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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/10/2025 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-4, 15, 19-23 have been examined in this application. This communication is a non-final rejection in response to the “Amendments to the claims” and “Remarks” filed 10/10/2025.
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.
Claim 15 is 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. The limitation “the one or more target insects being Insecta Diptera Muscidae ranging from 6mm cm to 20 mm in body length” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what “6mm cm” means. Due to commonly found sizes of house flies, the examiner is interpreting this limitation to mean “ranging from 6 mm to 20 mm” for the purposes of this rejection.
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 1-4, 15, 19-23 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over WO 2005/079568 by Hashimoto in view of US Patent Number 4,350,122 to Shotwell
Regarding claim 1, Hashimoto discloses an adhesive trap for trapping insect or arthropod pests, the adhesive trap comprising:
A rectangular, single face corrugated fiberboard panel (see Figure 1, paragraph 18 discloses “The sheet 3 has a main body 3b formed into a bellows shape by alternately bending a sheet-like material such as paper or nonwoven fabric”) including a fluted corrugated sheet having a wavy pattern (sheet 3) defining a plurality of concave channels connected by convex peaks having a width (see channels and peaks of sheet 3 in Figure 2) and a flat sheet attached to the fluted corrugated sheet, the plurality of concave channels facing away from the flat sheet (substrate 2); and
An adhesive adhered to the plurality of concave channels (adhesive layer 4),
Hashimoto does not disclose the adhesive being insect adhesive adhered only to the plurality of concave channels, wherein the convex peaks of the corrugated panels are free of any insect adhesive. However, this limitation is taught by Shotwell. Shotwell discloses a corrugated panel (collar 10) defining a plurality of concave channels (column 4, lines 49-50 disclose “the inner surface is in the form of a undulating pattern or a series of raised flat-topped teeth”) connected by convex peaks having a width (teeth 17) with an insect adhesive adhered only to the plurality of concave channels (glue 14), wherein the convex peaks of the corrugated panel are free of any insect adhesive (see Figures 5, 6, 7). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hashimoto using the teachings from Shotwell in order to prevent the trap from adhering to other objects that may come into contact with the peaks of sheet 3 and to provide darker recesses that are more attractive to insects.
Hashimoto does not disclose the fluted corrugated sheet is selected from the group consisting of an A-flute, sheet, a B-flute sheet, and a C-flute sheet. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the channels and teeth of whatever size is desired to capture different types of target insects, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Hashimoto and Shotwell do not explicitly disclose the pressure-sensitive adhesive comprising a bead of adhesive. However, Shotwell suggests that “Various types of suitable materials for use in the tacky glue layer 14 are presently commercially available”. Having disclosed the use of commercially available glue materials, the type and amount of adhesive used would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3 (dependent on claim 2)¸ Hashimoto and Shotwell as modified discloses the bead of adhesive defining an outward-facing planar surface (14 comprises an outward-facing planar surface).
Regarding claim 4 (dependent on claim 1), Hashimoto discloses the insect adhesive comprising a thin adhesive layer (see adhesive layer 4 in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Hashimoto discloses an adhesive insect trap for trapping one or more target insects, the insect trap comprising:
At least one corrugated, generally planar fiberboard panel (see Figure 1, paragraph 18 discloses “The sheet 3 has a main body 3b formed into a bellows shape by alternately bending a sheet-like material such as paper or nonwoven fabric”) including a fluted corrugated sheet having a wavy pattern (sheet 3) defining a plurality of concave channels connected by convex peaks such that the concave channels are spaced apart (see channels and peaks of sheet 3 in Figure 2);
An adhesive disposed on at least a center portion of each of the concave channels (adhesive layer 4),
Wherein the fluted corrugated sheet is configured to trap one or more target insects, the one or more target insects being Insecta Diptera Muscidae ranging from 6mm to 20mm in body length (this is an intended use for the trap which does not further limit the structure of the trap, and trap 1 is of sufficient size to trap small animals such as a mouse, therefore it can be configured to trap house flies which are smaller than a mouse).
Hashimoto does not disclose the adhesive being insect adhesive, wherein the convex peaks do not have any insect adhesive. However, this limitation is taught by Shotwell. Shotwell discloses a corrugated panel (collar 10) defining a plurality of concave channels (column 4, lines 49-50 disclose “the inner surface is in the form of a undulating pattern or a series of raised flat-topped teeth”) connected by convex peaks having a width (teeth 17) with an insect adhesive adhered only to the plurality of concave channels (glue 14), wherein the convex peaks of the corrugated panel are free of any insect adhesive (see Figures 5, 6, 7). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hashimoto using the teachings from Shotwell in order to prevent the trap from adhering to other objects that may come into contact with the peaks of sheet 3 and to provide darker recesses that are more attractive to insects.
Hashimoto does not disclose the fluted corrugated sheet being a B-fluted sheet. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the channels and teeth of whatever size is desired to capture different types of target insects, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 19, Hashimoto discloses an adhesive insect trap for trapping one or more target insects, comprising:
At least one flat, single face corrugated fiberboard panel (see Figure 1, paragraph 18 discloses “The sheet 3 has a main body 3b formed into a bellows shape by alternately bending a sheet-like material such as paper or nonwoven fabric”) including a fluted corrugated sheet having an outwardly facing surface defining a wavy pattern (sheet 3) formed by a plurality of concave channels connected by convex peaks such that the concave channels are spaced apart (see channels and peaks of sheet 3 in Figure 2) and a flat sheet attached to the fluted corrugated sheet, the plurality of concave channels facing away from the flat sheet (substrate 2);
An adhesive disposed in each of the concave channels (adhesive layer 4).
Hashimoto does not disclose the convex peaks of the corrugated panels are free of any insect adhesive. However, this limitation is taught by Shotwell. Shotwell discloses a corrugated panel (collar 10) defining a plurality of concave channels (column 4, lines 49-50 disclose “the inner surface is in the form of a undulating pattern or a series of raised flat-topped teeth”) connected by convex peaks having a width (teeth 17) with an insect adhesive adhered only to the plurality of concave channels (glue 14), wherein the convex peaks of the corrugated panel are free of any insect adhesive (see Figures 5, 6, 7). It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hashimoto using the teachings from Shotwell in order to prevent the trap from adhering to other objects that may come into contact with the peaks of sheet 3 and to provide darker recesses that are more attractive to insects.
Hashimoto and Shotwell do not disclose the outwardly facing surface includes a visual insect attractant having an appearance selected for luring the one or more target insects. However, column 4, lines 18-21 of Shotwell suggests that “If desired, however, a suitable insect attractant also may be added to the glue substance 14 to further increase the chances of any given flea entering one of the openings 11”. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Hashimoto and Shotwell to include attractants to lure insects to the trap, and it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to choose known types of attractants, such as visual attractants, as desired.
Regarding claim 20 (dependent on claim 19), Hashimoto in view of Shotwell further teaches the one or more target insects include insects from the order Diptera and Hymenoptera with a body size ranging from 6 mm to 20 mm. This is an intended use for the trap which does not further limit the structure of the trap, and trap 1 is of sufficient size to trap small animals such as a mouse, therefore it can be configured to trap house flies which are smaller than a mouse.
Regarding claim 21 (dependent on claim 15), Hashimoto discloses the at least one corrugated, generally planar panel includes a rectangular, single face corrugated fiberboard panel (see Figure 1).
Regarding claim 22 (dependent on claim 1), Hashimoto does not disclose the fluted corrugated sheet being a B-fluted sheet. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the channels and teeth of whatever size is desired to capture different types of target insects, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 23 (dependent on claim 1), Hashimoto in view of Shotwell further teaches the adhesive trap is configured to trap one or more target insects from the order Diptera. This is an intended use for the trap which does not further limit the structure of the trap, and trap 1 is of sufficient size to trap small animals such as a mouse, therefore it can be configured to trap house flies which are smaller than a mouse.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly amended claim limitations are moot in view of the current grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL H WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-6554. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Josh 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.
MICHAEL H. WANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3642
/MICHAEL H WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642