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 .
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1 “comprising a pointed protrusion” should be changed to read--comprising: a pointed protrusion--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 4-5,8 is(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 4 recites “a total length of the ridged pointed protrusion per unit area is from 10 mm/cm2 to 1000 mm/cm2 inclusive.” However, this renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not readily clear what is meant by this recitation. It is unclear what the total length is inclusive of? Further, it is unclear how one ridged pointed protrusion as required by claims 1&4 would comprise a total length per unit area of 10 mm/cm2 to 1000 mm/cm2 as claimed. Further, the specification para0037 discloses that the total length per unit area is calculated by the total length of all the pointed protrusions and not one as claimed.
Claim 5 recites “the number of apexes of the cone-shaped pointed protrusion is from 10 mm/cm2 to 1000 mm/cm2 inclusive.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the term “ the number of apexes of the cone-shaped pointed protrusion”. Further, this renders the claim vague and indefinite because it is not readily clear what is meant by this recitation. It is unclear what the total length is inclusive of? Further, it is unclear how one pointed protrusion as required by claims 1&5 would comprise a total length per unit area of 10 mm/cm2 to 1000 mm/cm2 as claimed. The specification para0037¶0104+0105 discloses that the total length per unit area is calculated by the total length of all the pointed protrusions and not one as claimed.
Claim 8 recites “the ambulatory pest”. There is a lack of antecedent basis.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2,4,6,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mailleux et al. herein Mailleux (US 20210287490 A1) in view of Nogueras (US 4931346 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Mailleux discloses:
An ambulatory pest trapping device comprising (abstract, figs 9-11)
a pointed protrusion (walls of 5b)
at least part of which is covered with an adhesive, (para0102)
Mailleux doesn’t disclose:
a tip radius of curvature of the pointed protrusion being 0.001 mm to 1.0 mm or less. (Mailleux discloses that the tip comprises a salient angle, see para0103, but doesn’t disclose the exact range)
Nogueras discloses:
a tip radius of curvature of the pointed protrusion being 0.001 mm to 1.0 mm or less. (30, fig 3, col 3 ln 29-41, col 4 ln 9-32)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tip radius of curvature of the pointed protrusion of Mailleux to be 0.001 mm to 1.0 mm or less as taught by Nogueras to provide for improved strength, rigidity, and resistance to bending (Nogueras).
Regarding claim 2:
Mailleux as modified discloses claim 1 and Mailleux further discloses:
wherein the pointed protrusion is ridged. (Fig 10, see how 10 is ridged)
Regarding claim 4:
Mailleux as modified discloses claim 2 and Mailleux further discloses in an alternative embodiment:
wherein a total length of the ridged pointed protrusion per unit area is from 10 mm/cm2 to 1000 mm/cm2 inclusive. (para0202, height of trap: 0.15cm, height of trap:0.15cm, length of pointed protrusions 13.5cm thus using formula disclosed in the instant spec para0037, the total length of the ridged pointed protrusion per unit area is 66mm/cm2 inclusive.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the total length of the ridged pointed protrusions per unit area of Mailleux as modified such that it is 10 mm/cm2 to 1000 mm/cm2 inclusive as taught by the alternative embodiment of Mailleux to adjust the trap parameters to fit according to target pest to improve trapping efficiency.
Regarding claim 6:
Mailleux as modified discloses claim 1 and Mailleux further discloses:
wherein the pointed protrusion includes at least one of a ridged pointed protrusion or cone-shaped pointed protrusion. (Fig 10, see how 10 is ridged)
Regarding claim 8:
Mailleux as modified discloses claim 1 and Mailleux further discloses:
wherein the ambulatory pest is a pest of the order Acarina. (para0162)
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mailleux in view of Nogueras, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Kameda (JP 2000135044 A).
Regarding claim 3:
Mailleux as modified discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the pointed protrusion is cone-shaped.
Kameda discloses:
wherein the pointed protrusion is cone-shaped. (see cone-shape of 2 in bottom image of figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pointed protrusion of Mailleux as modified such that is cone-shaped as taught by Kameda to provide for a variety of attachment surfaces for the pests to attach to.
Regarding claim 5:
Mailleux as modified discloses claim 3 and Mailleux further discloses in an alternative embodiment:
wherein a total length of the pointed protrusion per unit area is from 10 mm/cm2 to 1000 mm/cm2 inclusive. (para0202, height of trap: 0.15cm, height of trap:0.15cm, length of pointed protrusions 13.5cm thus using formula disclosed in the instant spec para0037, the total length of the pointed protrusion per unit area is 66mm/cm2 inclusive.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the total length of the cone-shaped pointed protrusions per unit area of Mailleux as modified such that it is 10 mm/cm2 to 1000 mm/cm2 inclusive as taught by the alternative embodiment of Mailleux to adjust the trap parameters to fit according to target pest to improve trapping efficiency.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mailleux in view of Nogueras, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Mailleux et al. herein Mailleux 2 (US 20200128808 A1).
Regarding claim 7:
Mailleux as modified discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein at least part of the ambulatory pest trapping device includes a phosphorescent substance.
Mailleux 2 discloses:
wherein at least part of the ambulatory pest trapping device includes a phosphorescent substance. (para0136)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify trapping device of Mailleux as modified such that it includes a phosphorescent substance as taught by Mailleux 2 to improve trapping visibility and efficiency.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHADA M ALGHAILANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30am - 4:30pm EST).
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 on 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.
/SHADA MOHAMED ALGHAILANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643