DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the remarks dated 7/24/2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/9/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 pending in the Application. Claim 7 previously cancelled by Applicant. Claims 11-13 new.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous claim objections dated 9/10/2025 are withdrawn.
In view of the amendments to the claims, the previous rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roberts (US 4,890,416)(hereinafter Roberts).
RE Claim 1: Roberts discloses a device for blocking small creatures from crawling, the device comprising:
a cable connecting part (23) configured to surround and tightly secure to at least one cable (col 3, ln 15-30);
an annular fending part (22) extending radially outward from the cable connecting part (col 3, ln 15-30)(Figs 1-5),
the annular fending part and the cable connecting part together defining a fending space around the at least one cable (Figs 1-5),
a filled material (col 4, ln 10-25) disposed within the fending space, wherein the filled material blocks the small creatures from passing through the fending space (col 4, ln 10-25); and
a plurality of supporting elements positioned within the fending space to stabilize the filled material and retain the filled material in the fending space (retaining rings and mounting means per col 4, ln 1-15);
wherein the plurality of supporting elements (24 on the right side formed from 34 and 45 as first supporting element, 24 on the left side formed from 34 and 45 as second supporting element) are substantially equally spaced along a circumferential direction of the fending space (24 on right and 24 on left each span half the circumference of the fending space as seen in Fig 5).
RE Claim 8: Roberts discloses the device of Claim 1, as previously discussed wherein the fending space comprises a smooth surface disposed along the circumferential direction at an opening, the smooth surface to impede the small creatures from climbing beyond the fending space (the exterior surface is smooth).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 2-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Braun (US 2011/0154718 A1)(hereinafter Braun).
RE Claim 2: Roberts discloses the device of claim 1 as previously discussed.
Roberts further teaches wherein the cable connecting part comprises at least one through hole for clamping and fixing the at least one cable (aperture through 23 for mounting to 21).
Roberts does not explicitly teach wherein the annular fending part and the cable connecting part are removably connected.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Roberts such that the annular fending part and the cable connecting part are removably connected, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. See MPEP 2144 citing In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349. This would be done for enhancing maintenance and reusability.
Furthermore, Braun teaches a device for blocking small creatures from crawling comprising an annular fending part, fending space, and a surface thereof (analogous art). Braun further teaches wherein the annular fending part and the cable connecting part are removably connected (via 19 and 16; para 0025-0026).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Roberts in view of Braun such that the annular fending part and the cable connecting part are removably connected as taught by Braun for the benefit of enhancing maintenance and reusability of parts.
RE Claim 3: Roberts as modified discloses the device of claim 2 as previously discussed.
Roberts further discloses wherein the annular fending part comprises a slot hole and the at least one through hole extends from a side wall of the cable connecting part such that insertion of the cable connecting part into the slot hole causes closure of an opening of the at least one through holes at the side wall (Figs 6-7).
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts in view of Braun as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Klein (US 7,793,461 B2)(hereinafter Klein).
RE Claim 4 (as best understood): Roberts as modified discloses the device of Claim 3 as previously discussed.
Roberts as modified does not explicitly teach the cable connecting part is made of silicone materials.
However, Klein teaches a device for blocking passage of insects with a cable connecting part (analogous art).
Klein further teaches wherein the cable connecting part is made of silicone materials (col 6, ln 40-43).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Roberts as modified in view of Klein such that the cable connecting part is made of silicone materials as taught by Braun for the advantages of economic and durable construction (col 6, ln 40-43).
Roberts further discloses the cable connecting part conforming rightly to an outer surface of the at least one cable upon insertion into the slot hole (col 3, ln 15-30)(Figs 1-5).
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Klein.
RE Claim 5: Roberts discloses the device of Claim 1 as previously discussed and further discloses wherein the annular fending part and the cable connecting part are integrally formed (Fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Roberts such that the cable connecting part is integrally formed with the at least one cable, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 citing Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). This would be done to for the benefit of secure connection to the cable and prevention of displacement along the cable.
Furthermore, Klein discloses a device for blocking passage of insects with a cable connecting part (analogous art)(reference previously discussed in this action).
Klein further discloses the cable connecting part and the cable are integrally formed (Fig 29; col 3, ln 65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Roberts in view of Klein such that the cable connecting part is integrally formed with the at least one cable as taught by Klein for the advantages of secure connection and prevention of displacement along the cable.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hui (US 8,745,917 B2)(hereinafter Hui).
RE Claim 6: Roberts discloses the device of Claim 1 as previously discussed and further discloses wherein the filled material comprises a liquid (col 4, ln 10-20)(chemical composition that impregnates pad).
Roberts does not explicitly teach the filled material is water.
However, Hui teaches a device for control of insects with a filler material (analogous art).
Hui further teaches the filler material is water (solution of water and boric acid per abstract and col 3, ln 50-53).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Roberts in view of Hui such that the filler material is water as taught by Hui for the advantages of for controlling toxicity levels.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Braun.
RE Claim 9: Roberts discloses the device of claim 1 as previously discussed.
Roberts does not explicitly teach wherein an anti-skid part is disposed on a surface of the annular fending part adjacent to the fending space, the anti-skid part is to provide a gripping surface for handling the device.
However, Braun teaches a device for blocking small creatures from crawling comprising an annular fending part, fending space, and a surface thereof (analogous art). Braun further teaches wherein an anti-skid part (ridges formed by 19 provide grip) is disposed on a surface of the annular fending part adjacent to the fending space (Fig 1), the anti-skid part is to provide a gripping surface for handling the device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Roberts in view of Braun such that an anti-skid part is disposed on a surface of the annular fending part adjacent to the fending space, the anti-skid part is to provide a gripping surface for handling the device as taught by Braun for the benefit of improved grip during attachment and positioning on the at least one cable.
Claim 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Simpson et al. (US 2016/0198692 A1)(hereinafter Simpson).
RE Claim 10: Braun discloses the device of Claim 1 as previously discussed.
Roberts does not explicitly teach the annular fending part is made of transparent materials for observing status of the filled materials.
However, Simpson teaches an animal barrier for inhibiting crawling of insects (analogous art) comprising an annular fending part (Fig 1).
Simpson further teaches the annular fending part is made of transparent materials (para 0052, 0086) for observing status of the filled materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Roberts in view of Simpson such that the annular fending part is made of transparent materials for observing status of the filled materials as taught by Simpson for the advantages of viewing contents within the device (para 0052, 0086).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding Roberts (US 4,890,416)(hereinafter Roberts) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE Claim 1: Applicant’s argument that Roberts does not teach the plurality of supporting elements are substantially equally spaced along a circumferential direction of the fending space” is not persuasive.
In Roberts, the retaining means 24 are the supporting elements. In this interpretation of the reference, there are two supporting elements: (1) 24 on the right side formed from 34 and 45 as first supporting element and (2) 24 on the left side formed from 34 and 45 as second supporting element. They are along a circumferential direction of the fending space as they each wrap around the circumference of the device. This is also seen in Fig 5. Regarding the placement – (“substantially equally spaced”): The retaining means 24 on the right half takes up 50 percent of the device and the retaining means 24 on left half takes up the remaining 50 percent of the device.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims 12-13 are persuasive.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record does not disclose, either alone or in combination, the details of wherein each of the plurality of supporting elements is a stiffener extending along a radial direction from an inner wall of the annular fending part towards a center of the annular fending part, along with the remaining limitations of the claim.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various electrical deterrents for pests.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644