DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 18/724,168 filed 6/25/2024 which is a 371 of PCT/NO2022050310 12/16/2022 and claims priority to NO20211549 12/20/2021.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 13-22) in the reply filed on 6/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 22 is examined in the action below. In the listing of claims claim 22 was designated withdrawn. However, in the remarks and the requirement for restriction claim 22 was included for reading on the elected group.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 17-18 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, lines 3-4: “wherein the movable gate member is positionable as to partially cover[[s]] the entrance of the entrance chamber compartment box.”
As best understood, in claim 18 the recitation “an actuator” is “the actuator” previously recited in claim 15. Recommend replacing “an” with “the”.
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 19 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.
For purposes of examination on the merits, the claims, as best understood, are examined in the Action below.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the surface of the gate" in line 1. 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 13-14 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Williams (US 11,122,781 B2)(hereinafter Williams).
RE Claim 13: Williams discloses a system (Figs 1-2) for thermal treatment of a hive structure adapted for pollinating insects comprising:
an entrance chamber box adapted for positioning below at least one hive compartment box (Fig 2)(col 4, ln 10-30),
wherein the entrance chamber box comprises an entrance (41) for pollinating insects to enter and exit the hive structure (Fig 2)(col 4, ln 10-30), and
a heating device (20), the heating device comprising:
at least one heating element (65); and
a heat dispersion element (61, 62) comprised of a heat-conducting material at least partly surrounding the heating element or parts thereof (col 5, ln 1-40),
wherein a surface area of the heating dispersion element is larger than a surface of an area of the heating element (Fig 3), and
wherein the heating device is insertable in, and removable from, the entrance chamber box (col 4, ln 52- end).
RE Claim 14: Williams discloses the system according to claim 13, and
wherein the entrance chamber box comprises multiple longitudinal slated elements above the entrance (col 4, ln 10-38).
RE Claim 20: Williams discloses the system according to claim 13, and
wherein the system further comprises a temperature sensor (col 5, ln 25-35) and/or a humidity sensor, a control unit (col 5, ln 20-40) and a power supply (col 5, ln 20-40).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams.
RE Claim 21: Williams discloses the system according to claim 20.
Regarding the following limitation: “wherein the system further comprises an additional temperature sensor.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use multiple temperature sensors, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.03 VI B citing In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). This would be done for the advantages of measuring temperature at different locations throughout the hive.
Regarding the placement of the temperature sensors: “wherein the temperature sensor is positioned on a top of the compartment box and adapted to control and measure a predetermined target treatment temperature, and wherein the additional temperature sensor is positioned in the entrance chamber box below the compartment box.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Williams such that wherein the temperature sensor is positioned on a top of the compartment box and adapted to control and measure a predetermined target treatment temperature, and wherein the additional temperature sensor is positioned in the entrance chamber box below the compartment box, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (C) citing In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). This would be done for the advantages of measuring temperature throughout the hive.
Claims 15-17 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Humal (US 2015/0049919 A1)(hereinafter Humal).
RE Claim 15: Williams discloses the system according to claim 13.
Williams discloses a gate (54) operable to fully or partially close the entrance of the entrance chamber compartment box and to open said entrance if closed or partially closed, the closable and openable gate system comprises: a movable gate member (54)).
Williams does not explicitly teach at least an actuator connected to the gate member.
However, Humal teaches hive structures and treatment of hives (analogous art). Humal further teaches a gate system (para 0020) adapted to be operable to fully or partially close the entrance of the entrance chamber compartment box and to open said entrance if closed or partially closed, the closable and openable gate system comprises: a movable gate member (para 0020), and; at least an actuator connected to the gate member (para 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Williams in view of Humal such that the gate system comprises an actuator connected to the gate member as taught by Humal for the advantages of controlling access within the hive and facilitating automation.
RE Claim 16: Williams as modified discloses the system according to claim 15.
In Williams the movable gate member has at least two positions, each position respectively corresponding to either opened or closed (54 absent for open, and present for closed), whereby, in the closed position the movable gate member is positioned to fully cover the entrance of the entrance chamber compartment box (para 0020).
Humal teaches the least an actuator is adapted to move the movable gate member between the at least two positions (para 0020).
RE Claim 17: Williams as modified discloses the system according to claim 15.
In Williams the movable gate member has at least one further position, wherein the at least one further position is a partially closed position wherein the movable gate member is positionable as to partially covers the entrance of the entrance chamber compartment box (54 absent for open, and present for partially closed).
RE Claim 22: Williams discloses the system according to claim 13, as previously discussed.
Williams does not explicitly teach at least one sensor for identifying invasive pests or mites.
However, Humal teaches hive structures and treatment of hives (analogous art). Humal further teaches at least one sensor for identifying invasive pests or mites (310, at least abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Williams in view of Humal by incorporating at least one sensor for identifying invasive pests or mites as taught by Humal for the advantages of management of destructive pests within the system.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Humal as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Barnhart (US 1,198,513)(hereinafter Barnhart).
RE Claim 18: Williams as modified discloses the system according to claim 15.
Williams teaches wherein the gate member comprises a surface for at least a portion of its length (54)(Figs 1-2), wherein the surface is arranged to block, or partially block, the entrance (54)(Figs 1-2).
Humal teaches an actuator moving the gate member to open/closed positions, but does not explicitly teach rotation of the gate member to selectively position the surface or parts thereof in relation to the entrance.
However, Barnhart teaches a beehive comprising a gate system (analogous art) and further teaches rotation of the gate member to selectively position the surface or parts thereof in relation to the entrance (page 1, ln 84-95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Williams as modified in view of Barnhart such that the gate member rotates to selectively position the surface or parts thereof in relation to the entrance as taught by Barnhart for the advantages of controlling entry to the hive.
RE Claim 19 (as best understood): Williams as modified discloses the system according to claim 15.
Williams teaches wherein the gate member comprises a surface for at least a portion of its length (54)(Figs 1-2), wherein the surface is arranged to block, or partially block, the entrance (54)(Figs 1-2).
Williams as modified does not explicitly teach the surface of the gate member rotatable around an axis.
However, Barnhart teaches a beehive comprising a gate system (analogous art) and further teaches the surface of the gate member rotatable around an axis. (page 1, ln 84-95).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Williams as modified in view of Barnhart such that the surface of the gate member rotatable around an axis as taught by Barnhart for the advantages of controlling entry to the hive.
Barnhart also teaches the surface of the gate member comprises at least a partial circular shape or semicircular shape (21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Williams as modified in view of Barnhart such that the surface of the gate member comprises at least a partial circular shape or semicircular shape as taught by Barnhart for the advantages of controlling conditions within the hive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various bee hives and accessories for temperature regulation. The cited prior art also include various openings and controllers for allowing/preventing access to the interior of the hive.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644