NON-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 § 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the biological agent" which has not been previously defined. This limitation is first found in claim 14, but claim 16 does not depend on claim 14. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 1-2, 7, 20-21, 23, 25-26, 29, 31, 33-34, 38 and 50-51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chapa Mario (WO 2020162926 A1, cited by Applicants, “Mario”).
Regarding Claim 1, Mario teaches a method of detecting an insect, the method including steps of allowing the insect to enter a first receptacle (through plurality of gates 20); sensing a movement of the insect with a sensor; and allowing the insect to leave the first receptacle (page 13; lines 10-12 discloses “It is the function of gates 20 to allow for entrance and exit of a species of bees, recordation and collection of the movements and speed of this species”), wherein the step of sensing movement of the insect includes sensing movement of the insect directly before or during exit of the receptacle (page 13; line 3 – page 14; line 9, page 15; lines 8-18, Fig.1-5 disclose a device with gates that allow insects to enter and exit, as shown in the description of Figures 1-2&5. Mario mentions sensors (30, 40) that detect the movement of insects, specifically as part of the gate structure described in the mentioned sections on sensor pairs (30, 40) and gate configuration (20). It is further specified that the sensors detect entrance and exit of insects. This corresponds to sensing movement directly before or during exit of the receptacle).
Regarding Claim 2, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches wherein the insect is an insect pest-selected from the group consisting of: an agricultural insect pest: a pest of a vegetable crop, a fruit crop, a grain crop, a fibre crop, or a cereal crop; and a pest of an ungulate animal or a poultry animal (Mario discloses in (page 1; “Field of the Invention”, page 7; lines 11-16) that regarding monitoring various pests, such as beetles and locusts, in the section discussing non-pollinator species with environmental impacts).
Regarding Claim 7, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches wherein the insect is selected from the group consisting of a moth, a beetle, a true bug, and a fly (Mario discloses in (page 7; lines 11-16) that regarding monitoring various pests, such as beetles and locusts, in the section discussing non-pollinator species with environmental impacts).
Regarding Claim 20, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches that the sensor with which movement of the insect is sensed is an exchangeable sensor (Mario discloses in (page 5; lines 7-10) that while photo-interrupter sensors are utilized, it is within the contemplation of the applicant to use various types of sensors including, but not limited to, photogate reflective light sensors, hall effect sensors or electromagnetic sensors. Further, (Figures 3&4 and claim 13) disclose that sensor gates and detection components can be swapped depending on species, as discussed in the interchangeable gate array and device modularity sections. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Mario.).
Regarding Claim 21, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches that the sensor with which movement of the insect is sensed is of an electronic device connected to the first receptacle (Fig.1&6, claim 7 disclose that sensors integrated into an electronic unit connected to the enclosure and the microcontroller system. It also mentions environmental sensors such as humidity and temperature sensors (page 16; lines 5-14)).
Regarding Claim 23, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches the method including a step of transmitting information on detection of the insect to a computing device and/or database (page 5; lines 16-20, page 8; lines 18-23, page 13; lines 3-14, claim 14).
Regarding Claim 25, Mario teaches a device (Fig.1-5) comprising a housing (fig.1; element 14) and an insect sensor (30, 40) connected to the housing (shown in fig.1 where the gate 20 is in contact with housing 14, fig.2 shows that the gate comprises sensors 30 and 40), wherein the device is adapted for attachment with a receptacle to sense movement of an insect out of the receptacle (page 13; line 3 – page 14; line 9, page 15; lines 8-18, Fig.1-5 disclose a device with gates (20) that allow insects to enter and exit, as shown in the description of Figures 1-2&5. Mario mentions sensors (30, 40) that detect the movement of insects, specifically as part of the gate structure (20) described in the mentioned sections on sensor pairs (30, 40) and gate configuration (20). It is further specified that the sensors detect entrance and exit of insects. This corresponds to sensing movement directly before or during exit of the receptacle).
Regarding Claim 26, the device of claim 25 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches wherein the sensor is selected from the group consisting of an electronic sensor; a capacitance sensor; and a printed circuit board sensor (Claims 3-4&6, (page 5; lines 7-10) disclose that the sensor is photo-interrupters sensors which is an electronic sensor, and mentions the possibility of using alternative sensor types in the section on sensor variants and adaptations).
Regarding Claim 29, the device of claim 25 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches wherein the sensor is an exchangeable sensor (Mario discloses in (page 5; lines 7-10) that while photo-interrupter sensors are utilized, it is within the contemplation of the applicant to use various types of sensors including, but not limited to, photogate reflective light sensors, hall effect sensors or electromagnetic sensors. Further, (Figures 3&4 and claim 13) disclose that sensor gates and detection components can be swapped depending on species, as discussed in the interchangeable gate array and device modularity sections. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Mario.).
Regarding Claim 31, the device of claim 25 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches that the housing comprises a channel for allowing passage of the insect therethrough, and wherein the housing comprises or is connectable with a restrictor for restricting the channel (page 13; lines 10-12 discloses “It is the function of gates 20 to allow for entrance and exit of a species of bees, recordation and collection of the movements and speed of this species.” Further, the feature is shown in fig.1-5).
Regarding Claim 33, the device of claim 31 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches that the restrictor is for restricting the channel at or near a position of the insect sensor (page 13; lines 10-12 discloses “It is the function of gates 20 to allow for entrance and exit of a species of bees, recordation and collection of the movements and speed of this species.” Further, fig.1-5 show channels formed by the gates that regulate insect entry and exit, with adjustable gate sizing for different species, as detailed in the gate configuration and species accommodation sections.).
Regarding Claim 34, the device of claim 33 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches that the restrictor is an exchangeable restrictor (Fig.3 and page 6; lines 6-7 discloses that “In one preferred embodiment, in terms of configuration, the set of gates' number, size and shape can be adjusted to accommodate the particular species that is being monitored.”).
Regarding Claim 38, the device of claim 25 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches that the device comprising a power source (col.10; lines 7-9) comprising one or more of a lithium-ion battery; a photovoltaic cell; a processor; a data transmitter; and a data receiver (col.13; lines 3-15).
Regarding Claim 50, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches the method wherein the step of sensing movement of the insect with the sensor includes sensing movement of the insect associated with passage of the insect through a restricted space (Fig.2&5 illustrate and (page 13; line 15 – page 15; line 7) disclose that insect movement being sensed as the insect passes through gates equipped with sensors where the beam interruption is used to track entry and exit.).
Regarding Claim 51, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches the method including a step of identifying the insect and/or estimating population characteristics of the insect based on information including the sensed movement of the insect (Fig.3 and page 6; lines 6-11 discloses that “In one preferred embodiment, in terms of configuration, the set of gates' number, size and shape can be adjusted to accommodate the particular species that is being monitored.” Further, Fig.5-6 discloses that the identification of insect size and gender based on movement data through sensor pairs, including the use of timing and speed calculations.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mario.
Regarding Claim 10, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario.
Mario does not explicitly teach that the movement of the insect sensed by the sensor is movement of the insect's thorax or abdomen.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Mario to arrive at the instant invention. Mario discloses in (page 15; line 8-18) regarding measuring of quantified distance (D), time (T) via To, T1, T2 and T3, to determine binomial entrance and exit of an individual pollinator through beam interruption, the length (L) (i.e. insect size) of each individual entering or exiting the present invention through the device gates where length L relates to speed S and differences in time T. Succinctly, L is calculable where T and S are supplied and length functions to determine the gender of an individual (e.g. length/size is determinable where L = S x T). Utilizing the teaching of Mario, one of ordinary skill in the art may find the movement of the insect sensed by the sensors being movement of the insect's thorax or abdomen as all body part, including gender specifics, are identified by the arrangement.
Regarding Claim 13, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario.
Mario does not explicitly teach that the method including a step of controlling the insect by contact of the insect with a control agent located within the first receptacle.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Mario to arrive at the instant invention. Mario discloses in (page 5; lines 16-22) regarding usage of a bait where the bait consists of an interchangeable pheromone or any other suitable bait (i.e. food, honey or sugar) or decoys such as lights or sounds (or species specific pray animals) that are emitted from inside a box containing one or more gates to the internalized bait. As the odor or light of the bait is expelled out of the box through the gates, either by natural means or facilitation (e.g. via a fan in the case of pheromones), the odor, sound or light attracts the desired pollinator to enter the box through said gates. Further, the bait may consist of a species specific and interchangeable and replaceable pheromone, food, honey or sugar that is placed within the confines of the enclosure, externally, or both for emittance and attraction of said species (claim 9); or the bait may consist of lights, smells, sounds or pray animals specific to a particular species that is placed in the confines of the enclosure or externally for attraction of said species (Claim 10). Utilizing the teaching of Mario regarding suitable baits, one of ordinary skill in the art may control the insect by contact of the insect with a control agent or baits located within the receptacle/gate. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Mario.
Regarding Claim 14, the method of claim 13 is taught by Mario.
Mario does not explicitly teach that the control agent is a biocontrol agent.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Mario to arrive at the instant invention. Mario discloses in (page 5; lines 16-22) regarding usage of a bait where the bait consists of an interchangeable pheromone or any other suitable bait (i.e. food, honey or sugar) or decoys such as lights or sounds (or species specific pray animals) that are emitted from inside a box containing one or more gates to the internalized bait. As the odor or light of the bait is expelled out of the box through the gates, either by natural means or facilitation (e.g. via a fan in the case of pheromones), the odor, sound or light attracts the desired pollinator to enter the box through said gates. Further, the bait may consist of a species specific and interchangeable and replaceable pheromone, food, honey or sugar that is placed within the confines of the enclosure, externally, or both for emittance and attraction of said species (claim 9); or the bait may consist of lights, smells, sounds or pray animals specific to a particular species that is placed in the confines of the enclosure or externally for attraction of said species (Claim 10). Utilizing the teaching of Mario regarding suitable baits, one of ordinary skill in the art may have the baits as biocontrol agent. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Mario.
Regarding Claim 16, the method of claim 13 is taught by Mario.
Mario does not explicitly teach that the method including a step of controlling a population of insects by contacting the population of insects with the insect contacted by the biocontrol agent.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teaching of Mario to arrive at the instant invention. Mario discloses in (page 5; lines 16-22) regarding usage of a bait where the bait consists of an interchangeable pheromone or any other suitable bait (i.e. food, honey or sugar) or decoys such as lights or sounds (or species specific pray animals) that are emitted from inside a box containing one or more gates to the internalized bait. As the odor or light of the bait is expelled out of the box through the gates, either by natural means or facilitation (e.g. via a fan in the case of pheromones), the odor, sound or light attracts the desired pollinator to enter the box through said gates. Further, the bait may consist of a species specific and interchangeable and replaceable pheromone, food, honey or sugar that is placed within the confines of the enclosure, externally, or both for emittance and attraction of said species (claim 9); or the bait may consist of lights, smells, sounds or pray animals specific to a particular species that is placed in the confines of the enclosure or externally for attraction of said species (Claim 10). Utilizing the teaching of Mario regarding suitable baits, one of ordinary skill in the art may control a population of insects by contacting the population of insects with the insect contacted by the biocontrol agent or baits. Thus, the limitation is implicitly taught by Mario.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mario in view of Files et al. (US 10,524,461 B1, “Files”).
Regarding Claim 19, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario.
Mario further teaches that the sensor is photo-interrupters sensors (page 5; lines 7-10).
Mario does not explicitly teach that wherein the sensor with which movement of the insect is sensed is a capacitance sensor.
However, Files teaches a detector comprising one or more sensors to operations may include detecting, by a motion sensor, movement associated with the pest and capturing, by a sensor (e.g., an imaging sensor) of the detector, sensor data (e.g., a digital image) of the pest [Abstract] wherein the sensor with which movement of the insect is sensed is a capacitance sensor (col.2; lines 25-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mario’s method with Files’ sensor since this is a known alternative to detect movement of the pest. Mario discloses in (page 5; lines 7-10) that while photo-interrupter sensors are utilized, it is within the contemplation of the applicant to use various types of sensors including, but not limited to, photogate reflective light sensors, hall effect sensors or electromagnetic sensors. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art may use Files’ capacitive sensor as an alternative to Mario’s sensor.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record and not relied upon, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Prater (US 2009/0100743 A1) teaches a device for illumination and insect extermination for use with a conventional electrical wall outlet features a light source and an electrocution grid both operatively connected to electrical connectors through which power is supplied. The light source and grid are arranged such that the grid does not interfere with the transmission of light in at least one direction. A housing and a perforated translucent guard positioned about the light source and grid allow a substantial portion of the light emitted to leave the device while preventing accidental human contact with the electrocution grid. A switch allows the grid to be manually disabled while removal of the guard causes automatic disabling. A photoelectric sensor prevents wasteful energy use by activating the light source only when the surrounding environment is substantially dark [Abstract].
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUMAN NATH whose telephone number is (571)270-1443. The examiner can normally be reached on M to F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, JOHN BREENE can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SUMAN K NATH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855