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 .
Final Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 7/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons detailed below.
The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
These rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejections are maintained or modified as follows:
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 2-3, 5-14 and 21-25 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. 1A, 1B 2 and 8 showing sieve frame 12 that encircles screen elements 16 shown in fig. 2, 2A and fig. 12, 13 and 39 showing screen assembly 10 placed within walled structure, i.e., sieve rim, 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. with fig. 39 showing perimeter wall defining an interior sieving volume);
(re: claim 5) wherein the first pattern and the second pattern together define a repeating pattern that extends across the sieve surface (Id. with fig. 2 showing that each stack/group of openings can be regarded as a pattern and 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 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).
Wojciechowski further teaches
(re: claim 21) a sieve rim that is fixedly coupled to the sieve frame (fig. 39 showing walled structure including lip elements encircling screen assembly);
(re: claim 22) wherein the sieve rim defines an interior volume and is configured to direct liquid through the first side of the base (Id.);
(re: claim 23) wherein the sieve rim encircles the sieve frame (Id. teaching partially encircling);
(re: claim 24) wherein the sieve rim comprises at least one wall having a height that is greater than a height of the sieve frame (fig. 39);
(re: claim 25) wherein the sieve frame completely encircles the base (fig. 2, 39 showing side and bottom elements that completely encircle base).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the claim features are unpersuasive. Applicant’s principal argument is that the base reference fails to disclose “a sieve frame that encircles at least the first side of the base, the base fixedly coupled to the sieve frame” (claim 2) as the encircling frame elements (near 12) cited in the Office Action are merely binder bars. Examiner disagrees as figure 1A clearly shows a framing structure that encircles and is connected to the base defined by sieve elements (16).
PNG
media_image1.png
963
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Indeed, Applicant’s further arguments that the cited structure is merely “provided to increase the stability of the grid framework” or that the base reference relies on separate, lateral side members to connect to a perimeter wall are also unconvincing and do not distinguish the claimed features from the cited prior art. That is, Applicant’s claim merely requires “a sieve frame” and does not require a specific distribution of compression forces and/or stresses as now argued by Applicant. Further, the base reference clearly teaches a range of spacing that encompasses the claimed space dimension related to the cephalothorax width of a pupa and it is not relevant how the space dimensions was arrived at or calculated as now argued by Applicant. Consequently, as a reasonable interpretation of the prior art undermines Applicant’s arguments, the claims stand rejected.
Examiner has maintained the prior art rejections, statutory rejections and drawing objections as previously stated and as modified above. Applicant's amendment necessitated any new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed but made of record during the prosecution of the instant application are considered helpful in understanding and establishing the state of the prior art and are thus 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
------
August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights