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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
With regard to the drawing amendments and applicant’s alleged support thereof, the office was not supplied a specification with paragraph numbers, as such it is difficult to ascertain the alleged support described in the instant arguments/disclosure. The examiner has established a few situations where new matter has been identified which have been described in detail below.
With regard to the rejections previously set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 7 & 15 have been withdrawn.
With regard to the argument that Roe does not disclose that an apparatus that immobilizes insects within a liquid as currently recited in the claim. The bug being immobilized within a liquid is not exactly what is claimed; the insect passing away within a liquid is merely recited as an intended use of the device and in an apparatus claim that is not enough to show a patentable distinction. See MPEP 2114 II. Additionally, the insect passing away while consuming liquid from the meal pad may still occur as taught by the disclosure of Roe, while the insect is physically within in the liquid since that is where the source of the liquid/insecticide is consumed/ingested from.
With regard to the argument that Roe fails to disclose a dish having bottom and walls, despite applicant’s assertion the contrary the feature of Roe utilized in the rejection is the entire apparatus/tray the bottom is each floor segment and the walls are each compartments sidewalls. The examiner is not limited to utilizing a single container as depicted in Roe’s fig. 3, since the entire tray is being relied upon in both embodiments of Row rejection as seen in Roe fig. 4A or 5A-5B.
With regard to the argument that Roe fails to disclose a dish with a bottom having a plurality of depressions that are each configured to receive a pest therein. Similar to the rebuttals above, each “bottom” or floor; 11 has a depression thus, the tray in its entirety has a plurality of depressions or wells and the insect passing away while consuming liquid from the interior of the meal pad covers the insect/pest being received into at least a portion of the depression, which is enough to cover the limitation as is currently recited.
With regard to the arguments made regarding the rejection of claims 8-11. The fact that the inventor has recognized other advantages which would flow naturally from following the general suggestion from the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
With regard to the arguments made regarding the rejection of claim 2. The assertion the camera of Jay would not be relevant material regarding the resistance array of Roe is not accurate. Both inventions include the need to record or catalog an insect or an insect’s behavior. Implementing a camera as taught by Jay would make data collection easier and potentially even automated when applied to Row. As such the disclosures are indeed quite relevant.
With regard to the arguments made regarding the rejection of claim 3. If for whatever reason the chemical attractants are not strong enough or weakens over a period of time it would indeed be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement and additional attractant, as such applicant’s argument holds little merit.
With regard to the arguments made regarding the rejection of claim 14. The flush mechanism is what is recited to impart motion, the liquid that replaces such flushed liquid meets all claim limitations as previously recited as such each flush will impart motion at predetermined times (on a flush). Although the instant mechanism and the taught by the prior art do not work entirely the same, the claim structure is currently being met by Jay, more structure is required to distinguish the instant invention from the prior art.
With regard to the arguments against claim 15, the claim simply recites that the ratios of the camera and rectangle are the same not that the size is per se, the scope being argued is inconstant with the claim language/scope currently written into the claim. Additionally, the reason to adjust the camera for such proportions would be obvious for data collection purposes and so fewer cameras are required.
Specification
The amendment filed 7/18/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Figure 7 shows one embodiment of the device according to the invention
Figure 8 shows one embodiment of the device according to the invention
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/18/2025. These drawings are unacceptable since the replacement sheets would introduce new matter into the disclosure.
The new matter introduced by the drawings received on 7/18/2025:
Fig. 7 shows 40; a source of electromagnetic radiation above the device on the camera, neither of which are disclosed in the original filling of the application
Fig. 7 shows legs; 50 on the device for placing the device in a field which is not disclosed in the original filling of the application
Fig. 7 shows 30; the camera mount acting as some form of cover and/or it being attached directly to the device neither of which are disclosed in the original filling of the application
Fig. 8 a spring/coil/oscillation inducer none of which are disclosed in the original filling of the application
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 camera and/or camera mount, a source of electromagnetic radiation, the means for positioning, the depressions forming a platonic tilting, the depressions being shaped as a honeycomb structure, and the means for setting the liquid in motion 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 § 102
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, 5-7, 12-13 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roe et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,517,856 B1, herein Roe.
Re claim 1, Roe discloses a device for immobilizing pests in a liquid (abstract, fig. 5, and col 2; 58-62 & col 23; 29-64, the device having a liquid insecticide therein), the device comprising a dish (40”; the multi-chambered apparatus, fig. 5A) for receiving a liquid (col 23; 29-52, the floor and container absorb the liquid into the well with the meal pad from a tray), wherein the dish comprises a bottom (11; the floor, fig. 5A-B) and walls (12; the sidewalls of the container, fig. 5A-B) which provide a volume for receiving the liquid (col 23; 29-64, the well and meal pad provide liquid to the interior space or volume of the container), and wherein the bottom has a plurality of depressions (80; the wells, fig. 5A-B) each configured to receive a pest therein (again see col 23; 29-64 when a insect is feeding on the meal pad).
The examiner recognizes the device being for immobilizing pests in a liquid and each depression being configured to receive a pest therein as intended use clauses, the examiner upholds that in an apparatus claim the manner in which the device is intended to be employed does not differentiate a claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 II.
Re claim 5, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe further discloses wherein the bottom comprises one or more first regions which comprise no depressions (81; the flat platform surface, fig. 5A), and the bottom comprises one or more second regions which comprise the plurality of depressions (80; the wells, fig. 5A-B), wherein the one or more first regions occupy a first surface area and the one or more second regions occupy a second surface area, wherein the first surface area is smaller than the second surface area (col 23; 39-43, wherein the diameter of the well is 20% of the diameter of the container, has a surface area of the flat platform is significantly larger than the surface area of the well).
Re claim 6, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe further discloses wherein regions of the bottom that adjoin the walls are free of depressions (fig. 5B), and wherein the depressions of the multiple depressions otherwise extend over the entire bottom (fig. 5A-B).
Re claim 7, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe further discloses wherein the depressions are arranged in a regular pattern (fig. 5A).
Re claim 13, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe further discloses wherein the depressions have a shape of a frustum of a cone (84; the expanded sides of the well, fig. 5B) and a frustum of a cylinder (83; the perpendicular side walls of the well, fig. 5B).
Re claim 19, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe further discloses wherein the walls extend around a perimeter of the dish (fig. 5A, the sidewalls; 12 of the containers; 10 extend about an inner perimeter of the rectangular tray thus forming the rectangular pattern shown).
Re claim 1, Roe further discloses a second embodiment of a device for immobilizing pests in a liquid (abstract, fig. 5, and col 2; 58-62 & col 23; 29-64, the device having a liquid insecticide therein), the device comprising a dish (50; the multi-chambered plate, fig. 4A) for receiving a liquid (col 22; 34-49, the multi-chambered plate comprises a plurality of containers for absorbing a hydration-based solution), wherein the dish comprises a bottom (11; the floors of the containers, fig. 4A) and walls (12; the sidewalls of the container, fig. 1A-4A and col 22; 24-45) which provide a volume for receiving the liquid (col 22; 34-49, the meal pad received the liquid within the interior of the container), and wherein the bottom has a plurality of depressions (fig. 1A-4A, the space between the meal pad and the floor within each container).
Re claim 12, the second embodiment of Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, the second embodiment of Roe further discloses wherein the bottom with the depressions is formed by an insert which can be reversibly removed from the dish (fig. 2A-B and col 21; 44-53 & col 22; 24-45, the containers within the multichambered apparatus are affixed through a bottom surface forming an annular ring such that container can be added or removed from a standard tray/multi-well plate).
Re claim 19, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe further discloses wherein the walls extend around a perimeter of the dish (fig. 4A, the sidewalls; 12 of the containers; 10 extend about an inner perimeter of the rectangular tray thus forming the rectangular pattern shown).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by, or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roe as applied to claim 1 above.
Re claim 4, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe further discloses means for positioning the device in a field for crop plants (fig. 4B and col 18; 14-24 & para 24; 12-19, the pads and apparatus are sold for use in the field [for plants, see the Background of Invention]).
The examiner has recognized the following claimed aspects as product by process limitations: the device being a height to which the crop plants grow or above the height to which the crop plants grow, since crops can be of varying sizes. In an apparatus claim product by process limitations are defined by the structure implied by the steps not the steps themselves. See MPEP 2113 I.
Or if applicant is of the opinion Roe fails to disclose a container of being a height to which the crop plants grow or above the height to which the crop plants grow;
Alt. claim 4, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe further discloses means for positioning the device in a field for crop plants (fig. 4B and col 18; 14-24 & para 24; 12-19, the pads and apparatus are sold for use in the field [for plants, see the Background of Invention]).
Roe discloses the claimed invention except for the device explicitly being sized at a height to which the crop plants grow or above the height to which the crop plants grow, since crops can be of varying sizes. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the device be approximately the same height of the crops such that insects can crawl or fly towards the containers, since it has been held that such a modification would only involve a mere change in size which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe as applied to claim 1 above.
Re claim 8, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the depressions form a platonic tilting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the tray whatever shape is expedient for neutralizing the insect, since it has been held that such a modification would only involve a mere change in shape of a component which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Re claim 9, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the depressions form the shape of a honeycomb structure. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the tray whatever shape is expedient for neutralizing the insect, since it has been held that such a modification would only involve a mere change in shape of a component which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. B.
Re claim 10, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each depression of the multiple depressions has an extent of at least about 2 mm and at most about 8 mm in a plane of the bottom. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the depression be whatever depth is expedient for neutralizing the insects, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 11, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe discloses the claimed invention except for wherein each depression of the multiple depressions has a depth of about 1 mm to about 5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the depression be whatever depth is expedient for neutralizing/feeding the insects, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Claims 2-3 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Jay, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0273290 A1.
Re claim 2, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe further discloses a digital imaging device (col 11; 9-67, a digital imaging device is utilized to make determinations about the insecticidal activity).
Roe fails to disclose a camera and/or a mount for a camera. However, Jay discloses a camera (906; the detector, fig. 3 & 9, see para 77, the detector being a camera).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a camera and/or a mount for a camera however, Jay discloses an insect monitoring device comprising a camera. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the camera to identify insects taught by Jay to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by utilizing the camera to identify insects and relevant data within the device. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 3, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe fails to disclose a source of electromagnetic radiation. However, Jay discloses a source of electromagnetic radiation (908; the light, fig. 9).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a source of electromagnetic radiation however, Jay discloses an insect monitoring device comprising a source of electromagnetic radiation. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of utilizing the light to attract insects taught by Jay to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by attracting insects to the device. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 14, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe fails to disclose means which set the liquid in motion at defined points in time. However, Jay discloses means which set the liquid in motion at defined points in time (para 86, the flush mechanism imparts motion to the liquid).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose means which set the liquid in motion at defined points in time however, Jay discloses an insect monitoring device comprising a flushing aspect to remove and replace liquid therein. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the liquid flushing technique taught by Jay to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by replacing the liquid utilized in the trap/monitoring device, keeping it clean. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roe as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Mihara, U.S. Patent No. 5,184,223 A, herein Mi.
Re claim 15, Roe discloses the invention of claim 1, Roe further discloses an image sensor (col 11; 9-67, a digital imaging device is utilized to make determinations about the insecticidal activity) and wherein the dish has a rectangular shape in plain view (fig. 5A).
Roe fails to disclose wherein the image sensor has a rectangular shape with an aspect ratio, wherein the rectangular shape of the dish has an aspect ratio corresponding to the aspect ratio of the image sensor of the camera. However, Mi discloses an image sensor having a rectangular shape with an aspect ratio (col 1; 40-44, the image surface of a rectangle has an aspect ratio of 3:4), wherein the image has a rectangular shape in plan view (col 1; 40-44, the image is in an aspect ratio of 3:4 and displayed in such aspect ratio), wherein the rectangular shape of the image has an aspect ratio corresponding to the aspect ratio of the image sensor of the camera (again see col 1; 40-44).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the image sensor has a rectangular shape with an aspect ratio, wherein the rectangular shape of the dish has an aspect ratio corresponding to the aspect ratio of the image sensor of the camera however, Mi discloses an image sensor capable of such image replication. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the image sensor and subject having the same aspect ratio taught by Mi to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the monitoring of insects to be done in an efficient manor without the need of converting aspect ratios. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642