DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after August 12, 2024, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ claimed invention filed on 08/12/2024 in the matter of Application N° 18/800,224. Said documents are entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Thus, claims 1-20 represent all claims currently under consideration.
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites “preferably”, which is indefinite because it is unclear whether the preferred option is an actual claim limitation.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enan et al. (US20150087516A1), in view of Enan et al. (20120251641A1), Emulsions containing essential oils, their components or volatile semiochemicals as promising tools for insect pest and pathogen management, Alejandro Lucia, Eduardo Guzmá, and Souter et al. (US20030060379A1), and Bond et al. (US11284624B2).
Enan et al. disclose a pest control composition comprising sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) as a component of the composition. specifically, Enan et al. teach formulations in which SLS is present at concentrations including 5% (Blend 113) and 1% (Blend 114) (See paragraph 0046, and Table 1). The presently claimed concentration of about 1% to about 12.5% by weight overlaps the concentrations expressly taught by Enan et al. because the disclosed values of 1% and 5% fall squarely within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to select an SLS concentration within this disclosed range, including concentrations between about 1% and about 12.5%, as such selection would have amounted to nothing more than the optimization of a result-effective variable to achieve the desired emulsifying and pest-control properties while involving only routine experimentation. Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising geraniol as an active ingredient. Specifically, Enan et al. teach formulations containing Geraniol Fine FCC at concentrations of 5% and 8%, both of which fall within the claimed range of about 0.25% to about 10% by weight. Although Enan et al. also discloses concentrations of 30%, 0.1%, 0.06%, and 0.3% for various geraniol-containing formulations, the concentrations of 5%, 8%, and 0.3% overlap the claimed range. Because Enan et al. expressly discloses concentrations of geraniol that fall within the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ geraniol in an amount of about 0.25% to about 10% by weight as an obvious selection from the concentrations taught by Enan et al. selecting a concentration within the disclosed range would have constituted routine optimization of a result-effective variable to obtain the desired pest control efficacy (See paragraph 0046, Table 1). Geraniol may be mixed with 10%, 20%, 30% or 40%, or more nerol (See paragraph 0032), and 10-40% geraniol (see paragraph 0033). Enan et al. discloses thyme oil. Thyme oil is a natural product that can be extracted from certain plants, including species from the Labiatae family (See paragraph 0031). Thyme oil red discloses from 0.1 to about 6% (Blend 93), and thyme oil white is from 4 to about 25% (Blend 33), and thyme oil white discloses from 0.1 to about 20% (Blend 1), (See paragraph 0046, Table 1). Citronella oil discloses from 0.08 to 0.6% (Blend 85), (See paragraph 0046, Table 1). Enan et al. also disclose wherein lemongrass oil is from 10 to about 70%. Enan et al. also disclose Isopropyl alcohol from about 0.1 to about 10% (Blend 51), (See paragraph 0046). Water from about 45 to about 99% (Blend 75), (See paragraph 0046, Table 1).
Regarding claim 2, Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising geraniol in combination with a second active ingredient, such as nerol. Enan et al. further teaches that, where geraniol is employed, it may be mixed with 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40% or more nerol, while geraniol is present in corresponding formulations at concentrations such as 10-40% and 0.1-4% (Blend 2, Geraniol Fine FCC). These disclosures demonstrate that Enan et al. contemplate varying the relative amounts of nerol and geraniol depending on the desired formulation and pest control performance (See paragraph 0032, 0033, and 0046, table 1).
Claim 2 further recites that the weight ratio of the second active ingredient to geraniol is about 1:12 to about 6:1. Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising geraniol in combination with a second active ingredient, such as nerol. Enan et al. further teach that geraniol may be designated by the amount of geraniol it contains, for example, a 60/40 mixture of geraniol, and disclose that geraniol may be mixed with 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% or more nerol. A 60/40 geraniol/nerol mixture corresponds to a nerol-to-geraniol weight ratio of 40:60 (2:3 or approximately 1:1.5), which falls within the claimed range of about 1:12 to about 6:1 (See paragraph 0032, and 0033).
Accordingly, Enan et al. teach a relative weight ratio that overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the disclose relative proportions of geraniol and the second active ingredient in the pest control composition, since selecting a ratio within the disclosed range constitutes no more than the routine optimization of a result-effective variable in the absence of evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding claim 3, Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising sodium lauryl sulfate. Specifically, Enan et al. teach formulations containing sodium lauryl sulfate at 5% and 30% (Blend 113), 0.08% and 1% (Blend 114), and 2% to 8% (Blend 118). The disclosed concentrations of 5% and 2% to 8%, including 4%, 5%, 6%, 7%, and 8%, overlap the claimed range of about 4% to about 8% by weight (See paragraph 0046, table 1).
Enan et al. further discloses pest control compositions comprising geraniol in combination with a second active ingredient, such as nerol, and teach relative proportions including a 60/40 geraniol mixture, corresponding to a second active ingredient-to-geraniol weight ratio of approximately 1:1.5, as well as mixtures containing 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40% nerol. These disclosures teach or at least suggest selecting relative proportions of the second active ingredient and geraniol that overlap the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ sodium lauryl sulfate in an amount of about 4% to about 8% by weight together with a second active ingredient-to-geraniol weight ratio within the claimed range, as these parameters represent result-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation to achieve the desired pest control performance. In the absence of evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed combination of concentrations and ratios, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious.
Enan et al. further discloses pest control compositions comprising geraniol at concentrations of 10% to 40% by weight. Enan et al. also teaches combining geraniol with a second active ingredient such as nerol, in varying relative amounts including 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40% nerol (See paragraph 0032). These disclosures demonstrate that Enan et al. contemplate varying the relative proportions of geraniol and the second active ingredient to obtain the desired pest-controlled efficacy. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a weight ratio of the second active ingredient to geraniol falling within the claimed range through routine optimization of these result-effective variables.
Regarding claim 4, Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising sodium lauryl sulfate at concentrations including 5% and 30% (Blend 113) as well as 2% to 8% (Blend 118), (See paragraph 0046, Table 1). The disclosed range of 2% to 8% overlaps the claimed range of about 6% to about 10%, encompassing concentrations of 6%, 7%, and 8%. Accordingly, Enan et al. teach sodium lauryl sulfate concentrations that overlap the claimed range.
Enan et al. further discloses pest control compositions comprising geraniol in combination with a second active ingredient, such as nerol, and teach geraniol concentrations of 10% to 40% together with nerol concentrations of 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%. These disclosed concentrations correspond to second active ingredient-to-geraniol weight ratios such as 1:2, 1:1, 2:1, 3:1, and 4:1, which fall within the claimed range of about 1:2 to about 6:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ sodium lauryl sulfate in an amount of about 6% to about 10% by weight together with a second active ingredient-to-geraniol weight ratio within the claimed range, since these values are expressly taught or overlap the teachings of Enan et al. and represent routine optimization of result-effective variables for achieving the desired pest control efficacy.
Regarding claim 5, Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising triethyl citrate. Specifically, Enan et al. teach triethyl citrate at concentrations of about 0.1% to about 5% (Blend 2) and about 0.1% to about 25% (Blend 21), (See paragraph 0046, table 1). The disclosed range of about 0.1% to about 25% encompasses the claimed range of about 0.1% to about 12%, while the disclosed range of about 0.1% to about 5% further overlaps the lower portion of the claimed range.
Accordingly, Enan et al. expressly teach triethyl citrate concentrations that encompass or overlap the claimed concentration range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ triethyl citrate in an amount within the claimed range, as selecting a concentration within a disclosed range constitutes no more than routine optimization of a result-effective variable absent evidence that the claimed range is critical or yields unexpected results.
