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 § 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 1-2, 10, 13, 16, 20-21, 23, 25-26, 29, 31, 34, 38 and 50-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapa Mario (WO 2020162926 A1, cited by Applicants, “Mario”) in view of Humal (US 2015/0049919 A1).
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”).
Mario does not explicitly teach “wherein the step of allowing the insect to leave the first receptacle includes attracting the insect with a light component.”
However, Humal teaches a method/device for diagnosing or controlling varroatosis in bees/insects, wherein the step of allowing the insect/bee to leave the first receptacle includes attracting the insect with a light component [0085].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Humal regarding usage of a light component in the method/system of Mario since both arts are dealing with similar technique to control insect movement, and to utilize the light component as an attractant is known in the art. By utilizing the modified apparatus, one of ordinary skill in the art would allow the insect to leave the first receptacle by attracting the insect with the light component disclosed by Humal. Further, Mario teaches that “water, food, light, smell, sound, singly or in combination, can be used as a lure to attract particular species” (page 8; lines 10-11).
Regarding Claim 2, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario in view of Humal.
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 optionally wherein the insect pest is selected from the group consisting of a moth, a beetle, a true bug, and a fly (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 10, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario in view of Humal.
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 in view of Humal.
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, optionally wherein 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 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. Further, 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 in view of Humal.
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.
Regarding Claim 20, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario in view of Humal.
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 in view of Humal.
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 in view of Humal.
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 (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).
Mario does not explicitly teach “wherein the device comprises a light component for attracting the insect to an insect exit portion of the receptacle.”
However, Humal teaches a device for diagnosing or controlling varroatosis in bees/insects, wherein the step of allowing the insect/bee to leave the first receptacle includes attracting the insect with a light component [0085].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Humal regarding usage of a light component in the system of Mario since both arts are dealing with similar technique to control insect movement, and to utilize the light component as an attractant is known in the art. By utilizing the modified apparatus, one of ordinary skill in the art would allow the insect to leave the first receptacle by attracting the insect with the light component disclosed by Humal. Further, Mario teaches that “water, food, light, smell, sound, singly or in combination, can be used as a lure to attract particular species” (page 8; lines 10-11).
Regarding Claim 26, the device of claim 25 is taught by Mario in view of Humal.
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 in view of Humal.
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 in view of Humal.
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) to encourage characteristic behaviour associated with movement of the insect through the restricted channel for identification of the insect using the sensor, optionally wherein the restrictor is for restricting the channel at or near a position of the 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 in view of Humal.
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 in view of Humal.
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 in view of Humal.
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) wherein movement of the insect through the restricted space encourages characteristic behaviour for identification of the insect using the sensor (implicitly taught in (page 13; line 15 – page 15; line 7) wherein utilizing plurality of individual gates 20 and the sensing unit3 30, movement of the insect through the restricted space or plurality of individual gates encourages characteristic behaviour for identification of the insect using the sensor).
Regarding Claim 51, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario in view of Humal.
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.).
Regarding Claim 52, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario in view of Humal.
Mario further teaches the method 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 53, the method of claim method of claim 1 is taught by Mario in view of Humal.
Mario further teaches the method including a step of attracting the insect to the first receptacle using a chemical stimulant (Implicitly taught in page 8; lines 10-11: “Water, food, light, smell, sound, singly or in combination, can be used as a lure to attract particular species.” As food or smell comprising chemicals).
Regarding Claim 54, the device of claim 25 is taught by Mario in view of Humal.
Mario and Humal further teach the method wherein the movement of the insect includes movement of the insect out of the receptacle (Mario: page 9; lines 12-20, page 13; lines 3-15).
Regarding Claim 55, the device of claim 25 is taught by Mario in view of Humal.
Mario and Humal further teach the method wherein the light component is a translucent or substantially transparent window or the like allowing light to enter from outside the housing of the device (Mario: page 8; line 7-8. Humal: [0081]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mario in view of Humal, and further in view of Files et al. (US 10,524,461 B1, previously cited, “Files”).
Regarding Claim 19, the method of claim 1 is taught by Mario in view of Humal.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on /04/28/2026 with respect to claims 1-2, 7, 20-21, 23, 25-26, 29, 31, 33-34, 38 and 50-55 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Due to the current amendment to the claims, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn. Due to the current amendment to the claims, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn.
With regards to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102/103, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regards to claim rejections of claims 1 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 applicant argues in pages 1-2:
“Without agreeing to the propriety of the rejections under§§ 102 and 103, and solely to
advance prosecution, Applicant has amended the independent claims to clarify the scope of the claims. Claim 1 recites:
A method of detecting an insect, the method including steps of allowing the
insect to enter a first receptacle; sensing a movement of the insect with a sensor;
and allowing the insect to leave the first receptacle, wherein the step of allowing
the insect to leave the first receptacle includes attracting the insect with a light
component.
Independent claim 25 recites similar subject matter.
Applicant respectfully submits that Mario and Files, whether considered alone or in
combination, do not disclose or suggest each and every feature of amended claim 1. For
example, as detailed in paragraphs [0197] and [0199] of Applicant's as-filed PCT specification, attracting the insect to leave the receptacle is critical and advantageous for certain embodiments of the present disclosure.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The requirement for a proper response to a rejection may be found in 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07. The requirements to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112(a&b) may be found in MPEP § 2163, 2172.01. The requirements for obviousness are discussed in MPEP § 2142. The requirements for broadest reasonable interpretation are discussed in MPEP 2111.01 (I) and 2173.01(I). The requirements for analogous art are discussed in MPEP 2141.01(a)(I).
As to claim interpretation, MPEP 2111.01 (I) states “[U]nder a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention or as of the effective filing date of the patent application.”
As to analogous art, MPEP 2141.01(a)(I) discloses “[R]ather, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325.”
Examiner’s explanation:
As to arguments regarding rejections of independent claims 1 and 25 along with other dependent claims, the arguments are considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new set of references being used in the current rejection.
As explained in the above rejection section, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, Mario in view of Humal teaches the claimed limitations.
For at least the foregoing reasons, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are withdrawn and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 is maintained since under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the present arts teach the claimed limitations.
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. [Abstract].
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.
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
Prosecution Insights