CTNF 18/748,207 CTNF 74599 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restriction Inventor’s election, without traverse, of the claims of Group I (claims 1-11) as the group elected to begin prosecution is acknowledged. The election/restriction is hereby made FINAL. Information Disclosure Statement The lined-through references are either incomplete (no date), or ambiguous ( two listed dates). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2004/078901 A1 . Inventor teaches a pest control product comprising a ) a foam dispenser attached to a reservoir; and b ) a pest control composition contained in the reservoir which comprises i-iv and satisfies a particular weight ratio range with respect to i and iii (independent claim 1). Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-11 further define the pest control composition. Dependent claim 6 teaches that the foam dispenser is a mechanical foam dispenser or an aerosol foam dispenser. Dependent claim 7 teaches that the reservoir is transparent or translucent. WO 2004/078901 A1 teaches a non-aerosol container (i.e. a reservoir) attached to a mechanical foam-generating dispenser for generating and dispensing a foam from a high-viscosity composition (abstract; page 3, CONTAINER). First, the examiner notes that the instant specification explicitly states that WO 2004/078901 A1 above, for instance, teaches a suitable pump (i.e. mechanical) foam dispenser which may be utilized in the instant invention (specification page 25, line 4). That is, inventor explicitly teaches that the “foam dispenser attached to a reservoir” of instant claim 1 is simply a conventional apparatus well-known in the art. Inventor distinguishes over the prior art, essentially, in that the instant composition has been substituted for the composition of the prior art in the pump reservoir of the prior art foam dispenser. However, one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, would have found it obvious to utilize any composition of suitable viscosity, such as the instant composition (as explicitly admitted by inventor in the specification), in the foam dispenser of the prior art. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so, and with a reasonable expectation of success, because the apparatus of the prior art is designed to be capable of dispensing as a foam any composition of suitable viscosity. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to utilize the prior art dispenser in order to avoid the time and expense of designing a new apparatus for dispensing the instant composition - since such an apparatus is already known in the art . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0140368 A1 , cited in the IDS . Inventor teaches a pest control product comprising a ) a foam dispenser attached to a reservoir; and b ) a pest control composition contained in the reservoir which comprises i-iv and satisfies a particular weight ratio range with respect to i and iii (independent claim 1). Dependent claim 2 teaches a particular weight ratio range with respect to i and ii . Dependent claim 3 teaches that that composition further comprises a second solvent such as, for instance, ethyl acetate. Dependent claim 4 teaches a pH range. Dependent claim 5 teaches that the composition is substantially free of synthetic pesticides, mineral oil, colorants, antifoam agents or combinations thereof. Dependent claim 6 teaches that the foam dispenser is mechanical or aerosol. Dependent claim 7 teaches that the reservoir is transparent or translucent. Dependent claim 8 teaches a number of measured parameters with respect to the foam. Dependent claim 10 teaches that the composition turbidity is less than about 20 NTU and greater than about 0 NTU. Dependent claim 11 teaches that the composition has a b* value of about 0 to about 5. US 2010/0140368 A1 teaches a foaming insecticidal ant spray composition which is preferably dispensed from glass or plastic bottle attached to a “foaming trigger” sprayer (abstract; page 9, [0055]). The foaming insecticidal composition, an essentially transparent colloidal micro-emulsion (page 2, [[0016]), comprises: sodium lauryl sulfate as a “quite preferred” emulsifier in an amount from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight, and most preferred at about 1% to about 10% (page 5, column 1, text line 15); an essential oil such as cornmint oil, peppermint oil, spearmint oil, rosemary oil, etc. in an amount from about 0.05% to about 5% by weight, most preferred from about 0.1% to about 3% (page 3, [0020]; page 4, [0029]); an additional solvent such as isopropyl alcohol, ethyl lactate, etc. in an amount from about 0.5% to about 5%, to assist with the formation of stable emulsion and depending upon the type, level (amount) and purity of the essential oil chosen (page 7, [0041]); water as a primary solvent as needed to form the emulsion (page 2, [0016]). A wide variety of essential oils is explicitly taught, such as cornmint oil, peppermint oil, spearmint oil, rosemary oil, etc. (page 3, [0020]). The reference presents as working examples a number of exemplified formulations (page 10, Table 1). For instance, Formula #29 comprises: 5.00 wgt% of sodium lauryl sulfate; 1.50 wgt% of clove oil; (0.05 wgt% of monosodium citrate); and the remainder as water and dyes. The pH is 4.9. The reference explicitly teaches that the dyes are simply an optional ingredient (page 7, [0042]). Inventor principally distinguishes over the above Formula #29 of Table 1, for instance, in that from about 2.5 to about 25 wgt% of isopropyl alcohol is taught, and that the weight ratio of sodium lauryl sulfate to isopropyl alcohol is about 2:1 to about 1:12. However, as the reference makes explicitly clear, optional solvents, such as isopropanol (isopropyl alcohol) and ethyl lactate, may be utilized, in an amount of about 0.5 wgt% to about 5 wgt%, to assist with the formation of the stable micro-emulsion depending upon the type, level (amount) and purity of the essential oil chosen (page 7, [0041]). That being the case, one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, would have found it obvious to optimize the microemulsion formation and stability, depending upon the type, amount and purity of the essential oil chosen for the formulation, by the addition of an appropriate amount of a secondary solvent or solvents. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because the reference explicitly teaches just such an addition as an assist in the formation of the micro-emulsion. With respect to claim 7, one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the instant invention and absent unexpected results, would have found it obvious to choose an appropriate reservoir (transparent or translucent) guided by, for instance, ordinary market considerations (consumer or manufacturer packaging preferences, cost and material availability, etc.). With respect to claim 8, the reference explicitly recognizes that the foaming action heightens the efficacy of the formulation against ant pests (page 2, [0011]). That being the case, one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the instant invention and absent unexpected results, would have found it obvious to optimize the foaming action, guided by standard laboratory measurement techniques, and motivated by a desire to increase the efficacy of the formation. With respect to claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention and absent unexpected results, would have found it obvious to choose an appropriate dye color and intensity, guided by, for instance, ordinary market considerations (consumer preference, as well as the cost, availability and suitability of available dyes, etc.). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM EDT. 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. /BRIAN J DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 6/12/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/748,207 Page 2 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/748,207 Page 3 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/748,207 Page 4 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/748,207 Page 5 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/748,207 Page 6 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/748,207 Page 7 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/748,207 Page 8 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/748,207 Page 9 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/748,207 Page 10 Art Unit: 1614
Prosecution Insights