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 . Claims included in the prosecution are claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11-16, 18, 21 and 22.
Applicants' arguments, filed 08/04/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
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.
1. Claims 1, 7, 14, 15, 18, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hortel et al. (US 20170202200, Jul. 10, 2017) (hereinafter Hortel) in view of Shiba et al. (JP 2020117447 A, Aug. 6, 2020) (hereinafter Shiba).
Hortel discloses an insect trap 110 (i.e., claimed body) comprising a first planar surface 112 (i.e., claimed surface), a second planar surface 114 (i.e., claimed additional layer), a plurality of spacers 118, and a coating 116 (¶ [0041]).
PNG
media_image1.png
372
634
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The first planar surface or the second planar surface can include a coating of pressure sensitive adhesive (PSA) or any suitable adhesive, attractant, insecticide, or combinations thereof (i.e., claimed pest-control composition) (¶ [0048]). It will be appreciated that any suitable attractant is contemplated including chemical attractants, pheromones, or heat (¶ [0035]). Example configurations of the spacers can include corrugated layers between the two planar surfaces (¶ [0033]).
Hortel differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the insect trap comprises a pest-attracting flour-based substrate consumable by pests, wherein at least one essential oil is dispersed in the substrate.
However, Shiba discloses a pest control bait of wheat flour containing 8 to 13% by mass of protein that has excellent palatability to attract pests (pages 1-2 of translation). The wheat flour may be molded by simply mixing water (page 3 of translation). The dosage form of the composition is not particularly limited, and may be any dosage form depending on the mode of use. For example, those prepared in a desired form such as paste, powder, block, etc. may be mentioned (page 3 of translation). The pest control bait may comprise a pest controlling component, such as insecticidal essential oils such as mint oil to be eaten by harmful insects to exterminate the harmful insects (page 3 of translation). The pest control bait can be used by being set in a pest trap such as an adhesive trap equipped with an adhesive (page 3 of translation). The pest control bait may contain a surfactant (page 3 of translation).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Hortel discloses wherein the coating comprises attractants and insecticides. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the pest control bait of Shiba into the coating of Hortel since it attracts pests and it comprises an insecticide as taught by Shiba.
In regards to instant claim 1 reciting wherein the pest-control composition adheres the additional layer to the surface of the body, this limitation would have been obvious from Fig. 4 of Hortel showing wherein the first planar surface (i.e., claimed surface) is affixed to the second planar surface (i.e., claimed additional layer) with a coating (i.e., claimed pest-control composition) in between.
In regards to instant 1 reciting wherein at least a portion of the pest-control composition is accessible for consumption by pests, this limitation would have been obvious form Fig. 4 of Hortel showing empty spaces between the spacers where pests have access to the coating (i.e., claimed pest-control composition).
In regards to instant claim 7, Shiba discloses wherein the wheat flour may be molded by simply mixing water and wherein the wheat flour may be in any form including paste. Accordingly, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amounts depending on the moldability and form of the composition desired. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to instant claim 18, as shown in Fig. 4 of Hortel, there are empty spaces between the spacers, which represents an interior pest-accessible region with an opening.
In regards to instant claim 21, as discussed above, Hortel discloses corrugated spacers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the coating (i.e., claimed pest-control composition) is retained at least in part within the crevice when the spacer is laid on top of the coating as shown in Fig. 4 of Hortel, thus causing parts of the coating to be within the crevice of the corrugated spacer.
2. Claims 3, 4, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hortel et al. (US 20170202200, Jul. 10, 2017) (hereinafter Hortel) in view of Shiba et al. (JP 2020117447 A, Aug. 6, 2020) (hereinafter Shiba), and further in view of Manhas et al. (US 2022/0225601, Jul. 21, 2022) (hereinafter Manhas).
The teachings of Hortel and Shiba are discussed above. Hortel and Shiba do not teach wherein the coating (i.e., claimed pest-control composition) comprises geraniol and insect growth regulators, and treats silverfish.
However, Manhas discloses compositions, substrates, and/or devices that can be used to control a variety of pests (¶ [0002]). Pests comprise at least one of arthropods and nematodes (claim 18). Exemplarily pests include silverfish (¶ [0073]). The term “control” includes killing a pest (¶ [0080]). The pesticidal composition comprises a pesticidal active ingredient. The pesticidal active ingredient comprises at least one natural pesticidal oil. The pesticidal natural oil may comprise azadirachtin (i.e., insect growth regulator (IGR)), geraniol, eugenol, and combinations thereof (¶ [0017]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Hortel discloses wherein the coating comprises insecticides. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated azadirachtin (i.e., insect growth regulator (IGR)) and geraniol into the coating of Hortel since they are known and effective insecticides as taught by Manhas.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the insect trap target silverfish since the above agents treats silverfish as taught by Manhas.
3. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hortel et al. (US 20170202200, Jul. 10, 2017) (hereinafter Hortel) in view of Shiba et al. (JP 2020117447 A, Aug. 6, 2020) (hereinafter Shiba), and further in view of Radwan et al. (US 5,688,509, Nov. 18, 1997) (hereinafter Radwan).
The teachings of Hortel and Shiba are discussed above. Hortel and Shiba do not teach wherein the first planar surface and the second planar surface is paper.
However, Radwan discloses a controlled-release insect repellant device comprising an insect repellant composition contacting a substrate. (abstract). Examples of substrates include paper (col. 4, lines 29-30).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the first planar surface and the second planar surface to be paper since this is a known and effective substrate material for insect devices as taught by Radwan.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because new rejections necessitated by amendments have been made.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 11-16, 18, 21 and 22 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
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 TRACY LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/TRACY LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights