DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 309.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The use of the term Styrofoam, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized in its entirety wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. (e.g. --STYROFOAM™ (foam)--)
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶0028: “hive I open” appears to have a typo
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-8, 11-12, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5: “a collapsible beehive assembly” should read –the collapsible beehive assembly— same for claim 11.
Claims 7, 8, 12, and 17: “is comprised of” should read –comprises--.
Claim 11, line 7: “on top” should read –on top of the plurality of collapsible boxes--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 2 and 12 recite a “pivoting means” without reciting corresponding structure for performing the function of pivoting, and therefore, this term is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to be hinges, brackets, and other means (equivalents thereof) known in the arts of collapsible containers (¶0031 of spec).
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 1-19 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.
The term “suitable” in claims 1 and 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what position may be considered suitable vs unsuitable.
Claim 1 recites “each of the plurality of collapsible boxes configured to receive one or more insulation components,” this limitation being functional language and not actually requiring one or more insulation components as a part of the collapsible beehive assembly. However, in claim 5, the applicant further recites “wherein each of the sidewalls and each of the end walls slidingly engage with the one or more insulation components,” and in claim 6, the applicant recites “wherein the one or more insulation components are selected from the group consisting of Styrofoam, and tar paper.” These limitations are unclear, as it is unclear whether the applicant is attempting to positively claim the insulation components as part of their invention, with details of the insulation components (position/material), or if the applicant is just further limiting the functional language of claim 1 and not actually requiring the insulation components – that the boxes are configured to receive insulation components in a slidable manner and that the boxes are configured to receive Styrofoam or tar paper insulation components. It is noted that if the applicant wishes to positively claim the insulation components, claim 1 language needs to be adjusted. Depending on the applicant’s understanding of the claim (whether the components are recited or not), claim 5 also needs to be modified to read either –wherein each of the sidewalls and each of the end walls are configured to slidingly engage with the one or more insulation components— (not positively recited insulation) or –wherein the one or more insulation components are slidingly engaged with each of the sidewalls and each of the end walls—(positively reciting), or similar variants, as per the applicant’s intention. Similarly with claims 15 and 16.
Claims 3 and 13 recite that “each sidewall and each end wall are impermeable.” The scope of the claim limitation "impermeable" is unclear in light of the specification (¶0028) which could be taken to mean two distinct things:
impermeable to water, in line with the ordinary definition. However, the instant specification is silent to additional elements which would provide more waterproofing. This lack of information suggests a lack of written description, 112a rejection.
impermeable to bees and other insects. If this is the intention, then the solid nature of the wall(s) would meet the claim limitation, impermeable being understood to be impermeable to bees, rather than its ordinary meaning.
Claims 6 and 16 contain the trademark/trade name Styrofoam. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe foam insulation and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the weight is comprised of an aperture and a closure wherein materials are disposed.” It is unclear whether the applicant is requiring materials to be disposed in the weight, the aperture, the closure, or if the applicant is claiming something else entirely. Similarly with claim 17.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the bottom assembly is further comprised of…” The use of “further” in this limitation makes the scope of the claim unclear, as the applicant does not previously attribute any components to the bottom assembly, so it is unclear what ‘further’ refers to, or if the applicant is attempting to claim components not listed. Similarly with claim 19.
Claim 11 recites “each of the plurality of collapsible boxes configured to selectively receive one or more insulation components.” It is unclear how selectively serves to limit the invention in this limitation, and generally whether selectively receive makes this limitation optional.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the beehive frames" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the suitable position" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although claim 11 does recite a suitable position previously, this position refers to the position of the hive cover, not a position of the weight.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first and second sidewalls or the first and second end walls are comprised of a pivoting means permitting the folding of each of the end walls to a storage configuration.” It is unclear how pivoting means on the first and second sidewalls could possibly permit the folding of the end walls.
Claim 14 recites “the storage configuration” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 recites a storage configuration, but claim 14 is not dependent on claim 12.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the one or more insulation components" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is therefore further unclear whether the end walls only need to be configured to slidingly engage with one or more insulation components or if there need to be one or more insulation components slidingly engaged with the end walls.
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.
Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 13-14, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartwright (US 3968531 A), in view of Rahn (US 1116923), hereinafter referred to as Cartwright and Rahn, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Cartwright discloses a collapsible beehive assembly (see Figs 2-4) comprising:
a bottom assembly (bottom board 18, Fig 2) having a plurality of collapsible boxes stacked thereon (supers 16 and 16’, Fig 2; capable of being collapsed given walls of supers are releasably attached to each other; Col 2, lines 65-end), each of the plurality of collapsible boxes configured to house a plurality of beehive frames (functional language: capable of housing frames - see Fig 2), each of the plurality of boxes configured to receive one or more insulation components to winterize a collapsible beehive assembly (functional language: capable of receiving insulation components on outside or inside of boxes – see Fig 2);
an inner cover positioned on top of the plurality of collapsible boxes (inner cover 14, Fig 2); and
a hive cover positioned on top of the inner cover to enclose the beehive frames within the collapsible boxes (top cover 12, Fig 2).
Cartwright fails to disclose a weight positioned on top of the hive cover to retain the hive cover in a suitable position.
Rahn discloses a beehive with a weight, in the form of a liquid feeder (see pan 16 with valve seat 24 and filled bottle 23 with screw cover 25, Fig 8), positioned on top of the hive cover (see Fig 8), the weight configured to retain the hive cover in a suitable position (functional language: the liquid feeder is capable of helping retain the hive cover in a suitable position as its weight added to the cover would increase the forces due to gravity acting on the cover).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a feeder to the top cover of Cartwright, as in Rahn, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to give the bees convenient access to food and drink in order to promote their development (Rahn: Pg 1, lines 15-26).
Regarding claim 7:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the weight is comprised of an aperture (segmental openings 26, Fig 9) and a closure (valve seat 24, Fig 10; Pg 2, lines 65-75) wherein materials are disposed therein (liquid disposed in bottle 23 – see Fig 8; Pg 2, lines 65-75; Pg 1, lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 8:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 above and further discloses wherein the hive cover is comprised of a recessed portion dimensioned to receive and retain the weight (recessed seat 9, Figs 4 and 8; Pg 1, lines 90-95).
Regarding claim 9:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein the materials are a liquid for the bees to drink (Pg 2, lines 65-75; Pg 1, lines 22-23).
Cartwright as modified fails to disclose that the materials are water or sand.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided water for the bees in the weight/liquid feeder, as the liquid, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because water is necessary for bee survival, and bees are known to consume it. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 11:
Cartwright discloses a collapsible beehive assembly (see Figs 2-4) comprising:
a bottom assembly (bottom board 18, Fig 2) having a plurality of collapsible boxes stacked thereon (supers 16 and 16’, Fig 2; capable of being collapsed given walls of supers are releasably attached to each other; Col 2, lines 65-end), each of the plurality of collapsible boxes including a first and second sidewall (shorter sides of super boxes) and a first and second end wall (longer sides of super boxes) arranged to form a rectangle to facilitate the cultivation of a beehive (see Fig 2), each of the plurality of boxes configured to selectively receive one or more insulation components to winterize a collapsible beehive assembly (functional language: capable of selectively receiving insulation components on outside or inside of boxes – see Fig 2);
an inner cover positioned on top and sealed to a top-most collapsible box (inner cover 14, Fig 2); and
a hive cover positioned on top of the inner cover to enclose the beehive frames within the collapsible boxes (top cover 12, Fig 2).
Cartwright fails to disclose a weight positioned on top of the hive cover to retain the hive cover in a suitable position, the weight retained in the suitable position by a recessed portion on the hive cover.
Rahn discloses a beehive with a weight, in the form of a liquid feeder (see pan 16 with valve seat 24 and filled bottle 23 with screw cover 25, Fig 8), positioned on top of the hive cover (see Fig 8), the weight configured to retain the hive cover in a suitable position (functional language: the liquid feeder is capable of helping retain the hive cover in a suitable position as its weight added to the cover would increase the forces due to gravity acting on the cover), the weight retained in the suitable position by a recessed portion on the hive cover (recessed seat 9, Figs 4 and 8; Pg 1, lines 90-95).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a feeder to the top cover of Cartwright, as in Rahn, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to give the bees convenient access to food and drink in order to promote their development (Rahn: Pg 1, lines 15-26).
Regarding claim 13:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 above and further discloses wherein the first and second sidewalls and the first and second end walls are impermeable (see Fig 2).
Regarding claim 14:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 above and further discloses wherein a storage configuration of the box reduces a storage volume greatly in relation to an in-use volume (stacking the separated walls of the box on top of each other would form a storage configuration/volume much less than the volume when the walls are assembled, the storage configuration volume being less than the in-use configuration volume by the volume of the central space formed by the walls when in-use).
Cartwright as modified fails to specifically disclose that the storage volume is specifically between a tenth and a twentieth in relation to the in-use volume.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have dimensioned the box walls such that the ratio between the in-use volume and storage volume is as claimed, in order to provide a box of appropriate height/size based on bee population/activity or frame number/size, the result having a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The examiner further notes that there is no criticality found in the applicant’s disclosure for the claimed range of volume reduction.
Regarding claim 17:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 above and further discloses wherein the weight is comprised of an aperture (segmental openings 26, Fig 9) and a closure (valve seat 24, Fig 10; Pg 2, lines 65-75) wherein materials are disposed therein (liquid disposed in bottle 23 – see Fig 8; Pg 2, lines 65-75; Pg 1, lines 22-23).
Regarding claim 18:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 17 above and further discloses wherein the materials are a liquid for the bees to drink (Pg 2, lines 65-75; Pg 1, lines 22-23).
Cartwright as modified fails to disclose that the materials are water or sand.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided water for the bees in the weight/liquid feeder, as the liquid, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because water is necessary for bee survival, and bees are known to consume it. Further, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 2-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartwright and Rahn, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Seo (KR 200472753 Y1), hereinafter referred to as Seo, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein each of the collapsible boxes is comprised of the following:
a first sidewall and a second sidewall (shorter sides of each box), each sidewall including a handle portion to facilitate carrying of each of the collapsible boxes (ribs seen in Fig 2 may be used as a handle portion); and
a first end wall and a second end wall (longer sides of each box).
Cartwright as modified fails to disclose wherein each end wall includes a pivoting means permitting the folding of each of the end walls to a storage configuration.
Seo discloses beehive frame storage boxes that are collapsible by way of pivoting means on each end wall, that permit folding of each of the end walls to a storage configuration (see Figs 5-7; hinges 34, Fig 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the boxes of Cartwright to be collapsible via pivoting means, in order to allow for a more convenient way of collapsing the boxes for transportation and storage, when not in use, where the hive box components are less likely to get lost or separated from each other, given they remain connected in the collapsed state (¶0001).
Regarding claim 3:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 above and further discloses wherein each sidewall and each end wall are impermeable (see Fig 2 of Cartwright and Fig 5 of Seo).
Regarding claim 4:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 above and further discloses wherein the storage configuration greatly reduces a storage volume in relation to an in-use volume (see Seo Figs 1, 2a-2b, and 7: when in use, the height is the height of the walls when vertical, and the volume includes all the interior empty space of the box where the frames would go; while being stored, the volume is much smaller given the height of the box is made much smaller, the height defined by the base and hinge).
Cartwright fails to specifically disclose that the storage volume is between a tenth and a twentieth in relation to the in-use volume.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have dimensioned the box such that the ratio between the in-use volume and storage volume is as claimed, in order to provide a box of appropriate height/size based on bee population/activity or frame number/size, the result having a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The examiner further notes that there is no criticality found in the applicant’s disclosure for the claimed range of volume reduction.
Regarding claim 12:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Cartwright as modified fails to disclose wherein the first and second sidewalls or the first and second end walls are comprised of a pivoting means permitting the folding of each of the end walls to a storage configuration.
Seo discloses beehive frame storage boxes that are collapsible by way of pivoting means on each end wall, that permit folding of each of the end walls to a storage configuration (see Figs 5-7; hinges 34, Fig 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the boxes of Cartwright to be collapsible via pivoting means, in order to allow for a more convenient way of collapsing the boxes for transportation and storage, when not in use, where the hive box components are less likely to get lost or separated from each other, given they remain connected in the collapsed state (¶0001).
Claims 5-6, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartwright and Rahn, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of BBK (NPL ~ posts by user BadBeeKeeper in Beesource forum), hereinafter referred to as BBK, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 5:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Cartwright as modified fails to disclose, as best understood, wherein each of the sidewalls and each of the end walls slidingly engage with the one or more insulation components.
BBK contemplates the addition of one or more insulation components about each sidewall/end wall of boxes which form a beehive, the insulation components slidingly engaging with each of the sidewalls/end walls (see boxed info and images in attached NPL).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added insulation components to the walls of the beehive of Cartwright, as in BBK, the insulation components slidingly engageable with the walls the result have a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to help shelter the hive from extreme winds or temperatures, when necessary to prevent bee death.
Regarding claim 6:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 above and further discloses wherein the one or more insulation components are selected from the group consisting of Styrofoam and tar paper (see pages 1-2, 7, and 9).
Regarding claim 15:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
Cartwright as modified fails to disclose, as best understood, wherein each of the sidewalls and each of the end walls slidingly engage with the one or more insulation components.
BBK contemplates the addition of one or more insulation components about each sidewall/end wall of boxes which form a beehive, the insulation components slidingly engaging with each of the sidewalls/end walls (see boxed info and images in attached NPL).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added insulation components to the walls of the beehive of Cartwright, as in BBK, the insulation components slidingly engageable with the walls the result have a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to help shelter the hive from extreme winds or temperatures, when necessary to prevent bee death.
Regarding claim 16:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 above and further discloses wherein the one or more insulation components are selected from the group consisting of Styrofoam and tar paper (see pages 1-2, 7, and 9).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cartwright and Rahn, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, further in view of Ferguson (US 20110306272), hereinafter referred to as Ferguson, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 10:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Cartwright as modified fails to disclose wherein the bottom assembly is further comprised of a varroa monitoring tray disposed within a varroa monitoring tray opening of the bottom assembly
Ferguson discloses a bottom assembly for a beehive with a monitoring tray disposed within a varroa monitoring tray opening in the bottom assembly (trays 1701, Fig 17; ¶0090).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bottom board of the hive of Cartwright as in Ferguson, with trays for varroa monitoring, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification as the trays allow for monitoring of infestation levels of hives and would help trap waste substances (¶0090).
Regarding claim 19:
Cartwright as modified discloses the limitations of claim 11 above.
Cartwright as modified fails to disclose wherein the bottom assembly is further comprised of a varroa monitoring tray disposed within a varroa monitoring tray opening of the bottom assembly
Ferguson discloses a bottom assembly for a beehive with a monitoring tray disposed within a varroa monitoring tray opening in the bottom assembly (trays 1701, Fig 17; ¶0090).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the bottom board of the hive of Cartwright as in Ferguson, with trays for varroa monitoring, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification as the trays allow for monitoring of infestation levels of hives and would help trap waste substances (¶0090).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Beesource (NPL – Forum posts about weighting beehive cover), Chen (CN 2853642 Y), Kim (KR 20150083717), Matias (US 6938789), Soleimani (WO 2017/158400), Powell (US 1911466), Frey (US 2018/0116182), and Reynolds (US 032484).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642