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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed 11/16/2023, 12/04/2023, & 08/26/2025 . Th e s e IDS ha ve been considered. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 24 and 26 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 24 recites the limitation “ the predetermined weight threshold ” and “the predetermined weight change threshold” in lines 1-2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for th e s e limitation s in the claim. It is noted antecedent bases for both these limitations can be found in claim 23, however this claim depends on claim 16. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner is interpreting this claim as dependent on claim 23. Claim 26 recites the limitation “the battery” in line 2 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that antecedent bases for this limitation can be found in claim 25 however, claim 16 on which this claim depends only recited “a power source”. For the purposes of applying prior art, Examiner reads this limitation as -- a battery-- to comply with the claim 16 dependence. 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. Claims 16- 24, 26, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zirkle et al. (US 2017/0360026; “Zirkle”) in view of Larson (US 2016/0356641) . Regarding claim 16 , Zirkle discloses in figures 1-2 a b ait scale device (100) (¶¶ [0004], [0019]) comprising a bait holder (135) for receiving a bait product (¶ [0022]), an electronic weighing unit (140) configured to measure the weight of a bait (130) held by the bait holder (135) (¶¶ [0023], [0028]), a power source providing electric power (¶¶ [0032], [0036]), and signaling means (150) configured to generate a signal corresponding to the measured weight and transmit said signal to a remote monitoring device (¶ [0032]) . Zirkle generally discloses that the weight measurements are taken continuously and is silent to measurements at predetermined time intervals. Larson teaches a system for monitoring usage and/or consumption of a commodity using an electronic weighing unit (26) ( ¶ [0013]) wherein the system comprises a timing device configured to activate the power source and trigger a weight measurement by the electronic weighing unit at predetermined time intervals (¶ [0025]). It has been held that applying a known technique, such as activating a power source to trigger a weight measurement at predetermined intervals, to a known device, such as Zirkle’s bait scale device to yield t he predictable result of only taking bait measurements at predetermined intervals is within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421 (2007) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Larson’s timing device in Zirkle’s bait scale device for the purpose of reducing power consumption thus making batteries last longer and decreasing the amount of time a user needs to interact with the system (¶ [0025]). Regarding claim 17 , Larson further teaches the predetermined time intervals are adjustable (¶ [0025]) . The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 6 above. Regarding claim 18 , Zirkle discloses the signaling means (150) are configured to operate with at least one signaling option out of a group, the group consisting of wireless LAN, wireless mobile telecommunication and low-power wide-area network (¶ [0033]) . Regarding claim 19 , Zirkle discloses the signal comprises at least one of a weight of the bait and a change in weight of the bait (¶¶ [0029], [0032]) . Regarding claim 20 , Zirkle discloses in figure 2a the signal comprises additional data, wherein the additional data is at least one out of a group, the group consisting of position data, weather data, bait scale device identifier and bait take time (¶ [0035]) . Regarding claim 21 , Zirkle and Larson disclose all the limitations of claim 16 on which this claim depends. Zirkle teaches that the remote device screen may highlight a particular station when a user selected threshold value of weight is reached (¶[0035]) but does not explicitly disclose an alert signal. Larson further teaches the signal comprises an alert signal if the weight of the commodity falls below a predetermined weight alert threshold and/or the change in weight of the commodity exceeds a predetermined weight change alert threshold (¶¶ [0013], [0020]-[0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Larson’s alert functionality in Zirkle’s device for the purpose of actively getting the user’s attention when the bait dips below a threshold which allows the user to take immediate action as well as not have to check the status as often knowing an alert will arrive if the device needs attention making it easier, more efficient and less time consuming to use. Regarding claim 22 , Larson further teaches the signaling means are configured for transmitting the signal in predetermined transmit time intervals (¶ [0025]) . The reasons and motivation for combining are the same as recited in the rejection of claim 1 6 above. Regarding claim 23 , Zirkle discloses the signaling means are configured for transmitting the signal if the weight of the bait falls below a predetermined weight threshold and/or the change in weight of the bait exceeds a predetermined weight change threshold (¶ [0035]) . Regarding claim 24 , Zirkle discloses transmitting the signal if the weight of the bait falls below a predetermined weight threshold and/or the change in weight of the bait exceeds a predetermined weight change threshold (¶ [0035]), but is silent specifically to the predetermined weight threshold and/or the predetermined weight change threshold are adjustable. Larson teaches transmitting the signal if the weight of the commodity falls below a predetermined weight threshold and/or the change in weight of the commodity exceeds a predetermined weight change threshold wherein the predetermined weight threshold and/or the predetermined weight change threshold are adjustable (¶¶ [0020]-[0023]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to configure Zirkle’s thresholds to be adjustable as taught by Larson for the purpose of allowing the user more flexibility in replacing the bait based on how convenient the device is to reach. Regarding claim 26 , Zirkle discloses the signaling means (150) are configured for transmitting a signal if the charge of the battery falls below a predetermined charge threshold (¶ [0036]) . Regarding claim 28 , Zirkle and Larson disclose all the limitations of claim 16 on which this claim depends. Zirkel further discloses a r emote monitoring device configured to receive signals corresponding to a measured weight from a bait scale device (100) according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16 above) and configured to display weights of the bait (135) (see figure 2a, ¶¶ [0034]-[0035]) . Regarding claim 29 , Zirkle and Larson disclose all the limitations of claim 28 on which this claim depends. Zirkle teaches that the remote device screen may highlight a particular station when a user selected threshold value of weight is reached (¶[0035]) but does not explicitly disclose an alert signal. Larson further teaches triggering an alert if the weight of the commodity falls below a predetermined weight alert threshold and/or the change in weight of the commodity exceeds a predetermined weight change alert threshold (¶¶ [0013], [0020]-[0023]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include Larson’s alert functionality in Zirkle’s device for the purpose of actively getting the user’s attention when the bait dips below a threshold which allows the user to take immediate action as well as not have to check the status as often knowing an alert will arrive if the device needs attention making it easier, more efficient and less time consuming to use. Regarding claim 30 , Zirkle discloses in figure 2a the r emote monitoring device is further configured to evaluate a plurality of signals corresponding to the measured weight (¶¶ [0035]-[0036]) . Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zirkle and Larson as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Yao (CN 109497034; see attached machine translation) . Regarding claim 25, Zirkle and Larson disclose all the limitations of claim 16 on which this claim depends. Zirkle generally discloses a battery (¶¶ [0032], [0036]) but is silent to a wireless rechargeable battery. In the same field of endeavor, Yao teaches a pest management system meant to attract rodents (abstract) wherein the power source is a rechargeable battery, wherein the powered device comprises a wireless charging connection (see page 7, description of figure 6) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to configure Zirkle’s bait scale device with a rechargeable battery and a wireless charging connection because mice are notorious for chewing on wires, thus making it highly likely the power will be disrupted if provided by wires. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zirkle and Larson as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Walsh et al. (USPN 9,532,564; “Walsh”). Regarding claim 27 , Zirkle and Larson disclose all the limitations of claim 16 on which this claim depends. Zirkle appears to show in figure in figure 1 that the bait scale device fits inside a typical rodent bait station but is silent specifically to the exact dimensions of the device. In the same field of endeavor, Walsh teaches that a typical rodent bait station has dimensions length of equal to or less than 140 mm , a width of equal to or less than 85 mm and a height equal to or less than 90 mm (col. 7, lines 48-56) . From this, one having ordinary skill and creativity in the art would readily appreciate and infer that a bait scale device such as the one disclosed by Zirkle must be able to fit within these dimensions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to dimension Zirkle’s bait scale device as claimed in order to fit within the typical dimensions of a bait station as taught by Walsh. Doing so would have the benefit of allowing the scale device to be used in a wide variety of stations making it versatile and easy to integrate or retrofit into existing stations. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0315157 discloses a bait scale device. USPN 12,376,581 discloses most of the limitations of claim 16 but is not available as prior art under 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2). The remaining documents represent the general state of the art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NATALIE HULS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5914 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT T-F 7-4 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Catherine Rastovski can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-0349 . 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. /NATALIE HULS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2863