/16/2026.
Current Status of 18/574,130
This Office Action is in response to the amended claims of 06/16/2026.
Claims 1-2 are original and claims 3-15 are new.
Claim 4-8 and 10-15 are withdrawn
Claims 1-3 and 9 are examined in this office action
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 03/11/2024 and 07/31/2025. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Effected filing date is 07/06/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
DAIDO, HIDENORI (WO2017122687)
In view of
Jechke, P (Pest Manag Sci 2021; 77: 6476, published online 28 September 2020)
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
DAIDO, HIDENORI et.al. discloses an arthropod control composition comprising broflanilide (corresponding to group (A) in claim 1) (paragraph [0009]) and deltamethrin or permethrin (corresponding to group (C) in claim 1), and discloses that, in terms of other insecticidal components and synergists, this may further contain two or more of permethrin, phenothrin, cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin(applicant elected species of group C in claim 1)(paragraph [0054], imiprothrin(applicant elected species of group B in claim 1), tetramethrin (paragraph [0054] partially teaching claim 1. Daido further state application of the composition on wall surface teaching claim 2.
Jechke et. al teaches isocycloseram (applicant elected species of group A) as a broad-spectrum arylisoxazoline insecticide and acaricide (page 67, section 2.3.2 paragraph 1), partially teaching claim 3.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Although Daido et.al. teaches combination of compounds in group A, Group B and Group C for pest control, Daido does not teach the exact ratio of Group A , Group B and Group C.
Although Jechke et.al. teaches combination of compound isocycloseram (applicant elected species of group A) as a broad-spectrum arylisoxazoline insecticide and acaricide, Jechke does not teach composition to have compound of group B and Group C.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
The level of ordinary skill is an artisan who have sufficient background in developing different concentration of disinfectant.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A person skilled in art would be motivated to develop a composition for pest control found in the teaching of Daido et.al, where the composition comprising broflanilide (corresponding to group (A) in claim 1) (Daido et.al. paragraph [0009]) and deltamethrin or permethrin (corresponding to group (C) in claim 1), and discloses that, in terms of other insecticidal components and synergists, this may further contain two or more of permethrin, phenothrin, cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin (applicant elected species of group C in claim 1)( Daido et.al. paragraph [0054], imiprothrin (applicant elected species of group B in claim 1), tetramethrin (Daido et.al. paragraph [0054]; and change the compound of Group A from broflanilide to isocycloseram (applicant elected species of group A) as a broad-spectrum arylisoxazoline insecticide and acaricide (Jechke, P, page 67, section 2.3.2 paragraph 1). Applicants are expected to experiment with different insecticides in the composition found in Daido et.al, including isocycloseram and develop a method of controlling pest, thus teaching claims 1-3 and 9. Furthermore the composition is expected to have similar properties as claims 1. Therefore it is prima facie obvious to combine Daido et.al. Jeckhe P to develop composition of claims 1-3 and 9.
Claims 1 are directed to ratio of between compounds of group A: group B: Group C. Examiner interprets these attributes as variables the artisan would normally be expected to routinely optimize. Generally, ratio of different compounds in a composition will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such attributes are critical. The specification does not indicate the dosage and frequency of the dosage to be 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) (“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). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed as written.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rehana Ismail whose telephone number is (703)756-4776. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Andrew D Kosar can be reached at (571)272-913. 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.
/R.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1625
/JOHN S KENYON/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights