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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11: “incudes” in line 3 should be replaced with --includes--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 2, 5-13, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by 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
one or more legs mounted on a bottom surface of the base configured to mount the insect trap on a surface (claim 6).
For Claim 2, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 1, and Sandford further discloses further comprising a power source (122) mounted in the base and electrically connected to the light ¶0071.
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 of1 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.
For Claim 11, Sandford discloses an insect trap (title, disclosure; Figs. 1-4, similar to the rejection of claim 1) comprising:
a body (112 + 114),
wherein the body incudes a lower portion2 (112) and an upper portion (114) mounted on the lower portion (Figs. 1-4),
the lower portion including: a chamber (inside of 112): a plug (122) extending from a rear of the lower portion and configured for electrical connection to an electrical outlet (Fig. 4); and a light (124) mounted on a top of the lower portion and configure to emit light ¶0071;
the upper portion including:
a front wall (168);
a trap holder (134) mounted behind the front wall (Fig. 4) including a recess (130 and the recess between the front and rear housings, as discussed in ¶0075) including an adhesive material (136), wherein light from the light portion is projected toward the trap holder to attract insects to the adhesive material (Fig. 4),
wherein a top of the upper portion is open (openings are formed in at least a top portion of the upper portion, seen in Figs. 3-4, as the apertures 120 follow the curve at the top of 118).
For Claim 12, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 11, and Sandford further discloses wherein the lower portion includes: a front wall (where 116 is mounted, Fig. 4); a first sidewall connected to the front wall (at one point 132, Fig. 2); a second sidewall (at another point 132, Fig. 2) connected to the front wall opposite the first sidewall (the walls are connected seamlessly and gradually); a rear wall (162) connecting the first sidewall and second sidewall (Fig. 2); 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. 2).
For Claim 13, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 12, and Sandford further discloses further comprising a plug housing provided (for 122) in the rear wall and the plug extends from the plug housing (Fig. 2).
For Claim 15, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 11, and Sandford further discloses further comprising a control circuit (150) mounted in the chamber and connected to the light to control emission of light ¶0076.
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 3 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandford as applied to claim 2 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.
Claims 14 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandford as applied to claims 13 & 15 respectively above, and further in view of Jubelirer et al. (US 20090227122 A1, “Jubelirer”).
For Claim 14, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 13.
Sandford 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 Sandford 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.
For Claim 20, Sandford discloses the insect trap of clam 15, and Sandford 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 (“an automatic setting that turns on when the room gets dark,” ¶0070).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandford as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Demarest et al. (US 5513465 A, “Demarest”).
For Claim 16, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 15, and Sandford 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 Sandford with a PCB as taught by Demarest, in order to provide an easily manufactured, easily reproducible design, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 17, Sandford in view of Demarest teaches the insect trap of claim 16, and the resulting device further teaches further comprising a power source (via 122, Sandford) operably connected to the control circuit (150, Sandford) and the light (124, Sandford) to provide power to the control circuit and the light (Id.).
For Claim 18, Sandford in view of Demarest teaches the insect trap of claim 17, and Sandford further discloses further comprising a first input device (one of switch 116 and/or the other functions of switch 116 disclosed in ¶0070: “Switch 116 may be manually operated, although switch 116 may also be operated electrically, optically, electro-mechanically, electro-optically, or by any other method or combination of methods for opening or closing switch 116.”) connected to the control circuit and configured to receive input from a user to control the light (e.g. by switching the mechanical switch to “on”, ¶0070).
Claims 19 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandford in view of Demarest as applied to claim 18 above, or Sandford as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zobele (US 20060231544 A1).
For Claim 19, Sandford in view of Demarest teaches the insect trap of claim 18, and Sandford further discloses wherein the first input device is a three position switch used to activate the light, deactivate the light (wherein at least a three position switch with on and off is discussed in ¶0070).
Sandford in view of Demarest is silent to the 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 Sandford 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.
For Claim 21, Sandford discloses the insect trap of claim 15.
Sandford 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 Sandford 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 filed 7 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE Applicant argument that Sandford does not anticipate the amended claim language directed to “one or more legs mounted on a bottom surface of the base configured to mount the insect trap on a surface,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sandford, claim 6, explicitly states “the base portion comprises a bottom flat surface or legs to enable base portion to remain upright,” meeting the claim limitation.
Additionally, RE Applicant arguments that “such that the top of the upper portion of the device in Sanford is not open.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Since the claims do not require the entire top portion of the claimed device to be open, the extension of openings in the front wall to at least a portion of the uppermost surface of the upper portion reads on the claimed invention. In other words, since the upper portion of Sandford is not closed, as it has several openings for the entrance of pests, etc., it meets the claim amendment.
It is further noted that Fig. 16 of Sandford illustrates a chamber immediately surrounding the electrical components [mounted on 534] of the device, reading closely on the claimed/disclosed invention. Additionally, DE 3840440 A1 to Englebrecht shows a similar insect trap, reading closely on the claimed/disclosed invention.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
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 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: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the Markush limitation.
2 Interpretation note: without further structural limitation to the contrary, recitation of one “portion” does not necessarily preclude another “portion”