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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 22 October 2025 has been entered.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation is: “assembly element” in claim 7, which is interpreted in view of “an assembly element, such as a slot 5 on one side for facilitating the assembly thereof, such that a protrusion 6 is housed inside said slot 5 for placing the adhesive surface 4 in the use position thereof.” found on page 4 of the instant disclosure.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, & 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by Burrows et al. (US 6108965 A, “Burrows”).
For Claim 1, Burrows discloses a device for trapping insects (title, disclosure), comprising:
- an adhesive surface (35 on 31 & 341) for trapping insects (Column 4, lines 53-63, hereinafter referred to as “Column:line”);
- a light source (26, 27) for attracting insects to said adhesive surface (5:18-20); and
PNG
media_image1.png
438
198
media_image1.png
Greyscale
- a chamber (21, 31, 34, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55) formed by a plurality of walls (21, 31, 34, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55), wherein each one of said plurality of walls contacts at least one other of said plurality of walls2 (21 at least contacts 34, Fig. 3; 31 at least contacts 34, and vice versa, as they are made from the same sheet of material; 55 at least contacts 51-54, and vice versa, as it is the front plate of the housing made up of each of the dependent walls) and at least one of said plurality of walls is provided with one or several more holes or slots (56 and/or 57 in 55);
wherein:
said light source (26, 27) is placed inside said chamber (Fig. 3), and
said adhesive surface is provided on a face of at least one of said plurality of walls and forms an inner wall of said chamber (35 provided on elements 31 & 34, each of 31 & 34 reads on a wall of the claimed chamber, Fig. 3).
For Claim 4, Burrows discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Burrows further discloses wherein said adhesive surface is assembled in the device in a removable manner (discussed in relation to both the release paper/adhesive sheet 35 being removable from the base, and the insert 30 made up of 31 & 34 removable from the housing 50, made up of 51-55, 4:40-5:27).
For Claim 7, Burrows discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Burrows further discloses wherein said adhesive surface comprises an assembly element for the assembly thereof to the rest of the device (each protrusion of 32, 33 is accepted within the slot(s) formed within base 20 and/or housing 50).
For Claim 8, Burrows discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 7, and Burrows further discloses wherein said assembly element is a slot housing a complementary protrusion of the device (each protrusion of 32, 33 is accepted within the slot(s) formed within base 20 and/or housing 50).
For Claim 9, Burrows discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Burrows further discloses wherein said light source is a source of ultraviolet (6:40-65) or3 blue light.
For Claim 10, Burrows discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Burrows further discloses wherein said adhesive surface is a sheet provided with at least one folding line (between 31 and one of: 32-34).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrows as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hautmann et al. (DE 10236531 A1, “Hautmann” as previously provided).
For Claim 2, Burrows discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1.
Burrows is silent to further comprising a reflective surface inside said chamber.
Hautmann, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure), further comprising a reflective surface inside a chamber (as previously discussed, the device of Hautmann discloses a chamber in the same manner as at least Figs. 7-8 of the instant invention; “The catch area is covered by a white cardboard formed to have a high reflectivity of that emitted by the light source To achieve light. The adhesive becomes very thin on the catch area applied so that this has a beige color.” see translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the adhesive sheet of Burrows with a reflective surface as taught by Hautmann, in order to increase the effectiveness of the attractive light source, as is well known in the art and yielding predictable results.
For Claim 3, Burrows discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1.
Burrows is silent to wherein said adhesive surface is also reflective.
Hautmann, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure), said adhesive surface is also reflective (“The catch area is covered by a white cardboard formed to have a high reflectivity of that emitted by the light source To achieve light. The adhesive becomes very thin on the catch area applied so that this has a beige color.” see translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the adhesive sheet of Burrows with a reflective surface as taught by Hautmann, in order to increase the effectiveness of the attractive light source, as is well known in the art and yielding predictable results.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burrows as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 5425197 A).
For Claim 5, Burrows discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1.
Burrows is silent to wherein said adhesive surface comprises insect attractants.
Smith, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) wherein said adhesive surface comprises insect attractants (4:14-16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the adhesive sheet of Burrows to contain pheromones as taught by Smith, in order to include yet another attractant to direct insects to the appropriate area of the trap, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 6, Burrows in view of Smith the device for trapping insects according to claim 5, and Smith further discloses wherein said attractants are pheromones (4:14-16) or4 scents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to present claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
RE the argument that, because element 35 is removably secured in the base of the insect trap 10, it cannot read on the limitation of “provided on face of at least one of the plurality of walls” - the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as this argument focuses on an aspect not relied upon for this limitation. Note “The inside surfaces of the opposed side panels 32,33, the bottom panel 31, and the back panel 34 of the insect trapping insert 30 are coated with an adhesive coating or sticky substance 35.” 4: 53-56, previously provided.
In arguendo, the removal of the release paper, discussed in at least 5:7-10, does not amount to a separate element in relation to the chamber, as it would serve as a singular element with the “backer” or element 31 and/or 34 until the removal thereof. This is pertinent to claim 4.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached on 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Note that the interpretation of the plurality of walls has been changed.
2 Interpretation note: the inclusion of a plurality of walls renders the claims no longer generic on at least Figs. 7-8.
3 Interpretation note: the alternative phrasing “or” merely requires one of the limitations to satisfy the metes and bounds of the claim.
4 Interpretation note: the alternative phrasing “or” merely requires one of the limitations to satisfy the metes and bounds of the claim.