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 .
Drawings
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 plug including a window for observation of the indicator(claim 17) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1,3,5-9,12,14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper(US20090139133) in view of Nelson et al(US20080072475).
[claim 1] Harper teaches a pest control system, comprising: a mounting bracket(10) connectable to a building surface; a plug(14) removably securable to the mounting bracket; a pest control device(50,60) connected to the plug, the pest control device comprising: a bait bar(50) including a first end portion(lower end fig 6) and a second end portion(upper end fig 6) opposite the first end portion; a post(36) connected to the plug, the post including a bait bar receptacle configured to receive at least a portion of the first end portion of the bait bar; and a locking mechanism(60) connected to the plug and configured to lock the bait bar to the pest control device. Harper may not teach an indicator configured to transmit an alert signal when the pest control device is engaged by a pest and a sensor configured to transmit a detection signal to the indicator when the pest control device is engaged by a pest, the indicator configured to transmit the alert signal to a building management system based on the detection signal.
Nelson teaches a similar best control system and further teaches the use of an indicator(signal mechanism, see para[0042]) to transmit an alert signal to notify a user that a pest has engaged the pest control device and that the indicator can include a sensor to transmit a detection signal to the indicator when the pest control device is engaged by a pest(para[0042] of Nelson) and that the indicator is configured to transmit an alert signal to a building management system(alert via the internet to an electronic mail address or message to a cellular phone, para[0042]) based on the detection signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use an indicator and sensor such as taught by Nelson with the system of Harper, as this would provide a means for a user to determine that a pest has engaged the pest control device without having to open the mounting bracket.
[claim 3] Nelson further teaches the indicator can be a visual indicator(spring biased flag, or known mechanical and electrical means), however neither Nelson nor Harper specifically teach the visual indicator is configured to emit or more lights based on the detection signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a visual indicator with one or more lights as opposed to a spring biased flag, as this would merely be using known electrical indicator means, as taught by Nelson.
[claim 5] wherein the sensor is configured to generate the detection signal based on activation of a trap within the pest control device(para[0042]).
[claim 6] wherein the first end portion of the bait bar is retained in the bait bar receptacle when a locking portion(58) of the bait bar is engaged with the locking mechanism(fig 6).
[claim 7] wherein the locking portion of the bait bar includes a hook portion(58).
[claim 8] wherein the bait bar is configured to pivot between a locked configuration and an unlocked configuration(see para[0027] of Harper).
[claim 9] Harper teaches a pest control system, comprising: a mounting bracket(10) connectable to a building surface; a plug(14) removably securable to the mounting bracket; a pest control device(50,60) connected to the plug, the pest control device comprising: a bait bar(50) including a first end portion(lower end fig 6) and a second end portion(upper end fig 6) opposite the first end portion; a post(36) connected to the plug, the post including a bait bar receptacle configured to receive at least a portion of the first end portion of the bait bar; and a locking mechanism(60) connected to the plug and configured to releasably lock the bait bar to the pest control device. Harper may not teach a sensor configured to generate a detection signal based on engagement of the pest control device by a pest and an indicator in communication with the sensor, the indicator configured to transmit an alert signal based on the detection signal, the indicator configured to transmit the alert signal to a building management system based on the detection signal.
Nelson teaches a similar best control system and further teaches the use of an indicator(signal mechanism, see para[0042]) and sensor in communication with the indicator configured to generate a detection signal based on engagement of the pest control device by a pest, to transmit an alert signal to a building management system(alert via the internet to an electronic mail address or message to a cellular phone, para[0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use an indicator and sensor such as taught by Nelson with the system of Harper, as this would provide a means for a user to determine that a pest has engaged the pest control device without having to open the mounting bracket.
[claim 12] Nelson further teaches the indicator is a sound indicator(message to a cellular phone can trigger a sound) configured to emit one or more sounds based on the detection signal.
[claim 14] wherein the bait bar includes a bait support section(52) disposed between the first end portion and the second end portion of the bait bar.
[claim 15] Harper in view of Nelson teaches a system as detailed above, however Harper does not teach what the bait bar is made from, or that it comprises metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date, without undue experimentation to make the bait bar out of any suitable material, such as metal, as a matter of simple design choice, as one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select a material suitable for the given application.
[claim 16] wherein the bait bar includes metal, when arranged as above, and has a linear portion(52) for holding bait and a hooked portion(58) for locking with the locking mechanism.
Claim(s) 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper(US20090139133) in view of Nelson et al(US20080072475) in view of Power(US20190124913).
[claim 17] Harper teaches a pest control system, comprising: a mounting bracket(10) connectable to a building surface; a plug(14) removably securable to the mounting bracket; a pest control device(50,60) connected to the plug, the pest control device comprising: a bait bar(50) including a first end portion(lower end fig 6) and a second end portion(upper end fig 6) opposite the first end portion; a post(36) connected to the plug, the post including a bait bar receptacle configured to receive at least a portion of the first end portion of the bait bar; and a locking mechanism(60) connected to the plug and configured to releasably lock the bait bar to the pest control device. Harper may not teach a sensor configured to generate a detection signal based on engagement of the pest control device by a pest and an indicator configured to transmit an alert signal based on the detection signal and wherein the plug includes a window for observation of the indicator.
Nelson teaches a similar best control system and further teaches the use of an indicator(signal mechanism, see para[0042]) configured to transmit an alert signal and sensor in communication with the indicator configured to generate a detection signal based on engagement of the pest control device by a pest, to transmit the alert signal to notify a user that a pest has engaged the pest control device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use an indicator and sensor such as taught by Nelson with the system of Harper, as this would provide a means for a user to determine that a pest has engaged the pest control device without having to open the mounting bracket.
Power teaches a similar pest control device, and further teaches the use of a window(35) to view an indicator alerting a user that the pest control device has been engaged, without having to remove the cover to the housing of the pest control device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a window in the plug of Harper to observe the indicator, as this would allow a user to see the state of the indicator without having to remove the plug from the housing, as taught by Power.
[claim 18] Nelson further teaches that the indicator is configured to transmit an alert signal to a building management system(alert via the internet to an electronic mail address or message to a cellular phone, para[0042]) based on the detection signal.
[claim 19] Nelson further teaches the indicator can be a visual indicator(spring biased flag, or known mechanical and electrical means), however neither Nelson nor Harper specifically teach the visual indicator is configured to emit or more lights based on the detection signal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to use a visual indicator with one or more lights as opposed to a spring biased flag, as this would merely be using known electrical indicator means, as taught by Nelson.
[claim 20] Nelson further teaches the indicator is a sound indicator(message to a cellular phone can trigger a sound) configured to emit one or more sounds based on the detection signal.
[claim 21] wherein the locking mechanism is connected directly to the plug(fig 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the rejection of claims 1 and 9, applicant argues that the cited prior art references, Harper(US20090139133) and Nelson et al(US20080072475), do not teach “an indicator configured to transmit the alert signal to a building management system based on the detection signal” as recited in the claims. Applicant argues that an alert sent via the internet to an electronic mail address or message to a cellular phone(Nelson [0042]) is not the same as transmitting the alert signal to a building management system as recited in the claims. The examiner disagrees. Any electronic mail address, or cellular phone receiving the alert from the pest control device of Nelson, would be a part of a system for managing the pest control device, and more broadly for managing the building the pest control device is located in.
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 BRADLEY H DUCKWORTH whose telephone number is (571)272-2304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 5712724979. 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.
/BRADLEY DUCKWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights