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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection. This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 40-42 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 40-42, the filter cups comprising mesh configured to strain the insect larvae appear to be the same structure claimed in independent claim 16 relating to the strainer having a mesh sized to strain the insect larvae. As the disclosure does not recite a separate strainer and filter cup within the same catch basin, the amendment is understood to unintentionally recite the same structure. However, the scope of the claims remain unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 36-37, 40-43, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (CN 110074060), hereinafter Ding.
In re. claim 16, Ding teaches an insect dispensing system, comprising: a first section (1) comprising a first inlet (at valve (13)) and a first outlet (at manifold (6)); a divider (2) connected to the first outlet defining three or more divider outlets (3); and a plurality of second sections (4), each second section comprising a second inlet (at chamber (3)) and a second outlet (at valve plate (8)), each second inlet connected to a respective divider outlet (fig. 1), wherein each of the plurality of second outlets is configured to drain liquid introduced at the first inlet into a respective plurality of catch basins (outlet provides recited function), wherein the respective plurality of catch basins each support a strainer, each strainer comprising a mesh, each mesh sized to strain insect larvae or insect pupae from the liquid introduced at the first inlet for retention for dispensing a population of insect larvae or insect pupae (as the structure of the catch basin fails to further define the dispensing system).
In re. claim 36, Ding teaches the insect dispensing system of claim 16, further comprising: for a third outlet of the plurality of second outlets: a second divider comprising a second divider outlet (fig. 1), each second divider outlet having a first end (at valve plate (8)) in fluid communication with the third outlet and a second end (end of pipe (4)) in fluid communication with a first catch basin (equivalent structure provides equivalent function).
In re. claim 37, Ding teaches the insect dispensing system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of second outlets are separated from the respective plurality of catch basins by an air gap (air gap shown in figure 1).
In re. claim 40, Ding teaches a filter cup removably mounted within the catch basin, wherein the filter cup is configured to filter materials suspended in the liquid introduced at the first inlet (as the structure of the catch basin fails to further define the dispensing system).
In re. claim 41, Ding teaches the insect dispensing system of claim 40, wherein the plurality of filter cups further comprise mesh configured to strain insect larvae or insect pupae from the liquid introduced at the first inlet (as the structure of the catch basin fails to further define the dispensing system).
In re. claim 42, Ding teaches the insect dispensing system of claim 40, wherein the plurality of filter cups are removable from the catch basins (as the structure of the catch basin fails to further define the dispensing system).
In re. claim 43, Ding teaches the insect dispensing system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of second outlets are positionable to drain the liquid introduced at the first inlet into the respective plurality of catch basins (fig. 1) (equivalent structure provides equivalent function).
In re. claim 45, Ding teaches the insect dispensing system of claim 16, wherein the population of insect larvae or insect pupae comprise mosquito larvae or pupae (as the type of insect fails to further define the structure of the insect dispensing system).
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.
Claims 16, 36-37, and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobecki et al. (US 2018/0271074), hereinafter Sobecki in view of Ding.
In re. claim 16, Sobecki teaches an insect dispensing system, comprising: a first section (1208) comprising a first inlet and a first outlet (fig. 12); wherein the outlet is configured to drain liquid introduced at the first inlet into a catch basin (into container (1202)) (fig. 12); wherein the respective plurality of catch basins each support a strainer (104), each strainer comprising a mesh (102), each mesh sized to strain insect larvae or insect pupae from the liquid introduced at the first inlet for retention for dispensing a population of insect larvae or insect pupae (figs. 12-13).
Sobecki fails to disclose a divider connected to the first outlet defining three or more divider outlets; and a plurality of second sections, each second section comprising a second inlet and a second outlet, each second inlet connected to a respective divider outlet.
Ding teaches a divider (2) connected to the first outlet defining three or more divider outlets (3); and a plurality of second sections (4), each second section comprising a second inlet (at chamber (3)) and a second outlet (at valve plate (8)), each second inlet connected to a respective divider outlet (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Sobecki to incorporate the teachings of Ding to have the recited divider, for the purpose of evenly distributing the pupae and larvae into a plurality of collection pans, enabling the processing of a greater amount of pupae/larvae more efficiently.
In re. claim 36, Sobecki as modified by Ding (see Ding) teach the insect dispensing system of claim 16, further comprising: for a third outlet of the plurality of second outlets: a second divider comprising a second divider outlets (fig. 1), each second divider outlet having a first end (at valve plate (8)) in fluid communication with the third outlet and a second end (end of pipe (4)) in fluid communication with a first catch basin (equivalent structure provides equivalent function).
In re. claim 37, Sobecki as modified by Ding (see Ding) teach the insect dispensing system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of second outlets are separated from the respective plurality of catch basins by an air gap (air gap shown in figure 1).
In re. claim 40, Sobecki as modified by Ding (see Sobecki) teach a filter cup (104) removably mounted within the catch basin (1202) (fig. 13), wherein the filter cup is configured to filter materials suspended in the liquid introduced at the first inlet (fig. 12).
In re. claim 41, Sobecki as modified by Ding (see Sobecki) teach the insect dispensing system of claim 40, wherein the plurality of filter cups further comprise mesh (fig. 3) configured to strain insect larvae or insect pupae from the liquid introduced at the first inlet (figs. 12-13).
In re. claim 42, Sobecki as modified by Ding (see Sobecki) teach the insect dispensing system of claim 40, wherein the plurality of filter cups are removable from the catch basins (figs. 12-13).
In re. claim 43, Sobecki as modified by Ding (see Ding) teach the insect dispensing system of claim 16, wherein the plurality of second outlets are positionable to drain the liquid introduced at the first inlet into the respective plurality of catch basins (fig. 1) (equivalent structure provides equivalent function).
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobecki in view of Ding as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Harrod (US 3,223,237).
In re. claim 18, Sobecki as modified by Ding fail to disclose the first inlet comprises a funnel.
Harrod teaches the first inlet comprises a funnel (16) (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Sobecki as modified by Ding to incorporate the teachings of Harrod to have the first inlet comprise a funnel, for aiding in adding a large amount of larvae/pupae to the distribution device, enabling more material to be introduced simultaneously.
In re. claim 19, Sobecki as modified by Ding fail to disclose a fluid source and an insect source, wherein the first inlet is in fluid communication with the fluid source and the insect source.
Harrod teaches a fluid source (23) and an insect source (pupae/larvae flow) (21), wherein the first inlet is in fluid communication with the fluid source and the insect source (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Sobecki as modified by Ding to incorporate the teachings of Harrod to have the recited fluid and insect sources, for the purpose of enabling an enhanced flow of material through the distribution device, reducing the chances of clogging.
In re. claim 20, Sobecki as modified by Ding and Harrod (see Harrod) teach the insect dispensing system of claim 19, wherein the fluid source comprises an inlet port (24) to introduce fluid (23) into the first inlet (fig. 1), and wherein the insect source further comprises a funnel (16) for introducing the population of insect larvae or insect pupae into the fluid (fig. 1).
In re. claim 21, Sobecki as modified by Ding and Harrod (see Ding) teach the insect dispensing system of claim 20, wherein the plurality of second outlets output a plurality of individual streams of fluid (material flow at pipe (4)) to distribute the population of insect larvae or insect pupae among the plurality of catch basins when the population of insect larvae or insect pupae and the fluid flow from the first inlet towards the plurality of outlets (fig. 1).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobecki as modified by Ding as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Selby et al. (US 10,448,623)
In re. claim 36, If the applicant is of the opinion that Ding fails to disclose for a third outlet of the plurality of second outlets: a second divider comprising a second divider outlet, each second divider outlet having a first end in fluid communication with the third outlet and a second end in fluid communication with a first catch basin,
Selby teaches for a third outlet of the plurality of second outlets (outlet at top of page) (fig. 5) a second divider (506) comprising second divider outlet (outlets of 506), each second divider outlet having a first end in fluid communication with the third outlet and a second end in fluid communication with a first catch basin (fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Sobecki as modified by Ding to incorporate the teachings of Selby to have the recited second divider, for the purpose of further distributing the insect larvae or insect pupae among the catch basins.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobecki as modified by Ding as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee (KR 20100000253).
In re. claim 39, Sobecki as modified by Ding fail to disclose at least one catch basin of the plurality of catch basins comprises a substantially rectangular box having four sloping walls and an open top configured to receive the liquid introduced at the first inlet.
Lee teaches at least one catch basin of the plurality of catch basins (115a,b) comprises a substantially rectangular box having four sloping walls and an open top configured to receive the liquid introduced at the first inlet (fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Sobecki as modified by Ding to incorporate the teachings of Lee to have the recited catch basin structure, to improve the collection rate of the pupae or larvae.
.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobecki as modified by Ding.
In re. claim 44, Sobecki as modified by Ding fail to disclose the divider comprises nine divider outlets.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Sobecki as modified by Ding, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Doing so enables more outlets to be connected to the distribution device, improving distribution of the incoming material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims above 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 Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647