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 with traverse of Species A/Figures 1-3 in the reply filed on 11/19/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the alternate embodiments identified by the Examiner are not alternate embodiments. This is not found persuasive because applicant’s arguments go on to describe the alternate features of the alternate embodiments, thus describing alternate embodiments. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 7 recites two sidewalls which is not directed towards the elected species; therefore, this claim is withdrawn.
Claim 9 is directed towards the two sidewall embodiment, as described in applicant’s paragraph 0033; therefore, claims 9-10 are withdrawn.
Claim 15 is directed towards the two sidewall embodiment, as described in applicant’s paragraph 0033; therefore, claims 15-16 are withdrawn.
Claim 17 is directed towards the two sidewall embodiment, as described in applicant’s paragraph 0033; therefore, claims 17-19 are withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 9/28/23 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 chain encircling a targeted tree, an insect-trapping adhesive situated between the insect barrier device and the targeted tree, and the chain substantially covering an insect-trapping adhesive 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 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.
Claims 2, 5-6, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations end in a semicolon which presents an indefiniteness with regards to whether additional limitations were intended or not.
Regarding claim 5, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) {MPEP § 2173.05(p)}.
Regarding claim 12, the differentiation between “joinable elements” and “abuttable links” is unclear.
Claim 13 is generally narrative and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perry US 5,170,584.
Regarding claim 1, Perry teaches a modular insect barrier device comprising:
A plurality of links (summarized in the abstract and figure 1), each of said links further comprising:
An outer shell (see annotated figures below), at least one sidewall (17 figures 4-5), and an endcap (see annotated figures below),
the at least one sidewall being fixed to a first edge of the outer shell (such as an “inside” edge as shown in figure 4) and
the endcap being fixed to an adjacent edge of the outer shell (similarly shown in figure 5),
such that a volume of space is partially enclosed (figures 4-5), and
such that an entryway is located opposite to the endcap (see annotated figures below);
In which each of the plurality of links are abuttable to at least one other link of the plurality of links (where a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim);
Such that all of the links comprising the plurality of links may be abutted to form a chain of a desired length (where a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim);
but does not specify In which the chain is configured to encircle a targeted tree.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange the elements as recited, in order to protect a tree from such pests as described in Perry; since protection of trees from pests is well known and a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
324
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Perry teaches the modular insect barrier device of Claim 1, in which abuttable links are instead joinable links (see claim 1 rejection);
Regarding claim 3, Perry teaches the modular insect barrier device of Claim 1, in which an opposite edge of the outer shell is positioned opposite the at least one sidewall (figures 4-5), configured such that the opposite edge of a first of the plurality of links is abuttable to the sidewall of a second of the plurality of links (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 4, Perry teaches the modular insect barrier device of Claim 3, in which the opposite edge of a first of the plurality of links is joinable to the sidewall of a second of the plurality of links (see previous claim rejections).
Regarding claim 5, Perry teaches the modular insect barrier device of Claim 1, but does not specify in which an insect-trapping adhesive is situated between the modular insect barrier device and the targeted tree, such that the insect-trapping adhesive is accessible through the entryway.
However, insect-trapping adhesives are well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange such an adhesive, in order to enhance mitigating pests; since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Perry teaches the modular insect barrier device of Claim 5, in which the entryway is configured to deter access by animals larger than a targeted animal species (figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 11, Perry teaches a method for deploying the insect barrier device of Claim 1, the method comprising the steps of: A user selects a number of the plurality of links sufficient to encircle a targeted tree; The user fixes each of the selected links to the targeted tree in a configuration such that the links abut one another and such that the endcaps and entryways of each links are all substantially parallel to those of each other link and such that an inner-facing surface of the outer shell of the links is oriented toward the targeted tree (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 12, Perry teaches the method of Claim 11, in which at least two of the plurality of links are configured to further comprise at least two joinable elements, the method further comprising the step of the user fixing joinable elements of each link to corresponding joinable elements (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 13, Perry teaches the method of Claim 12, further comprising the step of the user joining two or more of the selected links to form a chain prior to the step of fixing said links to the targeted tree, but in any event for this step at least one joinable element of the chain must remain unjoined prior to encircling the tree (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 14, Perry teaches the method of Claim 11, further comprising the step of placing the chain to encircle the targeted tree such that the chain substantially covers an insect-trapping adhesive (see previous rejections).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644