Language selection

Search

Patent 2248038 Summary

Third-party information liability

Some of the information on this Web page has been provided by external sources. The Government of Canada is not responsible for the accuracy, reliability or currency of the information supplied by external sources. Users wishing to rely upon this information should consult directly with the source of the information. Content provided by external sources is not subject to official languages, privacy and accessibility requirements.

Claims and Abstract availability

Any discrepancies in the text and image of the Claims and Abstract are due to differing posting times. Text of the Claims and Abstract are posted:

  • At the time the application is open to public inspection;
  • At the time of issue of the patent (grant).
(12) Patent: (11) CA 2248038
(54) English Title: METHODS OF USING EMU OIL AND ACTIVE FRACTIONS THEREOF AS AN INSECT REPELLENT
(54) French Title: PROCEDES D'UTILISATION D'HUILE D'EMU ET DE FRACTIONS ACTIVES DE CELLE-CI COMME REPULSIF CONTRE LES INSECTES
Status: Term Expired - Post Grant Beyond Limit
Bibliographic Data
(51) International Patent Classification (IPC):
  • A61K 08/98 (2006.01)
  • A61K 08/92 (2006.01)
  • A61Q 17/02 (2006.01)
(72) Inventors :
  • MANKER, DENISE C. (United States of America)
  • MARRONE, PAMELA GAIL (United States of America)
  • JUDD, STEPHEN (United States of America)
(73) Owners :
  • BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP
  • THE PERKIN ELMER CORPORATION
  • APPLERA CORPORATION
(71) Applicants :
  • BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP (United States of America)
  • THE PERKIN ELMER CORPORATION (United States of America)
  • APPLERA CORPORATION (United States of America)
(74) Agent: BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP
(74) Associate agent:
(45) Issued: 2006-02-21
(86) PCT Filing Date: 1997-03-13
(87) Open to Public Inspection: 1997-09-18
Examination requested: 2000-09-21
Availability of licence: N/A
Dedicated to the Public: N/A
(25) Language of filing: English

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT): Yes
(86) PCT Filing Number: PCT/US1997/004101
(87) International Publication Number: US1997004101
(85) National Entry: 1998-09-02

(30) Application Priority Data:
Application No. Country/Territory Date
08/616,708 (United States of America) 1996-03-15
08/746,894 (United States of America) 1996-11-18

Abstracts

English Abstract


This invention provides a method for repelling biting insects such as
mosquitoes by topically applying to the skin of a subject emu
oil, fractions of emu oil obtained by flash chromatography or a composition
comprising emu oil and citronella. Also provided are methods
for repelling biting insects by topically applying diluted fractions of emu
oil. The invention also provides a compound useful in repelling
biting insects having the NMR spectrum of Figure 3, that is ultraviolet light
sensitive and is reactive to vanillin/sulfuric acid. Also provided
are compounds useful in repelling biting insects having the NMR spectrum of
Figure 4, that is not ultraviolet light sensitive and is not
reactive to vanillin/sulfuric acid. A composition for repelling biting insects
comprising emu oil and citronella is further provided.


French Abstract

Procédé permettant de repousser les insectes piqueurs tels que les moustiques par l'application topique sur la peau d'un sujet d'huile d'ému, de fractions d'huile d'ému obtenues par chromatographie éclair ou d'une composition constituée d'huile d'ému et de citronnelle. Sont également décrits des procédés permettant de repousser les insectes piqueurs par une application topique de fractions diluées d'huile d'ému. L'invention porte également sur un composé servant à repousser les insectes piqueurs présentant le spectre de résonance magnétique nucléaire de la figure 3, c'est-à-dire sensibles à la lumière ultraviolette et réagissant à la vanilline et à l'acide sulfurique. Sont également décrits des composés servant à repousser les insectes piqueurs présentant le spectre de résonance magnétique nucléaire de la figure 4, c'est-à-dire non sensibles à la lumière ultraviolette et ne réagissant pas à la vanilline et à l'acide sulfurique. Une composition servant à repousser les insectes piqueurs comprenant de l'huile d'ému et de citronnelle est également décrite.

Claims

Note: Claims are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.


CLAIMS:
1. A method for repelling biting insects comprising the step of topically
applying emu oil to the skin of a subject.
2. A composition for repelling biting insect comprising emu oil and
citronella.
3. The composition of claim 2, wherein the composition comprises about 30
drops of 100% oil of citronella per 25 mL of pure emu oil.
4. A method for repelling biting insects comprising the step of topically
applying a composition comprising emu oil and citronella to the skin of a
subject.
9

Description

Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.


CA 02248038 1998-09-02
WO 97/33594 PCT/US97/04i01
METHODS OF USING EMU OIL AND ACTIVE FRACTIONS THEREOF
AS AN INSECT REPELLENT
TRCHNICAL FIELD
This invention is in the field of topical insect repellents. More
particularly,
effective, natural and safe mosquito repellents comprising emu oil, active
fractions of emu
oil and compositions comprising emu oil and citronella are provided.
BACKGROUND ART
This invention relates to a method of repelling insects, and more particularly
to a
method for repelling mosquitoes using a natural ingredient, emu oil and active
fractions
thereof.
Known natural oils that repel insects include rotundial {from the leaves of
Vitex
rotundifolia, Watanabe K et al. (1995) Biotech Biochem 59(10):1979-1980);
citronella oil
(e.g. U.S. Patent No. 5,346,922); eucalyptus oil (Watanabe et al. (1993) J.
Agric. Food
Chem. 41:2164-2166); neem oil (Sharma VP et al. {1993) .7 American Mosquito
Control
Association 9(3):359-360); and oil of Hedeoma pulgioides, oil of anisum and
oil of
chrysanthemum (U.S. Patent No. 5,208,209).
However, the compound most widely used as a topically-applied insect repellent
is
N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET). When applied to children's skin, DEET has been
implicated in causing convulsions. DEFT is also known to react with certain
plastics and
synthetic rubber and cause skin irritation (Watanabe et al. (1993), supra). As
a result of
these problems and other side effects, New York State had banned products
comprised of
100% DEFT.
The active fractions of the naturally occurring insect repellents are also
largely
unknown. Methods of resolving heterogeneous compounds into chemical species
are well-
known in the art. For example, silica gel flash chromatography provides for
high speed
resolution of organic compounds (see, e.g., U.S. Patent No. 4,293,422). After
separation,
the eluted fractions can be recovered and tested for the activity of interest.

CA 02248038 2003-10-28
Accordingly, there remains a need for a natural, safe substance which acts to
repel
biting insects when topically applied to the skin. The active fractions) of
such a substance
is also needed.
SUMMARY OF T1~~'E INVENTION
The present invention provides a method for repelling biting insects
comprising the
step of topically applying emu oil, active fractions of emu oil or
compositions comprising
emu oil and citronella to the skin of a subject.
BR_TFF DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGL1RFS
Figure 1 shows the number of mosquitoes present on filter paper treated with
water,
sucrose or sucrose and diluted emu oil (sample 776) at 2.5 minute intervals.
The solid
triangles show water-treated filter paper controls. The open squares show
sucrose-treated
filter paper. The solid squares show sucrose-treated paper overlaid with
undiluted sample
776. The open triangles show sucrose-treated paper overlaid with a 50%
dilution of
sample 776. The open circles show sucrose-treated paper overlaid with sample
776 diluted
to 25%.
Figure 2 shows the number of mosquitoes present on filter paper treated with
water,
sucrose, or sucrose and fractions of sample 776 at 5 minute intervals. The
solid squares
show water-treated paper. The open squares show sucrose-treated paper
overlaid. The
solid triangles show sucrose-treated paper overlaid with a sample 776. The
open triangles
show sucrose-treated paper overlaid with fraction F 1. The solid circles show
sucrose-
treated paper overlaid with fraction F2.
Figure 3 shows the'H NMR spectrum of the F1 fraction of emu oil.
Figure 4 shows the 1H NMR spectrum of the F2 fraction of emu oil.
Figure 5 shows the average number of mosquitoes biting test limbs per ten
minute
intervals. .
Throughout this application, various publications, patents and published
patent
applications are referred to by an identifying citation.
2

CA 02248038 2003-10-28
The present invention provides a method of repelling biting insects using emu
oil, a
natural and safe substance. In a preferred embodiment, pure emu oil is applied
to the skin.
In another preferred embodiment, diluted emu oil is topically applied. In yet
another
preferred embodiment, an active fraction of emu oil is applied to the skin. In
a further
preferred embodiment, a composition comprising emu oil and citronella is
applied to the
skin.
The following examples are presented as a further guide to the practitioner of
ordinary skill in the art, and are not to be construed as limiting the
invention in any way.
Z'he effect of emu oil on freatency of mosaui~ lands a_n_d bites
To determine if emu oil was an effective mosquito repellent, pure emu oil
(Zoogen,
Inc., Davis, Ca) was applied to one hand of a volunteer. The other hand was
left untreated.
Each hand was placed in a nylon mesh cage containing mosquitoes (Aedes
aegypti) and the
number of mosquitoes which landed and/or bit in 30 seconds was recorded. The
experiment was performed in duplicate. Results of the experiments were
averaged and are
summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
emu-oil treated handuntreated hand
(lands/bites) (lands/bites)
Test 1 0/0 11/11
Test 2 1 /0 26/26
These results demonstrate that topically applied emu oil is an effective
mosquito
repellent. It greatly reduces the number of mosquitoes which land, and
completely
eliminates biting.
3

CA 02248038 1998-09-02
WO 97133594 PCT/LTS97/04101
ldxample 2 ,
The effectiveness of emu oil as a mosguito repellent over time
To determine how long topically applied emu oil maintains eff cacy as a
mosquito '
repellent, the treated hand was exposed to a cage of mosquitoes at 15, 30 and
60 minutes
after application. The number of lands and bites were compared at each time
point with
the untreated hand. Results from duplicate experiments were averaged and are
presented
in Table 2.
Table 2
Time after applicationNumber of lands Number of lands on
on emu- untreated hand
oil treated hand
4 18
30 2 12
60 10 12
These results show that emu oil remains an effective mosquito repellent for at
least
30 minutes.
l~xample 3
The effectiveness of diluted emu oiI
To determine the effectiveness of diluted emu oil, the emu oil was diluted
with
ethyl acetate to a fixed percentage, applied to one hand and inserted into a
mosquito cage.
The number of lands were recorded. The experiments were performed in duplicate
at each
dilution level. Results are shown in Table 3.
r
4

CA 02248038 1998-09-02
WO 97/33594 PCT/LTS97/04101
Table 3
Percent emu Number of landsNumber of landsAverage Number
oil Exp't 1 Exp't 2 of lands
0 10 9 9.5
0.50 10 10 10
1.0 5 5 5
5.0 6 4 5
10.0 4 5 4.5
25.0 2 I 1.5
50.0 1 1 I
75.0 1 1 1
100.0 0 0 0
These results demonstrate that dilute amounts of emu oil effectively repel
mosquitoes. At
a dilution as low as I %, emu oil reduces by one-half the number of mosquitoes
which land.
At 25% emu oil, the number of mosquito lands drops to one-tenth of lands on an
untreated
hand. Thus, emu oil is an effective insect repellent at a concentration of 1 %
or higher.
Exam In a 4
Fractionation of emu oil and the effectiveness of the fractions
An 850 mg sample (776) of emu oil was steam-distilled and fractionated using
silica flash chromatography (Baker silica gel, 40 p.m), essentially as
described in Still et al.
(1978) J. Organic Chem. 43:2923. Two major components of the sample were
eluted from
the column with 100% hexane and 25% ethyl acetate/hexane. Fractions were
analyzed by
thin layer chromatography (TLC) on silica plates developed with 50%
hexane/ethyl
acetate. Components on the TLC plates were observed by exposing the plates to
UV light
(indicating UV chromophores) and spraying plates with vanillin/sulfuric acid
(indicating
the presence of higher alcohols, sterols, phenols or essential oils). 430 mg
of a clear oil,
termed F2, was found to be UV active and reactive to vanillin/sulfuric acid.
The second
component, 380 mg of a pale yellow oil termed F1, was not UV active and did
not stain
5

CA 02248038 1998-09-02
WO 97/33594 PCT/US97/04101
with vanillin. F1 and F2 fractions were analyzed by 1H NMR (300 MHz, CDCl3) as
shown
in Figures 3 and 4.
A mosquito repellent bioassay was performed by treating wedges of filter paper
,
with sucrose overlaid with either an aliquot of the crude sample 776, F I or
F2. Filter paper
treated with water or sucrose served as controls. Samples of F 1 and F2 were
tested at full- '
strength or diluted with corn oil to 50% or 25% of full-strength. At regular
time intervals,
the number of mosquitoes which landed and fed on the wedges of filter paper
was
recorded. Results are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
As shown in Figure 1, even diluted to 25% of full-strength, the crude sample
{776)
greatly reduces the number of mosquitoes landing on the sucrose paper. In
addition,
Figure 2 shows that both the F 1 and F2 fractions of sample 776 at full-
strength and diluted
to 50% or 25% of full-strength were effective in repelling mosquitoes when
compared to
the sucrose-treated control.
The effect of emu oil as a tick repellent
To determine if emu oiI was an effective tick repellent, a test subject's
hands were
treated with emu oil while the fingers of the hand were left untreated. As a
positive
control, Ultrathon (3M, Minneapolis, MN) was applied to the hand and the
forgers were
left untreated. An untreated hand was used as a negative control. Unfed
nymphal Western
Black-legged ticks were placed on the fingers of the hands and observed as
they climbed
toward the treated or untreated skin of the hand. Ticks crossing onto the
treated skin were
scored as "crossing." Those not crossing were scored as "repelled." Ticks were
removed
after a single score was recorded. Repellency is calculated as the proportion
of all trials in
which a tick is repelled. For example, 8 repels in 10 trials provides a
repellency of 80%.
In this study, each subject tested a tick at 15 minute intervals for 2 hours
and 15 minutes.
The results are shown below:
Negative control - untreated skin - 0% repellency
Positive control Ultrathon (3M) - 70% repellency
Emu oil - 40% repellency
There wa.s no indication that the repellency declined over the two hour test
period.
6

CA 02248038 1998-09-02
WO 97/33594 PCT/US97/04101
$xample 6
The effect of a composition of emu oil and citronella on freauencv of mosauito
bites
To determine if citronella would enhance the mosquito repelling effect of
emu oil, the repellent activity of emu oil alone and a composition comprising
emu oil and
citronella (30 drops of 100% oil of citronella/25 mL of pure emu oil) were
compared to a
positive control, Ultrathion~ (3M, Minneapolis, MN, approximately 31% DEET).
Oil of
citronella, Cymbopagon nardus, was obtained from Aura Cacia, Weaverville, CA.
I O Testing was conducted in the Florida Keys, namely Big Pine Key and Little
Pine
Key. During testing, the air temperature was 24-26°C, with clear skies
and slight wind.
Aedes taeniorhynchus accounted for >99% of mosquitoes that approached or
attacked
subjects.
In the first study, three subjects applied pure emu oil, one subject applied
Ultrathon, and two subjects served as negative controls. In the second study,
oil of
citronella was added to the emu oil. Three subjects applied the composition
comprising
emu oil and citronella, two subjects applied Ultrathon, and two subjects
served as negative
controls. Six of the participants were employees of the Monroe County,
Florida, Mosquito
Control Service. Treatments were evenly divided among leg and arm surfaces.
The
surface areas of treated surfaces were calculated for each subject in advance
of the
application. The test materials were applied at dosage rate of approximately
3 mLJ650 square centimeters of surface area.
Test subjects counted and recorded bites in a series of IO minute periods.
Counts
were recorded on data sheets. In the first study, the testing period was two
hours, with
12 consecutive 10 minute recording periods. In the second study, the test was
interrupted
during two brief windy periods by the need to move to more productive locales
(i.e., places
- with higher biting rates) within the test sites. As a result, the total
testing period including
the interruption was two hours and twenty-five minutes.
Ambient biting rates were measured throughout the study by the subjects with
untreated control Limbs. The average ambient biting rates were sufficient for
testing in
both studies and ranged between 17 and 70 bites per 10 minute interval (mean =
38.5; see
Figure 5).
7

CA 02248038 1998-09-02
WO 97/33594 PCT/US97104101
Both emu oiI and the positive control, Ultrathon, repelled mosquitoes over the
test
periods. A composition comprising emu oil and oil of citronella was
particularly effective
as a repellent (see Figure S). The repellent properties of emu oil alone
reduced the number
of bites to an average of 5.7 bites per ten minutes. The composition
comprising emu oiI
S and citronella approximated the positive control, Ultrathon, with 0.8 bites
per ten minutes
for the emu oil/citronella composition compared to 0.2 bites per ten minutes
for Ultrathion.
Over the testing period, emu oil, a composition comprising emu oil and
citronella and
Ultrathon substantially reduced biting rates from Aedes tae~ciorhynchus. A
composition
comprising emu oil and citronella was much more effective than emu oil alone
and offers
_protection comparable to that offered by mosquito repellents registered by
the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. No pattern of diminishing repellency over
time was
observed for emu oil and citronella.
Having now fully described this invention, it will be appreciated by those
skilled in
1 S the art that the same can be performed within a wide range of equivalent
parameters,
concentrations and conditions without departing from the spirit and scope of
the invention
and without undue experimentation. While this invention has been described in
connection
with specific embodiments thereof, it will be understood that it is capable of
further
modifications. This application is intended to cover any variations, uses, or
adaptations of
the inventions following, in general, the principles of the invention and
including such
departures from the present disclosure as come within known or customary
practice within
the art to which the invention pertains and as may be applied to the essential
features
hereinbefore set forth as follows the scope of the appended claim.
8

Representative Drawing
A single figure which represents the drawing illustrating the invention.
Administrative Status

2024-08-01:As part of the Next Generation Patents (NGP) transition, the Canadian Patents Database (CPD) now contains a more detailed Event History, which replicates the Event Log of our new back-office solution.

Please note that "Inactive:" events refers to events no longer in use in our new back-office solution.

For a clearer understanding of the status of the application/patent presented on this page, the site Disclaimer , as well as the definitions for Patent , Event History , Maintenance Fee  and Payment History  should be consulted.

Event History

Description Date
Inactive: Expired (new Act pat) 2017-03-13
Inactive: IPC expired 2017-01-01
Letter Sent 2014-09-16
Inactive: IPC deactivated 2011-07-29
Inactive: IPC deactivated 2011-07-29
Inactive: IPC assigned 2009-06-10
Inactive: IPC assigned 2009-06-10
Inactive: IPC assigned 2009-06-10
Inactive: IPC removed 2009-06-10
Inactive: IPC removed 2009-06-10
Inactive: First IPC assigned 2009-06-10
Inactive: IPC assigned 2009-06-10
Inactive: IPC expired 2009-01-01
Inactive: Office letter 2006-11-10
Inactive: Corrective payment - s.78.6 Act 2006-11-03
Inactive: IPC from MCD 2006-03-12
Inactive: IPC from MCD 2006-03-12
Grant by Issuance 2006-02-21
Inactive: Cover page published 2006-02-20
Pre-grant 2005-12-06
Inactive: Final fee received 2005-12-06
Letter Sent 2005-11-29
Amendment After Allowance (AAA) Received 2005-10-19
Inactive: Single transfer 2005-09-30
Change of Address or Method of Correspondence Request Received 2005-09-30
Inactive: Applicant deleted 2005-06-20
Notice of Allowance is Issued 2005-06-06
Letter Sent 2005-06-06
Notice of Allowance is Issued 2005-06-06
Letter Sent 2005-05-25
Letter Sent 2005-05-25
Letter Sent 2005-05-25
Letter Sent 2005-05-25
Letter Sent 2005-05-25
Letter Sent 2005-05-25
Inactive: Delete abandonment 2005-04-29
Inactive: Abandoned - No reply to Office letter 2005-03-16
Inactive: Single transfer 2005-03-15
Letter Sent 2004-03-09
Extension of Time for Taking Action Requirements Determined Compliant 2004-03-09
Inactive: Extension of time for transfer 2004-02-25
Inactive: Approved for allowance (AFA) 2003-11-27
Amendment Received - Voluntary Amendment 2003-10-28
Inactive: S.30(2) Rules - Examiner requisition 2003-05-14
Amendment Received - Voluntary Amendment 2003-04-30
Extension of Time for Taking Action Requirements Determined Compliant 2003-03-27
Letter Sent 2003-03-27
Inactive: Extension of time for transfer 2003-03-13
Letter Sent 2002-04-11
Extension of Time for Taking Action Requirements Determined Compliant 2002-04-11
Inactive: Extension of time for transfer 2002-03-18
Inactive: Entity size changed 2002-02-12
Extension of Time for Taking Action Requirements Determined Compliant 2001-04-18
Letter Sent 2001-04-18
Inactive: Extension of time for transfer 2001-03-16
Amendment Received - Voluntary Amendment 2001-01-15
Letter Sent 2000-10-19
All Requirements for Examination Determined Compliant 2000-09-21
Request for Examination Requirements Determined Compliant 2000-09-21
Request for Examination Received 2000-09-21
Extension of Time for Taking Action Requirements Determined Compliant 2000-03-23
Letter Sent 2000-03-23
Inactive: Extension of time for transfer 2000-03-09
Inactive: Transfer information requested 1999-12-16
Inactive: Transfer information requested 1999-12-16
Inactive: Single transfer 1999-11-17
Inactive: First IPC assigned 1998-12-07
Inactive: IPC assigned 1998-12-07
Classification Modified 1998-12-04
Inactive: IPC assigned 1998-12-04
Inactive: Courtesy letter - Evidence 1998-11-27
Inactive: Notice - National entry - No RFE 1998-11-05
Application Received - PCT 1998-11-02
Application Published (Open to Public Inspection) 1997-09-18

Abandonment History

There is no abandonment history.

Maintenance Fee

The last payment was received on 2005-11-25

Note : If the full payment has not been received on or before the date indicated, a further fee may be required which may be one of the following

  • the reinstatement fee;
  • the late payment fee; or
  • additional fee to reverse deemed expiry.

Patent fees are adjusted on the 1st of January every year. The amounts above are the current amounts if received by December 31 of the current year.
Please refer to the CIPO Patent Fees web page to see all current fee amounts.

Fee History

Fee Type Anniversary Year Due Date Paid Date
Basic national fee - small 1998-09-02
MF (application, 2nd anniv.) - small 02 1999-03-15 1998-12-18
Registration of a document 1999-11-17
MF (application, 3rd anniv.) - small 03 2000-03-13 1999-12-16
Extension of time 2000-03-09
Request for examination - small 2000-09-21
MF (application, 4th anniv.) - small 04 2001-03-13 2001-01-08
Extension of time 2001-03-16
MF (application, 5th anniv.) - standard 05 2002-03-13 2002-01-17
Extension of time 2002-03-18
MF (application, 6th anniv.) - standard 06 2003-03-13 2003-03-12
Extension of time 2003-03-13
MF (application, 7th anniv.) - standard 07 2004-03-15 2003-12-23
Extension of time 2004-02-25
MF (application, 8th anniv.) - standard 08 2005-03-14 2005-02-10
Registration of a document 2005-09-30
MF (application, 9th anniv.) - standard 09 2006-03-13 2005-11-25
Final fee - standard 2005-12-06
2006-11-03
MF (patent, 10th anniv.) - standard 2007-03-13 2007-02-15
MF (patent, 11th anniv.) - standard 2008-03-13 2008-03-07
MF (patent, 12th anniv.) - standard 2009-03-13 2009-03-06
MF (patent, 13th anniv.) - standard 2010-03-15 2010-02-17
MF (patent, 14th anniv.) - standard 2011-03-14 2011-02-15
MF (patent, 15th anniv.) - standard 2012-03-13 2012-02-24
MF (patent, 16th anniv.) - standard 2013-03-13 2013-02-28
MF (patent, 17th anniv.) - standard 2014-03-13 2014-02-28
Registration of a document 2014-08-27
MF (patent, 18th anniv.) - standard 2015-03-13 2015-02-18
MF (patent, 19th anniv.) - standard 2016-03-14 2016-02-17
Owners on Record

Note: Records showing the ownership history in alphabetical order.

Current Owners on Record
BAYER CROPSCIENCE LP
THE PERKIN ELMER CORPORATION
APPLERA CORPORATION
Past Owners on Record
DENISE C. MANKER
PAMELA GAIL MARRONE
STEPHEN JUDD
Past Owners that do not appear in the "Owners on Record" listing will appear in other documentation within the application.
Documents

To view selected files, please enter reCAPTCHA code :



To view images, click a link in the Document Description column. To download the documents, select one or more checkboxes in the first column and then click the "Download Selected in PDF format (Zip Archive)" or the "Download Selected as Single PDF" button.

List of published and non-published patent-specific documents on the CPD .

If you have any difficulty accessing content, you can call the Client Service Centre at 1-866-997-1936 or send them an e-mail at CIPO Client Service Centre.


Document
Description 
Date
(yyyy-mm-dd) 
Number of pages   Size of Image (KB) 
Description 2003-10-27 8 359
Claims 2003-10-27 1 13
Abstract 1998-09-01 1 57
Description 1998-09-01 8 366
Claims 1998-09-01 2 42
Drawings 1998-09-01 5 45
Reminder of maintenance fee due 1998-11-15 1 110
Notice of National Entry 1998-11-04 1 192
Request for evidence or missing transfer 1999-09-06 1 114
Acknowledgement of Request for Examination 2000-10-18 1 178
Commissioner's Notice - Application Found Allowable 2005-06-05 1 162
Courtesy - Certificate of registration (related document(s)) 2005-05-24 1 104
Courtesy - Certificate of registration (related document(s)) 2005-05-24 1 104
Courtesy - Certificate of registration (related document(s)) 2005-05-24 1 114
Courtesy - Certificate of registration (related document(s)) 2005-05-24 1 114
Courtesy - Certificate of registration (related document(s)) 2005-11-28 1 104
Courtesy - Certificate of registration (related document(s)) 2014-09-15 1 104
Prosecution correspondence 1999-11-16 1 25
PCT 1998-09-01 6 231
Correspondence 1998-11-05 1 35
Correspondence 1999-12-15 1 12
Correspondence 2000-03-08 1 38
Correspondence 2000-03-22 1 9
Correspondence 2001-03-15 1 34
Correspondence 2001-04-17 1 14
Correspondence 2002-03-17 1 33
Correspondence 2002-04-10 1 15
Correspondence 2003-03-12 1 34
Correspondence 2003-03-26 1 15
Correspondence 2004-02-24 1 27
Correspondence 2004-03-08 1 17
Correspondence 2005-09-29 1 34
Correspondence 2005-12-05 1 26
Correspondence 2006-11-09 1 15