DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 and 22 are currently pending.
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.
Claims 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention.
The claims are replete with indefinite language. Below is a list of some exemplary claim language that renders the claims indefinite. It is important to note that the below list is only exemplary and is not exhaustive.
Claim 1 recites “effects to honey bees and insects other than wasps.” The claim recitation is exceedingly broad, and one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, claim 1 and dependent claims 2-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 2 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because the term “generally recognized as safe” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 5 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because the term “a feed normally consumed by honey bees” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 6 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because it is unclear what is meant by “the wasp feed comprises a honey bee feed in an amount in the range 10%-90% by volume or weight and the at least one organic and/or synthetic additive in an amount in the range 90%-10% by volume or weight.” According to the current claim language, the feed can comprise honey bee feed in the amount of 10% by volume and then the at least one organic and/or synthetic additive in the amount of 50% by weight. The language is too broad for one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter.
Claim 8 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), because the claim language “with sufficient quantities of the at least one organic and/or synthetic additive that is repugnant and repellent to honey bees, and other non-target pollinators such that the wasp feed is inedible and non-attractive to honey bees and avoided for consumption by butterflies, hoverflies and other non-target pollinators” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the publication “Carbohydrate bait preference of wasps (Vespula vulgaris and V. germanica) (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) in New Zealand” by E.B. Spurr (“Spurr”)1.
Regarding claim 1, Spurr discloses a non-toxic wasp feed comprising a honey bee feed in combination with at least one organic and/or synthetic additive that provides the wasp feed with repellent properties and effects to honey bees and insects other than wasps (pgs. 315-323).
Regarding claim 2, Spurr discloses wherein the additive comprises a substance which is generally recognized as safe (pgs. 315-323).
Regarding claim 3, Spurr discloses wherein the at least one organic and synthetic additive includes one or more of the substances listed in Table 1 herein (pgs. 315-323).
Regarding claim 4, Spurr discloses wherein the honey bee feed is produced by dissolving sucrose in water in quantities up to 2200g of sucrose per 1000ml of water (pgs. 315-323).
Regarding claim 5, Spurr discloses, wherein the honey bee feed is high fructose corn syrup or a feed normally consumed by honey bees (pgs. 315-323).
Regarding claim 6, Spurr discloses wherein the wasp feed comprises a honey bee feed in an amount in the range 10%-90% by volume or weight and the at least one organic and/or synthetic additive in an amount in the range 90%-10% by volume or weight (pgs. 315-323).
Regarding claim 7, Spurr discloses for non - lethal control of wasp pest populations commonly referred to as Yellow-Jackets, within the Order: Hymenoptera, Family: Vespidae, Genus: Vespula, such as; Common, Eastern, Western, Northern, Southern and Aerial Yellow Jackets, Vespula Germanica, Vespula Vulgaris, Vespula Pensylvanica, Vespula Squamosa, Vespula Maculiforna, Paper wasps and other such pest insects (pgs. 315-323).
Regarding claim 8, Spurr discloses the wasp feed of claim 1, comprising a blend of traditional honey bee feed syrup with sufficient quantities of the at least one organic and/or synthetic additive that is repugnant and repellent to honey bees, and other non-target pollinators such that the wasp feed is inedible and non-attractive to honey bees and avoided for consumption by butterflies, hoverflies and other non-target pollinators (pgs. 315-323).
Regarding claim 9, Spurr discloses the wasp feed of claim 1, comprising a wasp feed formulation of liquid, solid, semisolid, powder or jelly which contains a higher sugar, sucrose or fructose content than foods either produced, consumed or discarded by humans, including agricultural food sources such as the fruits of vineyards, orchards and fruit farms (pgs. 315-323).
Regarding claim 10, Spurr discloses a blend of traditional honey bee feed syrup with sufficient quantities of the at least one organic and/or synthetic additive which is generally recognized as safe for use in the food, beverage, cosmetic, wellness, pharmaceutical and other such industries, such as food additives, flavorings, aromas, sweeteners, syrups, enhancers, preservatives, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters, lactones, pyrazines, thiols, essential oils, hydrosols, phenols, natural extracts & isolates (pgs. 315-323).
