DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13 (drawn to non-elected Species I or VI-VIII; the elected embodiment of Species V only discloses that openings 520,526 may be slot shaped and that there is a large opening 518 in the top surface 560 for receiving the removable trap portion 514) and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group and Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/10/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species V in the reply filed on 09/10/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Indeed, independent claim 1…does make a contribution over the prior art (Gilbert and Swanson)…Neither Gilbert or Swanson disclose this language and instead both disclose electrocution as the means for trapping/killing the insects…the technical feature of Groups I and II does make a contribution over the prior art.” and that “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action effectively concedes that restriction between Species is not proper, by stating the application contains ‘no claims’ that are generic…”. This is not found persuasive because the Examiner contends that all of the recited elements of claim 1 are old and well known in the insect trapping art, but in analyzing what the special technical feature was with respect to Groups I and II, the Examiner thought that the docking switch and docking switch activator represented the special technical feature. The Examiner was able to find prior art that taught these features and therefore this purported special technical feature was evidently found as not representing a special technical feature. With respect to applicants’ arguments concerning the Election of Species, the Examiner contends that despite there being no generic claim, the claims could still read on multiple embodiments/species presented in the application because there were multiple elements directed to different and distinct species. For example, the recitation of the docking switch 820 and docking switch activator 818 were directed to non-elected Species VIII and another feature of the grasping tab 528 was directed to elected Species V. The concurrent recitation of features directed to separate and distinct features that pertain uniquely to certain species as noted by the Examiner in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 08/01/2025 creates a confusing situation since it is not at all clear as to what the applicants are attempting to coherently claim. Each of the species has unique features that are not required in the search for the other species and therefore the election of species requirement as presented by the Examiner is proper and is maintained.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/16/2025. These drawings are approved by the Examiner.
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 “a face plate configured to receive and align the housing of the trap portion” (see claim 1) 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5, paragraph 0005, line 149 and Page 7, paragraph 0007, line 49, the phrases “the outer sleeve includes a face plate having an opening…the face plate opening corresponds to an enclosure opening, the openings providing an alignment means” are unclear since there is no further discussion of what the structure of the face plate exactly is and how it is configured on any portion of the trap.
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.
Claims 1-12, 14, and 16-20 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.
In regard to claim 1, the limitations “a docking switch activator in the second end region”, “a docking switch”, “a circuit board electrically coupled to…the docking switch…wherein the docking switch is configured to activate the lighting element when the removable trap portion is mounted on the base portion” render the claim vague and indefinite since the elected embodiment of Species V, as shown in Figs. 12-16, was not disclosed as having any docking switch or docking switch activator and instead in order to operate the embodiment shown in Figs. 12-16 it is merely required that the prongs 522 be inserted into a wall electrical socket.
In regard to claim 1, lines 8-9, the phrase “a face plate configured to receive and align the housing of the trap portion” renders the claim vague and indefinite since base portion 512 of the elected embodiment of Species V includes a housing 516 with a large opening 518 in top surface 560 to receive trap portion 514, and a front surface 562 with one or more smaller openings 520, but there is no face plate being disclosed to receive and align the housing as being claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-11, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Larsen 8,375,625 in view of Burrows et al. 6,560,919, WO 2005/053389 to Feldhedge et al., Coventry 8,402,691 or Lin 2009/0038207, and JP 2008-187995 to Isshiki et al. (Note: the claims are being rejected in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above and are based on the features associated with the elected embodiment of Species V as shown in Figs. 12-16)
In regard to claim 1, Larsen discloses insect trap (50) comprising: a removeable trap portion comprising: a housing (56) having a concave shape (inner surface 62 of 56 is concave), wherein the housing has a first end region (upper end of 56) and a longitudinally opposed second end region (lower end of 56 adjacent 54); a grasping area disposed in the first end region (generally the upper end of 56 can be grasped by a user); comprising: a face plate (58 of 52) configured to receive and align the housing of the trap portion (see Figs. 6-7); electrically conductive prongs (prongs extending from rear of 54 in Fig. 6 similar to prongs 32 in Fig. 2) protruding from a rear surface of the base portion (see Figs. 2, 6, 7), wherein the electrically conductive prongs are adapted to be inserted into a standard household electrical socket in a wall (24, 26); an upper range wavelength of 380 nm; visible light has a wavelength from 380-780 nm). 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 lighting element of Larson such that it comprises at least one LED that emits UV light and at least one LED that emits visible light in view of Feldhedge et al. in order to provide different wavelengths of attractive light so as to utilize the wavelengths that are especially attractive to the particular species of insects to be caught and in order to provide a light source which consumes less power but provides greater light output than a standard light bulb and which can handle rugged use because LEDs can withstand greater impact forces to thereby provide a light source which is more durable. Larsen discloses a circuit which connects the electrically conductive prongs (32) and the lighting element (30), but does not disclose a circuit board electrically coupled to the electrically conductive prongs and the lighting element. Larsen and Feldhedge et al. disclose an electric mosquito trap comprising a housing/inner sleeve (shield 60 with adhesive layer of Feldhedge et al.); a base portion (10 of Feldhedge et al.) comprising a face plate (23 of Feldhedge et al.), electrically conductive prongs (16 of Feldhedge et al.), and a lighting element (32-34 of Feldhedge et al.), wherein the mounting portion comprises electrical connections for the LEDs and a light emitting chip and the lighting element (32-34 of Feldhedge et al.) comprises one or more LED lights (32-34 of Feldhedge et al.) electrically and the circuit board (housing 10 serves e.g. the inclusion of electronic components such as circuit boards, switches, plug connections, transformers etc. of Feldhedge et al.), but do not disclose a circuit board electrically coupled to the lighting element. Coventry and Lin disclose a base portion (41 OR 30) comprising a circuit board (55 & 58 OR light board 11 & power supply 20 is related to a PCB provided with circuitry and associate electronic devices; see paras. 0016-17) and one or more LED lights (56 & 58A OR 12-13) being electrically coupled to the circuit board. 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 base portion and one or more LED lights of Larsen and Feldhedge et al. such that the base portion comprises a circuit board and the one or more LED lights being electrically coupled to the circuit board in view of Coventry or Lin in order to provide a modular design for the light source which avoids the use of cumbersome electrical wiring in order to connect the LEDs to the power source since the circuit board provides the necessary connections and enables the LEDs to be replaced in a modular fashion since the LEDs are mounted upon the circuit board so as to facilitate repair when necessarily performed by the user. Larsen also does not disclose wherein the adhesive coating is transparent or translucent. Isshiki et al. disclose a trap portion comprising an inside surface (upper face of attracting color sheet 2 in Fig. 1) coated with a reflective coating (substance layer having high visible light reflection characteristics 3 formed on 2 by vacuum-depositing aluminum to form an aluminum film) and an adhesive coating (transparent adhesive layer 5 comprising synthetic resin is applied to 3), wherein the reflective coating (3) is underneath the adhesive coating (5), wherein the adhesive coating is transparent (5 is transparent) or translucent. 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 modify the adhesive coating of Larsen such that it is transparent or translucent in view of Isshiki et al. in order to directly reflect the light from the lighting element through the adhesive coating so as to effectively attract the targeted insects onto the adhesive coating to entrap them thereon.
In regard to claim 2, Larsen and Feldhedge et al. disclose wherein the at least one LED that emits visible light emits blue light (blue light emitting diode 33 [see line 150 of the translation of Feldhedge et al.]; the wavelength of light in the blue spectrum is about 450-495 nm; see lines 155-157 of the translation of Feldhedge et al.).
In regard to claim 3, Larsen discloses wherein the adhesive coating (72,74,76,78) is a pressure sensitive adhesive (72; when insects land upon the adhesive surface 72 and their weight represents a pressure applied to the adhesive that causes the insects to become entrapped thereon).
In regard to claim 5, Larsen discloses the adhesive surface (72 comprising 74, 76, 78) having a thickness (see Fig. 8), but does not disclose wherein the adhesive surface has a thickness of about 0.01 mm to about 1 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the adhesive surface such that it has a thickness of about 0.01 mm to about 1 mm since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so is critical to the design or produces any unexpected results and it appears that the adhesive surface of Larsen would perform equally as well as having a thickness as claimed, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily dimension the thickness of the adhesive layer depending upon the size of the insects to be caught and also the duration in which the adhesive lasts due to high traffic of insects crawling over the adhesive.
In regard to claim 6, Larsen discloses wherein the housing (52) is opaque (see col. 3, lines 19-22).
In regard to claim 7, Larsen discloses wherein the housing (52) comprises an opening (see opening defined between the opposing left and right edge portions of 52 in Figs. 6-7) through which an insect may enter.
In regard to claims 8 and 9, Larsen discloses the opening (see opening defined between the opposing left and right edge portions of 52 in Figs. 6-7) having a width and a length (see Figs. 6-7), but do not disclose the opening having a width of from about 2 mm to about 30 mm or a length of from about 5 mm to about 500 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the opening of Larsen such that it has a width of from about 2 mm to about 30 mm and a length of from about 5 mm to about 500 mm since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so is critical to the design or produces any unexpected results and it appears that the opening of Larsen would perform equally as well by having a width and length as claimed, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily dimension the width and length of the opening according to the size of the insects to be trapped by the trap and also according to the degree to which the interior of the trap which holds caught insects may be viewed by persons in the vicinity thereof.
In regard to claim 10, Larsen, Burrows et al., Feldhedge et al., and Isshiki et al. disclose wherein the removable trap portion comprises an insect attractant (Burrows et al. disclose glue boards 24 can contain a chemical insect attractant such as one made of a material comprising one or more pheromones; Feldhedge et al. disclose adhesive layer 62 can be a pressure-sensitive adhesive that contains an insect-attracting substance; Isshiki et al. disclose that for adhesive layers 4-5, it is preferable to use an adhesive containing a pest sex pheromone agent or an insect fragrance to be captured).
In regard to claim 11, Larsen discloses wherein the visible light (from 30) creates spots of higher light intensity on the adhesive coating (62,72; areas on 62,72 that are immediately adjacent to 30 will have spots of higher light intensity that area that are farther away such as areas on 62,72 which are below 30).
In regard to claim 14, Larsen discloses base portion (52,54) having a width, height, and depth, but do not disclose wherein the base portion is about 20 mm to about 130 mm wide, about 10 mm to about 50 mm high, and about 10 mm to about 80 mm deep. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the base portion of Larsen such that it is about 20 mm to about 130 mm wide, about 10 mm to about 50 mm high, and about 10 mm to about 80 mm deep since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so is critical to the design or produces any unexpected results and it appears that the base portion of Larsen would perform equally as well by being about 20 mm to about 130 mm wide, about 10 mm to about 50 mm high, and about 10 mm to about 80 mm deep as claimed, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily dimension the base portion according to the space limitations/requirements in the usage environment and ultimately depending upon the size and number of insects to be captured by the trap or as according to the size of the base portion desired by the user.
In regard to claim 20, Larsen, Burrows et al., Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, and Isshiki et al. disclose wherein the housing (56 of Larsen) of the removable trap portion is configured such that a portion of the UV light and visible light (UV and visible light taught by Feldhedge et al.) from the lighting element (30 of Larsen) is passed up one or more sides of the housing (opposing sides of 56 in Figs. 6-7 of Larsen) and out through the adhesive coating (adhesive layer 72 of Larsen; transparent or translucent adhesive taught by Isshiki et al. will transmit light therethrough; the light emitting by the lighting element 30 of Larsen will be directed in an upward direction and at least a portion of this emitting light will shine upwardly through the adhesive layer 72 and then out of the adhesive layer 72 to the surrounding environment) on the inside surface (inside surface of 56 of Larsen).
Claim 4 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Larsen 8,375,625 in view of Burrows et al. 6,560,919, WO 2005/053389 to Feldhedge et al., Coventry 8,402,691 or Lin 2009/0038207, and JP 2008-187995 to Isshiki et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Moss 2014/0013651 or Klein 2011/0214340.
In regard to claim 4, Larsen does not disclose wherein the adhesive is selected form the group consisting of acrylics, butyl rubber, natural rubber, nitriles, silicones, styrene block copolymers, styrene-ethylene/propylene, styrene-isoprene-styrene, and vinyl ethers. Moss disclose the adhesive is selected form the group consisting of acrylics, butyl rubber, natural rubber, nitriles, silicones, styrene block copolymers, styrene-ethylene/propylene, styrene-isoprene-styrene, and vinyl ethers (see para. 0049 OR see para. 0007). 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 adhesive of Larsen such that it is selected from the group consisting of acrylics, butyl rubber, natural rubber, nitriles, silicones, styrene block copolymers, styrene-ethylene/propylene, styrene-isoprene-styrene, and vinyl ethers in view of Moss or Klein in order to utilize known adhesives that are effective in trapping insects that come into contact therewith.
Claim 12 rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Larsen 8,375,625 in view of Burrows et al. 6,560,919, WO 2005/053389 to Feldhedge et al., Coventry 8,402,691 or Lin 2009/0038207, and JP 2008-187995 to Isshiki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weiss et al. 2006/0218851 or Tsai 2010/0071257.
In regard to claim 12, Larsen, Burrows, Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, and Isshiki et al. do not disclose wherein the lighting element exhibits a light flickering frequency of from 0.05Hz to 250 Hz. Weiss et al. and Brown et al. disclose wherein the lighting element (LEDs 290 OR 1) exhibits a light flickering frequency of from 0.05Hz to 250 Hz (rate of flickering includes about 100 to 200 Hz; see para. 0026 OR 1 to 5 times per second; see para. 0019). 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 lighting element of Larsen, Burrows, Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, and Isshiki et al. such that exhibits a light flickering frequency of from 0.05Hz to 250 Hz in view of Weiss et al. or Tsai in order to create a light effect that is more attractive to certain species of insects than constant light.
Claim 16 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Larsen 8,375,625 in view of Burrows et al. 6,560,919, WO 2005/053389 to Feldhedge et al., Coventry 8,402,691 or Lin 2009/0038207, and JP 2008-187995 to Isshiki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown et al. 6,397,515.
In regard to claim 16, Larsen, Burrows, Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, and Isshiki et al. do not disclose wherein the base portion comprises one or more openings in a front surface that is opposite from the rear surface; and wherein the housing of the removable trap comprises one or more openings that match or correspond with the one or more openings of the base portion when the housing is received in the base portion. Brown et al. disclose wherein the base portion (housing 12) comprises one or more openings (32) in a front surface (front panel 30) that is opposite from the rear surface (22); and wherein the removable trap comprises one or more openings (apertures 81) that match (the rectangular shape of apertures 81 match the rectangular apertures 32) or correspond with the one or more openings of the base portion (12) when the housing is received in the base portion (see Fig. 2); and that the apertures (81) in the disposable sheet (60) serve to enhance the passage of visible light (see col. 6, lines 22-26, lines 39-41, 58-64) and the apertures (32) direct light from within the housing (12) into the surrounding environment in order to attract flying insects (see col. 4, lines 22-24). 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 base portion and housing of the removable trap of Larsen, Burrows, Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, and Isshiki et al. such that the base portion comprises one or more openings in a front surface that is opposite from the rear surface and such that the housing of the removable trap comprises one or more openings that match or correspond with the one or more openings of the base portion when the housing is received in the base portion in view of Brown et al. in order to provide a base portion and housing of the removable trap portion which each have one or more openings that allow light emitted from the light source within the insect trap to reach the surrounding area about the insect trap so as to draw as many nearby target insects into the trap for trapping thereof.
Claim 17 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Larsen 8,375,625 in view of Burrows et al. 6,560,919, WO 2005/053389 to Feldhedge et al., Coventry 8,402,691 or Lin 2009/0038207, and JP 2008-187995 to Isshiki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith 2003/0000127.
In regard to claim 17, Larsen, Burrows, Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, and Isshiki et al. do not disclose wherein the housing comprises ribs that increase an area of the adhesive coating on the inside surface. Smith discloses a housing (30) comprising ribs (ridges 42) that increase an area (ridges raised from base 42 to provide increased insect-holding capacity or sticky fly paper that is corrugated; see paras. 0044, 0048) of the adhesive coating (adhesive) on the inside surface (inside surface of 30). 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 housing of Larsen, Burrows, Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, and Isshiki et al. such that it comprises ribs that increase an area of the adhesive coating on the inside surface in view of Smith in order to provide a housing with an adhesive coating that can provide an increased insect-holding capacity.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Larsen 8,375,625 in view of Burrows et al. 6,560,919, WO 2005/053389 to Feldhedge et al., Coventry 8,402,691 or Lin 2009/0038207, and JP 2008-187995 to Isshiki et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 10-2010-0033336 to Yoo.
In regard to claim 18, Larsen, Burrows, Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, and Isshiki et al. do not disclose wherein the removable trap portion which is formed of translucent or transparent material; and wherein the translucent or transparent material of the removable trap portion and the adhesive coating are selected such that greater than 60% of the UV light and the visible light from the lighting element is transmitted through the removable trap portion and the adhesive coating. Yoo discloses wherein the removable trap portion (inner cover 30) which is formed of translucent or transparent material (30 of transparent acrylic or glass plate); and wherein the translucent or transparent material of the removable trap portion (30) and the adhesive coating (40 is translucent) are selected such that some of the light from the lighting element is transmitted through the removable trap portion (30) and the adhesive coating (40). 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 removable trap portion and the adhesive coating of Larsen, Burrows, Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, and Isshiki et al. such that they are formed of translucent or transparent material such that some of the UV light and visible light from the lighting element is transmitted through the removable trap portion and adhesive coating in view of Yoo in order to allow the light to be spread not only along the open periphery of the insect trap but also through both the removable trap portion and adhesive in order to distribute the light to the greatest extent possible so as to potentially reach as many targeted insect pests as possible. Larsen, Burrows, Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, Isshiki et al., and Yoo do not disclose wherein the translucent or transparent material of the removable trap portion and the adhesive coating are selected such that greater than 60% of the UV light and the visible light from the lighting element is transmitted through the removable trap portion and the adhesive coating since applicant has not disclosed that by doing so is critical to the design or produces any unexpected results and it appears that the invention of Larsen, Burrows, Feldhedge et al., Coventry or Lin, Isshiki et al., and Yoo would perform equally as well by doing so, and because a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily design the removable trap portion and adhesive coating such that the translucent or transparent material of the removable trap portion and the adhesive coating are selected such that greater than 60% of the UV light and the visible light from the lighting element is transmitted through the removable trap portion and the adhesive coating since a person would desire to maximize the amount of light passing through the removable trap portion and the adhesive coating so as to reach as many target insect species in the vicinity of the insect trap.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to applicants’ argument concerning the 35 U.S.C. 112(a-b) rejections of the claims, the Examiner agrees that the rejections based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are not valid because the issue is not whether the present invention is being properly disclosed, but instead the issue is that the applicant’s claims with respect to elected Species V do not accurately claim the configuration, construction, and manner of operation of that elected Species V and therefore the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are still valid. It is clearly disclosed in the present specification that there are absolutely no switches, much less any docking switch, being used to operate the embodiment of Species V and that the insect trap 510 of Species V comprises conductive prongs 522 which are inserted into a wall electrical socket and LEDs 536 emit light (see para. 0101 and Fig. 13 of the present specification). The insect trap of Species V does not operate with the more sophisticated mechanism such as that found in non-elected Species VIII (shown in Figs. 21-23) where a trap portion 814 includes a tab 818 protruding downward from bottom surface 850, wherein the circuit board 822 includes a docking switch 820 wherein tab 818 may protrude through opening 824 and engage switch 820 when trap portion 814 is mounted to base portion 812 so as to close the switch 820 and thereby activate the insect trap 810 (see para. 0090 of the present specification). Furthermore, the reception of the removable trap portion 514 of Species V within the housing 516 of the base portion 512 can be achieved through manipulation thereof via a tab 528 that is disposed oppositely of where it would have to be placed in order to engage any docking switch in order to activate such an insect trap with a docking switch. Since the configuration, construction, and manner of operation of Species V and Species VIII are so different from each other, it cannot be stated that the various elements from different embodiments may be simply combined as argued by applicants and that it was established in the Restriction Requirement mailed on 08/01/2025 that the species were not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 and therefore the Examiner maintains his position that claim 1 is vague and indefinite since the elected Species V is not being properly claimed in claim 1.
In regard to applicant’s argument that “…the adhesive layer 78 of Larsen is merely used to trap insects. There is no discussion in Larsen that light from the night light 30 is used to attract insects, let alone that light from the night light is to be transmitted through the adhesive layer 78…device 20…’is opaque, such that users would normally not be in a position to view the insects 44…’”, the Examiner contends that flying insects such as flies seek out light when in a dark room because the emitted light simulates sunlight and signals to the insects that they should be active during that time and thus the insects would in fact be attracted to the light from light-emitting portion 30. Applicants are also focusing too much on the disclosure of Larsen and ignoring the teachings of other prior art references such as KR 2010-0033336 to Yoo which disclose that it is old and well known to form trap portions and base portions which are transparent or translucent so as to not only draw the insects directly to the insect attracting light, but also to maximize the light distribution through both the trap portion and the base portion so as to be able to spread the light over a greater surrounding area about the insect trap.
In response to applicant's argument that “Isshiki, which is designed for an agricultural context…the device of Larsen is a ‘simple and novel apparatus for reducing the number of insects in one’s home’…”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W ARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/DARREN W ARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
DWA
Prosecution Insights