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 under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the folding line of claim 10 must be shown in the embodiment of Figs. 1 & 2, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As noted in the most recent arguments (8 April 2026), “Figures 1 and 2 visually depict [the concept of “the adhesive surface 4 forms the wall of the chamber 1”], thus, the species of Figs. 1 & 2 are elected by the currently amended independent claim. Claim 10 requires a folding line, which has not been contemplated in the cited Figs. 1 & 2. These two embodiments have not been contemplated together, and thus constitute new matter.
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 1-7 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by Sandford et al. (US 20170303523 A1, “Sandford”).
For Claim 1, Sandford discloses a device for trapping insects (at least the thirteenth embodiment, Figs. 39-59), comprising:
- an adhesive surface (1364A) for trapping insects ¶0316;
- a light source (1324A) for attracting insects to said adhesive surface ¶0316; and
- a housing defining a chamber (1356A, 1358A) and having an opening (formed between 1358A), the housing comprising a plurality of walls (1356A, 1358A, and the floor shown in Fig. 42), wherein each one of said plurality of walls contacts at least one other of said plurality of walls (as seen in each of Figs. 41-42) and at least one of said plurality of walls is provided with one or more holes or slots (Fig. 41);
wherein:
said light source is placed inside said chamber (Fig. 41), and
said adhesive surface is positioned to at least partially close said opening of the housing and forms an inner wall of said chamber (Fig. 41).
For Claim 2, Sandford discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Sandford further discloses further comprising a reflective surface inside said chamber (“In some embodiments, inside surface 1328 of rear housing 1326 also has a reflective coating (not shown) under adhesive 1340,“ emphasis added, ¶0302).
For Claim 3, Sandford discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Sandford further teaches wherein said adhesive surface is also reflective (“In some embodiments, inside surface 1328 of rear housing 1326 also has a reflective coating (not shown) under adhesive 1340,“ emphasis added, ¶0302 forming a surface which is both reflective and adhering).
For Claim 4, Sandford discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Sandford further discloses wherein said adhesive surface is assembled in the device in a removable manner (as seen in Fig. 41 and discussed in ¶0316, the trap portion 1314A is removable).
For Claim 5, Sandford discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Sandford further teaches wherein said adhesive surface comprises insect attractants (“The materials of trap portion 1314 may also include one or more insect attractants,” ¶0302, the trap portion including the adhesive discussed earlier in ¶0302.
For Claim 6, Sandford discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 5, and Sandford further discloses wherein said attractants are pheromones (“The materials of trap portion 1314 may also include one or more insect attractants… straight chain lepidopteran pheromones,” ¶0302) or1 scents (“The materials of trap portion 1314 may also include one or more insect attractants… or other substances to provide a scent that may further increase the insect-attracting efficiency of insect trap,” ¶0302).
For Claim 7, Sandford discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Sandford further discloses wherein said adhesive surface comprises an assembly element (1360A frame) for the assembly thereof to the rest of the device (Figs. 41-42).
For Claim 9, Sandford discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Sandford discloses wherein said light source is a source of ultraviolet (discussed in ¶0303) or2 blue light.
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandford as applied to claim 1 above.
For Claim 8, Sandford discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 7.
Sandford is silent to wherein said assembly element is a slot housing a complementary protrusion of the device.
However, Sandford discloses the edge of the frame (1362A) being inserted into the side channels (1358A, ¶0316).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the structure of Sandford such that the accepting slot is on the frame and the protrusion is on the device, in order to avoid debris getting sandwiched in the resulting device, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandford as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hautmann et al. (DE 10236531 A1, “Hautmann” as previously provided).
For Claim 10, Sandford discloses the device for trapping insects according to claim 1, and Sandford further teaches wherein said adhesive surface is a sheet ¶0316.
Sandford is silent to wherein said adhesive surface is a sheet provided with at least one folding line.
Hautmann, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure), the sheet provided with at least one folding line (12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the sheet of Sandford with a folding line as taught by Hautmann, in order to provide a difference in topography, garnering more interest from insects, and yielding predictable results.
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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 at 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
2 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
Prosecution Insights