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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 22 May 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the air gap must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: at least “a chamber”, “a plug”, and “a light” should be indented under “the lower portion including:”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. An “air gap” of claim 11 is neither mentioned in the originally filed specification, nor is it clearly shown in the drawings.
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 3, 4, & 11-21 are 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.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2, now canceled. The scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. Claim 4 is rejected as dependent from claim 3.
Claim 11 requires “wherein the front wall includes and trap holder are mounted” -- in addition to the phrase being incomplete, “trap holder” appears to be double included. Claims 12-21 are rejected as dependents thereon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 11-13, 15, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by Burt et al. (US 12302887 B2, “Burt”).
For Claim 11, Burt discloses an insect trap (title, disclosure; Fig. 28) comprising:
a body (102),
wherein the body includes a lower portion1 and an upper portion mounted on the lower portion (Fig. 28),
the lower portion including: a chamber (inside of the base 102 housing): a plug (112) extending from a rear of the lower portion and configured for electrical connection to an electrical outlet (Fig. 28); and a light (114) mounted on a top of the lower portion and configure to emit light (Fig. 28);
the upper portion including:
a front wall (shade 122);
a trap holder (150) mounted behind the front wall (Fig. 28) including a recess (151) including an adhesive material (Col. 6, lines 44-60), wherein light from the light portion is projected toward the trap holder to attract insects to the adhesive material (Fig. 28),
wherein the front wall includes and trap holder are mounted such that a top of the upper portion is entirely open such that an air gap (opening 135) is provided between the front wall and an inner edge of the lower portion (Fig. 28).
For Claim 12, Burt discloses the insect trap of claim 11, and Burt further discloses wherein the lower portion includes: a front wall (where 122 is mounted, Fig. 28); a first sidewall connected to the front wall (the side of the base show in Fig. 28); a second sidewall (opposite the first) connected to the front wall opposite the first sidewall (the walls are connected seamlessly and gradually); a rear wall (where 112 is mounted) connecting the first sidewall and second sidewall (Fig. 28); and a bottom wall connecting the front wall, wherein the chamber is defined by the front wall, the first sidewall, the second sidewall, the rear wall and the bottom wall (Fig. 28).
For Claim 13, Burt discloses the insect trap of claim 12, and Burt further discloses further comprising a plug housing provided in the rear wall and the plug extends from the plug housing (Fig. 28).
For Claim 15, Burt discloses the insect trap of claim 11, and Burt further discloses further comprising a control circuit mounted in the chamber and connected to the light to control emission of light (Col. 13, lines 1-32).
For Claim 20, Burt discloses the insect trap of clam 15, and Burt further discloses further comprising a light sensor connected to the control circuit and configured to provide light information associated with a light level around the insect trap, wherein the control circuit activates the light based on the light information (Col. 14, lines 10-31).
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, & 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandford et al. (US 20160262367 A1, “Sandford”).
For Claim 1, Sandford discloses an insect trap (title, disclosure; note that, while multiple embodiments of Sandford appear to read on the claimed invention, Figs. 1-4 are mapped herein to keep the rejection concise) comprising:
a base (112);
a body (114) mounted in the base (via 130), the body including:
a front wall (front surface 168);
a rear wall (142) mounted opposite the front wall (Fig. 3);
at least one sidewall (166) connecting the front wall and the rear wall (Fig. 3);
wherein the front wall, rear wall, at least one of the at least one sidewall and base define a central chamber (Fig. 3) and the central chamber includes an adhesive material (134, 136);
a light (124) directing light into the central chamber to attract insects into the central chamber (via 144);
a plurality of openings (120) formed in at least one of the front wall (Fig. 1) and the rear wall configured to allow insects to pass into the central chamber; and
a power source mounted in the base electrically connected to the light, wherein the power source provides power without a connection to an external power source (as shown in Fig. 2, the prongs containing the illustrated power source are within the base; ¶0423 clearly states that “the power source includes an electrical power outlet or a battery.”).
However, if Sandford doesn’t disclose “the power source provides power without a connection to an external power source” in the same embodiment as the openings on the front or rear wall, then it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the power source of first embodiment of Sandford without a connection to an external power source as further taught by ¶0423 of Sandford, in order to provide a more versatile device which is capable of being setting up off grid or in an obscure area, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 5, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 1, and Sandford further discloses wherein the adhesive material is provided on at least one of2 the front wall ¶0074 and the rear wall.
For Claim 6, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 1, and Sandford further discloses further comprising an input element (116) operably connected to the light and configured to turn the light on and off ¶0069-70.
For Claim 7, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 1, and Sandford further discloses wherein the light further comprises one or more light sources (124) mounted in the base.
For Claim 8, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 1, and Sandford further discloses further comprising a lens mounted in the base to direct light from the light into the central chamber (“transparent or translucent window” mounted in 144, ¶0072 and Fig. 3).
For Claim 9, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 1, and Sandford further discloses further comprising a substrate (134) mounted in the central chamber, wherein the adhesive material is provided on the substrate (Fig. 3).
For Claim 10, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 1, and Sandford further discloses wherein the body is removable from the base to allow access to the central chamber ¶0070.
Claims 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandford as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Pinheiro Pinto Sobreiro (US 20190246616 A1, “Sobreiro”).
For Claim 3, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 2.
Sandford is silent to further comprising a recharging circuit electrically connected to the power source and configured to charge the power source.
Sobreiro, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) comprising a recharging circuit (11) electrically connected to the power source and configured to charge the power source (¶0007,17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the device of Sandford with a rechargeable battery and corresponding circuitry as taught by Sobreiro, in order to provide a transportable and off-the-grid battery, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 4, Sandford in view of Sobreiro teaches the insect trap of claim 3, and Sobreiro further discloses wherein the base includes a charging port configured to receive a plug connected to a charging wire ¶0007.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Jubelirer et al. (US 20090227122 A1, “Jubelirer”).
For Claim 14, Burt discloses the insect trap of claim 13.
Burt is silent to wherein the plug is pivotally attached to the plug housing to move from an extended position in which the plug extends substantially perpendicular to the rear wall and a second position in which the plug is received in a recess in the plug housing such that it is flush with the rear wall.
Jubelirer, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure), comprising wherein a plug is pivotally attached to a plug housing to move from an extended position in which the plug extends substantially perpendicular to the rear wall (Fig. 3) and a second position in which the plug is received in a recess in the plug housing such that it is flush with the rear wall (Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the plugs of Burt with the ability to fold flush with the rear wall of the lower portion of the housing as taught by Jubelirer, in order to avoid the prongs being bent or broken during transport, etc., yielding predictable results.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Demarest et al. (US 5513465 A, “Demarest”).
For Claim 16, Burt discloses the insect trap of claim 15.
Burt is silent to further comprising a printed circuit board, wherein the control circuit provided on the printed circuit board.
Demarest, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) with a lighting source (28), wherein the control circuitry for the light source is provided on a printed circuit board (Col. 6, lines 57-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the control circuitry of Burt with a PCB as taught by Demarest, in order to provide an easily manufactured, easily reproducible design, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 17, Burt in view of Demarest teaches the insect trap of claim 16, and the resulting device further teaches further comprising a power source (via 112, Burt) operably connected to the control circuit and the light (114, Burt) to provide power to the control circuit and the light (Id.).
For Claim 18, Burt in view of Demarest teaches the insect trap of claim 17, and Burt further discloses further comprising a first input device (Note HH, Col. 28) connected to the control circuit and configured to receive input from a user to control the light (such as through the mechanical switch).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt in view of Demarest as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Zobele (US 20060231544 A1).
For Claim 19, Burt in view of Demarest teaches the insect trap of claim 18, and Burt further discloses wherein the first input device is a switch used to activate the light, deactivate the light (wherein at least a switch with on and off is discussed in Col. 28, Id.).
Burt in view of Demarest is silent to a third position being the light on a timer.
Zobele, like prior art above, teaches an energized plug-in device (title, disclosure) further comprising a timed light being on a switch ¶0050.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the switch and light source of Burt as modified, with a third setting of timed light as taught by Zobele, in order to avoid wasting energy and/or longevity of the device, if the user does not need it for long periods of time, yielding predictable results.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burt as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zobele.
For Claim 21, Burt discloses the insect trap of claim 15.
Burt is silent to wherein the control circuit activates the light for a predetermined period of time.
Zobele, like prior art above, teaches an energized plug-in device (title, disclosure) further comprising a timed light being on a switch ¶0050.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the switch and light source of Burt with a third setting of timed light as taught by Zobele, in order to avoid wasting energy and/or longevity of the device, if the user does not need it for long periods of time, yielding predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to present claims 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
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 20030079398 A1, US 20050055870 A1, US 20190045771 A1, US 20170086448 A1, US 20220295775 A1, and US 20230309540 A1 as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention. The remaining references cited establish the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: without further structural limitation to the contrary, recitation of one “portion” does not necessarily preclude another “portion”.
2 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the Markush limitation.
3 Interpretation note: see above 112b rejection; claim 3 is assumed to be dependent from claim 1.
Prosecution Insights