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Claims 55-56 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/16/2024.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Sub-species I, Sub-species 2, and Sub-species ii in the reply filed on 05/16/2024 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The Examiner admits that all claims require the technical feature of a target pest being ejected out the exit aperture at least in part by the incapactitating energy…which does not require electricity…Applicant disagrees that this technical feature is taught, disclosed, suggested or motivated by the cited art…Bond…After the pest is killed, it falls back out through the trap entrance (14). As the exit path through the entrance (14) is perpendicular to the actuation path of the kill mechanism (3), which may crush the pest against the strike plate (42), the kill energy of the kill mechanism (3) cannot possibly assist in the expelling of the pest, as it occurs in the wrong direction. The pest falls out of the trap entirely due to gravity, and the kill energy is dissipated by the time the pest falls through the entrance (14)…in Bond it is clear the pest falls out the entrance aperture, that is, it is removed through the same aperture that it entered the trap…Bond does not disclose the pest being removed via an exit aperture, separate to the entry point as required in the present application.”. This is not found persuasive because claims 1, 55, and 56 fail to particularly differentiate the term “an entry point” from the term “an exit aperture” as representing separate and distinct elements as being argued by the applicants. With the present claim language as recited in claims 1, 55, and 56, the “entry point” and “exit aperture” could be interpreted to be in the same general vicinity and thus can be afforded a very broad interpretation by the Examiner as was presented in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 03/19/2024. Therefore, the determination of lack of unity by the Examiner is being maintained because the shared special technical feature common amongst all of the Groups and Species does not in fact represent a contribution over the prior art references of Bond and Fritzboger.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/05/2024. These drawings are approved by the Examiner.
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) 1-5, 7-9, 13, 15, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26-28, 31, 32, 37, 38, 41-45, 51, 52, 63, 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond 2014/0059917 in view of Boharski 4,641,456 or Connolly 1,464,697 or Hardegen 982,001 and Helme 2,531,568 or Goebel 4,550,524.
In regard to claim 1, Bond discloses a method of incapacitating a target pest species comprising: providing a trap enclosure (15 of 1), the trap enclosure having an entry point (some point at or along 14) for the target pest species into an interior (15) of the trap enclosure, and a bait station (16, 16’, 17) to attract the target pest species, the trap enclosure including an exit aperture (14; the entry point not being particularly differentiated from the exit aperture) from the interior (15) of the trap enclosure; providing a kill engine (generally 3-4), at least in part mounted from the trap enclosure (3-4 is mounted adjacent to 14,15 as shown in Figs. 2-3), to at least in part deliver incapacitating energy to the target species, whereby the kill engine does not require electricity, the kill engine using an nonflammable gas (carbon dioxide or air) charge, the kill engine when triggered actuates and then resets itself; providing a source of compressed nonflammable gas (2), connected to, and supplying the kill engine; defining a kill zone (area between 3 & 42 in Fig. 2) within an interior (15) of the trap enclosure; providing a trigger mechanism (18) to actuate the kill engine when triggered by the target pest species when in the kill zone; providing a force delivery hammer (3), driven by the kill engine (4), to deliver the incapacitating energy (3 strikes the animal and acts against strike plate 42); and expelling the target pest species out the exit aperture (when kill mechanism 3 hits the animal to deliver the blow to the anima and is then reset and withdrawn away from the struck animal and strike plate 42) at least in part by the delivered incapacitating energy (when kill mechanism 3 hits the animal, the animal is thrown against strike plate 42 and caused to be discharged out of the exit aperture 14); such that when the target pest species enters the apparatus and the kill zone it triggers the trigger mechanism to in turn actuate the kill engine to deliver the incapacitating energy by impacting the pest, but does not disclose the exit aperture distinct and separate from the entry point of the trap enclosure or expelling the target pest species out the exit aperture at least in part using momentum imparted to the target pest species by the incapacitating energy delivered by the force delivery hammer. Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose providing the exit aperture distinct (52 OR upper open end of 23 in Fig. 2 OR exit aperture closed by trap door 4) and separate from the entry point (end of 20 near 34 OR 18 OR 6) of the trap enclosure; providing a kill engine (64 OR 24 OR see Fig. 3) and expelling the target pest species out the exit aperture at least in part using momentum imparted to the target pest species by the incapacitating energy delivered by the force delivery hammer (Fig. 4 OR Fig. 2 OR Fig. 2). 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 method of Bond such that the exit aperture distinct and separate from the entry point of the trap enclosure and expelling the target pest species out the exit aperture at least in part using momentum imparted to the target pest species by the incapacitating energy delivered by the force delivery hammer in view of Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen in order to provide an exit that allows the incapacitated target pest species to exit the trap enclosure at a different location from the entry point so that there is no potential for the entry point into the trap enclosure to become obstructed by accumulated incapacitated target pest species and to dispose of the accumulated incapacitated target pest species away from the entry point to also prevent obstruction thereof. Bond, Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegan do not disclose providing a force delivery hammer to deliver the incapacitating energy, sufficient to kill the target pest species. Helme discloses a providing a trap enclosure (1 & interior of 30 which is above 32-33) having an entry point (42) into an interior of the trap enclosure (see Figs. 2, 7), and a bait station (23) to attract the pest species, the trap enclosure including an exit aperture (generally closed by 32-33) from the interior of the trap enclosure, the exit aperture distinct and separate from the entry point of the trap enclosure (see Fig. 7); providing a kill engine (2,3), at least in part mounted from the trap enclosure (3 extends rearwardly from the left side of 1), to at least in part deliver incapacitating energy to the target pest species, the kill engine when triggered actuates and then resets itself; defining a kill zone (14 and the interior area of 1 about 14 in Fig. 2) within an interior of the trap enclosure; providing a trigger mechanism (14-18) to actuate the kill engine when triggered by the pest species when in the kill zone (rodent pokes its nose into 14 attempting to get bait in 23); providing a force delivery hammer (10), driven by the kill engine (2-3), to deliver the incapacitating energy, sufficient to kill the pest species (kill a rat instantly; col. 3, lines 37-39). Goebel discloses providing a force delivery hammer (22) to deliver the incapacitating energy (when bait is taken, movement of switch arm 14a energizes the two-way solenoid 25, causing the partition to move to its innermost position and, at the same time, destroying the rodent in its path of movement), sufficient to kill the target pest species (movement of partition 22 to a rodent killing condition, the rodent killing is positively and sequentially controlled). 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 method of Bond, Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegan such that it comprises providing a force delivery hammer to deliver the incapacitating energy, sufficient to kill the target pest species in view of Helme or Goebel in order to assuredly kill the target pest species so that there is no possibility of the target pest species continuing to inhabit and propagate within the treatment area.
In regard to claim 2, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen discloses the trap enclosure (15 of Bond; 124 OR 52 OR upper open end of 23 in Fig. 2 OR exit aperture closed by trap door 4) includes, at least in part, the exit aperture (14 of Bond; 124 OR aperture closed by 310 OR 52 OR upper open end of 23 in Fig. 2 OR exit aperture closed by trap door 4) from the interior to the exterior (see Fig. 2 of Bond; see Figs. 4,6 OR Fig. 4 OR Fig. 2 OR Fig. 2), such that the incapacitated target pest species can be ejected from the interior to the exterior (after animal receives the impact from 3, it is impacted against 42 and caused to drop out of 15 via 14 of Bond; see Figs. 4,6 OR Fig. 4 OR Fig. 2 OR Fig. 2).
In regard to claim 3, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose providing the exit aperture (14 of Bond; 124 OR 52 OR upper open end of 23 in Fig. 2 OR exit aperture closed by trap door 4) substantially parallel to a translational force of the incapacitating energy (see Figs. 1-4 OR see Figs. 2,4 OR see Fig. 2 OR see Fig. 2), such that the incapacitating energy expels the pest from the trap interior (interior of 108 OR 304 OR 20 OR interior of 17 to the left of 23 in Fig. 2 OR 2) to a trap exterior (104 OR 320 OR 48 OR 23 to the right of 17 in Fig. 2 OR 3).
