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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 23 January 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because for #1 alone: listing of "All office actions" in the IDS is incorrect because MPEP 609.04(a) states, in part: "If applicant seeks consideration of documents other than the specification (including the claims) and drawings of an application, for example, Office actions, applicant must list such documents separately under the non-patent literature section or in a new section appropriately labeled. The USPTO would be understood to be the publisher/place of publication for a listed U.S. Office action or a U.S. application." Not only does "all office actions" not concretely list the pertinent actions that Applicant would like considered, it also cites office actions which may be published in the future. An Examiner could not reasonably sign off on having considered something which has not already occurred.
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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 1-3, 8, 9, 12, 13, & 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha et al. (US 20190045771 A1, “Rocha”) in view of Feldhege et al. (WO 2005053389 A1, “Feldhege”).
For Claim 1, Rocha discloses an arthropod trapping device (insect trap 10, Fig. 2) comprising:
a. a housing (upper trap enclosure 12 and lower electrical housing 14) comprising a base (14) and a shade coupled to the base (12), the base and the shade defining an opening in the housing (open top end 26, as shown in Fig. 2):
i. the base (14) configured to receive power from a power source, wherein at least one lamp is mounted on the base ¶0048-49;
ii. the shade (12) configured to receive more than one insert (as seen Fig. 3, there is space within the device to house more than one 27, ¶0037-38), wherein the shade comprises a front wall (25 or 35), a rear wall (the other of 25 or 35), and first and second side walls located between the front wall and the rear wall (the remainder of 20 which connects 25 & 35, Fig. 2), wherein at least one of the side walls, comprises an opening (30); and
b. one or more inserts (one insert, 27), each insert comprising a shade-facing surface (facing 35, Fig. 3) and a light-facing surface (facing 54, Fig. 3), wherein an adhesive for trapping the arthropod is disposed on the LED-facing surface (as seen in Fig. 3 and the accompanying description found ¶0054).
Rocha is silent to the at least one lamp is at least one LED.
Feldhege, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising at least one LED (“a red LED (32) on the left, a blue LED (33) in the middle and a green LED (34) on the right” discussed in paragraphs 5-6 on page 3 of the previously provided).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the light source of Rocha with at least one LED as taught by Feldhege, in order to provide a power-efficient light source which is replaceable, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 2, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1, and Rocha further discloses wherein the front wall (in this instance, the front wall is 35) of the shade is configured to receive an insert (35 is configured to accept 27).
For Claim 3, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1, and Rocha further discloses wherein the rear wall (in this instance, the rear wall is 35) of the shade is configured to receive an insert (35 is configured to accept 27).
For Claim 8, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1, and Rocha further discloses wherein the shade is substantially symmetrical about a plane that vertically bisects the front and rear walls (the left and right sides mirror one another when viewed cross-sectionally and from the front 25/35).
For Claim 9, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1, and Rocha further discloses wherein the shade comprises one or more guiderails (wings 58, ¶0037).
For Claim 12, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device of claim 1, and Rocha further teaches wherein each insert comprises one or more flanges (the portions of 27 housed within the wings 58, Fig. 3) configured to slide into the one or more guiderails of the shade ¶0055.
For Claim 13, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device of claim 1, and Rocha further discloses wherein each insert comprises a substrate (the “sticky” portion of the sticky paper) and a frame for supporting the substrate (the “paper” portion of the sticky paper, noting that the sticky paper 27 slides out of the wings 58, ¶0055), wherein the LED-facing surface of the substrate has the adhesive disposed thereon ¶0054.
For Claim 19, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1, and Feldhege further teaches wherein the at least one LED has a peak wavelength of from about 400 nm to about 600 nm and is configured to emit light toward the LED-facing surface of the insert (wherein at least “595 nm, 594 nm, 591 nm, 588 nm, 585 nm, 574 nm , 565 nm, 525 nm, 468 nm, 430 nm, 428 nm” read on the claimed range, sixth paragraph of page 3 of the previously provided translation).
For Claim 20, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1, and Feldhege further teaches wherein the at least one LED has a peak wavelength of from about 350 nm to about 400 nm, emitted through the opening in the side wall (380-400nm is anticipated by the third paragraph of page 6, meeting the claim limitation).
For Claim 21, Rocha discloses an arthropod trapping device (insect trap 10, Fig. 2) comprising:
a. a housing (upper trap enclosure 12 and lower electrical housing 14) comprising a base (14) and a shade coupled to the base (12), the base and the shade defining an opening in the housing (open top end 26, as shown in Fig. 2):
i. the base (14) configured to receive power from a power source, wherein at least one lamp is mounted on the base ¶0048-49;
ii. the shade (12) configured to receive more than one insert (as seen in Fig. 3, there is space within device to house more than one 27, ¶0037-38), wherein the shade comprises a front wall (25 or 35), a rear wall (the other of 25 or 35), and first and second side walls located between the front wall and the rear wall (the remainder of 20 which connects 24 & 35, Fig. 2), wherein at least one of the side walls, comprises an opening (30); and
b. one or more inserts (one insert, 27), each insert comprising a shade-facing surface (facing 35, Fig. 3) and a light-facing surface (facing 54, Fig. 3), wherein an adhesive for trapping the arthropod is disposed on the light-facing surface (as seen in Fig. 3 and the accompanying description found in ¶0054);
wherein the at least one lamp is configured to emit light in a direction substantially perpendicular to the light-facing surface of the insert and the at least one lamp is configured to emit light through the opening in the side wall (since the light source of the device radiates light, it is able to shine through both the opening and at a right angle to the insert).
Rocha is silent to the at least one lamp is one blue LED and at least one UV LED is mounted on the base.
Feldhege, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising at least one blue LED (33) and at least one UV LED mounted on the base (as discussed on page 6 of the previous provided translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the base of Rocha with at least two LEDs: one blue and one LED as taught by Feldhege, in order to better attract specific types of targeted/invasive insects, as is well known in the art, and yielding predictable results.
Claims 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha in view of Feldhege as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weimert et al. (US 4141173 A, “Weimert”).
For Claim 4, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1.
Rocha as modified wherein the device further comprises a bridge extending over the opening of the housing and joining the inner surfaces of the first and second side walls.
Weimert, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) wherein the trap further comprises a bridge (20) extending over an opening (16) of housing (10) and joining inner surfaces of first and second side walls (all surface of the two walls are joined, Figs. 1 & 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the top opening of Rocha in view of Feldhege with a bridge as taught by Weimert, in order to provide an additional light source in order to better attract insects, as is well known in the art and yielding predictable results.
For Claim 5, Rocha as modified teaches the arthropod trapping device of claim 4, and the resulting device further teaches wherein the opening in the side wall is a vertical opening (any one of the openings 30, as they all extend in the vertical direction) and is aligned with the bridge (as modified in from Weimert, connecting the sidewalls of Rocha).
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha in view of Feldhege as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cavanaugh et al. (US 5311697 A, “Cavanaugh”).
For Claim 6, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1, and Rocha further discloses wherein the front wall, the rear wall, the first side wall, and the second side wall are continuous (Fig. 2) and form either a substantially semi-circular shape ¶0033.
Rocha in view of Feldhege is silent to the shape being substantially cylindrical shape or a polygonal prism shape.
Cavanaugh, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) further comprising a cylindrical shape (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the semi-circular shape of Rocha in view of with a cylindrical shape such as the one taught by Cavanaugh, in order to better fit a user’s aesthetic and/or better fit a particular environment, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 7, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1.
Rocha in view of Feldhege is silent to wherein the shade is substantially symmetrical about a plane that vertically bisects the first and second side walls.
Cavanaugh, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) further comprising a cylindrical shape (Abstract), which is substantially symmetrical about a plane that vertically bisects the first and second side walls.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the semi-circular shape of Rocha in view of with a cylindrical shape such as the one taught by Cavanaugh, in order to better fit a user’s aesthetic and/or better fit a particular environment, yielding predictable results.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha in view of Feldhege as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Studer et al. (US 20180184635 A1, “Studer”).
For Claim 10, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device of claim 9.
Rocha in view of Feldhege is silent to wherein the shade comprises two pairs of guiderails, a first pair of guiderails disposed on the inner surface of the front wall and a second pair of guiderails disposed on the inner surface of the rear wall.
Studer, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) and further teaches two sets of guiderails (formed between 80 and 84/97, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the housing of Rocha to face both sides, as in Studer, in order to double the catching surface area, and yielding predictable results.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha in view of Feldhege as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 201901419771 A1, “Smith”).
For Claim 14, Rocha as modified teaches the arthropod trapping device of claim 13.
Rocha as modified is silent to wherein each insert comprises a downwardly depending tab extending from a first end of the frame, wherein the base of the device comprises one or more slots configured to receive the downwardly depending tab.
Smith, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising each insert (218) comprises a downwardly depending tab (264) extending from a first end of the frame, wherein the base of the device comprises one or more slots configured to receive the downwardly depending tab (represented by the switch, ¶0070).
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 the above-modified reference with a tab and accepting slot as taught by Smith, in order to ensure proper and snug placement of the inserts into the device, yielding predictable results.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha in view of Feldhege as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Studer and Demarest et al. (US 5722199 A, “Demarest”).
For Claim 17, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1.
Rocha in view of Feldhege is silent to wherein the shade comprises more than one recess, wherein each recess is configured to receive a graspable tab of an insert.
Studer, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) and further teaches two sets of guiderails holding two inserts (formed between 80 and 84/97, Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the housing of Rocha to face both sides, as in Studer, in order to double the catching surface area, and yielding predictable results.
Demarest, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) further comprising a shade comprises a recess (the notch in top of 24, Fig. 2), wherein each recess is configured to receive a graspable tab of an insert (represented by 73, but the graspable tab is not positively recited).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify each sidewall of Rocha as modified with a notch as taught by Demarest, in order to avoid the user putting their fingers into glue or debris, yielding predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha in view of Feldhege as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lark et al. (US 8572890 B1, “Lark”).
For Claim 18, Rocha in view of Feldhege teaches the arthropod trapping device according to claim 1.
Rocha in view of Feldhege is silent to wherein the base comprises an electrical cord in electrical communication with the at least one LED and wherein the base comprises an annular channel for receiving the electrical cord.
Lark, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) further comprising an elongated power cord (166, Fig. 17) with keepers (162, 163, Fig. 19).
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 Rocha in view of Smith with an elongated power cord as taught by Lark, in order to allow for the device to be placed in better proximity to the insect infestation, and still get power.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the base of the above-modified reference to contain an annular groove for receiving the elongated power cord, in order to provide tidy storage during transit, and since the Examiner takes Official Notice that an annular groove as a replacement for cord keepers in electrical devices is exceedingly well known in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 & 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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
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 Reference to US 20190141977 A1 was published 16 May 2019, well outside of the grace period afforded the instant invention.