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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 06/26/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
Reference Character 14, para0041 “channels”
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. 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 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(s) 8, 10, 13, 19 is(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 8 recites “the at least part of the inlet”. There is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 10 recites “the conical inlet passages”. There is a lack of antecedent basis.
Claim 13 recites “the one or more elongated members interact with walls defining the opening to position the inspenser to enable fluid communication between the opening and one or more channels.” This requires an arrangement with the walls and the opening (i.e. requiring the walls and opening), however the wall and opening themselves are not required by claim 1, and thus the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Claim 19 “the expected incoming path”. There is a lack of antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5,7,13,16,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Put et al. herein Put (US 20190200580 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Put discloses:
An inspenser for delivering additive via bees,(abstract and figs)
the inspenser operable with a hive housing comprising an opening, the inspenser comprising: (para0059)
a body (Fig 1D)
having one or more channels (1,2)
for fluid communication with the opening; (para0059)
an inlet (3,1,6)
and an outlet (4,2,5)
each permitting movement of bees between an environment and the one or more channels; (para0010-0011,0014)
a surface (surface of 2+1)
for receiving an additive, within the one or more channels, (para0010-0012)
the surface being proximate to an expected incoming path travelled by bees entering the one or more channels via the inlet; (surface of 1+2, Fig 1D, para0010-0012)
a deflector, positioned between the inlet and the outlet, inhibiting bees moving along the expected incoming path from entering the outlet. (deflector wall between 1 and 2)
Regarding claim 2:
Put discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the inlet includes the surface. (1, Fig 1D)
Regarding claim 3:
Put discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the surface includes a lip for preventing additive dispersion.(see walls of body 1, fig 1D)
Regarding claim 4:
Put discloses claim 1 and further discloses:
wherein the inlet and the outlet include, respectively, one or more conical passages, (see conical cone passages of 3,5)
the inlet conical passages narrow along a direction defined by the expected incoming path. (see how 3 narrows in a direction flowing from 6 to 3)
Regarding claim 5:
Put discloses claim 4 and further discloses:
wherein the outlet conical passages at least in part narrow away from the direction defined by the expected incoming path. (see how 5 narrows in a direction away from path flowing from 6 to 3)
Regarding claim 7:
Put discloses claim 4 and further discloses:
wherein the one or more conical passages of the outlet are parallel to the one or more conical passages of the inlet. (see how 4 is parallel to 3)
Regarding claim 13:
Put discloses claim 4 and further discloses:
wherein the body further comprises one or more elongated members; (see sidewalls of body, fig 1D)
wherein in an assembled configuration the one or more elongated members interact with walls defining the opening to position the inspenser to enable fluid communication between the opening and one or more channels. (Fig 5A-5D)
Regarding claim 16:
Put discloses claim 4 and further discloses:
further comprising one or more legs for positioning the inspenser to enable fluid communication between the opening and one or more channels. (see sidewalls of body, fig 1D)
Regarding claim 19:
Put discloses:
An apparatus for managing bees of a hive housing having an opening, the apparatus comprising: (abstract and figs)
a body (Fig 1)
including a cavity (1,2,)
in fluid communication with the opening; (para059)
an inlet (3,1,6)
and an outlet, opposite the opening, (4,2,5)
respectively permitting movement of bees from ambient air into the cavity and permitting movement of bees from the opening out of the cavity; (para0010-0011,0014)
a surface (surface of 2+1)
for receiving an additive, (para0010-0012)
the surface proximate to the inlet, (surface of 2+1 is proximate to 3,1,6)
wherein the surface includes a lip downstream of the inlet relative to the expected incoming path. (see walls of body 1, fig 1D)
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.
Claim(s) 6,8,11,12,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Put.
Regarding claim 6:
Put discloses claim 4 but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein a size of an opening of the inlet conical passages is an expected size of a head of a bee.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the size of the opening of the inlet conical passages of Put such that they were the size of a head of a bee as claimed to prevent insects such as wasps from entering the beehive, 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 8:
Put discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the at least part of the inlet is red.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the color of the inlet of Put such that it was red as claimed to prevent bees from exiting through the inlet since it is a well-known fact that bees cannot see the color red, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the color of a component to suit its intended function for the bee.
Regarding claim 11:
Put discloses claim 4 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the conical passages of the inlet are spaced apart to prevent bees from walking from one opening of one conical passage into an adjacent opening of an adjacent conical passage. (Put discloses one conical passage of the inlet 3 and three spaced apart conical outlets 5)
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conical passages of the inlet to include conical passages that are spaced apart as taught by the conical passages of the outlet of Put (see outlets 5) to ensure that more than one entry into the beehive is available and spaced apart to prevent bee clustering at the inlets, 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.
Regarding claim 12:
Put as modified discloses claim 11 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein there are three inlet conical passages. (Put discloses one conical passage of the inlet 3)
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the conical passages of the inlet to include three passages as claimed to ensure that more than one entry into the beehive is available, 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.
Regarding claim 14:
Put discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inlet and the outlet are removably connected to the body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inlet and outlet to be removably connected as claimed to allow for the parts to be readily replaceable in case of damage.
Claim(s) 9,10,17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Put, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Collinson et al. herein Collinson (US 20150359204 A1).
Regarding claim 9:
Put discloses claim 4 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the body further comprises one or more protrusions into the one or more channels guiding the bees towards the surface.
Collinson discloses:
wherein the body further comprises one or more protrusions into the one or more channels guiding the bees towards the surface. (234, fig 7, para0100)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the body of Put such that it comprises one or more protrusion as disclosed by Collinson to encourage bees to walk through the powder (para0100).
Regarding claim 10:
Put as modified discloses claim 9 and Collinson further discloses:
wherein the protrusions are a minimum distance from an opening of the conical inlet passages to prevent the bees from exiting via the inlet. (234 are a minimal distance from passage 212 therefore preventing the bees from exiting)
Regarding claim 17:
Put discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the body further comprises one or more protrusions into the one or more channels guiding the bees towards the surface.
Collinson discloses:
wherein the body further comprises one or more protrusions into the one or more channels guiding the bees towards the surface. (234, fig 7, para0100)
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the body of Put such that it comprises one or more protrusion as disclosed by Collinson to encourage bees to walk through the powder (para0100).
Regarding claim 18:
Put as modified discloses claim 17 and Collinson further discloses:
wherein the one or more protrusions are between a lip of the surface and the inlet, guiding bees from the inlet towards the surface while permitting bees to fly from the surface over the lip. (234 located between upper edges of 232 and inlet, Fig 7, para0100)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Put, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Escolan (FR 2943217 A1).
Regarding claim 15:
Put as modified discloses claim 14 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the inlet and the outlet are shelves which are insertable into the one or more channels.
Escolan discloses:
wherein the inlet is a shelf which is insertable into the one or more channels. (30, Fig 1,3 is a shelf that is insertable into channels 10,9,11,12,13 “The slide 9 is thus partially closed on the sides and can receive a hive entrance door 20,30,40 (shown respectively in FIGS. 2,3,4) sliding in the grooves 10,11 to close the inlet 8 Advantageously, the slide 9 with the grooves 10, 11 has a height substantially equal to the height of the entry door 20, 30, 40, so that the door 20, 30, 40 is perfectly maintained in the slideway 9.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the inlet and outlets of Put such that it comprises the features as disclosed by Escolan to allow for the inlet and outlet to be readily replaceable in case of damage.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADA M ALGHAILANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30am - 4:30pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached on 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.
/SHADA MOHAMED ALGHAILANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643