Regarding claim 11, Spurr discloses an effective non-trap-non-kill-non-toxic system of wasp pest control by continuously feeding wasps with the wasp feed as claimed in claim 1, to divert wasp pest activity away from humans, foods, beverages, fruit crops, refuse points, buildings, structures and other areas prone to wasp pest infestation without causing harm or stress to the wasp (pgs. 315-323).
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.
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.
Claims 12-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spurr, as applied to claim 11 above, in view of JP 2022 054757 to Fumakilla Ltd. (“Fumakilla”)2.
Regarding claims 12-19 and 22, Spurr teaches each and every element of claim 11, as discussed above, but it does not explicitly teach the system includes a weatherproof wasp feeding station, comprising an upstanding column housing to achieve elevation, wasp access ports to a top section of the housing allowing wasps access to and from a wasp feed supply within the housing; wherein the wasp feeding station includes an internal feeding array of food distribution canals and landing surfaces, the feeding array arranged in a vertical, horizontal, angled or a curved configuration, the wasp feeding station adapted for automated processes of feed delivery, feed sanitation, regulated feed temperature, apparatus for dispersion of feed aroma such as vaporization, atomization or evaporation; including a wasp feeding station having a support for a block of solid wasp feed, at least one dispensing element for dispensing a mist of liquid droplets against a surface of the solid feed block to dissolve the surface of the solid feed block into a liquid wasp feed; wherein the support comprises a support platform for reception and mounting of the block of solid wasp feed; wherein the support is movable vertically; wherein a level sensor is provided to sense the location of an upper surface of the block of solid wasp feed and positioning means is provided for maintaining the upper surface of the block of solid wasp feed at a desired location; wherein the positioning means comprises one or more levelling elements connected to the support platform for positioning the upper surface of the block of solid wasp feed at the desired location; wherein the support is rotatable; wherein the wasp feeding station comprises :a base frame, a liquid storage tank mounted on the base frame, a feed reservoir mounted on the base frame for reception and storage of the block of solid wasp feed, a liquid delivery system for delivering liquid from the liquid storage tank to one or more spray heads for discharge onto the block of solid wasp feed, a weather protection dome mounted on the base frame above the reservoir to define a feeding compartment within the dome, at least one access port on the dome to allow through passage of wasps into the feeding compartment to feed at the reservoir.
Fumakilla teaches a system that includes a weatherproof wasp feeding station, comprising an upstanding column housing to achieve elevation, wasp access ports to a top section of the housing allowing wasps access to and from a wasp feed supply within the housing; wherein the wasp feeding station includes an internal feeding array of food distribution canals and landing surfaces, the feeding array arranged in a vertical, horizontal, angled or a curved configuration, the wasp feeding station adapted for automated processes of feed delivery, feed sanitation, regulated feed temperature, apparatus for dispersion of feed aroma such as vaporization, atomization or evaporation; including a wasp feeding station having a support for a block of solid wasp feed, at least one dispensing element for dispensing a mist of liquid droplets against a surface of the solid feed block to dissolve the surface of the solid feed block into a liquid wasp feed; wherein the support comprises a support platform for reception and mounting of the block of solid wasp feed; wherein the support is movable vertically; wherein a level sensor is provided to sense the location of an upper surface of the block of solid wasp feed and positioning means is provided for maintaining the upper surface of the block of solid wasp feed at a desired location; wherein the positioning means comprises one or more levelling elements connected to the support platform for positioning the upper surface of the block of solid wasp feed at the desired location; wherein the support is rotatable; wherein the wasp feeding station comprises :a base frame, a liquid storage tank mounted on the base frame, a feed reservoir mounted on the base frame for reception and storage of the block of solid wasp feed, a liquid delivery system for delivering liquid from the liquid storage tank to one or more spray heads for discharge onto the block of solid wasp feed, a weather protection dome mounted on the base frame above the reservoir to define a feeding compartment within the dome, at least one access port on the dome to allow through passage of wasps into the feeding compartment to feed at the reservoir (FIGS. 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Spurr so that it includes the components of Fumakilla, in order to more effectively control the wasps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISA CONLON whose telephone number is (571)272-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, PETER POON can be reached at (571)272-6891. 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.
/MARISA V CONLON/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 A copy of the NPL document was provided by applicant on 11/06/2024
2A copy of the foreign reference, along with its English translation, is provided herewith. Applicant also provided an English translation on 11/06/2024.