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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner suggests changing “an imaging unit for capturing the insect” to “an imaging unit for capturing an image of the insect.”
Examiner suggests changing “the collecting part has a space formed around the attracting part, the space starting from the inlet for allowing the insect to keep flying,” to -- the collecting part has a space formed around the attracting part, the space starting from the inlet and allowing the insect to keep flying in the space--.
Examiner suggests changing “the closing part is configured to…open a central part of the opening” to –the closing part is configured to leave open a central part of the opening--.
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 and 9-11 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.
Claim 1 recites “an inlet” that “has: an opening”, which makes it seem as the opening is a component of the inlet, but then later requires the closing part (which is another part of the inlet) at least partially close an outer peripheral area of the opening and open a central part of the opening “to form the inlet”. The latter limitation seems to require that the central part (a portion) of the opening is the inlet. It is unclear how the inlet may simultaneously be a central portion of the opening while the opening is a part of the inlet. Perhaps the applicant meant to require that the opening have an inlet and a closing part, the closing part configured to leave open a central part of the opening, to form the inlet?
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 200453375 Y1, as cited on previous 892), in view of Gao (CN 113615656 A, as cited on previous 892) and Costilla (WO 2012154020, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Choi, Gao, and Costilla, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Choi discloses an insect trap (abstract) comprising:
a collecting part (formed from light reflecting means 20, which acts as a cover of sorts, and Body B, Fig 3) for collecting an insect to be captured (see Fig 3);
an attracting part (first light emitting means 10, Fig 3) for generating an attracting medium for attracting the insect into the collecting part (Pg 3, ¶1); and
a capturing part (lower space S2 with adhesive means 42, Fig 3) for capturing the insect inside the collecting part (see Fig 2);
wherein the collecting part has an inlet through which the insect passes into the collecting part (see annotated Fig 3 below), and
PNG
media_image1.png
518
584
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the inlet has:
an opening for communication with inside of the collecting part (see Fig 3);
wherein the collecting part has a space formed around the attracting part, the space starting from the inlet for allowing the insect to keep flying (an insect could fly in a circle in a space in the upper collecting part, starting from the inlet, around the first light emitting means 10, see Fig 2),
the capturing part is disposed below the space formed around the attracting part (see Fig 3),
the attracting medium is configured to be discharged from the inside to an outside of the collecting part through the inlet (Pg 2, first 2 ¶s).
Choi fails to disclose that:
An imaging unit for capturing the insect captured by the capturing part, the imaging unit comprising an imaging apparatus disposed closer to a central part of the collecting part than the attracting part;
the inlet has a closing part that partially closes the opening;
the closing part is configured to at least partially close an outer peripheral area of the opening and open a central part of the opening to form the inlet;
the attracting medium is configured to be discharged from the inside to an outside of the collecting part through the closing part.
Gao discloses an insect attracting device with a collecting part (see annotated Fig 1 below); an attracting part (insect trapping light source 3, Fig 1); an insect receiving funnel (insect receiving funnel 10, Fig 1) leading to a capturing part (bottom door 14, Fig 1); and an imaging unit (camera 11 and camera protective cover 12, Fig 2) for capturing the insect captured by the capturing part (abstract; Fig 1), the imaging unit mounted at a top of the insect receiving funnel (see Fig 2; Pg 5, second to last ¶), the imaging unit comprising an imaging apparatus (camera 11, Fig 2) disposed closer to a central part of the collecting part than the attracting part (see annotated Fig 1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
624
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an imaging unit mounted at the top of the funnel of Choi, as in Gao, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Gao, the imaging unit allows for monitoring of the pests in the area that the trap is placed (abstract), which could be useful in providing an early warning of an infestation or for verification of trap functionality.
Costilla discloses a similar insect trap (abstract) with an inlet (including collecting channel 6 with conical duct having perforations 7, and retention mesh 8, Fig 1) having:
an opening for communication between inside and outside of the collecting part (see annotated Fig 1 below); and
PNG
media_image3.png
406
605
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a closing part (conical duct with perforations 7, and retention mesh 8, Fig 1) that partially closes an outer peripheral area of the opening, keeping a central part of the opening open to form the inlet (see Fig 1) and configured to allow the attracting medium to pass therethrough from the inside of the collecting part to the outside of the collecting part (Pg 3, second to last ¶).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inlets of Choi to include a closing part formed by the conical duct with perforations 7 and mesh covering 8, limiting the opening of the inlet, as in Costilla, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Costilla, the closing part helps prevent insects from returning to the outside of the trap, once inside, without preventing attractive aromas or light from coming out to perform their attracting function (Pg 3, second to last ¶).
Regarding claim 10:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the collecting part has a tubular shape (see Fig 2), and the inlet is formed in a tubular surface of the collecting part (see Fig 3).
Regarding claim 11:
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the attracting part is configured to emit light as the attracting medium (“first light emitting means”), and the closing part is configured to be light transmissive (see Costilla Pg 3, second to last ¶).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, Gao, and Costilla, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Smith (US 20030000127 A1), hereinafter referred to as Smith, as best understood in light of the 112(b) rejections addressed above.
Regarding claim 9
Choi as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses a guide part disposed around the capturing part inside the collecting part (pest oil tool 43, Fig 3) for guiding the insect to the capturing part (functional language: capable of guiding as such), wherein the capturing part comprises a thin replaceable adhesive insect trapping sheet (‘adhesive means 42’, Fig 3; Pg 4, ¶1) disposed below the imaging apparatus, the imaging apparatus is configured to take an image of the insect trapping sheet from above (the addition of imaging apparatus in claim 1, as suggested by Gao, would result in insect trapping sheet being below the imaging apparatus, the imaging apparatus configured to take an image of the insect trapping sheet from above), and the guide part has an inclined surface inclined from above to below as the inclined surface becomes closer to the insect trapping sheet (see Fig 3).
Choi fails to specifically disclose that the adhesive means of the capturing part is specifically an insect trapping paper (it isn’t disclosed what, other than adhesive, the means is formed of).
Smith discloses a flying insect trap which uses an insect trapping paper formed with adhesive as an adhesive insect trapping means (¶0014).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the adhesive means of Choi as an adhesive covered paper, as in Smith, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because paper is a relatively inexpensive, readily available material, that would serve as a good base for adhesive, in order to allow for cleaner/easier removability when exchange of adhesive is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 9-11 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
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 BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642