In regard to claim 4, Bond discloses wherein the translational force alone is sufficient to incapacitate the target pest species (see paras. 0063,0078).
In regard to claim 5, Bond discloses wherein the nonflammable gas (carbon dioxide or air) is any one or more of air, carbon dioxide or similar and the force released by the trigger is caused by, any one or more of: a. a pressure bias acting on an area (left end of 3 in Figs. 2-3) or multiple areas of the delivery hammer, b. the removal of a restraint that stops movement of a compressed elastic member, c. a gas spring, d. an electromagnetic effect, and e. an impact from another moving component on the delivery hammer.
In regard to claim 7, Bond discloses wherein the impact of the hammer (3) alone is sufficient to incapacitate the target pest species (see paras. 0063,0078).
In regard to claim 8, Bond discloses wherein the pest additionally impacts other force delivery portions (42) after impact by the hammer (3), to delivery sufficient energy to incapacitate the target pest species.
In regard to claims 9 and 38, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the trap enclosure (15 of 1 of Bond) or species adapter has the force delivery portion(s) (42), whether static (42 is static) or mobile as a result of the incapacitating energy, that aid in delivering the incapacitating energy and wherein the force delivery portion(s) act from the opposing side the force delivery hammer acts from, and Boharski, and Hardegan disclose wherein the trap enclosure (304 OR 20 OR 2) has the force delivery portion (54 OR 4), whether static or mobile (OR 54 is mobile OR 4 is mobile) as a result of the incapacitating energy, that aid in delivering the incapacitating energy (54 provides a counter force to 60 OR 4 provides a counter force to 5) and wherein the force delivery portion (54 OR 4) act from the opposing side the force delivery hammer (see Figs. 2,4 OR see Fig. 2) acts from, and the force delivery portion at least in part obscures the exit aperture (52 OR exit aperture closed off by 4), and the force delivery portion includes a latchable door (OR 4 drops by gravity to its closed position) that co-operates with the force delivery hammer (60 OR 5) in ejecting the pest from trap and/or delivering the incapacitating energy by initially resisting the force delivery hammer (biasing force of gravity on 54 must be overcome OR biasing force of gravity on 4 must be overcome), and the latchable door (54 OR 4) at least in part further obscures the exit aperture (52 OR aperture closed off by 4), wherein the latchable door opens in a direction parallel to the motion of the force delivery hammer (see Fig. 4 OR see Fig. 2) and wherein there is a restraining portion (54 OR 4) to restrain at least in part, the body portion, or head portion, when the force delivery hammer (60 OR 5) connects with the head portion, or body portion.
In regard to claim 13, Bond and Boharski, Connolly or Hardengen disclose wherein the force delivery hammer (3 of Bond; 60 of Boharski; 5 of Hardegen) delivers a primary incapacitating energy and the force delivery portion (42 of Bond; 54 of Boharski; 4 of Hardegen) co-operates to deliver a secondary incapacitating energy, one or more or both together sufficient to incapacitate the target pest species.
In regard to claim 15, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the latchable door (310 of Hansen et al.) is on a time or energy delay (energy delay) to increase the energy delivery to the target pest species, wherein after the time or energy delay the latchable door opens to expel the target pest species via the exit aperture (aperture closed off by 310 of Hansen et al.), the latchable door uses a magnet (magnets of Hansen et al.; see para. 0063), mechanical latch, timing or similar mechanism that is overcome by the energy to then release the door, or that releases the door a certain period of time after triggering of the kill engine, or movement of the force delivery hammer (3 of Bond; 353 of Hansen et al.).
In regard to claim 18, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the force delivery hammer is driven in a linear action (see Fig. 2 of Bond; Fig. 4 of Boharski; Fig. 2 of Connolly; Fig. 2 of Hardegen) and wherein the latchable door (54 of Boharski normally biased downwardly to closed position OR 4 of Hardegen drops by gravity to its closed position) is pivoted on an axis (56 of Boharski OR see pivot axis of 4 in Fig. 2 of Hardegan) above the kill zone such that when it opens it swings out of the way, the energy imparted to the target pest species then expels it from the kill zone, the exit aperture (52 of Boharski OR aperture closed by 4 of Hardegen in Fig. 4) is in a plane substantially perpendicular to the linear action of the force delivery hammer (3 of Bond; 60 of Boharski; 5 of Hardegen) and the entry point (some point at or along 14 of Bond; 22 of Boharski; 6 of Hardegen) is in a plane substantially parallel to the linear action of the force delivery hammer (3 of Bond; see Figs. 2,4 of Boharski; see Fig. 2 of Hardegen).
In regard to claim 20, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the latchable door is biased to return to the closed latched state by gravity or a biasing mechanism (54 of Boharski biased by gravity; 4 of Hardegen biased by gravity).
In regard to claim 23, Bond discloses wherein the force delivery hammer (3 of Bond) impacts the target pest species at a first location (upper protruding right end portions of 3 in Fig. 2 strike the skull region firstly because they are closer to the target species), and then, after the first location, at a second location (lower recessed right end portions of 3 in Fig. 2 secondly strike the body positioned below the skull because they are further away from the target species), wherein the first location is the skull region and the second location is the body region.
In regard to claim 24, Bond discloses wherein the force delivery portion (42) is a fixed portion of the trap enclosure which the target pest species will be forced against by the force delivery hammer (3), to deliver further energy to the target pest species.
In regard to claim 26, Bond discloses wherein the kill engine (3, 4) can be removed from the trap enclosure (see exploded view of the kill engine 3-4 separate from the enclosure with 15,16,16’) should it need repair, maintenance or replacement, and the trap enclosure can be left in place.
In regard to claim 27, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the species adapter (34 of Boharski; 19 of Connolly) includes a guide portion (surfaces of 34 of Boharski; surfaces of 19 of Connolly) to the entry point (end of 20 near 34 of Boharski OR 18 of Connolly), the species adapter at least in part defines the entry point (see Figs. 1,3 of Boharski; Figs. 1-2 of Connolly), and the species adapter at least in part defines the exit aperture (upper surface of 34 of Boharski extends to define the lower extent of 52 in Figs. 1,3,4; 19 defines lower extent of 23 in Fig. 2 of Connolly).
In regard to claim 28, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the guide portion (surfaces of 34 of Boharski; surfaces of 19 of Connolly) is a guide surface or surfaces for the target pest species, or part thereof, to move along from the mounting surface to the entry point (end of 20 near 34 of Boharski OR 18 of Connolly).
In regard to claim 31, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the incapacitating energy is sufficient to do to the target pest species any one or more of, stopping the heart, dislocating the neck and, disrupting brain matter, or severing the spinal column, sufficient to render the pest irreversibly unconscious (3 of Bond disclosed as killing the animal).
In regard to claim 32, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen do not disclose wherein the target pest species is rendered irreversibly unconscious and expelled within a time frame of under 1 second, wherein the target pest species is rendered incapacitated and expelled within a time of 0.050 seconds to 0.2 seconds and preferably within 0.02 seconds. 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 trap method of Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen such that the target pest species is rendered irreversibly unconscious and expelled within a time frame of under 1 second, wherein the target pest species is rendered incapacitated and expelled within a time of 0.050 seconds to 0.2 seconds and preferably within 0.02 seconds since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results or is critical to the design, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily design the trap to perform as such so as to humanely and quickly kill the target pest species while clearing the interior of the trap enclosure very quickly so that the trap may be promptly reset for the reception of subsequent target pest species for efficient operation of the trap.
In regard to claim 37, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the force delivery hammer (3 of Bond; 60,62 of Boharski; 20 of Connolly; 5 of Hardegen) is contoured to reduce the area of delivery to the target pest species, to increase the impact stress/energy delivered to effect a humane kill (see right end of 3 which is contoured in Fig. 2 of Bond; see Fig. 4 of Boharski; see Fig. 2 of Connolly; see Fig. 2 of Hardegen).
In regard to claim 38, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the trap enclosure comprises a narrowed area (see Fig. 2 of Bond; 20 of Boharski is more narrow than the overall device; see Fig. 1 of Connolly; see Fig. 2 of Hardegen) of the trap enclosure configured to restrain at least in part the body portion or head portion.
In regard to claim 41, Bond disclose wherein the trap is substantially vertically mounted, and entry into and exit out of the trap of the pest is in a vertical direction (see Figs. 1-2 of Bond).
In regard to claim 42, Bond disclose wherein the pest is a possum or similarly vertically moving pest (see para. 0101 of Bond).
In regard to claim 43, Bond and Boharski, Connolly or Hardengen disclose wherein the trap is substantially horizontally mounted, and entry into, and exit out of the trap is in a horizontal direction (see Figs. 1-4 of Boharski OR see Fig. 1 of Connolly OR see Figs. 1-2 of Hardengen).
In regard to claim 44, Bond and Boharski, Connolly or Hardengen disclose wherein the pest is a mouse, rat, stoat, ferret or similar animal (see para. 0101 of Bond).
In regard to claim 45, Bond discloses wherein the source of compressed gas comprises a fluidly connected refillable gas reservoir (2 of Bond) to hold a store of gas for the gas charge.
In regard to claim 51, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein a specific target species apparatus can be assembled from the kill engine (3-4 of Bond), trap enclosure (15 of Bond) and specific target species adapter (34 of Boharski; 19 of Connolly).
In regard to claim 52, Bond discloses wherein the trigger mechanism (18 of Bond) is activated by a body part of the pest, such as the head, body or feet (chamber/space 15 is dimensioned such that an adult animal cannot move past trigger rod 18 without actuating it), or may be operated when the pest bites a portion of the trigger mechanism.
In regard to claim 63, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose a species adapter (34 of Boharski; 19 of Connolly) connected at least in part to the trap enclosure to adapt the trap enclosure to the target pest species, the species adapter based on the size, habits or travel, nature of the target pest species.
In regard to claim 64, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the gas is stored at 800 pounds per square inch (200-3000 psi; see para. 0057 of Bond).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond 2014/0059917 in view of Boharski 4,641,456 or Connolly 1,464,697 or Hardegen 982,001 and Helme 2,531,568 or Goebel 4,550,524 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2013/064146 to Nielsen et al.
Alternatively in regard to claim 23, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the force delivery hammer (3 of Bond) impacts the target species, but do not disclose wherein the force delivery hammer impacts the target pest species at a first location, and then, after the first location, at a second location, wherein the first location is the skull region and the second location is the body region. Nielsen et al. disclose wherein the force delivery hammer (13a-b) impacts the target pest species at a first location (neck 19 will be struck by 13a or 13b depending on whether target species enters 4a or 4b), and then, after the first location, at a second location (tail 39 will be struck by 13a or 13b depending on whether target species enters 4a or 4b), wherein the first location is the skull region and the second location is the body region. 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 force delivery hammer of and Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen such that it impacts the target pest species at a first location, and then, after the first location, at a second location, wherein the first location is the skull region and the second location is the body region in view of Nielsen et al. in order to engage the target pest species at multiple locations to increase the likelihood that it is impacted at spaced apart locations by the hammer for killing thereof.
Claim(s) 46, 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond 2014/0059917 in view of Boharski 4,641,456 or Connolly 1,464,697 or Hardegen 982,001 and Helme 2,531,568 or Goebel 4,550,524 as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Redmayne 2019/0075781.
In regard to claims 46 and 65, Bond discloses wherein the gas is stored in the refillable reservoir (2 of Bond) at a pressure between 600 pounds per square inch and 6000 pounds per square inch (200-3000 psi) and wherein the gas is regulated to operate the piston at 100 psi or 60-70 psi (see para. 0057 of Bond), but do not disclose wherein the gas is regulated to operate the piston at between 125 pounds per square inch and 600 pounds per square inch. Redmayne discloses wherein the gas is regulated to operate the piston at between 125 pounds per square inch and 600 pounds per square inch (the trap may also comprise a regulator 5 in fluid communication with the gas storage vessel 7 to reduce the pressure of the gas exiting the gas storage vessel and that the pressure to which the gas may be reduced may be selected based on the operational requirements of the trap, having regard to the creatures being targeted and the components and systems being used in the trap; see para. 0081). It would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trap method of Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen such that the gas is regulated to operate the piston at between 125 pounds per square inch and 600 pounds per square inch in view of Redmayne in order to operate the piston according to the operational requirements of the trap, the type and size of the creatures to be targeted, and the components and systems being used in the trap.
Also in regard to claim 65, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen and Redmayne do not disclose wherein the gas is regulated to operate the piston at 175 pounds per square inch. 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 trap method of Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen and Redmayne such that the gas is regulated to operate the piston at 175 pounds per square inch since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so produces any unexpected results or is critical to the design, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily design the trap to perform as such so as to humanely and quickly kill the target pest species by utilizing sufficient pressurization to deliver a blow to the target pest species which has a higher degree of force so as to deal with larger target pest species or to deliver a high force with the piston to more assuredly kill the target pest species.
Claim(s) 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond 2014/0059917 in view of Boharski 4,641,456 or Connolly 1,464,697 or Hardegen 982,001 and Helme 2,531,568 or Goebel 4,550,524 as applied to claim 45 above, and further in view of Bond et al. 2022/0142145.
In regard to claim 50, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen do not disclose wherein the refillable gas reservoir remains connected when being refilled. Bond et al. ‘145 disclose wherein the refillable gas reservoir (gas source 25 with dedicated bottle 85) remains connected when being refilled (gas source 25 may include a pump 80 allowing it to be pumped by hand to a sufficient operating pressure; see para. 0114). 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 refillable reservoir of Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen such that remains connected when being refilled in view of Bond et al. ‘145 in order to reduce the duration of the maintenance time required of the user by not requiring the user to disassemble the refillable reservoir from the trap so that the reservoir may be quickly recharged with the nonflammable gas to power the trap.
Claim(s) 53-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bond 2014/0059917 in view of Boharski 4,641,456 or Connolly 1,464,697 or Hardegen 982,001 and Helme 2,531,568 or Goebel 4,550,524 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WO 2013/064146 to Nielsen et al. or Boharski 4,641,456.
In regard to claim 53, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen disclose wherein the entry point (point at or along 14 of Bond) has a line of sight from the entry, through the trap enclosure (15), to the bait (16, 16’, 17), but do not disclose wherein the entry point has a line of sight to exterior of the trap enclosure. Nielsen et al. and Boharski disclose wherein the entry point (one of 4a or 4b OR 22) has a line of sight (20 OR see Fig. 2) from the entry (the one of 4a or 4b OR 22), through the trap enclosure (2 OR 20), to exterior of the trap enclosure (other of 4a or 4b; the line of sight does not necessarily exit the compartment through a second inlet, but may exit through e.g. a window covered with a material that is at least partly transparent or translucent and such material may be a glass material or a grid-like material such as a net with openings that are too small for the rodent to escape through them OR rear wall 30 may be transparent; recess/space 42 formed by inclined element 44 of floor for placing bait 46 which is located between the entry point 22 and the transparent rear wall 30 to give the appearance of a line of sight to the exterior of the trap). 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 trap method of and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen such that the entry point has a line of sight to exterior of the trap enclosure in view of Nielsen et al. or Boharski in order to give the illusion to the target pest species that the line of sight from the entry point, through the trap enclosure, to exterior of the trap enclosure represents a pathway through the trap that the target pest species may take as a route of travel so as to tempt the target pest species into entering the trap and then conceivably exiting the trap to the exterior without impediment.
In regard to claim 54, Bond and Boharski, Connolly, or Hardegen and Nielsen et al. or Boharski disclose wherein the linear action of the force delivery hammer (3 of Bond; 13a-b of Nielsen et al.; 60 of Boharski) is substantially perpendicular to the line of sight (see Fig. 2 of Bond; see Figs. 1,4,7 of Nielsen et al.; see Fig. 2 of Boharski).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is 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.
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