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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a structure horizontally spaced from each of the second capillary sticks that is configured with a plurality of openings” of claim 1 (additionally, no instance of “structure” is found in the specification) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 31 & 35 (34 appears to be repeated for the secondary capillary sticks).
Additionally, Fig. 1 points to the entire upper half of the apparatus as reactor element 5, when the reactor and the chimney, initiating unit, and elimination module are claimed as different components. Figure 1, then, is unclear since 5 appears to be pointing to each of these elements. How is, e.g., the claimed chimney (element c), then centrally positioned within the reactor and also with lower apertures in communication with (i.e. “in line with”) an outlet of the reactor?
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: no discussion of “a structure horizontally spaced from each of the second capillary sticks that is configured with a plurality of openings” is found in the instant specification. The specification is silent in totality to “structure” and only refers to apertures in reference to the chimney and reactor, both of which are already recited in claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such limitations are:
“an initiating unit” where “unit” is the placeholder term with the claimed function of “for providing sufficient heat influx to said reactor to trigger the chemical reaction…” without sufficient structure claimed to perform the function. This is considered in light of “heating module 8 (e.g., a ceramic element adapted with a low voltage heating element and with suitable power supply and wiring thereof)” described on page 6/9 of the instant specification; and
“an electric elimination means” which is interpreted in light of “an electric coil/mesh (not shown)” described on page 8/9 of the instant specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
No discussion of “a structure horizontally spaced from each of the second capillary sticks that is configured with a plurality of openings” is found in the instant specification. The specification is silent in totality to “structure” and only refers to apertures in reference to the chimney and reactor, both of which are already recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 3 states “a container configured with:” but goes on to describe components of the disclosed container. As “configured with” is reserved for functional elements or elements which interact with the claimed container, the metes and bounds of the claim phrase are not clear, due to the claim construction. It is recommended that the phrase be replaced with --comprising:--.
Claim 1, element b, line 1 states “a reactor connectable with said container which comprises” - though the limitation is nested in (b) to a reactor, the “which comprises” makes the limitation unclear: is the reactor or the container being further limited? It is recommended to positively recite the subject in place of “which”.
Claim 1, element b, lines 3-5 establish “a chemical reaction” in a functional sense, triggered by the phrasing “to facilitate” -- thus, it is unclear what limitation is provided by “the chemical reaction”. Additionally, method steps do not properly limit apparatus claims. In sum, the products (e.g. heat, CO2, and water) cannot be further limiting over a “mosquito trap” apparatus as laid out in the preamble. Any additional recitation of “the chemical reaction” and “the heated reaction products” and the like is rejected in the same manner.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the…strings". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “second capillary sticks” which appears to double include “a corresponding upwardly extending second capillary stick” of claim 1, (e) (ii).
Claims 2-4, 6-11, & 13 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 1, rejected above.
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 1-7 & 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galbraith (US 1823892 A) in view of Miller (US 5669176 A), Wilbanks (US 6050025 A), and Kahn (US 3473251 A).
For Claim 1, Galbraith discloses a mosquito trap (title, disclosure) emulating an environment of a human body (while this is an intended use, the instant specification notes that temperature, humidity, and carbon dioxide levels provide this “emulation”, further discussed in the claim limitations below), comprising:
a) a container configured with:
i) a lower portion containing liquid attractant (“A liquid or fluid bait that will evaporate and give forth fumes or odors, to attract the insects, is contained in a reservoir 13 supported beneath the trap,” page 1, lines 87-95, hereinafter referred to as “page:line(s)”);
ii) an uncovered or1 permeable top portion (the top of 13 is permeable in at least elements 22/27 extending therein);
iii) one or2 more first capillary sticks (27 represents one capillary stick or “wick”) affixed within, and extending downwardly from, said top portion so as to be capable of being immersed in the contained attractant and of transmitting the attractant to said top portion through capillarity to ensure that said top portion is wet with the capillary transmitted methanol (2:34-45); and
iv) a lid (14/16) detachably connected to said lower portion or3 said top portion (14/16 are illustrated in Fig. 1 as distinct from the reservoir 13), wherein the lid is configured with circumferential inlet holes (between 16) through which incoming ambient airflow is flowable to vaporize the wet capillary transmitted attractant (27 is open to the ambient air partly because of the space between clips 16);
b) a reactor (concentric spaced inner perforated cylinder 2) connectable with said container (Fig. 1) which comprises an enclosure configured with peripheral air inlet holes (perforations through the cylinder 2) through which incoming ambient airflow including oxygen is flowable into an interior of said reactor to facilitate a chemical reaction with the attractant vapors which are upwardly flowable into the reactor interior; wherein the chemical reaction produces carbon dioxide, water and heat (air, including oxygen, is capable of flowing through the apertures formed in the sidewall of cylinder 2, Fig. 1; as a reaction is capable of taking place in the interior of the cylinder, the structural components of this claim limitation have been addressed);
c) a chimney centrally positioned within said reactor (22), wherein the chimney is configured with a lower apertures in communication with an outlet of said reactor (23) and with upper apertures through which heated reaction products are discharged (the funnel 24 and the space around the funnel provide two apertures in 22), an upward flow of the heated reaction products causing additional ambient air to be drawn through the lower apertures by a chimney effect to cool said reactor and the chimney and to ensure that additional heated reaction products will be continuously produced (the device of Galbraith has nothing blocking the upward flow of heated products and/or additional ambient air, thus the structural components have been addressed); and
e) an elimination module (1) attachable to said reactor, comprising:
i) a permeable or apertured upwardly extending dispersion sleeve which receives the heated reaction products upwardly flowing from said reactor (the vertically extending wires of 1);
iv) an electric elimination means mounted on said structure for eliminating mosquitos attracted to the induced environment upon engaging said elimination means (the horizontally extending wires of 1, 1:73-85).
Galbraith is silent to the attractant contained within the container being methanol;
d) an initiating unit for providing sufficient heat influx to said reactor to trigger the chemical reaction and for terminating the heat influx upon detecting that the chemical reaction has been initiated;
e) the elimination module comprising:
ii) one or more compartments containing liquid odorant that is each provided with a corresponding upwardly extending second capillary stick horizontally spaced from said dispersion sleeve to transmit the odorant through capillarity, wherein the capillarity transmitted odorant is heatable by the heated reaction products dispersed from said dispersion sleeve to produce mosquito-attracting, odorant bearing heated reaction products;
iii) a structure horizontally spaced from each of the second capillary sticks that is configured with a plurality of openings through which the odorant bearing heated reaction products are emitted to induce a mosquito-attracting ambient environment.
Miller, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) comprising an attractant contained within a container (fuel cell 12) being methanol (26, 60, Fig. 1);
d) an initiating unit for providing sufficient heat influx to said reactor to trigger the chemical reaction and for terminating the heat influx upon detecting that the chemical reaction has been initiated (Col. 3, line 11-Col. 4, line 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the attractant and dispersion technique of Galbraith in view of the methanol fuel source and dispersion technique as taught by Miller, in order to “an effective means for generating carbon dioxide, water vapor and heat, which are known insect attracts,” Col. 3, lines 62-65.
Wilbanks, like prior art above, teaches an insect killing device (title, disclosure), comprising
e) an elimination module comprising:
ii) one or more compartments (90 in 86) containing liquid odorant that is each provided with a corresponding upwardly extending second capillary stick (85) horizontally spaced from the center of the device to transmit the odorant through capillarity (“[t]he gel 92 gradually releases pheromones (represented by dashed lines 98) into the casing interior 86 for mixture with the entering air currents (represented by dotted lines 108)” Col. 6, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify Galbraith with an odorant as taught by Wilbanks, in order to further ensure that the targeted insects are attracted to the device, yielding predictable results.
The resulting device renders obvious the capillarity transmitted odorant is heatable by the heated reaction products dispersed from said dispersion sleeve to produce mosquito-attracting, odorant bearing heated reaction products (due to the proximity of the heater of Miller with the odorant).
Kahn, like prior art above, teaches an insect killing device (title, disclosure), comprising e) an elimination module comprising:
iii) a structure (100) horizontally spaced from the center of the device (Fig. 3) configured with a plurality of openings through which air may be emitted to induce a mosquito-attracting ambient environment (the spaces between 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the electrical wiring of Galbraith with supports as taught by Kahn, in order to better protect the user and ensure that the device works as intended (by disallowing contact and short circuiting/arcing between components), yielding predictable results.
For Claim 2, Galbraith as modified above teaches the mosquito trap according to claim 1, Miller further teaches wherein the initiating unit comprises a heating module for heating the reactor (2: 12-20).
Galbraith discloses a sensing/switching module for deactivating said heating module upon reaching a predetermined temperature (1:80-85).
For Claim 3, Galbraith as modified above teaches the mosquito trap according to claim 1.
Galbraith as modified above is silent to wherein each of the one or more first capillary sticks is a cotton wrapped stick.
It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to substitute a cotton wrapped stick for the wick of Galbraith as modified above, in order to use available materials, and since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
For Claim 4, Galbraith as modified above teaches mosquito trap according to claim 1.
Galbraith as modified above is silent to wherein each of the first capillary sticks is affixed in a sealing sponge for preventing spillage of methanol from the container which is attached to the top portion of the container.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the connection between the first capillary stick and the top portion of the container of the above-modified reference to be sealed with a sponge, in order to avoid methanol spillage (as is well known in the art), since the Examiner takes Official Notice that sponges for sealing in liquid attractants is exceedingly well known in the art.
For Claim 5, Galbraith as modified above teaches the mosquito trap according to claim 4, and the resulting device renders obvious wherein a top end of each of the first capillary sticks or strings that is wet with the capillary transmitted methanol protrudes upwardly from the sealing sponge and is limited by the lid through which the methanol vapors upwardly flow into the reactor interior (27 extends through the lid, Fig. 1 of Galbraith).
The resulting device is silent to the lid comprising mesh.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the hole around the wick of the container of the above-modified reference to comprise mesh, in order to keep elements in place (as is well known in the art), since the Examiner takes Official Notice that mesh for holding elements is exceedingly well known in the art.
For Claim 6, Galbraith as modified above teaches the mosquito trap according to claim 1, and Galbraith further discloses wherein the elimination means comprises an electrical coil (each horizontal wire comprises a coil around the exterior of the device).
For Claim 7, Galbraith as modified above teaches the mosquito trap according to claim 1, and Galbraith further discloses wherein the chimney is provided with a catalyst that is suitable for accelerating the chemical reaction between vaporized alcohol-based liquid from the container and oxygen from the incoming ambient air (the shape of the funnel 24/25 flares outward, causing a decrease in air pressure, drawing air through it, and catalyzing any oxygen-based reaction, Fig. 1).
For Claim 9, Galbraith as modified above teaches the mosquito trap according to claim 1, and Galbraith further discloses wherein the enclosure of the reactor is made from a heat conductive metal (“metallic cylinder,” 1:59-65).
For Claim 10, Galbraith as modified above teaches the mosquito trap according to claim 1, and Galbraith further discloses which has a cylindrical (cylindrical, Fig. 1) or4 non-cylindrical shape.
For Claim 11, Galbraith as modified above teaches the mosquito trap according to claim 1.
Galbraith is silent to wherein the reactor is configured with a lower inlet mesh through which the methanol vapors are upwardly flowable into the reactor interior, and with a top outlet mesh through which the heated reaction products are upwardly flowable into the chimney.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the top and the bottom of the reactor of the above-modified reference to comprise mesh, in order to protect non-insects from harm (as is well known in the art), since the Examiner takes Official Notice that mesh for protecting users and others from harm is exceedingly well known in the art.
For Claim 12, Galbraith as modified above teaches the mosquito trap according to claim 1, and Galbraith further teaches wherein the dispersion sleeve is tubular (each vertical wire is tubular, and the collective wires make up a tube) and the structure is curved so as to be radially spaced outwardly from the dispersion sleeve and to define an annulus (defines the exterior of the device of Galbraith) within which each of the corresponding upwardly extending second capillary sticks upwardly extends (as modified above).
For Claim 13, Galbraith as modified above teaches the mosquito trap according to claim 12, and Kahn further teaches wherein the structure is configured with a plurality of arcuate and circumferentially spaced studs (100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 may be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 5647164 A, US 20050126068 A1, and US 20130291427 A1; US 4907366 A, US 5632115 A, US 5799436 A, US 20030061757 A1, US 6609330 B1, US 20030192229 A1, US 20080168702 A1, and US 8109036 B1 as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention. The remaining references cited establish the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
2 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
3 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
4 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.