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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on October 27 of 2025, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claim 1-7 in the reply filed on October 27 of 2025 is acknowledged.
However, upon further consideration, claims 8-10, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104.
Because all claims previously withdrawn from consideration under 37 CFR 1.142 have been rejoined, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on October 27 of 2025 is hereby withdrawn. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement as to the rejoined inventions, applicants are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment, per MPEP 606.01. Any changes to claim scope at time of allowance may also result in an additional title amendment.
At this time, the following title is suggested: with Light Source Module
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language and format of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. In certain patents, particularly those for compounds and compositions, wherein the process for making and/or the use thereof are not obvious, the abstract should set forth a process for making and/or use thereof. If the new technical disclosure involves modifications or alternatives, the abstract should mention by way of example the preferred modification or alternative.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following:
(1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation;
(2) if an article, its method of making;
(3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use;
(4) if a mixture, its ingredients;
(5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be given.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it repeats information given in the title, and refers to the purported merits or speculative applications of the invention. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the originally filed abstract as indicated below.
ABSTRACT. An electric mosquito swatter a housing; a swatter electric grid arranged in the housing; and two or more LED chips arranged in the housing at an inner side of the electric gridin a range from 360 nm to 400 nm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Section (b)
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor, or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Dependent claim 4 is indefinite as it fails to provide proper antecedent basis for the limitation “the two or more LED chips with the same wavelength” (see line 2). Independent claim 1, from which claim 4 directly depends, defined two or more LED chips with different wavelengths, however, no such two or more LED chips with “the same wavelength” were previously defined.
The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 4 as attempting to define the light source module of claim 1 as further including “two or more LED chips with the same wavelength”.
Dependent claim 5 is rejected at least for its dependency on indefinite dependent claim 4, as previously detailed.
Dependent claim 7 is indefinite as it is not clear if the limitation “the mosquito-trapping light source module comprises but is not limited to a lamp tube, a plane light source or a lamp bulb” is introducing new structural elements of the claimed invention, or simply attempting to define the previously recited “LED chips” as configured as a lamp tube, plane light or lamp bulb. In addition, the meaning of the phrase “comprises but is not limited to” cannot be readily ascertained from the context of the claim. The use of the open ended term “comprises” appears to indicate that the claimed light source module must include at least one of “a lamp tube, a plane light source or a lamp bulb”; the addition of the phrase “but is not limited to” being at best redundant, but it could also be considered as modifying some use of “close ended language” previously in the claim.
The applicant is advised that, in comparing the claimed invention with the Prior Art, the Examiner assumed, based on the originally filed description and drawings, claim 7 as simply attempting to define the “two or more LED chips” of claim 1 as configured as at least one of “a lamp tube, a plane light source or a lamp bulb”.
Section (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Dependent claim 10 attempts to define a “mosquito killer” including the light source module of independent claim 1, but fails to define any additional structural or even functional limitation. The invention defined by claim 4 appears to be substantially identical to that previously defined by independent claim 1 (from which claim 10 directly depends).
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Proposed Claim Amendments
The Examiner respectfully suggests amending the claims as indicated below. The applicant is advised that, if the proposed amendments are accepted, all claims must be carefully reviewed to reflect and/or accommodate the new language.
CLAIM 4. The mosquito-trapping light source module according to claim 1, further comprising:
[[the ]]two or more LED chips with the same wavelength [[are ]]connected to form an isospectral light source group, [[and ]]wherein the isospectral light source group is provided with an independent power control module.
CLAIM 7. The mosquito-trapping light source module according to claim 1, wherein: the two or more LED chips are configured as at least one of
CLAIM 10. A mosquito killer, comprising a mosquito-trapping light source module according to claim 1, and a housing receiving the light source module.
Claim Rejections Based on Prior Art
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 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.
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.
35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHILD (U.S. Pat. 7,937,887).
Regarding independent claim 1, CHILD discloses a mosquito-trapping light source module 200 (as seen in Figure 2) including two or more LED chips 9 (as seen in Figure 2) with different wavelengths (“five different ranges”, see lines 30 and 31 of column 5), wherein wavelengths of the LED chips 9 range from 360 nm to 400 nm (360-420 nm, see lines 29 and 30 of column 5).
Regarding dependent claim 2, CHILD further discloses each of the LED chips 9 is provided with an independent power control module (independent control is required for pulsing the LED chips, see lines 32-35 of column 5).
Regarding dependent claim 3, CHILD discloses the LED chips 9 being controlled to pulse (sequentially, randomly or pseudo-randomly; see lines 32-35 of column 5). While CHILD fails to explicitly disclose the LED chips 9 being connected in parallel circuit, and the power control module connected to a corresponding LED chip 9 in series, one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that for the light source module 200 to perform as disclose, LED chips 9 in a group must necessarily be connected in parallel with one another, with the control module in series.
Regarding dependent claim 7 (as best understood), CHILD further discloses the mosquito-trapping light source module comprises but is not limited to a lamp tube, a plane light source 9 (LED chips are arranged to illuminate a plane, as seen in Figure 2) or a lamp bulb.
Regarding dependent claim 10 (as best understood), CHILD further discloses a mosquito killer 100 (as seen in Figure 2) including a mosquito-trapping light source 200 (as seen in Figure 2).
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHILD (U.S. Pat. 7,937,887).
Regarding dependent claim 4 (as best understood), CHILD further discloses the two or more LED chips 9 with the same wavelength (40 UV LEDs in five different ranges necessarily result in at least five groups of same wavelength LED’s, see line 30 and 31 of column 5).
CHILD fails to explicitly disclose the two or more LED chips 9 with the same wavelength connected to form an isospectral light source group, with such isospectral light source group provided with an independent power control module.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of independently controlled isospectral light source group, specifically in illumination device including light sources of multiple wavelengths, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply arrange the two or more LED chips 9 with the same wavelength to form an isospectral group with it own independent control module in the patented apparatus of CHILD, to obtain the predictable result of enabling the apparatus to independently control each group of LED chips 9 to obtain a desired illumination characteristic (i.e., intensity, illumination pattern, combined projected spectrum). (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding dependent claim 5, CHILD further discloses the two or more LED chips with the same wavelength (40 UV LEDs in five different ranges necessarily result in at least five groups of same wavelength LED’s, see line 30 and 31 of column 5), and two or more isospectral light source groups (40 UV LEDs in five different ranges necessarily result in at least five groups of same wavelength LED’s, see line 30 and 31 of column 5). While CHILD fails to explicitly disclose the LED chips 9 in each isospectral light source group are connected in parallel circuit, and the power control module connected to a corresponding LED chip 9 in series, one or ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that for the light source module 200 to perform as disclose, LED chips 9 in a group must necessarily be connected in parallel with one another, with the control module in series.
CHILD fails to explicitly disclose the two or more isospectral groups of LED chips 9 with the same wavelength provided with an independent power control module.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of independently controlled isospectral light source group, specifically in illumination device including light sources of multiple wavelengths, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to simply arrange the two or more LED chips 9 with the same wavelength to form an isospectral group with its own independent control module in the patented apparatus of CHILD, to obtain the predictable result of enabling the apparatus to independently control each group of LED chips 9 to obtain a desired illumination characteristic (i.e., intensity, illumination pattern, combined projected spectrum). (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Regarding dependent claim 6, CHILD fails to disclose the power control module being an adjustable power control module.
However, the examiner takes Official Notice of the use and advantages of adjustable control modules, specifically in illumination device including light sources of multiple wavelengths, are old and well known in the illumination art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include a known adjustable control module in the patented apparatus of CHILD, to obtain the predictable result of enabling the apparatus to adjustably control each group of LED chips 9 to obtain a desired illumination characteristic (i.e., intensity, illumination pattern, combined projected spectrum). (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHILD (U.S. Pat. 7,937,887) in view of LAINE (U.S. Pat. 2,881,554).
CHILD discloses all the limitations of the claim (as previously detailed), further disclosing a housing 100 (as seen in Figure 1); an electric grid (see lines12-14 of column 5), wherein the electric grid is arranged in the housing (element 8, as seen in Figure 2); and the mosquito-trapping light source module 200 is arranged in the housing (as seen in Figure 2) and located at an inner side of the electric grid (element 200 is positioned at an inner side of element 8, as seen in Figure 8).
CHILD fails to explicitly disclose the housing and electric grid being specifically for an electric mosquito swatter.
However, LAINE discloses an electric mosquito swatter 1 (as seen in Figure 1) including an electric mosquito swatter housing 2 (as seen in Figure 1), a mosquito swatter electric grid 3/4 (as seen in Figure 1) arranged in the electric mosquito swatter housing 2 (as seen in Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to combine the Prior Art light source module 200 of CHILD with the patented electric mosquito swatter 1 of LAINE, according to the known methods taught by CHILD, to yield the predictable result of attracting mosquitoes to the mosquito swatter electric grid 3/4 of LAINE to be killed (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Giordano (U.S. Pat. 3,729,857), Iannini (U.S. Pat. 3,768,196), Soulos (U.S. Pat. 3,835,577), Newhall et al. (U.S. Pat. 3,950,886), Gilbert (U.S. Pat. 3,998,000), Yavnieli (U.S. Pat. 4,109,408), Deyoreo et al. (U.S. Pat. 5,301,458), Mah (U.S. Pat. 6,134,826), Aicher (U.S. Pat. 6,195,932), Shichman (U.S. Pat. 6,688,035), Chen (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2007/0056207), Huang (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2007/0101639), Lan (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2007/0113464), Su (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2007/0271839), Lin (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0038207), Su (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2009/0272026), Keralla (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2010/0162615), Hariyama et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2014/0223803), Dayan (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2015/0320028), Koo et al. (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2016/0021865), Dayan (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2016/0309695), Smith et al. (U.S. Pat. 11,771,073), Sabic et al. (U.S. Pat. 12,058,993), and Freudenberg et al. (U.S. Pat. 12,250,937) disclose mosquito killing devices including a housing, an electric grid arranged in the housing, and means for attracting mosquitoes towards the electric grid. In some of the disclosed devices, the means for attracting mosquitoes include at least one light source emitting light at least in the UV range, and the housing is configured to be held in a swatting motion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Dependent claim 9 is 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:
Applicant teaches an electric mosquito swatter including a housing, and electric grid arranged in the housing, a bracket arranged in the housing and including at least two bifurcated portions, and a light source provided at an inner side of the electric grid. The light source including at least two LED chips of different wavelengths in the 360-400 nm range, the at least two LED chips of different wavelengths arranged in the at least two bifurcated portions.
While most of the individual features defined in the claims are considered old and well known in the art, no prior art was found teaching specifically a light source support with two bifurcated portions supporting two LED chips of different wavelengths in the 360-400 nm range, and no motivation could be found for such combination beyond the teachings found in applicant’s own disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAEL NEGRON whose telephone number is (571)272-2376. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jong-Suk Lee, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7044. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ISMAEL NEGRON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2875