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 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 2, 4, 6, and 19 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 2 recites, "wherein the cover is sized the same or larger than an opening to the cavity of the pallet" and "said cover sized to conceal the opening to an interior cavity of a pallet" respectively. It is unclear as to the size of the cover as it is being compared to an element that is not required by the claims.
Claim 4 recites, “a first tab” and “a second tab”. It is unclear if this is part of the “tabs” as per claim 1 or additional tabs.
Claim 6 recites, "a hook tool is configured to actuate the apertures of the attachment and
release system to selectively engage the engagement member with the interior portion of the cavity of the pallet". It is unclear from applicant's disclosure how the hook tool is part of the rodent base station itself. It appears the hook tool maybe part of a kit that would include the rodent base station, but itself is not part of the rodent base station system. Tools used to install systems are not part of the system itself. The tool has no function as a base station.
Claim 19 recites, “tabs are moved with a tool comprising a shaft with a hook end to manipulate the teeth”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Such a claim is directed to neither a “process” nor a “machine,” but rather embraces or overlaps two different statutory classes of invention. MPEP § 2173.05(p). Using a specific tool to install a bait system is a method step.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 16, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Vanderwerf (US 5918427).
For claim 1, Vanderwerf discloses a rodent station system (abstract and figs.) for an internal portion of a pallet that includes an upper level, a lower level, and at least one interior cavity that is accessed via an opening of the pallet (can be used on a pallet), comprising:
a cover (31 considered the cover as it covers 60 as per fig. 2, further see fig. 5, combination of two or more pieces forms the rodent station) comprising a front and a rear (front of 31 towards 30, rear of 31 towards 60);
a pallet retention system (41 and 39) on the rear of the cover (see figs. 1-2), the pallet retention system comprising an engagement member (41) for engaging an interior portion of a cavity of the pallet (see fig. 2) and an attachment and release system (34 or 45) for the engagement member; wherein the engagement member of the pallet retention system comprises tabs with outwardly facing teeth that face substantially transverse to the front and rear of the front cover (tabs with teeth 41, multiple pieces creating the system, i.e. plural tabs 41); and
a sled (39) extending away from the pallet retention system at the rear of the cover (see fig. 2).
For claim 2, wherein the cover is sized the same or larger than
For claim 5, Vanderwerf further discloses wherein the attachment and release system comprises corresponding apertures (apertures in 21, fig. 9).
For claim 6, Vanderwerf further discloses wherein a hook tool is configured to actuate the apertures of the attachment and release system to selectively engage the engagement member with the interior portion of the cavity of the pallet (as best understood, a user can use any tool necessary to install the system in a pallet).
For claim 7, Vanderwerf further discloses the sled is attached to the cover (see 39, fig. 1).
For claim 9, Vanderwerf further teaches further comprising traps, attractants, and/or rodenticide positioned at the sled (sprayed pesticides as per disclosure).
For claim 16, Vanderwerf discloses a rodent station system (abstract and figs.) comprising:
a cover (31 considered the cover as it covers 60 as per fig. 2, further see fig. 5, combination of two or more pieces forms the rodent station) comprising a front and a rear (front of 31 towards 30, rear of 31 towards 60);
an engagement member (41) at the rear of the cover (see fig. 1); the engagement member including one or more portions that can engage and disengage a portion of the interior cavity of the pallet to hold the station in place and allow removal therefrom (allows for this, structure can be placed between two boards of a pallet, angled in and out by the user);
wherein the engagement member of the pallet retention system comprises tabs with outwardly facing teeth that face substantially transverse to the front and rear of the front cover (tabs with teeth 41, multiple pieces creating the system, i.e. plural tabs 41); and
a sled (39) extending away from the pallet retention system at the rear of the cover (see fig. 2), the sled configured to hold traps, attractants, and/or rodenticide (these can be applied to 39).
For claim 17, Vanderwerf further discloses wherein the engagement member comprises tabs extending from the rear of the cover and teeth at the distal ends of the tabs, wherein the teeth extend transversely to the tabs for selective engagement with the interior cavity of the pallet (41).
For claim 19, Vanderwerf further discloses wherein the tabs are moved with a tool comprising a shaft with a hook end to manipulate the teeth (as best understood, a user can use any tool necessary to install the system in a pallet).
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vanderwerf.
For claims 8 and 20, Vanderwerf is silent about wherein the sled is a separate member/unconnected from the cover.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the sled separate from the cover, for easy replacement of parts and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming any 112b rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to teach the directional details of the tabs as per claims 4 and 18.
Claims 10-11, 13-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record does not teach in combination a pallet and a rodent base station as specifically detailed in claim 10, namely the structure of an engagement member of the pallet retention system comprises tabs with outwardly facing teeth that face substantially transverse to the front and rear of the front cover are nonobvious over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2025 with respect to the 112b rejections of claims 2, 6, 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claim 2, applicant argued that there is no issue with functionally reciting the pallet.
The office notes that the 112b rejection of claim 2 is not a matter of recitation of functional language. Claim 2 requires sizing a cover to match an element which is not positively claimed. How can the cover be sized to something that is not there. There is no positive recitation of the pallet, i.e. no structure from which to measure the sizing. Claims 1-2 are to the bait station alone.
For claim 6 and 19, the office maintains that the tool is not part of the rodent station system. The manner or object used to install a system into a pallet structure is not a part of the system. This would be similar to saying a hammer is part of a nail system since hammers are used to install nails. Clearly a hammer is not a nail, similarly the tool is not a rodent bait station. A tool maybe considered part of a kit for installing a rodent bait station in a pallet.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims 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. (see reinterpretation of Vanderwerf above).
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 MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 5712705301. 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.
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights