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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 30, 31, and 33-37 (claims 30 and 31 are drawn to non-elected Species I and II; claims 33-37 are drawn to non-elected Species I) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/22/2024.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species IV in the reply filed on 01/22/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully submits that Species IV, Figs. 9a to 9c should be examined together with Species III, Figs. 6 to 8 and 10a to 10d…”. This is found persuasive because Species IV as shown and disclosed in Figs. 9a-c merely add the features of the shroud 330 and paddle 354 to what is already shown and disclosed in Figs. 6-8 and 10a-d.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 25, 26, 28, 29, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boharski 4,641,456 in view of Goebel 4,550,524, Bruno et al. 2009/0151222 or Shurden 4,766,692 or Langli 4,852,294, and Kruger 3,394,488 or Gabry 4,161,080 or Marshall 1,473,242.
In regard to claim 25, Boharski discloses a rodent trap comprising: a trigger (36, 38, 42, 44, 46) arranged to be triggered by a rodent; a kill mechanism (20, 60, 62, 64) arranged to kill a rodent in response to the trigger being triggered by the rodent, the kill mechanism comprising an impactor (60) arranged to strike the rodent (see Fig. 2) but not killing it (animal remains alive after being struck by 60), and a shroud (generally 20), and being arranged to kill a rodent when the head of the rodent is within the space formed by the shroud (see Fig. 2); a trapdoor (54, 56) positioned adjacent to or position to a side of the kill mechanism (20, 60, 62, 64), having a closed position (see Fig. 2) and an open position (see Fig. 4); a storage area (48) positioned on the other side of the trapdoor to the kill mechanism (see Fig. 4); wherein the rodent trap is arranged such that when a rodent is killed by the kill mechanism, the rodent corpse is pushed through the trapdoor into the storage area by the impactor (see col. 2, lines 39-43), but does not disclose an impactor arranged to strike the rodent, thereby killing it. Goebel discloses an impactor (22) arranged to strike the rodent, thereby killing it (when bait is taken, partition 22 is caused to move to its innermost position and at the same time destroying the rodent in its path of movement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the impactor of Boharski such that it is arranged to strike the rodent, thereby killing it in view of Goebel in order to provide a mechanism by which the rodents are not merely captured but instead are assuredly killed so that they cannot escape and continue to inhabit the area. Boharski and Goebel do not disclose the rodent being killed by the impactor by neck shear. Bruno et al., Shurden, and Langli disclose the rodent being killed by the impactor (see the V-shaped impactor in the middle of the trap 100 in Fig. 1A which impacts the rodent’s neck OR guillotine member 32 OR striker 12) by neck shear (broken neck; see para. 0022 OR strikes the neck of the mouse to inflict fatal injuries and spinal dislocation; see col. 3, lines 41-48 OR the striker will hit the animal’s neck and the blow will have a horizontal component which will pull the head away from the rest of the body and increase the probability of death; see col. 3, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the impactor of Boharski and Goebel such that the rodent is killed by the impactor by neck shear in view of Bruno et al., Shurden, or Langli in order to specifically utilize the impactor to target a point of weakness in the body of the rodent that will result in a quick death of the rodent upon impact. Boharski also does not disclose the shroud being configured and dimensioned such that the head of the rodent is maintained in position and orientation within the shroud while the rodent is killed by the kill mechanism. Kruger, Gabry, and Marshall disclose the shroud (18 OR 90 OR 7) being configured and dimensioned such that the head of the rodent (28 OR see Figs. 1-2 which shows the bait 91 deep inside 90 such that the animal must reach inside 90 OR 7 causes access to the trigger/bait holder to be had only from the front end such that the animal places itself directly in the path of movement of cross bar 3 of the bail) is maintained in position and orientation within the shroud while the rodent is killed by the kill mechanism (2 OR 26 OR 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shroud of Boharski such that it is configured and dimensioned such that the head of the rodent is maintained in position and orientation within the shroud while the rodent is killed by the kill mechanism in view of Kruger, Gabry, or Marshall in order to provide a guide for the rodent that will specifically position the head of the rodent within the intended strike zone of the kill mechanism so as to ensure that the rodent is killed when interacting with the trap.
In regard to claim 26, Boharski discloses wherein the trapdoor (54, 56) is biased to return to the closed position (see col. 2, lines 10-13).
In regard to claim 28, Boharski discloses wherein the trigger (36, 38, 42, 44, 46) comprises bait (46) to attract a rodent.
In regard to claim 29, Boharski discloses a reset mechanism (see col. 1, lines 9-10) arranged to reset the kill mechanism (20, 60, 62, 64) after a rodent has been killed by the kill mechanism.
In regard to claim 45, Boharski and Kruger, Gabry, or Marshall disclose wherein the shroud tapers and reduces in size from the front entrance of the shroud toward the rear of the shroud (see Figs. 1-5 of Kruger, Figs. 1-2 of Gabry, and Figs. 1-4 of Marshall), but do not disclose wherein the shroud forms a cone-shaped space. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shroud such that it forms a cone-shaped space since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results or is critical to the design and it appears that the shroud of Boharski and Kruger, Gabry, or Marshall would perform equally as well with a shroud formed as a cone-shaped space, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily form the shroud as a cone-shaped space since a cone shape evenly tapers in width about the entire circumference of the shroud so as to precisely position the head of the rodent along the axis of the cone to ensure that the kill mechanism strikes at the precise location at the head of the rodent to instantly kill the rodent.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boharski 4,641,456 in view of Goebel 4,550,524, Bruno et al. 2009/0151222 or Shurden 4,766,692 or Langli 4,852,294, and Kruger 3,394,488 or Gabry 4,161,080 or Marshall 1,473,242 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of GB 2,503,863 to Thorne.
In regard to claim 32, Boharski discloses wherein the kill mechanism comprises a solenoid (64) and solenoid coil (65) pushing a pusher plate (60) via pusher rod (62), but does not disclose wherein the kill mechanism comprises a compressed-air powered bolt. Thorne discloses in another embodiment of the rodent trap (202) shown in Figs. 7-10 wherein the kill mechanism comprises a compressed-air powered (via compressed gas supply 232) bolt (wall 228, single stroke air cylinder 230, ram 231). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the kill mechanism which comprises a compressed-air powered bolt of Thorne Figs. 7-10 for the solenoid, solenoid coil, pusher plate, and pusher rod of Boharski in order to provide an alternative type power source for the bolt which can be placed without requirement that the trap be plugged into an electrical outlet to provide power.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boharski 4,641,456 in view of Goebel 4,550,524, Bruno et al. 2009/0151222 or Shurden 4,766,692 or Langli 4,852,294, and Kruger 3,394,488 or Gabry 4,161,080 or Marshall 1,473,242 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Kim 5,953,853 or Ronnau 6,088,948 or Muller et al. 7,530,195.
In regard to claim 40, Boharski does not disclose wherein the storage area comprises a removable bag into which the rodent corpse passes. Kim, Ronnau, and Muller et al. disclose wherein the storage area (120 OR 2, 11, 12 OR 22) comprises a removable bag (108 OR 13 OR see col. 2, lines 54-58) into which the rodent corpse passes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage area of Boharski such that it comprises a removable bag into which the rodent corpse passes in view of Kim, Ronnau or Muller et al. in order to provide a sanitary means for allowing the user to handle the captured rodents so as to avoid direct contact with the animals (see col. 7, lines 1-6 of Kim OR see col. 5, lines 50-55 of Ronnau OR see col. 2, lines 54-58 of Muller et al.).
Claim(s) 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2,503,863 to Thorne in view of Bruno et al. 2009/0151222 or Shurden 4,766,692 or Langli 4,852,294, and Kruger 3,394,488 or Gabry 4,161,080 or Marshall 1,473,242.
In regard to claim 25, Thorne discloses a rodent trap comprising: a trigger (138) arranged to be triggered by a rodent; a kill mechanism (118, 132, 136, 142, 144, 146) arranged to kill a rodent in response to the trigger being triggered by the rodent, the kill mechanism comprising an impactor (wall 136) arranged to strike a rodent, thereby killing it (rodent walks on pressure sensitive pad 138 and this completes a circuit, thus triggering a relay and causing the motor 142 to operate and flywheel 144 to rotate which moves wall 136 quickly toward the rodent and crushes it against flap 126 and the rodent dies almost instantaneously), and a shroud (132), and being arranged to kill a rodent when the head of the rodent is within the space formed by the shroud (rodents enters 132 via hole 118; see Fig. 4); a trapdoor (126) positioned adjacent to or positioned to a side of the kill mechanism (118, 132, 136, 142, 144, 146), having a closed position (see Fig. 3) and an open position (when rodent is pushed through 126); a storage area (104) positioned on the other side of the trapdoor to the kill mechanism (see Fig. 3); wherein the rodent trap is arranged such that when a rodent is killed by the impactor (136; wall 136 moves to kill the rodent instantly; also the system monitors when compressed air pressure is too low thereby preventing proper operation of the trap in killing the animal instantly), the rodent corpse is pushed through the trapdoor into the storage area by the impactor (rodent is pushed through 126 and into 104 via 136), but does not disclose the rodent being killed by the impactor by neck shear. Bruno et al., Shurden, and Langli disclose the rodent being killed by the impactor (see the V-shaped impactor in the middle of the trap 100 in Fig. 1A which impacts the rodent’s neck OR guillotine member 32 OR striker 12) by neck shear (broken neck; see para. 0022 OR strikes the neck of the mouse to inflict fatal injuries and spinal dislocation; see col. 3, lines 41-48 OR the striker will hit the animal’s neck and the blow will have a horizontal component which will pull the head away from the rest of the body and increase the probability of death; see col. 3, lines 16-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the impactor of Thorne such that the rodent is killed by the impactor by neck shear in view of Bruno et al., Shurden, or Langli in order to specifically utilize the impactor to target a point of weakness in the body of the rodent that will result in a quick death of the rodent upon impact. Thorne does not disclose the shroud being configured and dimensioned such that the head of the rodent is maintained in position and orientation within the shroud while the rodent is killed by the kill mechanism. Kruger, Gabry, and Marshall disclose the shroud (18 OR 90 OR 7) being configured and dimensioned such that the head of the rodent (28 OR see Figs. 1-2 which shows the bait 91 deep inside 90 such that the animal must reach inside 90 OR 7 causes access to the trigger/bait holder to be had only from the front end such that the animal places itself directly in the path of movement of cross bar 3 of the bail) is maintained in position and orientation within the shroud while the rodent is killed by the kill mechanism (2 OR 26 OR 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shroud of Thorne such that it is configured and dimensioned such that the head of the rodent is maintained in position and orientation within the shroud while the rodent is killed by the kill mechanism in view of Kruger, Gabry, or Marshall in order to provide a guide for the rodent that will specifically position the head of the rodent within the intended strike zone of the kill mechanism so as to ensure that the rodent is killed when interacting with the trap.
In regard to claim 26, Thorne discloses wherein the trapdoor (126) is biased to return to the closed position (gravity biases 126 into closed position since 126 is hinged to side wall 112 above an upper edge of aperture 124).
In regard to claim 28, Thorne discloses wherein the trigger (138) comprises bait (food placed in second area 134 which is near 138) to attract a rodent.
In regard to claim 29, Thorne discloses a reset mechanism (The electrical circuit, after triggering, takes a few seconds to reset, in which time, the wheel rotates, a couple of times, more slowly, before coming to a rest. In these further rotations, the rodent is pushed through the flap 126, into the second section 104. After which, the retracting spring 147 retracts and pulls the wall 136 back along the runner 148 to its starting position) arranged to reset the kill mechanism (118, 132, 136, 142, 144, 146) after a rodent has been killed by the kill mechanism.
In regard to claim 32, Thorne discloses in the embodiment of the rodent trap (106) shown in Figs. 1-6 wherein the kill mechanism comprises an electric motor powered (142 powered by a 12 volt car battery 140) bolt (wall 136, rod 146), but does not disclose wherein the kill mechanism comprises a compressed-air powered bolt. Thorne discloses in another embodiment of the rodent trap (202) shown in Figs. 7-10 wherein the kill mechanism comprises a compressed-air powered (via compressed gas supply 232) bolt (wall 228, single stroke air cylinder 230, ram 231). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the kill mechanism which comprises a compressed-air powered bolt of Thorne Figs. 7-10 for the electric motor powered bolt of Thorne Figs. 1-6 in order to provide an alternative power source for the bolt which can also be recharged similarly to the battery by merely refilling the compressed gas supply.
In regard to claim 45, Thorne and Kruger, Gabry, or Marshall disclose wherein the shroud tapers and reduces in size from the front entrance of the shroud toward the rear of the shroud (see Figs. 1-5 of Kruger, Figs. 1-2 of Gabry, and Figs. 1-4 of Marshall), but do not disclose wherein the shroud forms a cone-shaped space. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shroud such that it forms a cone-shaped space since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results or is critical to the design and it appears that the shroud of Thorne and Kruger, Gabry, or Marshall would perform equally as well with a shroud formed as a cone-shaped space, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily form the shroud as a cone-shaped space since a cone shape evenly tapers in width about the entire circumference of the shroud so as to precisely position the head of the rodent along the axis of the cone to ensure that the kill mechanism strikes at the precise location at the head of the rodent to instantly kill the rodent.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 2,503,863 to Thorne in view of Bruno et al. 2009/0151222 or Shurden 4,766,692 or Langli 4,852,294, and Kruger 3,394,488 or Gabry 4,161,080 or Marshall 1,473,242 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Kim 5,953,853 or Ronnau 6,088,948 or Muller et al. 7,530,195.
In regard to claim 40, Thorne does not disclose wherein the storage area comprises a removable bag into which the rodent corpse passes. Kim, Ronnau, and Muller et al. disclose wherein the storage area (120 OR 2, 11, 12 OR 22) comprises a removable bag (108 OR 13 OR see col. 2, lines 54-58) into which the rodent corpse passes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the storage area of Thorne such that it comprises a removable bag into which the rodent corpse passes in view of Kim, Ronnau or Muller et al. in order to provide a sanitary means for allowing the user to handle the captured rodents so as to avoid direct contact with the animals (see col. 7, lines 1-6 of Kim OR see col. 5, lines 50-55 of Ronnau OR see col. 2, lines 54-58 of Muller et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 46-48 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Boharski discloses the basic configuration of the trap which utilizes a trigger which activates an impactor to strike the rodent to cause the rodent to move both toward and through a trapdoor so as to dispose the still alive rodent into a storage area, but does not disclose the aspects of the trap killing rodents by neck shear with the impactor when the head of the rodent is placed within the space formed by the shroud. The modifying reference of Goebel discloses the use of an impactor to kill a rodent so as to teach that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is possible to modify Boharski to kill rodents with the impactor instead of trapping the rodents while remaining alive and that one such motivation to do so would be that it would eliminate the possibility of the rodents escaping from the trap to return to the area where the user desires that they be eliminated. The modifying references of Bruno et al., Shurden, and Langli disclose the use of an impactor which kill rodents by neck shear and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the trap of Boharski and Goebel such that it kills rodents by neck shear in order to impact the rodents at a point of weakness on the bodies of rodents which will result in a quick and humane death. The further modifying references of Bruno et al., Shurden, and Langli disclose the use of the shroud configured and dimensioned such that the head of the rodent is maintained in position and orientation within the shroud while the rodent is killed by the kill mechanism as a modification to the structure of Boharski comprising the recess/space 42 for placing bait 46 that will position the heads and bodies of the rodent in the general vicinity for the body and a portion of the head to be impacted by the impactor 58 of Boharski, wherein the shroud of Bruno et al., Shurden, and Langli would confine the head of the rodents so as to optimize a positioning of the rodents’ heads and bodies by placing them at the location which increases the likelihood that the rodents will be assuredly killed by the impactor.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In regard to applicants’ argument that “Additionally, contrary to the requirements of a proper obviousness rejection…Boharski…unsatisfactory for its intended purpose (i.e., ‘catch and hold the animals alive’)…Notwithstanding the lack of motivation to combine the teachings of Boharski and Goebel…”, the Examiner contends that traps that either maintain the trapped rodents alive or to kill the rodents are prevalent in the rodent trapping art, since there are some users that would like to capture the rodents and relocate the trapped rodents at another location which would not impact the daily lives of the user and that there are other users that would like to kill and eliminate the rodents upon capture in order to be assured that the rodents will not repopulate the designated area or escape from the trap so as to continue to plague the designated area. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that the choice made available to the user to either capture the rodents dead or alive would have been well within the realm of reasonable conception to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to applicants’ argument that “…none of the cited references discuss the disclosed ‘neck shear’ effect which causes the breaking of the neck of and other internal injuries to the rodent…Kruger, Gabry, and Marshall…maintained in position and orientation by their ‘shrouds’ when killed…”, the Examiner contends that Kruger, Gabry, and Marshall were relied upon for their teachings of the use of a shroud for receiving the head of the rodent in a trap, but were not relied upon for their explicit teachings of neck shear to kill rodents, although it does conceivably appear that each of Kruger, Gabry, and Marshall disclose their respective striking arms in the traps which will generally strike the neck area of the rodents when the traps are triggered by the rodents. In order to satisfy the functional limitation associated with killing the rodents by neck shear, the Examiner relied upon Bruno et al., Shurden, and Langli for their teachings of traps which were designed to specifically target the neck area of the rodents which is a well-known weak point in the body of rodents and to thereby kill the rodents by neck shear upon their neck regions being impacted by an impactor to cause the resulting instantaneous and humane death of the rodents via neck shear.
In regard to applicants’ argument that “The remaining references do not cure the above-described deficiencies of the cited prior art…Thorne is silent as to the rodent being specifically killed by neck shear”, the Examiner contends that Thorne was not relied upon for any teaching of killing the rodents via neck shear and was instead relied upon for its specific teaching of the kill mechanism comprising a compressed-air powered bolt.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DARREN W ARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/DARREN W ARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
DWA
Prosecution Insights