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 included in the prosecution are claims 1-20.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “is” in the last line should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “eugeneol” should be spelled “eugenol.” 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 4 and 8-10 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 4, the term "including" in the fourth line renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the natural-based glue" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 does not recite a natural-based glue. It is unclear if the natural-based glue is further limiting the glue of claim 5 or is an additional glue.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the essential-oil impregnated substrate.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite wherein the substrate is impregnated with an essential oil. It is unclear if the essential-oil impregnated substrate is further limiting the substrate of claim 1 or is an additional substrate.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the surface of the body” in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites a first and a second surface. It is unclear whether the surface of the body is referring to the first surface, the second surface, any of the first and second surface, or to a surface that is not the first or second surface.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 9-11, 14, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Manhas et al. (US 2022/0225601, Jul. 21, 2022) (hereinafter Manhas).
Manhas discloses compositions, substrates, and/or devices that can be used to control a variety of pests (¶ [0002]). Pests comprise at least one of arthropods and nematodes (claim 18). Exemplarily pests include silverfish (¶ [0073]). The term “control” includes killing a pest (¶ [0080]). The pesticidal composition comprises a pesticidal active ingredient, wherein the pesticidal composition is adapted to release pesticidal vapors comprising said pesticidal active ingredient. The pesticidal active ingredient comprises at least one natural pesticidal oil. The pesticidal composition additionally comprises a surfactant or emulsifier (¶ [0013]). The pesticidal natural oil may comprise azadirachtin (i.e., insect growth regulator (IGR)), geraniol, eugenol, and combinations thereof (¶ [0017]). The pesticidal composition may be contained within a housing of a pest control device. The device has a substrate impregnated with the pesticidal composition (¶ [0026]). Fig. 15 shows a package 500 comprising a housing 501 which, when assembled, contains a substrate 520 adapted for absorption of a pesticidal composition. Housing 501 sealably contains substrate 520 via a seal 530 (i.e., additional layer). Housing 501 comprises a first portion 502 (i.e., first body) and a second portion 510 (i.e., second body) which are bonded together to form an integral housing 501 (¶ [0146]).
PNG
media_image1.png
674
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in Figure 15, seal 530 (i.e., additional layer) is coupled to the second portion 510 (i.e., second body) on one surface (i.e., first surface) and the substrate 520 is applied to the opposite surface (i.e., second surface) of the second portion 510 (i.e., second body). The effectiveness of the pesticidal composition in controlling a target pest may be enhanced by the release of a stimulation agent at the same as the release of the pesticidal composition. The stimulation agent may act as an attractant to the target pest (¶ [0142]). Suitable stimulation agents include a pheromone (i.e., chemical attractant) (¶ [0143]). The housing 501 may be formed from polypropylene (i.e., polymer) (¶ [0155]). Seal 530 (i.e., additional layer) is substantially vapor impermeable (¶ [0150]). Vapor impermeable materials include paper poly foil (i.e., paper-based layer) (¶ [0124]). The housing and/or portions thereof are to be molded (i.e., capable of being oriented in various configurations) (¶ [0156]). As shown in Fig. 15, the portions of the housing (i.e., bodies) are oriented to create the shape of a triangular pyramid. One or more substrates may be placed in the housing. Substrates(s) 520 are dosed with a pesticidal composition prior to insertion into housing 501 (¶ [0156]). Hosing 501 contains supports 504 to hold first and second substrates 520 apart (¶ [0152]). In some embodiments, the pesticide-impregnated substrate is replaced with a gelled pesticidal composition (¶ [0097]).
Accordingly, Manhas anticipates the claims insofar as disclosing a pest control device having a housing (i.e. body) containing a substrate impregnated with a pesticidal composition (¶ [0026]), wherein the pesticidal composition comprises natural pesticidal oils such as geraniol and eugenol (¶ [0017]).
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.
1. Claims 3, 4, 12, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manhas et al. (US 2022/0225601, Jul. 21, 2022) (hereinafter Manhas).
The teachings of Manhas are discussed above. As discussed above, Manhas discloses wherein the pesticidal composition comprises geraniol (i.e., essential oil), eugenol (i.e. essential oil), azadirachtin, and (i.e., insect growth regulator), wherein suitable pests include silverfish, and wherein the seal may be made from paper poly foil (i.e., paper based).
The prior art is not anticipatory insofar as these combinations must be selected from various lists/locations in the reference. It would have been obvious, however, to make the combination since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
2. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manhas et al. (US 2022/0225601, Jul. 21, 2022) (hereinafter Manhas) in view of Yang (CN 107372555 A, Nov. 24, 2017) (IDS reference).
The teachings of Manhas are discussed above. Manhas does not teach wherein the substrate comprises a natural-based glue formed by combining a flour and a water.
However, Yang discloses an insecticidal bait gel (abstract) comprising Ethiprole active compound 0.033 ± 0.008 wt%, Arprocarb active compound 0.667 ± 0.167 wt%, Milk powder 10wt%, Corn flour 25wt%, Sugared 40wt%, Thickener 2wt%, and surplus water (claim 4). Corn flour is a carrier material (claim 3).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Manhas discloses wherein the pesticide-impregnated substrate may be replaced with a gelled pesticidal composition. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the gel carrier of Yang as the gelled pesticidal composition since it is a known and effective gelled carrier for forming a gelled pesticidal composition as taught by Yang.
In regards to instant claims 7 and 8, since corn flour and water are carrier materials, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to have arrived at the claimed amount water and flour based on the gel consistency desired. Where 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/TRACY LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights