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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 27 February 2026 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the Office.
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 3-17 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.
As to Claim 3: The term “olefactory acceptable amount” in Line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “olefactory acceptable amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term olefactory acceptable amount is relative and “may vary depending on many factors” (Instant Specification, Pg. 9, Lines 8-15). Accordingly, the claim language is indefinite and it is unclear what amounts would be considered acceptable and how that amount would vary depending on the composition of the compound and also other compounds which are present.
As to Claim 5: The term “olefactory acceptable amount” in Line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “olefactory acceptable amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term olefactory acceptable amount is relative and “may vary depending on many factors” (Instant Specification, Pg. 9, Lines 8-15). Accordingly, the claim language is indefinite and it is unclear what amounts would be considered acceptable and how that amount would vary depending on the composition of the compound and also other compounds which are present. While the instant claim sets forth a weight percentage it is not clear that all amounts within this range would necessarily be considered an “olefactory acceptable amount”.
As to Claim 6: The term “olefactory acceptable amount” in Line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “olefactory acceptable amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term olefactory acceptable amount is relative and “may vary depending on many factors” (Instant Specification, Pg. 9, Lines 8-15). Accordingly, the claim language is indefinite and it is unclear what amounts would be considered acceptable and how that amount would vary depending on the composition of the compound and also other compounds which are present. While the instant claim sets forth a weight percentage it is not clear that all amounts within this range would necessarily be considered an “olefactory acceptable amount”.
As to Claim 7: The term “olefactory acceptable amount” in Line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “olefactory acceptable amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term olefactory acceptable amount is relative and “may vary depending on many factors” (Instant Specification, Pg. 9, Lines 8-15). Accordingly, the claim language is indefinite and it is unclear what amounts would be considered acceptable and how that amount would vary depending on the composition of the compound and also other compounds which are present. While the instant claim sets forth a weight percentage it is not clear that all amounts within this range would necessarily be considered an “olefactory acceptable amount”.
As to Claim 10: The term “olefactory acceptable amount” in Line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “olefactory acceptable amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term olefactory acceptable amount is relative and “may vary depending on many factors” (Instant Specification, Pg. 9, Lines 8-15). Accordingly, the claim language is indefinite and it is unclear what amounts would be considered acceptable and how that amount would vary depending on the composition of the compound and also other compounds which are present.
As to Claim 12: The term “olefactory acceptable amount” in Line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “olefactory acceptable amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term olefactory acceptable amount is relative and “may vary depending on many factors” (Instant Specification, Pg. 9, Lines 8-15). Accordingly, the claim language is indefinite and it is unclear what amounts would be considered acceptable and how that amount would vary depending on the composition of the compound and also other compounds which are present. While the instant claim sets forth a weight percentage it is not clear that all amounts within this range would necessarily be considered an “olefactory acceptable amount”.
As to Claim 13: The term “olefactory acceptable amount” in Line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “olefactory acceptable amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term olefactory acceptable amount is relative and “may vary depending on many factors” (Instant Specification, Pg. 9, Lines 8-15). Accordingly, the claim language is indefinite and it is unclear what amounts would be considered acceptable and how that amount would vary depending on the composition of the compound and also other compounds which are present. While the instant claim sets forth a weight percentage it is not clear that all amounts within this range would necessarily be considered an “olefactory acceptable amount”.
As to Claim 14: The term “olefactory acceptable amount” in Line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “olefactory acceptable amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term olefactory acceptable amount is relative and “may vary depending on many factors” (Instant Specification, Pg. 9, Lines 8-15). Accordingly, the claim language is indefinite and it is unclear what amounts would be considered acceptable and how that amount would vary depending on the composition of the compound and also other compounds which are present. While the instant claim sets forth a weight percentage it is not clear that all amounts within this range would necessarily be considered an “olefactory acceptable amount”.
As to Claim 15: The term “olefactory acceptable amount” in Line 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “olefactory acceptable amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term olefactory acceptable amount is relative and “may vary depending on many factors” (Instant Specification, Pg. 11, Lines 19-33). Accordingly, the claim language is indefinite and it is unclear what amounts would be considered acceptable and how that amount would vary depending on the composition of the compound and also other compounds which are present.
As to Claim 17: The term “malodor counteracting effective amount” in Line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “malodor counteracting effective amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term malodor counteracting effective amount is relative and “may vary depending upon the type of malodor counteractant, the type of carrier employed, and the level of malodor counteractancy desired” (Instant Specification, Pg. 9, Lines 8-15). Accordingly, the claim language is indefinite and it is unclear what amounts would be considered acceptable and how that amount would vary depending on the composition of the compound and also other compounds which are present.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gula et al. (Syntheses of 10-(Carboxymethyl)-trans-decal-2-one” J. Org. Chem. 1980, 45, 805-809, from the IDS filed 27 February 2026, hereinafter referred to as “Gula”).
As to Claim 1: Gula teaches a composition with the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
106
123
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Structure 12, Pg. 806) which reads on the composition of formula 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gula et al. (Syntheses of 10-(Carboxymethyl)-trans-decal-2-one” J. Org. Chem. 1980, 45, 805-809, from the IDS filed 27 February 2026, hereinafter referred to as “Gula”).
As to Claim 3: Gula teaches a composition with the structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
106
123
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Structure 12, Pg. 806) which reads on the composition of formula 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J OYER whose telephone number is (571)270-0347. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at (571)272-1197. 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.
/Andrew J. Oyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
