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
Claims 7-9 and 16-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/28/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 07/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The Restriction Requirement asserts that the restriction is appropriate because ‘the species are independent or distinct because Species I requires…not required in Species II…’ Applicant submits that this assertion is inadequate to restrict the subject matter as set forth, as the present invention contains claims that are generic to both alleged species…a species election is not proper in this application.”. This is not found persuasive because each of the Species as discussed previously in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 05/28/2025 requires features that are not required in the search of the other species, therefore requiring a unique search for each of the species that is not required in the search of the other species. If applicants are traversing on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/19/2025. These drawings are approved by the Examiner.
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) 2-6, 10-13, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Abbas 2009/0307963.
In regard to claim 2, Abbas discloses a pest control device (10 or 800; bait station housing 800 is similar to station 10), comprising: an enclosure including a chassis (15) and a lid (20) connected to the chassis (lid 20 pivotally connected to housing 15); and a bait support system located at least partially within the chassis (see Fig. 5 or Fig. 8), the bait support system comprising: a bait bar (515 or 815) including a first end portion (straight end of 515 in Fig. 5 or 815 in Fig. 8) and a second end portion (505b or 805b) opposite the first end portion; a wall portion (402 or 802) configured to receive at least a portion of the first end portion of the bait bar (straight end of 515 in Fig. 5 or 815 in Fig. 8) therein (at 517 or 817) to support the bait bar; a locking mechanism (505a or 805a) connected to the enclosure (at 410 or 810) including a tab (base portion of 505a or 805a) configured to releasably engage the second end portion (505b or 805b) so that the wall portion and the locking mechanism work together to lock the bait bar to the pest control device independent of a position of the lid of the pest control device.
In regard to claim 3, Abbas discloses wherein the second end portion (505b or 805b) of the bait bar includes a locking portion (portions of 505b or 805b received in 505a or 805a) configured to engage with the locking mechanism (see Fig. 5 or Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 4, Abbas discloses wherein the first end portion (straight end of 515 in Fig. 5 or 815 in Fig. 8) of the bait bar is configured to be retained in the wall portion (402 or 802) when the locking portion (portions of 505b or 805b received in 505a or 805a) is engaged with the locking mechanism (see Fig. 5 or Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 5, wherein the locking portion (portions of 505b or 805b received in 505a or 805a) of the bait bar includes a hook portion (lower surface of 505b is positioned below the upper extent of 505a and above the floor of 15 or 805c is positioned below 805a and above the floor of 15) positionable between the tab (base portion of 505a or 805a) and the chassis (15) to lock the bait bar.
In regard to claim 6, Abbas discloses wherein the bait bar (515 or 815) is rotatable between a locked configuration and an unlocked configuration in the pest control device (515 or 815 may rotate from a locked configuration wherein it is substantially horizontal with the straight ends positioned in 517 or 817 and an unlocked configuration wherein it is substantially vertical inclined with the straight ends disengaged from 517 or 817 and pivoted away from wall 402 or 802, see para. 0023 or 0029) when the first end portion (straight end of 515 in Fig. 5 or 815 in Fig. 8) is secured to the wall portion (at 817).
In regard to claim 10, Abbas discloses wherein the tab (base portion of 505a or 805a) includes a ridge (upper free ends extending upwardly from the base portions of 505a or 805a) to releasably engage at least a portion of the bait bar (portions of 505b or 805b which fit into 505a or 805a) proximal the second end portion (505b or 805b).
In regard to claim 11, Abbas discloses wherein the second end portion (505b or 805b) of the bait bar includes a hook portion (portions of 505b or 805b which fit into 505a or 805a and must pass through the upper free ends to be retained therein) engageable with the ridge (upper free ends of 505a or 805a) to lock the bait bar.
In regard to claim 12, Abbas discloses a pest control device (10 or 800; bait station housing 800 is similar to station 10), comprising: a chassis (15); a lid (20) connected to the chassis and movable (lid 20 pivotally connected to housing 15) between an open position (see Fig. 4) and a closed position (see Fig. 1); a bait support system (see Fig. 5 or Fig. 8) located at least partially within the chassis (15) and configured to be at least partially enclosed by the lid (20) when the lid is in the closed position, the bait support system comprising: a bait bar (515 or 815) including a first end portion (straight end of 515 in Fig. 5 or 815 in Fig. 8) and a second end portion (505b or 805b) including a hook portion (portions of 505b or 805b which fit into 505a or 805a and must pass through the upper free ends to be retained therein); a wall portion (402 or 802) connected to and extending from the chassis (15; see Fig. 5 or Fig. 8), the wall portion configured to receive at least a portion of the first end portion (straight end of 515 in Fig. 5 or 815 in Fig. 8) therein (at 517 or 817) such that the wall portion at least partially supports the bait bar at least partially above the chassis, the bait bar (515 or 815) rotatable with respect to the wall portion (410 or 810) between a locked configuration and an unlocked configuration (515 or 815 may rotate from a locked configuration wherein it is substantially horizontal with the straight ends positioned in 517 or 817 and an unlocked configuration wherein it is substantially vertical inclined with the straight ends disengaged from 517 or 817 and pivoted away from wall 402 or 802, see para. 0023 or 0029); a locking mechanism (505a or 805a) connected to the chassis (at 410 or 810) and configured to receive the hook portion (portions of 505b or 805b which fit into 505a or 805a and must pass through the upper free ends to be retained therein) such that the bait bar is in the locked configuration where the bait bar is locked to the chassis between the hook portion (portions of 505b or 805b which fit into 505a or 805a and must pass through the upper free ends to be retained therein) and the chassis (15; the lower closed portions of 505a or 805a which receive the lower surfaces of 505b or 805b respectively are located between the hook portion 505b,805b and at least the portions of the chassis 15 that are located below 505b,805b) independent of a position of the lid of the pest control device, the hook portion (portions of 505b or 805b which fit into 505a or 805a and must pass through the upper free ends to be retained therein) rotatable to disengage from the locking mechanism to move to the unlocked configuration where the bait bar is movable relative to the chassis (505b or 805b may be rotated out of engagement with 505a or 805a while maintaining engagement of 515 or 815 with 817).
In regard to claim 13, Abbas discloses wherein the bait bar (515 or 815) is movable between the locked configuration and the unlocked configuration when the lid is in the open position (see Fig. 5 or Fig. 8).
In regard to claim 15, Abbas discloses wherein the bait bar (515 or 815) is rotatable (515 or 815 may rotate from a locked configuration wherein it is substantially horizontal with the straight ends positioned in 517 or 817 and an unlocked configuration wherein it is substantially vertical inclined with the straight ends disengaged from 517 or 817 and pivoted away from wall 402 or 802, see para. 0023 or 0029) between the locked configuration and the unlocked configuration when the first end portion (straight end of 515 in Fig. 5 or 815 in Fig. 8) is secured to the wall portion (at 817).
In regard to claim 19, Abbas discloses wherein locking mechanism includes a tab (base portion of 505a or 805a) forming a ridge (upper free ends extending upwardly from the base portions of 505a or 805a) to releasably engage at least a portion of the bait bar (portions of 505b or 805b which fit into 505a or 805a) proximal the second end portion (505b or 805b).
In regard to claim 20, Abbas discloses wherein the hook portion (portions of 505b or 805b which fit into 505a or 805a and must pass through the upper free ends to be retained therein) engageable with the ridge (upper free ends of 505a or 805a) to lock the bait bar.
Claim(s) 2-6, 10-13, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Nelson 2008/0072475.
In regard to claim 1, Nelson discloses a pest control device (101; see Figs. 20-21), comprising: an enclosure including a chassis (102) and a lid (124) connected to the chassis; and a bait support system (170’) located at least partially within the chassis (see Fig. 20), the bait support system comprising: a bait bar (184) having a first end portion (184a) and a second end portion (184b); a wall portion (left occurrence of 175’ in Fig. 21) configured to receive at least a portion of the first end portion (184a) of the bait bar therein to support the bait bar (see Fig. 21); a locking mechanism (179a, 179’, 183) connected to the enclosure (see Fig. 20) and including a tab (179’) configured to releasably engage the second end portion (see para. 0059) so that the wall portion and the locking mechanism work together to lock the bait bar to the pest control device independent of a position of the lid of the pest control device (see Figs. 20-21).
In regard to claim 3, Nelson discloses wherein the second end portion (184b) of the bait bar includes a locking portion (184b) configured to engage with the locking mechanism (at 179a, 183; see Fig. 21).
In regard to claim 4, Nelson discloses wherein the first end portion (184a) of the bait bar is configured to be retained in the wall portion (182) when the locking portion (184b) is engaged with the locking mechanism (at 179a, 183; see Fig. 21).
In regard to claim 5, Nelson discloses wherein the locking portion of the bait bar includes a hook portion (184b is bent upward, outward, and then downward relative to first end 184a) positionable between the tab (179’) and the chassis (103 of 102) to lock the bait bar (see Fig. 21).
In regard to claim 6, Nelson discloses wherein the bait bar (184) is rotatable between a locked configuration (see Fig. 21) and an unlocked configuration in the pest control device when the first end portion (184a) is secured to the wall portion (182; 184 can be rotated after free end of 184b is backed out of 179a while the first end portion 184a is maintained in position in 182).
In regard to claim 10, Nelson discloses wherein the tab (179’) includes a ridge (at 183) to releasably engage at least a portion of the bait bar proximal the second end portion (184b; see Fig. 21).
In regard to claim 11, Nelson discloses wherein the second end portion (184b) of the bait bar includes a hook portion (184b is bent upward, outward, and then downward relative to first end 184a) engageable with the ridge (at 183) to lock the bait bar (see Fig. 21).
In regard to claim 12, Nelson discloses a pest control device (101; see Figs. 20-21), comprising: a chassis (102); a lid (124) connected to the chassis and movable (lid 124 pivotally connected to 102 via hinge 134) between an open position (see Fig. 2) and a closed position (see Fig. 1); a bait support system (see Fig. 20) located at least partially within the chassis (102) and configured to be at least partially enclosed by the lid (124) when the lid is in the closed position, the bait support system comprising: a bait bar (184) including a first end portion (184a) and a second end portion (184b) including a hook portion (184b is bent upward, outward, and then downward relative to first end 184a); a wall portion (left occurrence of 175’ in Fig. 21) connected to and extending from the chassis (from 105 of 102), the wall portion configured to receive at least a portion of the first end portion (184a) therein (at 182) such that the wall portion at least partially supports the bait bar at least partially above the chassis, the bait bar (184) rotatable with respect to the wall portion (left occurrence of 175’ in Fig. 21) between a locked configuration (see Fig. 21) and an unlocked configuration (184 can be rotated after free end of 184b is backed out of 179a while the first end portion 184a is maintained in position in 182); a locking mechanism (179a, 179’, 183) connected to the chassis (via 170’ being connected to 105 of 102) and configured to receive the hook portion (184b is bent upward, outward, and then downward relative to first end 184a) such that the bait bar is in the locked configuration where the bait bar is locked to the chassis between the hook portion (184b is bent upward, outward, and then downward relative to first end 184a) and the chassis (102; the location where 184b is locked at 179a is located between a portion of 184b that extends above and along 179’ and portions of 102 that are below 179’) independent of a position of the lid of the pest control device, the hook portion (184b is bent upward, outward, and then downward relative to first end 184a) rotatable to disengage from the locking mechanism to move to the unlocked configuration where the bait bar is movable relative to the chassis (184 can be rotated after free end of 184b is backed out of 179a while the first end portion 184a is maintained in position in 182).
In regard to claim 13, Nelson discloses wherein the bait bar (184) is movable between the locked configuration and the unlocked configuration when the lid is in the open position (see Fig. 20).
In regard to claim 15, Nelson discloses wherein the bait bar (184) is rotatable (184 can be rotated after free end of 184b is backed out of 179a while the first end portion 184a is maintained in position in 182) between the locked configuration and the unlocked configuration when the first end portion (184a) is secured to the wall portion (at 182 of left occurrence of 175’ in Fig. 21).
In regard to claim 19, Nelson discloses wherein locking mechanism includes a tab (179’) forming a ridge (at 183) to releasably engage at least a portion of the bait bar (portion of 184b extending through 183) proximal the second end portion (184b).
In regard to claim 20, Nelson discloses wherein the hook portion (184b is bent upward, outward, and then downward relative to first end 184a) engageable with the ridge (at 183) to lock the bait bar (see Fig. 21).
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) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbas 2009/0307963 in view of Denny et al. 6,389,738.
In regard to claim 21, Abbas discloses the bait bar which may be rods, bars, wires, or any other elongated members that can support poisoned bait, but does not disclose wherein the chassis is molded plastic and the bait bar is metal. Denny et al. disclose wherein the bait bar (114) is metal (see col. 5, lines 28-30) and the chassis (102, 22) is molded plastic (see col. 2, lines 40-44). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bait bar and chassis of Abbas such that the bait bar is metal and the chassis is molded plastic in view of Denny et al. in order to provide a bait bar which is made from a durable material and to provide a chassis that can be made from a material that can be inexpensively and easily manufactured into various colors, sizes, and configurations.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbas Nelson 2008/0072475 in view of Denny et al. 6,389,738.
In regard to claim 21, Nelson discloses wherein the chassis comprises molded plastic (see para. 0069), but does not disclose wherein the bait bar is metal. Denny et al. disclose wherein the bait bar (114) is metal (see col. 5, lines 28-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the bait bar of Nelson such that the bait bar is metal in view of Denny et al. in order to provide a bait bar which is made from a durable material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to applicants’ argument that “Abbas…The discussion of guides 805a is similar to the discussion of the guides 805a quoted above…these discussions discuss that the bar can pivot from these guides implying that the bar does not lock…”, the Examiner contends that as seen in Figure 8 of Abbas that the pivot guides 805a lock the bait member 815 by providing an abutting structure for the contour bend 805c closest to the pivot guides 805a such that the bait member 815 cannot shift laterally out of its intended position with respect to the pest control device to which it is secured and tahat the lid of 20 of Abbas does not contact the bait member 815 in any position to serve as part of the locking mechanism of the bait member 815, and thus Abbas meets the limitation of claim 2 of “to lock the bait bar to the pest control device independent of a position of the lid of the pest control device”. Despite the fact that the bait member 815 can pivot in a certain direction with respect to the pest control device does not mean that the bait member 815 cannot be locked in another manner so as to prevent it from moving laterally with respect to the horizontally oriented pest control device. The degree or extent or configuration of the “locking” of the bait bar to the pest control device is not being particularly claimed by applicants in a manner which clearly overcomes the Examiner’s broad yet reasonable interpretation of Abbas.
In regard to applicants’ argument that “these statements in Abbas do not discuss a locking configuration that is independent of a lid of Abbas. The bar of Abbas, when secured in place, is free to pivot, as discussed above, and as shown in FIG. 8 of Abbas…no discussion of either the guide slots 817 or the pivot guides 805b as being anything other than guides…it is implied that the lid of Abbas would secure the bait member 815 in place. One of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret these features as being locks capable of operating independent of the lid.”, the Examiner contends that the locking mechanism of the desired invention is not being particularly claimed in a manner which clearly defines over the Examiner’s broad yet reasonable interpretation of Abbas. For example, Fig. 1 of the present application shows a locking mechanism that is configured differently than the locking mechanism of Abbas, but applicant’s have failed to more particularly recite the structure of the locking mechanism so as to assuredly overcome the interpretation of the Abbas reference by the Examiner. Applicants cannot merely argue that the mechanism by which the bait bar is locked is patentably distinguished from Abbas and that there must be some distinguishing language recited in the claims. An inspection of Figure 1 of the present application shows a bait bar receptacle 170 that appears to also allow the bait bar 150 to move upwardly and outwardly from the bait bar receptacle 170 if a user raises the second end 152 of the bait bar 150 relative to the pest control device and therefore it could also be argued that the locking mechanism of the desired invention also fails to “lock the bait bar to the pest control device independent of a position of the lid of the pest control device” as claimed in claim 2. The Examiner also contends that the lid 20 of the pest control device of Abbas has an interior height that extends well above the location of the bait member 815, the pivot guides 805a, and ends 805b of the bait member 815 and therefore the lid 20 serves no purpose in assisting to lock the bait member 815 to the pest control device as being alleged by applicants.
In regard to applicants’ argument concerning claim 12 and that “Abbas does not disclose, ‘a locking mechanism connected to the chassis and configured to receive the hook portion such that the bait bar is in the locked configuration where the bait bar is locked to the chassis between the hook portion and the chassis’…”, the Examiner contends that the pivot guides 805a of Abbas serve to lock the bait bar 815 by providing an abutment for the contour bend 805c closest thereto so as to prevent the bait bar 815 from moving laterally within the pest control device of Abbas. Furthermore, in Abbais the locking mechanism 805a is connected to the chassis 15 and configured to receive the hook portion 805b such that the bait bar 815 is in the locked configuration where the bait bar is locked to the chassis between the hook portion 805b and the chassis (portions of 15 of Abbas that are below 805a-b).
In regard to applicants’ argument that “Nelson…the second end 184b is only described…as being inserted into the notch 183 and an aperture 179a. These features are not described as being locks, but only holes or openings. Because the slot 183 is located at a top of the sides 175’, it is implied that the lid…is required to lock the rod 184 in place. One or ordinary skill in the art would not interpret these features of Nelson as being locks capable of operating independent of the lid.”, the Examiner contends that notch 183 and aperture 179a in handle 179’ can be broadly interpreted as the locking mechanism as recited in claim 2 since the hook portion of Nelson comprising the second end 184b of the bait bar 184 which is bent upward, outward and downward results in a locked configuration where the bait bar 184 cannot shift either forwardly or rearwardly with respect to third insert 170’ to which it is mounted and that the third insert 170’ represents a part of the pest control device. Furthermore, the notch 183 and aperture 179a in handle 179’ are located substantially below to the lid 124 of the pest control device and thus lock the bait bar 184 by preventing lateral movement of the bait bar 184 without assistance from the lid 124. Applicants’ have failed to more particularly claim the structure of the locking mechanism in a manner which clearly overcomes the Examiner’s broad yet reasonable interpretation of Nelson with respect to applicants’ pending claim 2.
In regard to applicants’ argument concerning claim 12 that “Nelson does not disclose, ‘a locking mechanism connected to the chassis and configured to receive the hook portion such that the bait bar is in the locked configuration where the bait bar is locked to the chassis between the hook portion and the chassis’…”, the Examiner contends that in Nelson the locking mechanism (183, 179a of Nelson) is connected to the chassis 103 of 102 of Nelson) and configured to receive the hook portion (184b of Nelson) such that the bait bar 184 is in the locked configuration where the bait bar is locked to the chassis between the hook portion 184b and the chassis 103 in that the bait bar 184 cannot move forwardly or rearwardly with respect to the third insert 170’ to which the bait bar 184 is mounted.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DARREN W ARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/DARREN W ARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
DWA