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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment, filed on April 9 of 2026, has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 10 have been amended. Claims 2 and 3 have been cancelled. No claim has been added. Claims 1 and 4-10 are still pending in this application, with only claim 1 being independent.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification have overcome the objections detailed in sections 5-9 of the previous Office Action (mailed January 9, 2026).
Applicant’s amendment to the claims have overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112, as detailed in sections 9-15 of the previous Office Action (mailed January 9, 2026). Therefore, the cited rejections have been withdrawn.
It is noted that applicant's amendment fails to meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2), as the deleted subject matter of dependent claim 7 has not been marked as required (i.e., the text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by strike-through, or placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived). However, to expedite prosecution, the cited amendment has been entered as previously indicated.
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, 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), 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), 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, CHILD further discloses the mosquito-trapping light source module wherein the two or more LED chips 9 are configured as at least one of a 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 module 200 (as seen in Figure 2), and a housing 100 (as seen in Figure 1) receiving the light source module 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.
Carriero (U.S. Pat. 3,243,913), Phares (U.S. Pat. 5,420,482), Hunter (U.S. Pat. 5,724,062), Van de Ven (U.S. Pat. 5,812,105), Mueller et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,016,038), Stam et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,498,440), Dowling et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,548,967), Morgan et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,608,453), Lys et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,717,376), Rains, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,995,355), and Callahan (U.S. Pat. 7,015,825) disclose devices including a housing, a plurality of light sources with different wavelengths provided in the housing, and means for independently controlling the light sources. Some of the disclosed devices further include means for exterminating pests.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed April 9 of 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CHILD (U.S. Pat. 7,937,887), the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically the LED chip 9 connected in a parallel circuit with each LED chip 9 provided with independent power control modules in series with a corresponding one of the LED chips 9. The applicant further argues that the pulse control of CHILD provides a function different from applicant’s, and that CHILD’s invention may be achieved by circuit arrangements other than the claimed independent controlled LED chips.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-10, the applicant present no arguments, except stating that such claims depend directly, or indirectly, from independent claim 1, and would be allowable when/if the independent claim is allowed. Applicant’s failure to distinctly and specifically traverse such rejections, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b), has been interpreted as an admission that the individual features added by claims 4-10 fail to further distinguish the subject matter defined by the independent claims over the Prior Art already made of record.
In response to applicant’s arguments that CHILD (U.S. Pat. 7,937,887) fails to disclose, explicitly or even implicitly, all the features of the claimed invention, specifically the LED chips 9 connected in a parallel circuit with each LED chip 9 provided with independent power control modules in series with a corresponding one of the LED chips 9, the applicant is respectfully advised that while the claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 70 USPQ2d 1827 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004).
In this case, as previously detailed, CHILD explicitly discloses at least two LED chips 9 having different wavelengths (five ranges, see lines 30 and 31 of column 5) in a range from 360 nm to 400 nm (362 nm to 420 nm, see lines 29 and 30 of column 5). CHILD further discloses control means for controlling the LED chips 9 to pulse sequentially, randomly or pseudo randomly. CHILD was considered to reasonably anticipate the claimed independent power control modules in series with a corresponding one of the LED chips 9, as such independent is required to achieve the disclosed sequentially, randomly or pseudo randomly pulsing function; that is, in order for the control means of CHILD to turn the LED chips 9 ON and OFF in a sequential pattern such LED chips 9 must be powered individually. Random or pseudo random pulsing requires the same individual control.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the invention of CHILD not requiring independent power control have been carefully considered, but are not convincing. The Examiner agrees that it is a fact that applicant’s “scheme A” is capable of providing a pulsing function, but it is also a fact that such pulsing of the total power supply would result in all the LED chips 9 pulsing in unison (i.e., all LED chips 9 turning ON or OFF at the same instant), not sequentially (i.e. each LED chip 9 turning ON while others are OFF following a sequence), as explicitly disclosed by CHILD. The Examiner further agrees that applicant’s “scheme B” and “scheme C” both require independent power control of either separate groups of LED chips 9 (as in “scheme B”) or individual LED chips 9 (as in “scheme C”); however, the Examiner disagrees that “scheme B” fails to anticipate the claimed circuit arrangement. Regarding “scheme B”, the applicant is reminded that the term “comprising” is an open ended term which requires explicitly define structural element, without excluding additional structural elements even if undefined. In this case, even if each of the LED chips grouping of “scheme B” include a plurality of same LED chips 9 it would still reasonably anticipate the claimed “each of the LED chips is provided with an independent power control module” as the element considered as anticipating the claimed “each LED chip” would be one of each LED group, as the additional LED chips in a group are not excluded by the use of “comprising”.
In summary, applicant’s “scheme A” fails to provide the function explicitly required by CHILD, and both “scheme B” and “scheme C” both reasonably anticipate the argued circuit arrangement.
In response to applicant's argument regarding the different functionalities of applicant’s invention and the patented device of CHILD, the is advised that such arguments were carefully reviewed, but considered moot since such arguments rely on features upon which are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights