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 .
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, 8, and 13 (as well as dependent claims 3-6 and 9-12 and 16-18) 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 limitation “electrode position adjusting control unit” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the generic placeholder, “electrode position adjusting control unit” lacks description in the disclosure. It is unclear what structure is moving the plates relative to one another. Is it a piston? Is it motorized? The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the structural relationship between the flexible metal piece and the second electrode. The claim fails to identify the structure which would deform the metal piece in order to move it closer to the second electrode. Is this done with vacuum force? Is the metal piece being acted upon by a magnet?
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8-13, and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO, DA-WEI (CN 2840910 Y); (see attached translation) in view of KIM, YOUNG-SIK (WO 2013115555 A1); (see attached translation), in view of LU, Dong-liang et al. (CN 211960669 U); (cited on the IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 13 Guo discloses a vacuum suction device (Fig. 3) equipped with an electric shock module (title; abstract), comprising: a suction main body (7) in which a negative-pressure suction force is generated (Fig. 4; 5, which would power a motor or fan in order to function as intended);
a collective unit spatially connected with the suction main body and comprising a collective inlet (13, 21);
a suction tube set (12) comprising an air inlet (11) and an air outlet (outlet at end portion of 12), the air outlet being connected with the collective inlet (13), negative pressure being formed inside the suction tube set, and the air inlet used to proactively generate an approximate-vacuum negative pressure between the air inlet and a suction surface in order to suck in air, the electrically shocked object and/or the sucked object;
the electric shock module (Fig. 5; 14, 15); (page 3) disposed in the suction tube set (Fig. 5), and used to electrically discharge under high electric voltages for generating electric arc sparks (in order to function as intended, the device would necessarily generate arc sparks in order to electrocute the insects moving between the plates);
and an electric voltage boost module (16, 17); (page 3) electrically connected with the electric shock module to electrically power the electric shock module for electrical discharge under the high electric voltages; wherein the electric shock module comprises a first electrode (Fig. 5; 14) and a second electrode (15) isolated and spaced from each other, an electric shock area is formed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 5), the electrically shocked object flows through the electric shock area (page 3).
Guo does not disclose a filtering system, the filtering system used to filter and collect an electrically shocked object and/or a sucked object.
Kim teaches a filtering system, the filtering system used to filter and collect an electrically shocked object and/or a sucked object (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collective unit of Guo to include a filtering system, as taught by Kim, in order to provide enhanced cleaning.
Guo in view of Kim does not disclose an electrode position adjusting control unit configured to move the first and second electrode relative to each other to change a size of the electric shock area.
Song teaches an electrode position adjusting control unit (Fig. 2; 8) configured to move the first and second electrode relative to each other to change a size of the electric shock area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Guo in view of Kim to include an electrode position adjusting control unit, as taught by Song, in order to improve safety and cleaning of the device (page 8 of attached translation).
Regarding claim 3 Guo, in view of Kim and Song, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Guo further discloses wherein when the electrically shocked object flows into the electric shock area (page 3), the electrical discharge under the high electric voltages and generation of the electric arc sparks are caused between the first electrode and the second electrode (in order to function as intended, the device would necessarily generate arc sparks in order to electrocute the insects moving between the plates).
However, should the applicant disagree that electrical arc sparks are caused between the first electrode and second electrode of Guo, Kim and Song, then it would have been obvious to try derived through routine tests and experimentation to ensure complete electrocution of a sucked insect, thus preventing live insects from escaping. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4 Guo, in view of Kim and Song, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Guo further discloses wherein the first electrode is a first metal piece (14), and the second electrode is a second metal piece (15), a space of the electric shock area is defined and surrounded by the first metal piece and the second metal piece (space between plates shown in Fig. 5), an electric shock area inlet is formed commonly by the first metal piece and the second metal piece at a side of the first metal piece and a side of the second metal piece near the air inlet, an electric shock area outlet is formed commonly by the first metal piece and the second metal piece at a side of the first metal piece and a side of the second metal piece near the air outlet, the electrically shocked object enters the electric shock area inlet to get into the space of the electric shock area and to be electrically shocked, and flows out of the electric shock area from the electric shock area outlet to be expelled from the air outlet (page 3); (Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5 Guo, in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Guo does not disclose a suction head connected in front of the air inlet, and a cross-sectional area of the suction head being gradually shrunk from the air inlet toward an outer suction inlet of the suction head.
Kim teaches a suction head (Fig. 3; 180) connected in front of the air inlet, and a cross-sectional area of the suction head being gradually shrunk from the air inlet toward an outer suction inlet of the suction head.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Guo to include a suction head connected in front of the air inlet, and a cross-sectional area of the suction head being gradually shrunk from the air inlet toward an outer suction inlet of the suction head, as taught by Kim, in order to improve capture ability (page 12).
Regarding claim 6 Guo, in view of Kim and Song, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Guo further discloses wherein the electric shock area inlet is larger than the electric shock area outlet (Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 8-9 Guo, in view of Kim and Song, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Guo in view of Kim and Song does not disclose wherein the first electrode is a flexible metal piece, the flexible metal piece is flexibly bent and deformed so that the first electrode is moved close to the second electrode without being in contact with the second electrode; an electric shock gain zone is generated where the flexible metal piece is flexibly bent and deformed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first electrode of Guo, Kim, and Song to be flexible, in order to provide the benefit of direct contact shock with the insect, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Note that the electric shock gain zone would occur naturally by modifying the material to be flexible, since electric fields are distance dependent.
Regarding claims 10 and 16 Guo, in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Guo further discloses further comprising a control switch (19), wherein the control switch is electrically connected with the electric voltage boost module to control power supplies of the electric shock module (page 3).
Regarding claims 11 and 17-18 Guo, in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10 and 13. Guo further discloses a battery module, wherein the battery module (17, 18) is electrically connected with the electric voltage boost module to supply power to the electric voltage boost module (corresponding to a user changing the batteries).
Regarding claim 12 Guo, in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Guo further discloses a battery module, wherein the battery module (17, 18) is electrically connected with the electric voltage boost module to supply power to the electric voltage boost module (corresponding to a user changing the batteries).
Regarding claim 14 Guo, in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Guo further discloses wherein the electric shock module comprises a first electrode (14) and a second electrode (15) isolated and spaced from each other (Fig. 5), an electric shock area is formed between the first electrode and the second electrode, the electrically shocked object flows through the electric shock area to cause the electrical discharge under the high electric voltages and generation of the electric arc sparks between the first electrode and the second electrode. (in order to function as intended, the device would necessarily generate arc sparks in order to electrocute the insects moving between the plates).
However, should the applicant disagree that electrical arc sparks are caused between the first electrode and second electrode of Guo and Kim, then it would have been obvious to try derived through routine tests and experimentation to ensure complete electrocution of a sucked insect, thus preventing live insects from escaping. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant amended the claims to only include limitations from claim 7 into the independent claims. However, the non-final office action explicitly stated that claim 7 would be allowable only if claim 7 and all intervening claims was incorporated into the independent claims. Therefore, claims 1 and 13 stand rejected, as shown above.
Conclusion
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 BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm PST.
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 Collins can be reached at 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
