Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/14/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Status
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8-20, 25-26, and 31-32 are canceled.
Claims 1, 21, and 27 are amended.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 21-24, and 27-30 are examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/14/2026 is being considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Claim Interpretation
In regards to claims 1, 21, and 27 utilize the relative term "about". The term “about” is defined by the instant specification as meaning an acceptable error range of +/- 20% (page 33, [00129]). Therefore, the term “about” in claims 1, 21, and 27 will be broadly interpreted by the examiner to mean +/- 20%.
In regards to claims 1, 21, and 27, as to the limitation of 'suitable for application without phase separation during use' it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use, such as application, is not given patentable weight. Thus any composition comprising a sprayable oil-in-water emulsion comprising about 33 to about 55% geraniol, corn mint oil, eugenol, menthone, caryophyllene, water, and sodium lauryl sulfate will meet this limitation. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting (see, e.g., MPEP 2112).
In regards to claims 1, 21, and 27, as to the limitation of 'sprayable’ it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use, such as in a spray, is not given patentable weight. Thus any composition comprising a sprayable oil-in-water emulsion comprising about 33 to about 55% geraniol, corn mint oil, eugenol, menthone, caryophyllene, water, and sodium lauryl sulfate will meet this limitation. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting (see, e.g., MPEP 2112).
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendments
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 1, 21, and 27 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.
Claims 1, 21, and 27 recite “sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), wherein the SLS is present in the pest control composition in a concentration effective to form and maintain an oil-in-water emulsion” which is unclear as to what concentration constitutes an amount that “forms” and “maintains” an oil-in-water emulsion. Applicant’s instant specification teaches “the surfactant allows the water and the oil component of the composition to be mixed to form an emulsion… various surfactants…for example, sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS, anionic)” ([0095]). Further, the instant specification teaches the compositions including more than one oil, each oil can make up between about 0.1% to about 99% ([00117]) and then broadly teaches sodium lauryl sulfate out of a list of oils ([00118]). Thus, the specification makes no mention as to what concentration is “effective to form and maintain an oil-in-water emulsion” as in instant claim 1 thus it is unclear what constitutes this concentration.
For the purpose of moving prosecution forward, the examiner broadly interprets this to mean any concentration of SLS.
Maintained Rejections Updated for Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 21-24, and 27-30 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over Messina et al. (WO 2011142918A1) in view of Manhas et al. (US 20140220164) and Bessette (US 20070190094) and as evidenced by Chaieb et al. (Chaieb, K., Hajlaoui, H., Zmantar, T., Kahla-Nakbi, A.B., Rouabhia, M., Mahdouani, K. and Bakhrouf, A. (2007), The chemical composition and biological activity of clove essential oil, Eugenia caryophyllata (Syzigium aromaticum L. Myrtaceae): a short review. Phytother. Res., 21: 501-506. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.2124).
A composition (as a pest control/spray composition) comprising geraniol, corn mint oil, eugenol, caryophyllene sodium lauryl sulfate and as water based formulation and/or menthone or isomenthone or menthyl acetate therein is claimed.
As evidenced by Chaieb, clove oil comprises both eugenol and caryophyllene (page 501, table 1)
Messina claims a repellent composition comprising from about 0.05 to about 30 weight percent of geraniol oil and further comprising a mint oil in an amount from about 0.05 to about 15 weight percent (claims 1-3). Messina teaches the mint oil to be corn mint oil (0050). Messina further defines the term “about” to be plus or minus 10% of the stated value (0033). Messina teaches the composition as a pest control spray composition (see 0067 and 0069) and further teaches the composition as a water based emulsion (0113-0114) for the intended purpose of pest control (see entire document including e.g.- title and abstract and claims). Messina further teaches the composition to comprise sodium lauryl sulfate (see 0005, 0008-0010 and claims) and further comprising clove oil (see 0005, 0026 and 0071). Messina further teaches the concentration of sodium lauryl sulfate may be present in the compositions of the present invention from about 0.002% by weight to about 9.3% (see 0055). Messina, however, does not expressly teach the further inclusion of menthone or isomenthone or menthyl acetate therein.
Manhas beneficially teaches a composition (as a pest control spray composition see 0101, claims 11 and 21) comprises or may comprise (often within various preferred embodiments) eugenol (see 0053 and 0060, Tables 1 and 2 and claim 7), menthone (see 0053 and Table 1), isomenthone (see 0053 and Table 1) therein for the intended purpose of pest control (see entire document including e.g.- title and abstract and claims).
Bessette beneficially teaches a composition (as a pest control spray composition see 0020 and 0060) comprises or may comprise (often within various preferred embodiments) menthyl acetate (see 0050 and claims 1 and 6) (therapeutically contained within a pesticide composition) therein for the intended purpose of pest control (see entire document including e.g.- title and abstract and claims).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a composition (as a pest control/spray composition) comprising geraniol, corn mint oil, sodium lauryl sulfate and as water based formulation and/or menthone or isomenthone or menthyl acetate and further comprising clove oil therein-for their well-known individual activities/purposes therein, based upon the teachings provided by the cited references (as fully discussed above) - and for the following reasons. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to combine the instant ingredients for their known benefits since each is well known in the art for the same purpose (for the intended purpose of pest control)) and for the following reasons: In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court reaffirmed "the conclusion that when a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976)). The Supreme Court also emphasized a flexible approach to the obviousness question, stating that the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418; see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is... a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). The Supreme Court thus implicitly endorsed the principle, stated in In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted), that: It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition which is to be used for the very same purpose [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g. determining effective amounts and/or forms and/or combining the same active ingredients would intrinsically obtain an emulsion) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Moreover, the cited references are also relied upon for the reasons discussed above. If not expressly taught thereby, based upon the overall beneficial teaching provided therein with respect to the intended purpose use of pest control in the manner disclosed therein, the adjustment of a particular conventional working condition therein (e.g. determining one or more suitable ranges, including dosing, amounts, and proportions, in which to provide therapeutically effective amounts in the composition), is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization that are well within the purview of the skilled artisan. From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention effective filing date, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/14/2026 have been considered.
In regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejections, Applicant argues that Messina in view of Manhas and Bessette, as evidenced by Chaieb, fails to teach “a concentration effective to form and maintain an oil-in-water emulsion” and the composition is “sprayable, water-based oil-in-water emulsion suitable for application without phase separation during use”. Applicant further argues that Messina does not teach or suggest a stable oil-in-water emulation at greater than or equal to 33% geraniol. Applicant further argues that the emulsion is only stabile at greater than or equal to 33% geraniol. Applicant then argues that the combination of Messina, Manhas, and Bessette lack a reasonable expectation of success due to them failing to teach the stability with high concentrations of geraniol. Applicant continues this argument by stating the instant specification demonstrates “unexpected results”, specifically sustained repellency exceeding commercial comparators, effective spray application, stability during use, and failure or reduced efficiency when formulations components are omitted. Lastly, Applicant argues that “routine optimization” is inapplicable because the cited references do not disclose stability.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that the rejections of record fail to teach “a concentration effective to form and maintain an oil-in-water emulsion, it is noted Applicant’s instant specification teaches “the surfactant allows the water and the oil component of the composition to be mixed to form an emulsion… various surfactants…for example, sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS, anionic)” ([0095]). Further, it is noted that instant specification teaches the compositions including more than one oil, each oil can make up between about 0.1% to about 99% ([00117]) and then broadly teaches sodium lauryl sulfate out of a list of oils ([00118]). Thus, the specification makes no mention as to what concentration is “effective to form and maintain an oil-in-water emulsion” as in instant claim 1 thus it is unclear what constitutes this concentration as outlined in the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection above and therefore, the limitation is broadly interpreted as any concentration. Further, it is noted that Messina teaches the concentration of sodium lauryl sulfate may be present in the compositions of the present invention from about 0.002% by weight to about 9.3% (see 0055), thus Messina teaches the concentration of the instant claims as claimed. Further, in regards to Applicant’s argument that the rejections of record fail to teach the composition is “sprayable, water-based oil-in-water emulsion suitable for application without phase separation during use”. It is noted, as outline above, 'suitable for application without phase separation during use' is future intended use which is not given patentable weight. Thus, absent any evidence illustrating otherwise, Messina in view of Manhas in view of Bessette and as evidenced by Chaieb teaches this limitation.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments against Messina alone, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, it is again noted that Applicant’s instant claims claim a concentration of geraniol of “about 33 up to 50 weight percent” (claims 1, 21, and 27) and Applicant’s instant specification defines “about” as +/- 20% (page 33, [00129]). Therefore, Applicant claims a concentration range of geraniol of 26.4 up to 60%. It is again noted that Messina teaches the pest control composition comprising about 0.05 to 30% geraniol (claims 1-3) and defines about as +/-10% (0033), thus teaching a range of up to 33% geraniol. Therefore, Messina teaches the concentration of geraniol as claimed by the instant claims 1, 21, and 27. Further, it is noted that Applicant’s instant claim to about 33 up to about 50% geraniol is not commensurate with the data found in the instant specification. The instant examples, 4228, 4229, and 4302 in which Applicant’s data is based upon, comprise 5% geraniol (pages 38-39, table 1).
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that the Messina alone or in combination does not teach the stability as the instantly claimed invention, it is noted that although Applicant claims that increased stability at a concentration of greater than 33% geraniol, Applicant’s instant specification makes no mention of the geraniol concentration effecting stability nor does the instant specification provide any data to demonstrate that an alternative concentration of geraniol would provide less stability. Furthermore, the MPEP 2111.03(III) states “applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or specific components which would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention.” In summary, Applicants have failed to properly demonstrate how and which additional components materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed composition. Further, as mentioned above, Applicants claim to use of the composition (i.e. spray) does not provide any patentable weight. Lastly, Applicant has provided no additional reasoning as to why the combination of Messina, Manhas, and Bessette would lack a reasonable expectation of success.
In regards to Applicant’s claim to unexpected results, it is again noted that Applicant has provided no data to support these claims and in contrast the examples in the instant specification are directed towards a concentration outside the range of the instant claims. As outlined above and reiterated here, Applicant’s instant examples, 4228, 4229, and 4302 in which Applicant’s data is based upon, comprise 5% geraniol (pages 38-39, table 1).
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “routine optimization” is inapplicable because the prior art does not teach stability, Applicant is again reminded the MPEP 2111.03(III) states “applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or specific components which would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention.” Applicants have failed to properly demonstrate how and which additional components or concentrations would materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed composition.
In summary, the examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments. The 35 USC § 103 rejection of record is maintained and updated to account for claim amendments.
In regards to the Double Patenting Rejection, Applicant’s approved terminal disclaimer overcomes the rejection of record. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights