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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/2026 has been entered.
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 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn (DE 4103358 A1) in view of Jancic et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0271582) and Hrabal (U.S. Patent No. 2,495,454).
For claim 1, Kuhn discloses a trap (as shown in Figs. 1-2) for rodents comprising a base (1) having a base plane (across the horizontal surface), a pivotable hammer bar (Fig. 1: 2), a spring element (4) for pre-tensioning the hammer bar (2), and a lever element (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) having a rodent positioning member (8) and at least one latch member (6), wherein the rodent positioning member (8) and the at least one latch member (6) are arranged on opposing ends of the lever element (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) with respect to a longitudinal axis of the lever element (central axis through the length of the lever element),
wherein the pivotable hammer bar (2) and the lever element (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) have a striking position (as shown in Fig. 1) and an arming position (as shown in Fig. 2 and as discussed in the detailed description “By lifting the front edge of the trigger, the vertical part of the trigger goes back and the front edge of the bend releases the hook of the locking lever so that the striker can strike.”),
in the arming position the hammer bar (2) is pretensioned by the spring element (3), the at least one latch member (6) retains the hammer bar (2) in position in the arming position (as shown in Fig. 2), and the rodent positioning member (8) is liftable from the arming position into the striking position (as discussed in the detailed translated description “The funnel-shaped trigger 8 is rotatably attached at the angle between its horizontal and the vertical part with a bracket 9.”).
Kuhn fails to disclose the pivotable hammer bar having at least one latch connecting element, the hammer bar is latched under the latch hook at the latch connecting element, wherein the latch connecting element comprises a longitudinal section, which is essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the lever element when the hammer bar is in the arming position. Jancic et al. teaches a trap for rodents (as shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising a base (Figs. 1-2: 2) having a base plane (across the horizontal surface), a pivotable hammer bar (Figs. 1-2 and 5: 3) having at least one latch connecting element (Fig. 5: 19), the hammer bar is latched under a latch hook (Fig. 2: under distal end of 6) at the latch connecting element (19), wherein the latch connecting element (Fig. 5: 19) comprises a longitudinal section, which is essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of a lever element (6) when the hammer bar (3) is in the arming position (as shown in Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trap of Kuhn to include the at least one latch connecting element as taught by Jancic et al. for the advantage of providing a portion for the user to easily grip and adjust the hammer bar to the arming position.
Kuhn fails to disclose at least one latch hook. Hrabal teaches a trap for rodents (as shown in Figs. 1-3) comprising a base (Figs. 1-3: 10) having a base plane (across the horizontal surface), a pivotable hammer bar (Figs. 1-2: 16), and at least one latch hook (Figs. 1-3: 62), and the hammer bar (16) is latched under the latch hook (62) at a latch connecting element (Figs. 1-2: 24), and the at least one latch hook (62) holds the hammer bar (16) in position in the arming position (as shown in phantom in Fig. 2) and releases the hammer bar in the striking position (as shown in Fig. 2 and discussed on page 3, lines 11-26), and the at least one hook (62) is fixed (Figs. 1-2: via 64) in the same position relative to the base plane both in the arming position and in the striking position (Fig. 2 shows the at least one hook 62 is fixed to the base via the staple 64 both in the arming position and in the striking position). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trap of Kuhn to include the at least one latch hook as taught by Hrabal for the advantage of retaining the hammer bar set in the arming position.
For claim 3, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses the trap according to claim 1, wherein the hammer bar (Jancic et al. Fig. 5: 3) comprises at least a first section (Jancic et al. Fig. 5: 19) and a second section (Jancic et al. Fig. 5: the widest portion of hammer bar 3), wherein the second section is arranged between the first section and the spring element (Jancic et al. Fig. 5: 5), wherein the first section comprises the latch connecting element (Jancic et al. Fig. 5: 19).
For claim 4, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses the trap according to claim 3, wherein the first section (Jancic et al. Fig. 5: 19) is essentially U-shaped (Jancic et al. as show in Fig. 5).
For claim 5, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses the trap according to claim 3, wherein the second section (Jancic et al. Fig. 5: the widest portion of hammer bar 3) has a larger expansion perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the lever element (Jancic et al. Fig. 5: 6) than the first section (Jancic et al. Fig. 5: 19).
For claim 6, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses a trap according to claim 1, wherein the rodent positioning member (Kuhn 8) has an at least partially rounded (Kuhn as discussed in the detailed translated claims “2. that the trigger is semicircular in its opening at the front”), conical, or cylindrical shape (Kuhn as shown in Figs. 1-2).
For claim 7, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses the trap according to claim 6, wherein the rodent positioning member (Kuhn Figs. 1-2: 8) is at least partially open in the direction of the base (Kuhn 1) forming an access cavity (Kuhn as shown in Figs. 1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For claim 8, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses the trap according to claim 1, wherein the at least one latch hook (Hrabal Figs. 1-3: 62) comprises a hooking-section (Hrabal Figs. 1-3: forward of the at least one latch hook 62) comprising a hooking-surface (Hrabal as shown at annotated Fig. 2 below) having at least one hooking-surface-plane (Hrabal as shown at annotated Fig. 2), wherein the hooking-surface-plane is arranged at an angle relative to the plane of the base wherein the angle is substantially more than 10°, respectively less than 170° (Hrabal as shown at annotated Fig. 2).
For claim 9, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses the trap according to claim 8, wherein the at least one latch hook (Hrabal Figs. 1-3: 62) comprises a first hammer-bar-inserting-surface with a plane, wherein the first hammer-bar inserting-surface plane is arranged at an inserting angle relative to the hooking- surface-plane wherein the inserting angle is in a range of 30°- 90° (Hrabal as shown in the annotated Fig. 2 below. While the angle is not explicitly recited, it would have been obvious since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental
PNG
media_image2.png
504
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.).
For claim 10, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses a latch hook (Hrabal Figs. 1-3: 62), but fails to specifically disclose at least two latch hooks. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trap of Kuhn, Jancic et al. and Hrabal to include at least two latch hooks for the advantage of securing a hammer bar of greater weight and tension, since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
For claim 11, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses a method for catching and killing a rodent comprising the step of positioning a trap (Kuhn as shown in Figs. 1-2) according to claim 1, wherein the trap is positioned in the arming position (Kuhn as shown in Fig. 2) and the hammer bar (Kuhn 2) pivots into the striking position (Kuhn as shown in Fig. 1) when a rodent lifts the rodent positioning member (Kuhn as discussed in the detailed translated description “By lifting the front edge of the trigger, the vertical part of the trigger goes back and the front edge of the bend releases the hook of the locking lever so that the striker can strike.”).
For claim 12, Kuhn discloses a trap (as shown in Figs. 1-2) for rodents comprising a base (1) having a base plane (across the horizontal surface), a pivotable hammer bar (Fig. 1: 2); a spring element (4); and a lever element (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) having a rodent positioning member (8) and a latch member (6), wherein the rodent positioning member (8) and the latch member (6) are arranged on opposing ends of the lever element (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) with respect to a longitudinal axis of the lever element (central axis through the length of the lever element),
wherein the hammer bar (2) and the lever element (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) have a striking position (as shown in Fig. 1) and an arming position (as shown in Fig. 2 and as discussed in the detailed description “By lifting the front edge of the trigger, the vertical part of the trigger goes back and the front edge of the bend releases the hook of the locking lever so that the striker can strike.”),
in the arming position the hammer bar (2) is pretensioned by the spring element (3), the at least one latch member (6) retains the hammer bar (2) in position in the arming position (as shown in Fig. 2), and the rodent positioning member (8) is liftable from the arming position into the striking position (as discussed in the detailed translated description “The funnel-shaped trigger 8 is rotatably attached at the angle between its horizontal and the vertical part with a bracket 9.”) and when the rodent positioning member (8) is lifted by a rodent the latch hook releases the hammer bar and the hammer bar powered by the spring element pivots from the arming position into the striking position to strike the rodent and be pretensioned by the spring element against the rodent (as discussed in the detailed description “By lifting the front edge of the trigger, the vertical part of the trigger goes back and the front edge of the bend releases the hook of the locking lever so that the striker can strike.”).
Kuhn fails to disclose the pivotable hammer bar having a latch connecting element, the hammer bar is latched under the latch hook at the latch connecting element, wherein the latch connecting element includes a longitudinal section, which is essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the lever element when the hammer bar is in the arming position. Jancic et al. teaches a trap for rodents (as shown in Figs. 1-2) comprising a base (Figs. 1-2: 2) having a base plane (across the horizontal surface), a pivotable hammer bar (Figs. 1-2 and 5: 3) having a latch connecting element (Fig. 5: 19), the hammer bar is latched under a latch hook (Fig. 2: under distal end of 6) at the latch connecting element (19), wherein the latch connecting element (Fig. 5: 19) comprises a longitudinal section, which is essentially parallel to the longitudinal axis of a lever element (6) when the hammer bar (3) is in the arming position (as shown in Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trap of Kuhn to include the at least one latch connecting element as taught by Jancic et al. for the advantage of providing a portion for the user to easily grip and adjust the hammer bar to the arming position.
Kuhn fails to disclose at least one latch hook. Hrabal teaches a trap for rodents (as shown in Figs. 1-3) comprising a base (Figs. 1-3: 10) having a base plane (across the horizontal surface), a pivotable hammer bar (Figs. 1-2: 16), and a latch hook (Figs. 1-3: 62) being mounted to the base (Figs. 1-2: at staple 64), and the hammer bar (16) is latched under the latch hook (62) at a latch connecting element (Figs. 1-2: 24), and the latch hook (62) holds the hammer bar (16) in position in the arming position (as shown in phantom in Fig. 2) and releases the hammer bar in the striking position (as shown in Fig. 2 and discussed on page 3, lines 11-26), and the latch hook (62) is fixed (Figs. 1-2: via 64) in the same position relative to the base plane both in the arming position and in the striking position (Fig. 2 shows the at least one hook 62 is fixed to the base via the staple 64 both in the arming position and in the striking position), and the hammer bar is latched under the latch hook at the latch connecting element (Figs. 1-2: 24). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trap of Kuhn to include the at least one latch hook as taught by Hrabal for the advantage of retaining the hammer bar set in the arming position.
For claim 13, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses the trap according to claim 12, wherein the rodent positioning member (Kuhn Figs. 1-2: 8) is at least partially open in the direction of the base forming an access cavity (Kuhn such that the rodent positioning member is 3 sided and open in the direction of the base 1).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuhn (DE 4103358 A1) in view of Jancic et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0271582) and Hrabal (U.S. Patent No. 2,495,454), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Hansson (U.S. Patent No. 5,960,583, as cited by Applicant in IDS 6/14/2024).
For claim 14, Kuhn as modified by Jancic et al. and Hrabal discloses the trap substantially as claimed, but fail to show wherein the base further has a bait container, the bait container being arranged under the rodent positioning member. Hansson teaches a trap for rodents (as discussed in the abstract), comprising: a base (Figs. 1-3: 1) and a rodent positioning member (Figs. 1-3: 6), the base further has a bait container (Figs. 1-3: 12), the bait container being arranged under the rodent positioning member Figs. 1-3 and Col. 3, lines 7-17). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the trap of Kuhn, Jancic et al., and Hrabal to include the bait container as taught by Hansson for the advantage of holding the bait under the rodent positioning member to entice the rodent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM.
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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3643