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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, sub-group A, claims 2-14 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
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 “wherein the first pattern is distinct from the second pattern” (claim 4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, the language “wherein the first pattern is distinct from the second pattern” appears inconsistent with the specification and is thus indefinite. The specification describes a “pattern” as repeated openings within a sieve surface that creates a “row pattern” (para. 38) and only describes that the patterns may be “different” when discussing two distinct sieve surfaces (para. 70). Thus, it is not clear if Applicant is defining the base of claim 2 as comprising two sieve surfaces or is somehow defining the repeated row patterns shown in figure 2 as “distinct” patterns.
Examiner thus requests clarification on what is being defined by first and second distinct patterns (e.g., which figure and what is regarded as distinct) and recommends amending the claims with language that clearly sets forth the claimed invention. In the interim, and in the interests of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted as set forth below.
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 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wojciechowski (US 2014/0262978).
Wojciechowski teaches a sieving container, comprising:
(re: base claim 2) a base defining a sieve surface that comprises at least two sets of openings extending between a first side of the base and a second side of the base (fig. 2, 2A-2D showing screen element 16 with multiple sets of screen openings 86 that extend thru screen surface/base),
wherein a first set of openings of the at least two sets of openings defines a first pattern and a second set of openings of the at least two sets of openings defines a second pattern (fig. 2 wherein each stack/group of openings can be regarded as a pattern; see also para. 23 teaching that screening openings may be “rectangular, square, circular and oval or any other shape” and that “different combinations of rectangular, square, circular and oval screening openings (or other shapes) may be incorporated together and depending on the shape utilized may run parallel and/or perpendicular to the end portions”),
wherein individual openings of the at least two sets of openings defined by:
a length dimension measured along a longitudinal axis of a respective opening, wherein a value of the length dimension is greater than an overall length of a representative insect pupa of a predetermined insect type to be sieved using the sieving container (para. 24, 62, 188 teaching that screening openings may have a width “about 0.043 mm to about 4 mm and a length “about 0.086 mm to about 43 mm”---wherein Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification-para. 42-describes the pupa dimensions with a width dimension ranging from 800-1500 microns (0.08 - 0.15 cm) and a length dimension ranging from 2500 microns to 12 mm (0.25 - 1.2 cm));
a width dimension measured along a transverse axis of the respective opening, the length dimension greater than the width dimension, wherein a value of the width dimension is less than a cross-sectional cephalothorax width of the representative insect pupa (Id. with para 24 teaching that “width to length ratio may be approximately 1:2 to approximately 1:1000”); and
a space dimension measured between longitudinal edges of the individual openings, wherein a value of the space dimension corresponds the cross-sectional cephalothorax width of the representative insect pupa (para. 24 teaching that elongated slots can have a distance of between 43 to approximately 4000 microns between adjacent screen surface elements which Examiner notes is within the pupa width range of 800-1500 described by Applicant) and
a sieve frame that encircles the base and physically contacts at least the first side of the base, the base fixedly coupled to the sieve frame (fig. 1, 2 and 8 showing frame 12 that encircles screen elements 16 to form screen assembly 10 and fig. 12, 13 and 39 showing screen assembly placed within walled structure to form screening volume, i.e., container, by partially encircling screen assembly);
(re: claim 3) a perimeter wall encircling the base and the sieve frame to form an interior volume of the sieving container, the sieve frame fixedly coupled to the perimeter wall with the first side of the base exposed to the interior volume (Id.);
(re: claim 4) wherein the first pattern is distinct from the second pattern (para. 23 teaching that “different combinations of rectangular, square, circular and oval screening openings (or other shapes) may be incorporated together and depending on the shape utilized may run parallel and/or perpendicular to the end portions”);
(re: claim 5) wherein the first pattern and the second pattern together define a repeating pattern that extends across the sieve surface (Id.);
(re: claim 6) wherein the first pattern is repeated in a first orientation and the second pattern is repeated in a second orientation (Id. teaching that patterns may run parallel and/or perpendicular);
(re: claim 7) wherein the sieve frame and the base comprise a non-rectangular cross section (Cf. fig. 39, 40 and 40B; see also para. 241-243 teaching that screen assembly may “also be configured in any shape or size desired” such as pyramidal);
(re: claim 8) wherein the sieve frame is configured for mounting within a sieve rim (fig. 12 and 13);
(re: claim 9) wherein the first set of openings is spaced apart from the second set of openings according to a row dimension (fig. 2A and 2D showing sets of openings spaced from one another, wherein row dimension can be regarded as spacing therebetween);
(re: claim 10) where in a value of the row dimension is about equal to the value of the space dimension (fig. 2D showing that space between stacked openings is about equal to space between sets of stacked openings);
(re: claim 12) wherein the value of the length dimension is at least two times greater than the value of the width dimension. (fig. 2D and para 24 teaching that “width to length ration may be approximately 1:2 to approximately 1:1000”);
(re: claim 14) wherein the base is formed from a single piece of planar material (fig. 2 and para. 177-181 teaching injection molding of single pieces).
(re: claims 11 and 13) Applicant is respectfully reminded that claim language consisting of functional language and/or intended use phrasing is given little, if any, patentable weight as the apparatus must merely be capable of functioning, or being used, as claimed. See MPEP 2112.02, 2114. Moreover, Applicant is reminded that the patentability of apparatus claims must depend upon structural limitations, not mere statements of functions. See Galland-Henning Manufacturing Company et al. v. Dempster Brothers, Inc., 165 USPQ 688 (E.D. Tenn. 1970). Here, the device cited above is certainly capable of-
(re: claim 11) wherein the value of the row dimension and the value of space dimension are selected to minimize a ratio of solid area to open area across the sieve surface (para. 18, 19 and 180 teaching that open area is factor in screen configuration);
(re: claim 13) wherein the representative insect pupa is a female mosquito pupa (Examiner notes that the range of width and length dimensions taught above encompass a female mosquito pupa).
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
January 14, 2026