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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment, filed on July 2 of 2026, has been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 6 has been cancelled. No claim has been added. Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7-10 are still pending in this application, with only claim 1 being independent.
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.
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 1, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHILD (U.S. Pat. 7,937,887), as evidenced by STINSON (U.S. Pat. 4,992,704).
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.
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. For example, STINSON discloses a plurality of LED chips 7/8/9 (as seen in Figure 3) with different wavelengths (see lines 36-38 of column 3), each LED chip 7/8/9 provided with an independent power control module 30 (as seen in Figure 2) connected to each LED chip 7/8/9 in series (as seen in Figure 2), with the power control module 30 being adjustable power control module 30 (see line 67 of column 2, to line 4 of column 3).
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).
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 (as previously modified), 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 (as previously modified), 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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHILD (U.S. Pat. 7,937,887) as previously modified, further 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.
Kurahashi (U.S. Pat. 4,992,704), Takahashi et al. (U.S. Pat. 4,420,711), Van de Ven (U.S. Pat. 8,512,105), Stam et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,498,440), Lys et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,777,891), Rains, Jr. et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,995,355), Dowling et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,186,003), Peng (U.S. Pat. 7,465,056), Neuman (U.S. Pat. 7,986,101), Van de Venet al. (U.S. Pat. 9,425,172) and Von Fange et al. (U.S. Pat. 10,718,474) disclose illumination devices including plurality of light emitting diode chips (LED chips) with different wavelengths (see lines 36-38 of column 3), each one of the LED chips provided with an adjustable independent power control module, such that the emission of each individual LED chip can be adjusted to provide a desired combined illumination output.
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 July 2 of 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 (subject matter previously defined by dependent claim 6) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as unpatentable over 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 power control module being an adjustable power control module. The applicant further argues CHILD fails to provide many of the purported advantages provided by applicant’s invention.
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 power control module 200 being an adjustable power control module, the applicant is respectfully advised one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, as previously detailed, adjustable power modules are old and well known in the art (as evidenced by the Prior Art already made of record), therefore, it would had been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the patented invention of CHILD with a known adjustable power module to provide the predictable result of enabling such patented device with the capability of adjusting the output of the LED chips 9 to produce a desired illumination characteristic (i.e., intensity, illumination output, or spectrum). The teachings of STINSON are now cited as evidence to support the Examiner’s Official Notice, as requested by the applicant. A collection of additional documents is also provided further testifying as to the old and well known status of LED chips connected in series to adjustable power control modules specifically to provide individual control of differently colored LED chips to achieve a desired combined output spectrum.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s Official Notice requiring evidence of adjustable power modules being common general knowledge specifically in the field of mosquito-trapping light sources is acknowledged, but considered a spurious argument. Obviousness does not require explicit disclosure of claimed features in applicant’s specific application, but merely recognition, by one of ordinary skill in the art, of known individual pieces fitting together in a new way to achieve a predictable result. That is, while applicant’s invention might be new (e.g. the use of adjustable power modules specifically in mosquito-trapping light sources might be novel), such invention might still be unpatentable is the individual elements are not new, and are used in way and for the purpose for which they are commonly used.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail CHILD (U.S. Pat. 7,937,887) fails to provide many of the purported advantages provided by applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim. As the applicant is surely aware, 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). In addition, the fact that the inventor might have recognized new advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the claim structure is disclosed by the Prior Art, or the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 4, 5 and 7 have been carefully considered, but they are based on features, advantages, and functionality not found in the claims..
Conclusion
All claims are drawn to the same invention claimed in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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