Regarding claims 6, and 15, Enan et al. disclose that there has been increased research into the deleterious effects of chemical pesticides, with corresponding efforts to develop safer alternatives to conventional commercial pesticides. Enan et al. further teach that such research has focused on the use of natural products, including combinations of chemicals obtained from plants, such as essential oils, as pest control agents. Thus, Enan et al. expressly suggests pest control compositions utilizing natural active ingredients in place of synthetic chemical pesticides (See paragraph 0004).
Enan et al. further disclose embodiments in which mineral oil is present at 0%, thereby teaching formulations that are free of mineral oil. Although Enan et al. also discloses embodiments containing mineral oil, the express disclosure of a 0% mineral oil formulation would have suggested omitting mineral oil when desired.
Additionally, Enan et al. disclose that ingredients such as fragrances, colorants, pigments, dyes, and bath oils may be included in the composition. Because these ingredients are disclosed as optional formulation components rather than required ingredients, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that they may be omitted, thereby resulting in a composition substantially free of colorants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to formulate a pest control composition that is substantially free of synthetic pesticides, mineral oil, and colorants, as suggested by the teachings of Enan et al. favoring naturally derived pesticidal compositions, expressly disclosing embodiments containing 0% mineral oil, and identifying colorants as optional ingredients.
However, regarding claim 6, Lucia et al. disclose that the applicant recites compositions substantially free of colorants. Lucia et al. identify dyes as optional formulation ingredients rather than required components (See Abstract, and page 6, lines 166-171).
Regarding claim 7, Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising sodium lauryl sulfate at concentrations including about 5% to about 30% (Blend 113), about0.08% to about 1% (Blend 114), and about 2% to about 8% (Blend 118) (See paragraph 0046, Table 1). Enan et al. further discloses exemplary concentrations for the active ingredients in the pest control compositions and teach that the ingredient amounts disclosed in Table 1 may be varied over a wide range. Specifically, Enan et al. state that the listed ingredient amounts may be present at 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 40%, 50%, etc. of the disclosed low or high amounts, provided that the concentration of any ingredient does not exceed 99.99% of the total blend.
Enan et al. expressly recognizes that the relative amounts of the ingredients, including sodium lauryl sulfate and the active ingredients, may be adjusted to obtain the desired formulation characteristics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a weight ratio of total active ingredient to sodium lauryl sulfate within the claimed range of about 1:3 to about 1:1, since the relative concentrations of these ingredients constitutes result-effective variables that Enan et al. expressly teach may be varied through routine formulation optimization. In the absence of evidence that the claimed ratio is critical or yields unexpected results, the claimed ratio would have been obvious variation of the compositions disclosed by Enan et al.
Regarding claim 8, Enan et al. disclose the pest control compositions comprising organic acids and their salts suitable for formulation. Specifically, Enan et al. disclose malic acid, acetic acid (including vinegar, which contains up to approximately 8% acetic acid), calcium acetate monohydrate (a salt of acetic acid), humic acid potassium salt, and humic acid sodium salt (salts of humic acid) (See Table 3). Thus, Enan et al. expressly teaches several of the pH adjusting agents recited in claim 8, including malic acid, acetic acid, humic acid, and salts of acetic acid and humic acid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate one or more of the disclosed acids or their salts as pH adjusting agents in the pest control composition because Enan et al. expressly identify these compounds as suitable formulation ingredients. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over Enan et al.
Regarding claim 9, Enan et al. disclose a pest control composition that may include a fixed oil, which is typically a non-volatile, non-scented plant oil, thereby reducing the amount of volatile organic compounds present in the formulation (See paragraph 0013). Enan et al. further teaches varying the relative concentrations of formulation ingredients to obtain the desired composition. it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate the composition with 3wt% or less volatile organic compounds by increasing the proportion of the disclosed non-volatile fixed oil and correspondingly reducing volatile components as a matter of routine optimization, absent evidence that the claimed VOC level is critical or yields unexpected results.
Regarding claim 10, Enan et al. disclose essential oil-based pest control microemulsions that are suitably transparent. Enan et al. further teach that transparency is evaluated by measuring the amount of light transmitted through the emulsion using a clear glass cuvette and emphasize that stable, transparent emulsions are maintained even after dilution (See paragraph 0107). Thus, Enan et al. recognize transparency and reduced coloration as desirable optical characteristics of the disclosed compositions.
Because the specification identifies the CIELAB b* coordinate as a quantitative measure of yellow coloration, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the transparent emulsions disclosed by Enan et al. would exhibit relatively low yellow coloration. Measuring the color of the transparent emulsion using a known colorimetric technique, such as the CIELAB color scale, would have been an obvious matter of routine characterization of the known composition.
Regarding claim 11, Enan et al. disclose that hydrophobic pesticidal compounds, such as essential oils, are formulated as emulsions that permit admixture with water to form a spray for pest control. Enan et al. further discloses that microemulsions are clear, uniform liquid mixtures comprising oil, water, and a surfactant, wherein the surfactant lowers the surface tension of the liquid to facilitate spreading. Enan et al. explain that considerable attention has been directed toward microemulsion-based pesticidal formulations and that microemulsion formulations are an emerging standard for formulating hydrophobic pesticides in water-based carriers. Because Enan et al. teach dispersing hydrophobic oils in a continuous aqueous phase using a surfactant, the disclosed formulations constitute or at least suggest oil-in-water emulsions. Furthermore, the disclosed microemulsions are a type of micellar dispersion, as they comprise oil, water, and surfactant organized into a stable dispersed system.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to formulate the pest control composition as an oil-in-water emulsion or a micellar dispersion, as expressly taught and suggested by Enan et al.
However, Lucia et al. disclose that oil-in-water nano/microemulsions are promising formulations for essential oils and their components in pest control. Lucia et al. further explains that increasing the surfactant concentration promotes the formation of finer oil droplets dispersed in the aqueous phase, thereby forming oil-in-water emulsions or microemulsions suitable for delivering hydrophobic active ingredients (See Abstract, and page 6, lines 166-171). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate the essential oil-based pest control composition of Enan et al. as an oil-in-water emulsion or microemulsion with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising sodium lauryl sulfate at concentrations including about 5% and 30% (Blend 113), about 0.08% and 1% (Blend 114), and about 2% to about 8% (Blend 118). These disclosures overlap the claimed range of about 1% to about 12.5%.
Enan et al. further disclose geraniol at concentrations including about 0.3%, 5%, 8%, and 10% to about 40%, thereby teaching concentrations that overlap the claimed range of about 0.25% to about 10%.
Enan et al. additionally discloses second active ingredients including peppermint oil, corn mint oil, cinnamon oil, geranium oil, lemongrass oil, eugenol, nerol, and linalool, and teach using these active ingredients in combination with geraniol. The disclosed concentrations and combinations encompass amounts that overlap the claimed range of about 0.25% to about 6%. Enan et al. further disclose triethyl citrate at concentrations of about 0.1% to about 5% (Blend 2) and about 0.1% to about 25% (Blend 21), thereby encompassing the claimed range of about 0.1% to about 12%.
Enan et al. also discloses aqueous pest control formulations comprising water as the principal carrier, including amounts corresponding to about 25% to about 99% by weight of the pest control composition (See paragraph 0046, Table 1). The disclosed range encompasses the claimed range of about 60% to about 95% by weight. Accordingly, Enan et al. expressly teaches water concentrations that encompass the claimed limitation.
Enan et al. also discloses combining geraniol with a second active ingredient, such as nerol, and teach relative proportions including geraniol concentrations of 10% to 40% and nerol concentrations of 10%, 20%, 30%, or 40%. These disclosed concentrations correspond to second active-ingredient-to-geraniol weight ratios that overlap the claimed range of about 1:12 to about 6:1. Accordingly, Enan et al. teach or at least suggest the claimed weight ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to formulate the claimed pest control composition comprising about 1% to about 12.5% sodium lauryl sulfate, about 0.25% to about 10% geraniol, about 0.25% to about 6% of the second active ingredient, about 0.1% to about 12% triethyl citrate, and about 60% to about 95% water, wherein the weight ratio of the second active ingredient to geraniol is about 1:12 to about 6:1, because Enan et al. expressly disclose or encompass each of the claimed concentration ranges and relative proportions. Selecting values within the disclosed ranges would have constituted no more than the routine optimization of result-effective variables in the absence of evidence demonstrating criticality or unexpected results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enan et al. in view of Souter et al.
Claim 13 recites that the pest control composition has a pH of about 5.0 to about 8.0. Enan et al. disclose the claimed pest control composition comprising sodium lauryl sulfate, geraniol, essential oils, surfactants, and aqueous carriers, but do not expressly disclose the claimed pH range.
However, Souter et al. disclose aqueous insecticidal compositions and teach that aqueous solutions are highly preferred. Souter et al. further teach that the pH of the aqueous solutions should be such as to allow the soap to remain in its salt form and to be solubilized, and that the pH is preferably neutral or alkaline, i.e., from about 7 to about 11, more preferably from about 9 to about 10. The disclosed pH range of about 7 to about 11 overlaps the claimed range of about 5.0 to about 8.0 (See paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the pH of the aqueous pest control composition of Enan et al. to a value within the overlapping range taught by Souter et al. in order to maintain the active ingredients in solution and provide a stable aqueous formulation. Selecting a pH within the overlapping range constitutes routine optimization of a result-effective variable in the absence of evidence that the claimed pH range is critical or produces unexpected results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enan et al. in view of Souter et al.
Claim 13 recites that the pest control composition has a pH of about 5.0 to about 8.0. Enan et al. disclose the claimed pest control composition comprising sodium lauryl sulfate, geraniol, essential oils, surfactants, and aqueous carriers, but do not expressly disclose the claimed pH range.
However, Souter et al. disclose aqueous insecticidal compositions and teach that aqueous solutions are highly preferred. Souter et al. further teach that the pH of the aqueous solutions should be such as to allow the soap to remain in its salt form and to be solubilized, and that the pH is preferably neutral or alkaline, i.e., from about 7 to about 11, more preferably from about 9 to about 10. The disclosed pH range of about 7 to about 11 overlaps the claimed range of about 5.0 to about 8.0 (See paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the pH of the aqueous pest control composition of Enan et al. to a value within the overlapping range taught by Souter et al. in order to maintain the active ingredients in solution and provide a stable aqueous formulation. Selecting a pH within the overlapping range constitutes routine optimization of a result-effective variable in the absence of evidence that the claimed pH range is critical or produces unexpected results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C, 103 as being unpatentable over Enan et al. in view of Bond et al.
Enan et al. disclose the claimed essential oil-based pest control composition comprising sodium lauryl sulfate, geraniol, a second active ingredient, triethyl citrate, and water. However, Enan et al. do not expressly disclose the turbidity of the composition.
Bond et al. disclose a microemulsion containing essential oils and report that the formulation is a very clear product, as evidenced by a Formazin Turbidity unit (FTU) of 1.5 to 4.0 (See page 11, lines 26-29). FTU values are equivalent to NTU values in the low turbidity range relevant here.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to formulate the essential oil-based pest control composition of Enan et al. to possess a similarly low turbidity, as taught by Bond et al., because low turbidity is indicative of a stable, clear microemulsion that facilitates uniform dispersion of the hydrophobic active ingredients and improves the overall formulation characteristics. Accordingly, the resulting composition would have exhibited a turbidity within the claimed range of greater than about 0 NTU and less than about 20 NTU.
Lucia et al. explains why oil-in-water microemulsions are desirable for essential oil pesticides.
Bond et al. demonstrates that such microemulsions can achieve very low turbidity (1.5-4.0 FTU/NTU).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enan et al. in view of Lucia et al.
Claim 16 recites that the pest control composition of claim 12 is packaged in a transparent or translucent container.
Enan et al. disclose essential oil-based pest control microemulsion formulations and further teach that the emulsion is suitably transparent. Enan et al. explain that the transparency of the emulsion may be evaluated by measuring the amount of light transmitted through the emulsion when placed in a clear glass cuvette having a thickness of 20 mm (See paragraph 0107). Thus, Enan et al. recognize the importance of a transparent vessel for evaluating and observing the transparency of the emulsion.
Lucia et al. further discloses that oil-in-water nano/microemulsions containing essential oils are optically homogeneous, transparent, non-birefringent isotropic liquids exhibiting good long-term stability and low viscosity. Lucia et al. teach that such transparent microemulsions are desirable formulations for essential oil-based pest control compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to package the transparent microemulsion of Enan et al., as further evidenced by the transparent formulations described by Lucia et al., in a transparent or translucent container to permit visual observation of the formulation, including its clarity, homogeneity, and stability, and to facilitate quality inspection and detection of phase separation during storage and use.
Regarding claim 17, Enan et al. recites that one or more of the ingredients are food use safe, preferably all of the ingredients are food use safe.
Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising emulsions and microemulsions and teach that the invention is not limited to the specific formulations described therein. Enan et al. further disclose that suitable formulation ingredients include those identified in the Federal Insecticide, Food Use Listing, and Non-Food Use Listing for pesticide products. Specifically, Table 3 identifies ingredients that are included on the Food-Use Listing, thereby teaching the use of ingredients suitable for food-use pesticide formulations. Such food-use listings identify inert ingredients that may be used in pesticide products intended for food-use applications.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to formulate the pest control composition using one or more food use safe ingredients, as expressly taught and suggested by Enan et al., in order to provide a composition suitable for food-use pesticide applications.
Regarding claim 18, Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising essential oils formulated as emulsions that permit admixture with water to form a spray for application to pests or to surfaces and environments inhabited by pests. Enan et al. further teach that the disclosed compositions may be applied directly to a host or to an area in which the host is located, thereby expressly contemplating spray application of the disclosed formulations (See paragraph 0005).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the pest control composition as a spray composition, as expressly taught by Enan et al. for convenient and effective application to target pests and their environments.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enan et al. in view of Lucia et al.
Regarding claim 19, Enan et al. disclose the claimed pest control composition comprising sodium lauryl sulfate, geraniol, a second active ingredient, triethyl citrate, and water, but do not expressly disclose the claimed viscosity range.
Lucia et al. disclose oil-in-water microemulsions containing essential oils, wherein the obtained microemulsions comprise droplets having a mean size of about 16-66 nm and exhibit a viscosity ranging from about 230 cps to about 300 cps. The viscosity disclosed by Lucia et al. falls within the claimed viscosity range of about 1 cps to about 300 cps.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to formulate the pest control composition of Enan et al. to have a viscosity within the range taught by Lucia et al., because such viscosities are suitable for stable oil-in-water microemulsion formulations and facilitate uniform application, including spray applications. Accordingly, selecting a viscosity within the disclosed overlapping range would have constituted no more than routine optimization of a result effective variable in the absence of evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Enan et al. in view of Bond et al.
Enan et al. disclose pest control compositions comprising essential oil active ingredients, including peppermint oil and corn mint oil, in concentrations that encompass or overlap the claimed concentration range. Enan et al. further teach that the disclosed emulsions may employ various essential oils and are not limited to the specific formulations exemplified.
Bond et al. further disclose active ingredients eligible for minimum-risk pesticide products, including spearmint oil, thereby teaching the use of spearmint oil as an alternative essential oil active ingredient in pesticidal compositions (See table 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute or incorporate spearmint oil into the pest control composition of Enan et al., as taught by Bond et al., because both references are directed to essential oil-based pest control formulations utilizing naturally derived active ingredients. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected such substitution to provide an effective pest control composition while employing another recognized minimum risk pesticide active ingredient. Furthermore, selecting a concentration of about 0.50% to about 3% from the concentration ranges disclosed by Enan et al. would have constituted routine optimization of a result-effective variable in the absence of evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Barber whose telephone number is (703) 756-5302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/KIMBERLY BARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights