Detailed Action
Amendment
1. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendments dated 2-19-26 and this office action is a final rejection.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-10, 17-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,915,948 to Kunze et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0000060 to Sandford et al. further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,962,836 to Hughes, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,158,868 to Chien and further in view of DE Patent No. 3127234 to Temp.
Referring to claims 1, 4, 8-9, 17-18 and 20, Kunze et al. discloses a removable substrate for an insect attractant device comprising, a body – at 18, having front and rear faces – see at 18 in figures 3-4, the body further including, a grip portion – see top tab of 18 in figure 3, and a lower portion disposed below the grip portion having a bottom edge – see bottom of 18 in figures 3-4, a first lateral portion, and a second lateral portion – see side portions on either side of 18a,18b in figure 3, with a gap extending between the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion – see gaps – at 18a,18b in figure 3, wherein an adhesive is applied to the rear face – see figure 3 and column 6 lines 1-6, the adhesive being positioned between the grip portion and the lower portion – see at 18 in figure 3. Kunze et al. further discloses the body defining a total height in an elongate direction – see height of 18 along the vertical elongate direction as seen in figure 3, and a top region – at the top of 18, a medial region – middle of 18, and a bottom region – lower portion of 18, each of the top, medial, and bottom regions comprising one third of the total height – see at 18 in figure 3, and the medial region positioned between the top region and the bottom region – see at 18 in figure 3, and the grip portion positioned in the top region – see top tab of 18 in figure 3 and the lower portion positioned in the bottom region – see bottom of 18 in figure 3. Kunze et al. does not disclose the lower portion of the bottom region including a retention aperture, adhesive is applied to the front face, the adhesive surrounded by an adhesive-free border on the front face and the rear face and the first and second lateral edges forming outer edges of the body and a gap extending between the first and second lateral portions. Hughes does disclose the adhesive is applied to the front face – see at 13 in figures 1-4 and column 2 lines 1-36, and the first and second lateral edges – at 14,15, forming outer edges of the body – at 13-15, see bottom edges on each side of the device in figures 1-4, and a gap extending between the first and second lateral portions – see gap at the lower central portion of the device between items 14,15 in figures 1-4, and a retention aperture – formed by items 18, in the lower portion of the body – see at 14,15 in figures 1-4, below the grip portion – at the top of 13 – see figures 1-4, and the adhesive between the grip portion and the lower portion – see at 13 between items 14,15 in figures 1-4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. and add the lateral edges being outer edges and a gap between the lateral portions as disclosed by Hughes, so as to yield the predictable result of facilitating removable attachment of the substrate to the housing as desired. Sandford et al. does disclose the adhesive – at 136, being surrounded by an adhesive-free border on the front face and the rear face – see at 134,138 in figure 3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. and add the adhesive-free border of Sandford et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making it easier for the user to remove and replace the adhesive as desired by giving the user a gripping surface free of adhesive. Chien ‘868 does disclose a retention aperture – at 31, in a portion below the grip portion – at the top of 21 – see figure 5, the retention aperture – at 31, being positioned between the bottom edge of the lower portion – at the bottom of 21, and the grip portion – at the top of 21 – see figure 5a. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. and add the retention aperture in the lower portion as disclosed by Chien ‘868, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for easier attachment of components to the device as desired. Specific to claim 4, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 further discloses the retention aperture is positioned at a lateral center of the lower portion – see at 31 in figure 5 of Chien ‘868. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 and add the retention aperture in the lower portion as disclosed by Chien ‘868, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for easier attachment of components to the device as desired. Specific to claim 18, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 further discloses the lower portion is adhesive free – see at 14,15 and below the adhesive in figures 1-4 of Hughes. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. a modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 and add the lower portion being adhesive free as disclosed by Hughes, so as to yield the predictable result of making the lower portion easier to manipulate by the user as desired. Specific to claims 1 and 17, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 further discloses the retention aperture is below the adhesive – see at 18 in figures 1-4 of Hughes, but does not disclose the retention aperture is above the gap and above the first and second lateral portions. Temp does disclose the retention aperture – at 16, is below the adhesive – at 13 – see figure 1 and above the gap – see gap at the bottom end of 15 in figure 1 and also above the first and second lateral portions – the bottom portions of 15 as seen in figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. a modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 and add the retention aperture above the gap and lateral portions as disclosed by Temp, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the device is removably secured in place as desired. Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp further discloses the body is a planar body – see at 18 of Kunze et al. – see at 13 of Hughes – see at 134-134-138 of Sandford et al., - see at 21 of Chien ‘868, and the retention aperture – at 16 of Temp, is positioned along a direction coplanar with the planar body – at 12,15, – see figures 1-2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. a modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 and add the retention aperture above the gap and lateral portions as disclosed by Temp, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the device is removably secured in place as desired.
Referring to claim 3, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp further discloses the first lateral portion is a mirror image of the second lateral portion – see symmetrical lower portions at the bottom of 18 in figure 3 of Kunze et al and see symmetrical device in figures 1-4 of Hughes.
Referring to claim 7, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp further discloses the body, the first lateral portion, and the second lateral portion are substantially planar with respect to one another – see at 18 in figure 3 of Kunze et al and see the device in figures 1-4 of Hughes.
Referring to claim 10, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp further discloses the first lateral portion includes a first internal lateral edge – the outermost portion defining 18a or 18b, and the second lateral portion includes a second internal lateral edge – the other outermost edge defining 18a or 18b, wherein the gap – at 18a,18b, is defined between the first internal lateral edge and the second internal lateral edge – see figure 3 o Kunze et al.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,717,814 to Walter.
Referring to claim 2, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp does not disclose the grip portion has a slot and the slot extends from the front face to the rear face and defines a curved profile. Walter does disclose the grip portion – at the top of items 108, has a slot – see slot at the top center of 102-108 – see figures 1, 3-4 and 8-14, and the slot extends from the front face to the rear face and defines a curved profile – see top central portion in figures 1, 3-4 and 8-14. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp and add the slot in the grip portion as disclosed by Walter, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for easier handling of the device and easier attachment of components to the device as desired.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0141979 to Smith et al.
Referring to claim 5, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp does not disclose a peel-off film that is applied to the front face. Smith et al. does disclose a peel- off film that is applied to the front face – see paragraph [0057]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp and add the peel-off film as disclosed by Smith et al., so as to yield the predictable result of protecting the adhesive during transport and assembly of the device as desired.
Referring to claim 6, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868, Temp and Smith et al. further discloses the peel-off film does not extend over the retention aperture – see at 18 in figure 3 of Kunze et al., - see at item 31 in figure 5 of Chien ‘868, where the peel-off film as detailed in paragraph [0057] of Smith et al. when incorporated into the device of Kunze et al. as modified by Chien ‘868 would be made to not extend over the retention aperture so that the aperture – at 31 of Chien ‘868, is in the configuration as detailed in figure 5 of Chien ‘868. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp and add the peel-off film as disclosed by Smith et al., so as to yield the predictable result of protecting the adhesive during transport and assembly of the device as desired.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,915,948 to Kunze et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application No. 2016/0000060 to Sandford et al. further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,962,836 to Hughes and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,158,868 to Chien.
Referring to claim 11, Kunze et al. discloses a removable substrate for an insect attractant device comprising, a body – at 18, having front and rear faces – see at 18 in figures 3-4, the body further including, a grip portion – see top tab of 18 in figure 3, and a lower portion disposed below the grip portion having a bottom edge – see bottom of 18 in figures 3-4, a first lateral portion, and a second lateral portion – see side portions on either side of 18a,18b in figure 3, with a gap extending between the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion – see gaps – at 18a,18b in figure 3, wherein an adhesive is applied to the rear face – see figure 3 and column 6 lines 1-6, the adhesive being positioned between the grip portion and the lower portion – see at 18 in figure 3. Kunze et al. further discloses the body defining a total height in an elongate direction – see height of 18 along the vertical elongate direction as seen in figure 3, and a top region – at the top of 18, a medial region – middle of 18, and a bottom region – lower portion of 18, each of the top, medial, and bottom regions comprising one third of the total height – see at 18 in figure 3, and the medial region positioned between the top region and the bottom region – see at 18 in figure 3, and the grip portion positioned in the top region – see top tab of 18 in figure 3 and the lower portion positioned in the bottom region – see bottom of 18 in figure 3. Kunze et al. does not disclose the lower portion of the bottom region including a retention aperture, adhesive is applied to the front face, the adhesive surrounded by an adhesive-free border on the front face and the rear face and the first and second lateral edges forming outer edges of the body and a gap extending between the first and second lateral portions. Hughes does disclose the adhesive is applied to the front face – see at 13 in figures 1-4 and column 2 lines 1-36, and the first and second lateral edges – at 14,15, forming outer edges of the body – at 13-15, see bottom edges on each side of the device in figures 1-4, and a gap extending between the first and second lateral portions – see gap at the lower central portion of the device between items 14,15 in figures 1-4, and a retention aperture – formed by items 18, in the lower portion of the body – see at 14,15 in figures 1-4, below the grip portion – at the top of 13 – see figures 1-4, and the adhesive between the grip portion and the lower portion – see at 13 between items 14,15 in figures 1-4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. and add the lateral edges being outer edges and a gap between the lateral portions as disclosed by Hughes, so as to yield the predictable result of facilitating removable attachment of the substrate to the housing as desired. Sandford et al. does disclose the adhesive – at 136, being surrounded by an adhesive-free border on the front face and the rear face – see at 134,138 in figure 3. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. and add the adhesive-free border of Sandford et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making it easier for the user to remove and replace the adhesive as desired by giving the user a gripping surface free of adhesive. Chien ‘868 does disclose a retention aperture – at 31, in a portion below the grip portion – at the top of 21 – see figure 5, the retention aperture – at 31, being positioned between the bottom edge of the lower portion – at the bottom of 21, and the grip portion – at the top of 21 – see figure 5a. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. and add the retention aperture in the lower portion as disclosed by Chien ‘868, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for easier attachment of components to the device as desired. Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 further discloses the retention aperture is positioned at a lateral center of the lower portion – see at 31 in figure 5 of Chien ‘868. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 and add the retention aperture in the lower portion as disclosed by Chien ‘868, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for easier attachment of components to the device as desired. Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 further discloses the lower portion is adhesive free – see at 14,15 and below the adhesive in figures 1-4 of Hughes. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. a modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 and add the lower portion being adhesive free as disclosed by Hughes, so as to yield the predictable result of making the lower portion easier to manipulate by the user as desired.
Referring to claim 12, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 do not disclose the retention aperture is generally rectangular. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 and make the retention aperture any desired shape including the claimed rectangular shape, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the retention aperture is of sufficient size to removably connect to the other components of the device as desired.
Referring to claim 13, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 further discloses the lower portion includes a first lateral portion – side portion at the side of 18a or 18b, and a second lateral portion – the other side portion at the side of 18a or 18b, extending in a direction away from the grip portion – at top tab of 18 – see figure 3 of Kunze et al. with the lateral edges extending downward along items 18a,18b to the bottom of the device and away from the top tab.
Referring to claim 14, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 further discloses the bottom edge, the first lateral portion, and the second lateral portion define a gap – at 18a or 18b – see figure 3 of Kunze et al., the gap – at 18a,18b, extending between the first lateral portion and the second lateral portion – see figure 3 of Kunze et al.
Referring to claim 15, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 further discloses the first lateral portion includes a first internal lateral edge – the outermost portion defining 18a or 18b, and the second lateral portion includes a second internal lateral edge – the other outermost edge defining 18a or 18b, wherein the gap – at 18a,18b, is defined between the first internal lateral edge and the second internal lateral edge – see figure 3 o Kunze et al.
Referring to claim 16, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al. and Chien ‘868 further discloses the first lateral portion is a mirror image of the second lateral portion – see symmetrical lower portions at the bottom of 18 in figure 3 of Kunze et al and see symmetrical device in figures 1-4 of Hughes.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0081324 to Diclaro et al.
Referring to claim 19, Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp does not disclose the body has a blue color. Diclaro et al. does disclose the body – at 210,220,230, has a blue color – see paragraphs [0133]-[0135]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Kunze et al. as modified by Hughes, Sandford et al., Chien ‘868 and Temp and have the body made of any desired color including the blue color disclosed by Diclaro et al., so as to yield the predictable result of making the device more attractive to insects as desired.
Response to Arguments
3. Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 17, the prior art references of Kunze et al. US 5915948 as modified by Sandford US 2016/0000060, Hughes US 2962836, Chien US 6158868 and Temp DE 3127234 disclose applicant’s newly added claim limitations of the amendments dated 2-19-26 as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action. Each of Kunze et al., Sandford, Hughes and Chien disclose the body is a planar body – see at 18 of Kunze et al. – see at 13 of Hughes – see at 134-134-138 of Sandford et al., - see at 21 of Chien ‘868. Further, Temp discloses the retention aperture – at 16 of Temp, is positioned along a direction coplanar with the planar body – at 12,15, – see figures 1-2 of Temp. Applicant argues the references individually and does not take into account the combination of the references in that when the retention aperture of Temp is incorporated into the planar substrate of Kunze et al. as modified by Sandford, Hughes and Chien, the retention aperture would be in the same plane of the planar substrate as the adhesive and gap given the planar substrates of Kunze et al., Sandford, Hughes and Chien disclosing planar substrates incorporating the planar adhesive and/or gap as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action. Further, applicant argues that the combination of the Kunze et al. reference and the Chien reference is improper since the primary reference Kunze et al. discloses the rationale to combine with respect to the claimed retention aperture instead of the modifying reference to Chien. These arguments are not persuasive in that the Kunze et al. reference is not used to disclose the retention aperture and therefore Kunze et al. cannot provide rationale/motivation to combine the references since this reference is not used to disclose the retention aperture. Further, Chien does disclose a rationale/motivation to combine these references being to provide easier attachment of components in that as seen in figure 5a and column 5 of Chien, the retention aperture – at 31 facilitates attachment of the components with attachment made at items 30 and 32 and therefore Kunze et al. is not used to disclose the rationale/motivation to combine these references. Further, applicant argues that the combination of the Kunze et al. reference and the Temp reference is improper since the primary reference Kunze et al. discloses the rationale to combine with respect to the claimed retention aperture above the gap and lateral portions instead of the modifying reference to Temp. These arguments are not persuasive in that the Kunze et al. reference is not used to disclose the retention aperture and therefore Kunze et al. cannot provide rationale/motivation to combine the references since this reference is not used to disclose the retention aperture. Further, Tempe does disclose a rationale/motivation to combine these references being to ensure the device is removably secured in place as desired as seen in paragraph [0038] of the English translation detailing the retaining aperture – at 16, is used to removably secure the device in place via attachment at the aperture – at 16.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claim 11, the Kunze et al. and Chien references can be combined to disclose the claimed retention aperture as discussed earlier with respect to claims 1 and 17. Further, Chien discloses a device used in a vertical orientation and the lower half of the device can be considered the claimed lower portion in that the device of Chien would have to have a lower portion given its vertical orientation. Further, Chien discloses a grip portion – at the top of 21 which is oriented so as to be capable of being gripped by a user as seen in figures 5a,5b where the planar body – at 21 can be gripped by the user during assembly and disassembly of the device for maintenance of the device. The grip portion of Chien is not intended to be gripped during assembly of the device when power is supplied to the device and the claims do not positively recite the substrate is configured to be gripped when power is supplied to the device.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 2-10, 12-16 and 18-20, applicant relies upon the same remarks/arguments with respect to parent claim 1, 11 or 17 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
4. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patent is cited to further show the state of the art with respect to insect trapping devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 11,102,972 to Llorente Alonso et al. – shows insect trap
5. 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.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm 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, 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643