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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
lines 3-6 should be further indented under “a lid defined by:”.
similarly, lines 8-10 & 12-14 should be further indented, to further illustrate which elements are associated.
Additionally, it appears that Applicant intended to only underline the semi-colon punctuation newly provided at the end of line 18; however, in order to promote prosecution, consistency is necessary in claim amendments.
“the central openings of the lid, body and funnel” should be replaced with -- the central openings of the lid, the body and the funnel-- in line 19. Appropriate correction is required.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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 1 recites the limitation “the central opening[s] of the... body” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 further recites “a mosquito net” - it is unclear whether this is the same of different “netting” from that functionally claimed in claim 1, line 16.
Claims 3 & 4 are rejected as dependent from claim 1 rejected above.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouhamadou et al. (US 20220273117 A1, “Mouhamadou”) in view of Morris (US 8950108 B1, cited by Applicant).
For Claim 1, Mouhamadou discloses a mosquito trapping device (the kit of parts 600, Figs. 13A-13B in view of ¶0095 which discusses inserting the trap(s) into an existing mosquito control net) comprising:
a lid (70) defined by:
a planar surface with a top face (upper surface of lid 70, Fig. 13A) and an opposed bottom face (underneath of the upper surface, prior to threading 72);
a ridge (72 or the surface supporting 72) extending from the bottom face of the planar surface, away from the lid (Figs. 13A-13B); and
a central opening that passes through the planar surface and ridge (the “collar” having an internal hole running top to bottom, therethrough - noted by the annotated dot in the middle of 70, Fig. 13A);
a body (94) defined by:
a planar surface (94) comprising a top face (upper surface of 94) and an opposed bottom face (lower surface of 94);
a flange (internal threads 82) extending from the bottom face of the planar surface, away from the body (the threading 82 extends internally, radially away from the body);
a funnel (80) defined by:
a top end (near 86) and an opposed bottom end (85); and
an interior tapered passageway positioned between the top and bottom ends (“funnel”);
PNG
media_image1.png
542
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the lid ridge releasably attaches to the body flange (via engagement of threads 72/82) and the body releasably attaches to the funnel (via engagement of threads 86/96);
wherein the central openings of the lid, body and funnel are aligned to define a continuous passageway into a collection chamber (as seen in annotated Fig. 13A provided below, the central openings of each claimed component lie along a common axis).
Mouhamadou is silent to wherein the planar surface of the lid directly contacts the planar surface of the body to clamp a portion of netting therebetween;
wherein the lid ridge releasably attaches to the body and the body flange releasably attaches to the funnel.
Morris, like prior art above, teaches an insect trapping device (title, disclosure, especially Fig. 5) further comprising wherein a planar surface of a lid (bottom surface of upper 40) directly contacts a planar surface of a body (rigid ring formed at the upper end of feeder tube 35) to clamp a portion of netting therebetween (“the feeder tubes 35 are affixed to the screen mesh 31 about the apertures 38 by sandwiching the flanged perimeter of the large opening 36 and the perimeter of the aperture 38 between a pair of rings 40,” discussed in Col. 5, line 15-41); wherein the lid releasably attaches to the body (Id.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to rearrange the construction of 600 of Mouhamadou in favor of the construction of assembling the planar surfaces of the lid and body to sandwich the net therebetween as taught by Morris, in order to provide a sealing connection and allow for “any suitable method” of attachment (acknowledged by Morris, Col. 5, lines 33-41), and yielding predictable results.
The above-modified reference renders obvious that the lid ridge releasably attached to the body and the body flange releasably attaches to the funnel (by using the threaded attachment already disclosed by Mouhamadou to provide the lid ridge attaching to the body, and by rearranging the components, the threaded attachments would cooperate between the body and the funnel).
For Claim 2, Mouhamadou in view of Morriss teaches the mosquito trapping device of claim 1, and Mouhamadou further discloses further comprising a mosquito net (10) defined by an opening (Figs. 14-15B), wherein the opening is positioned between the central opening of the lid and the central opening of the body (as modified above).
For Claim 3, Mouhamadou as modified above teaches the mosquito trapping device of claim 1, and Mouhamadou further discloses wherein the funnel is angled between the top end and the bottom end with a degree of inclination of about 1-180 degrees (as shown in Figs. 13a-13b, the angle of the funnel wall is clearly illustrated as between 20-50 degrees).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mouhamadou as modified by Morris, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGavin (US 20180042212 A1).
For Claim 4, Mouhamadou as modified by Morris above teaches the mosquito trapping device of claim 1.
Mouhamadou in view of Morris is silent to wherein the funnel comprises a plurality of apertures along an external surface between the top end and the bottom end, and wherein the plurality of apertures allow for the influx of light, disperse carbon dioxide, or both.
McGavin, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) further comprising a funnel (15) with plurality of apertures (16) along an external surface between top and bottom (Figs. 3-6), and wherein the plurality of apertures allow for the influx of light, disperse carbon dioxide, or both (the matter flowing through the apertures is not claimed, just the apertures, thus, the apertures 16 of McGavin are open and thus allow the flow of photons and/or CO2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the funnel of Mouhamadou as modified by Morriss above with apertures therethrough as taught by McGavin, in order to decrease the material required, and thus the shipment weight, in manufacturing the product, yielding predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to present claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 0989314 A, US 1044642 A, US 1081369 A, along with the other cited references as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643