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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 4 of the Remarks, filed 3/30/2026, with respect to the two separate elements of the synthetic elastomeric compound and double-sided tape have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previously set forth rejection of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, & 10-11 have been withdrawn. Rav discloses both a synthetic compound and a double-sided tape. The examiner concedes the 3M 4910 VHB double sided tape does not encompass both claim elements of a synthetic elastomeric compound composition and a double-sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive. However, the claim remains rejected herein with different rationale.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “[t]he Examiner fails to indicate that the rods are a disclosure of Applicant's tines and leaves the reader to infer that such a disclosure is made.” The examiner points to the rejection of claim 1; lines 12-13 of the OA mailed on 7/31/2025, the rods are being discussed relative to the claimed element of the copper tines, no such inference is required in context of the entire write up. This portion of the rejection is being maintained.
In response to applicant’s arguments that “Meade discloses the space between the backplate and the grid to be maintained at 1/2 inch. (col 6; 48-50). It is clear that Meade discloses a set of rods that is attached via separate hardware in such a manner that the rods are separated from the back plate.” Regardless of the 1/2" gap between the grid and substrate, the grid and thus the rods are directly affixed directly to the substrate/back plate via the studs. This portion of the rejection is being maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that “Jesman makes a clear distinction between the substrate, labelled as the insulating members 10 and 11 (col 1; 65-68) and the pegs 23 and 24. Therefore, the Examiner's assertion that the electrodes are affixed directly to the substrate (the insulators 10 and 11) is incorrect as Jesman discloses the electrode wires to be wound around the pegs. (col 2; 26-44 and col 2; 26-31 and 63-71).” The examiner points to Jesman, fig. 1-3 & 6 and col 2; 26-44 & 63-71 & col 3; 43-50 & col 3; 5, the winding allows the wire to be directly affixed to the surface of the insulator members via positioning and tensioning. Additionally, the electrodes are taught in an embodiment to be connected/plugged into to a socket within the insulator. This portion of the rejection is being maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument that Jenson fails to disclose a smooth substrate as recited within claim 1 of the instant invention. Jenson, see col 1; 65-68 & col 2; 16-21, discloses a substrate with a smooth polished porcelain glaze, thus teaching the claimed limitation. This portion of the rejection is being maintained.
In response to the argument that no evidentiary support for the composition of 3M 4910 VHB tape was made available, the examiner has attached a data sheet that was made available prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Such a tape is known and the information being requested is readily available. This portion of the rejection is being maintained.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the concentrations of 20-30% solids are allegedly critical to the invention, no evidence is provided to support such a statement, the disclosure recites the range as “the most suitable” which is typically determined through experimentation routine in the art, since the tape is flexible to begin with it would have been obvious for this experimentation to occur per MPEP 2144.05 II. A. If there is further evidence to support such criticality it should be supplied to the examiner, this portion of the rejection is being maintained.
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 1-2, 7-8, & 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meade et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,401,383 B1; herein Ade in view of Jesman, U.S. Patent No. 2,897,629 A; herein Jes, Jones, U.S. Patent No. 4,969,418 A, Chambers, U.S. Patent No. 4,747,229 A; herein Cham and Ravenelle et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,249,436 B2; herein Rav.
Re claim 1, Ade discloses an electric grid (219; the killing grid assembly, fig. 6) comprising: a voltage source (301; the battery, fig. 7-8 connected to the killing grid via the high voltage wires; 103 & 104) having a having a positive terminal (fig. 7-8, denoted by a +, additionally all batteries have a positive terminal) and a negative terminal (fig. 7-8, denoted by a -, additionally all batteries have a negative terminal), a rigid substrate (205/206; the back plates, fig. 5-6) which is between 0.185 to 0.687 inches thick (col 6; 10-14, the back plates are formed of ¼” polyethylene), a first set of rods (221; the first group of rods, fig. 6) affixed directly to said rigid substrate (col 6; 31-38, each group of rods are held securely to the back plate), and a second set of rods (222; the second group of rods, fig. 6) affixed directly to said rigid substrate (again see col 6; 31-38) and arranged such that the first set of rods are spaced 0.070 inches to 0.620 inches apart from the second set of rods (col 6; 31-34, the rods are spaced 9/32” apart).
Ade fails to disclose a smooth substrate and the first and second sets of rods being copper tines affixed via a synthetic elastomeric compound with a 20-30% solids composition and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive to said substrate. However, Jes discloses an electric grid (fig. 1) comprising: a voltage source (L1; the power line, fig. 3 and col 3; 69-75, the powerline is responsible for impressing the voltage to the electrodes wires), a smooth rigid (col 1; 65-68, the insulating members are formed of a known well preforming dielectric material, that is highly polished) substrate (10 & 11; the insulator members, fig. 1-3 & 6), a first set of electrodes (25; the first electrode wire, fig. 1-2) affixed directly to said smooth rigid substrate (fig. 1-2 and col 2; 26-44, via the pegs; 23), and a second set of electrodes (29; the first electrode wire, fig. 1-2) affixed directly to said smooth rigid substrate (col 2; 26-31 & 63-71, via the pegs; 24).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a smooth substrate and the first and second sets of rods being copper tines affixed via a synthetic elastomeric compound with a 20-30% solids composition and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive to said substrate however, Jes discloses polishing an insulating material or utilizing a smooth insulating material on an electric grid. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of an insulating material with a smooth surface for the electrodes/conductors as taught by Jes to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by utilize a substrate with a polished/smooth surface to enhance the dielectric properties of the material. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Ade and Jes fails to disclose the first and second sets of rods being copper tines affixed via a synthetic elastomeric compound with a 20-30% solids composition and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive to said substrate. However, Jones discloses an electric grid (fig. 1 & 3 and col 2; 23-38, the electrode array shown/described) comprising: a voltage source (19; the battery, fig. 3) having a positive terminal (fig. 3, denoted by a +, additionally all batteries have a positive terminal) and a negative terminal (fig. 3, denoted by a -, additionally all batteries have a negative terminal), a substrate (1; the mat/insulating background, fig. 1 & 3), a first set of tines (7; the fingers associated with electrode; 3, fig. 1 & 3) affixed directly to said substrate (col 2; 23-24, the fingers are printed thereto), and a second set of tines (9; the fingers associated with electrode; 5, fig. 1 & 3) affixed directly to said substrate (col 2; 23-24, the fingers are printed thereto) and arranged such that the first set of tines are spaced 0.070 inches to 0.620 inches apart from the second set of tines (col 2; 34-35, the insulating gaps are spaced ½” apart).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the first and second sets of rods being copper tines affixed via a synthetic elastomeric compound with a 20-30% solids composition and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive to said substrate however, Jones discloses a conductor/electrode tine structure. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the grid by utilizing a simple substitution of the known rod structure taught by the prior art for the tine/finger structure from Jones in order to obtain the predictable result of an electronic grid for killing insects. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Additionally, the examiner notes, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize a tine structure in place of the rods, since it has been held that such a modification would only involve a mere change in shape of a component which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
The combination of Ade, Jes, and Jones fails to disclose the first and second sets of tines being copper and affixed via a synthetic elastomeric compound with a 20-30% solids composition and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive to said substrate. However, Cham discloses copper electrodes/wires (col 2; 55-60, the copper wires are utilized for the low resistance they exhibit).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the first and second sets of tines being copper and affixed via a synthetic elastomeric compound with a 20-30% solids composition and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive to said substrate however, Cham discloses utilizing copper electrodes. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tines by utilizing a simple substitution of the known material of aluminum taught by the prior art for the copper material from Cham in order to obtain the predictable result of improved electrical properties. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
The combination of Ade, Jes, Jones, and Cham fails to disclose the first and second sets of tines being affixed via a synthetic elastomeric compound with a 20-30% solids composition and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive to said substrate. However, Rav discloses an electric grid comprising: a voltage source (abstract and col 3; 25-32, the conductive strips are coupled to a high voltage source to supply any form of shock) having a positive terminal and a negative terminal (col 14-15; 66-5, wherein the power source is a battery, all batteries have a positive and negative terminal), a first electrode (a first conducting strip; 180, fig. 2b) affixed via a synthetic compound (175; the adhesive layer, fig. 2b) and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive (col 9; 7-13, 155; the 3M 4910 VHB is a double sided acrylic tape, acrylic is a synthetic material and the tape has an acrylic foam layer that exhibits both viscosity and elasticity as such it may be categorized as synthetic elastomeric compound and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive) a directly to a substrate (col 9; 24-30, the shock tape containing the first conducting strip, as described in col 9; 7-23, may be directly applied to a variety of substrates), and a second electrode (the other conducting strip; 180, fig. 2b) affixed via a synthetic elastomeric compound and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive directly to a substrate (again see col 9; 24-30).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the first and second sets of tines affixed via a synthetic elastomeric compound with a 20-30% solids composition and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive to said substrate however, Rav discloses affixing a plurality of electrode/conducting elements with via a synthetic elastomeric compound and a double sided tape with an acrylic based adhesive directly to a substrate. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of adhering the conductors/electrodes to the substrate with a synthetic elastomeric double sided tape taught by Rav to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by providing a secure bond between the substrate and grid assemblies that allows for the flow of the electric current. See MPEP 2143 I. (C). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize any suitable dielectric substrate since, polycarbonate, glass, or acrylic would generate superior adhesion with the electronic components and maintain the required dielectric properties disclosed within Ade, and it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
The modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav discloses the claimed invention except for the synthetic compound being elastomeric and having a 20-30% solids composition. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize an elastomeric compound for the adhesive layer to resist the thermal and mechanical wear caused by the deterrent having a solids composition between 20-30% such that the adhesive is workable during application and allow for improved adhesion between the surfaces, since it has been held that that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.07 & 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 2, the modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav discloses the invention of claim 1, Ade further discloses the rods being between 0.003 inches to 0.330 inches thick (col 6; 32-34, the rods are 1/8” in diameter/thick).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of 1/8” thick electrode/conductor surface taught by Ade to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by utilizing the proportions designated for exterminating insects. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 7, the modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for the substrate being acrylic however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize an acrylic as it is known to be suitable for electronic applications with the 3M tape as taught by Rav, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 8, the modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav discloses the invention of claim 2, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for the substrate being acrylic however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize an acrylic as it is known to be suitable for electronic applications with the 3M tape as taught by Rav, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 10, the modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for the substrate being glass however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize glass as it is known to be suitable for electronic applications with the 3M tape as taught by Rav, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 11, the modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav discloses the invention of claim 2, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for the substrate being glass however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize glass as it is known to be suitable for electronic applications with the 3M tape as taught by Rav, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav in further view of Konicek, U.S. Patent No. 3,936,548 A, herein Koni.
Re claim 4, the modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav discloses the invention of claim 1, the modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav fails to disclose where the copper tines are produced by photochemical etching. However, Koni discloses a copper pattern produced by photochemical etching (col 1; 13-18, the wiring pattern is formed of a photochemical etching process).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose where the copper tines are produced by photochemical etching however, Koni discloses such a manufacturing process. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of photochemical etching taught by Koni to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the intricate copper pattern to be formed precisely. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 5, the modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav discloses the invention of claim 2, the modification of Ade, Jes, Jones, Cham, and Rav fails to disclose where the copper tines are produced by photochemical etching. However, Koni discloses a copper pattern produced by photochemical etching (col 1; 13-18, the wiring pattern is formed of a photochemical etching process).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose where the copper tines are produced by photochemical etching however, Koni discloses such a manufacturing process. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of photochemical etching taught by Koni to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the intricate copper pattern to be formed precisely. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL of the 3M 4910 VHB double sided tape’s data sheet with details of the known component of Rav.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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 J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
