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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 35-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 June 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 12 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are:
“a trapping module” in claim 1, which is interpreted in view of “a trapping box 22 that defines a trapping chamber 20,” as discussed in ¶0026;
“a trapping unit” in claim 1, which is interpreted in view of “For example, the trapping unit 26 may include a sticky board disposed on an inner bottom of the trapping box 22.” as discussed in ¶0026;
“a cleaning mechanism” in claim 1, which is interpreted in view of “The cleaning mechanism 4 may include a plurality of trays 400, and a pusher 408 that is movable relative to the trapping box 22” as discussed in ¶0035.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 11, 18, 19, 27-34 & 40 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.
RE claim 11:
it is unclear what element of a box or chamber is “adapted for catching pests” (line 2);
in light of the above 112f interpretation, it is unclear which of “a trapping unit” or “a cleaning mechanism” since the specification notes a plurality of trays being a portion of the cleaning mechanism, while the trapping unit must include a tray with adhesive in order to operate as claimed (“ensuring the pests caught by the trapping module…”) (lines 3-5).
RE claim 18: it is unclear how “a plurality of trays” satisfies the requirement of “ensuring the pests caught by the trapping module…” an expectation of “a trapping unit” established in claim 1.
RE claim 33: it is unclear what structural requirement is necessary to satisfy the (proposed step of) “which outputs at least one management suggestion associated with pest management”.
Claims 19, 27-34 & 40 are ultimately dependent from claim 11, rejected above.
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.
Claims 11, 18, 19, 28-30, & 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by Li et al. (US 11423530 B1, “Li”)
For claim 11, Li discloses a modular pest scouting system (title, disclosure: intelligent replacement board), comprising:
a trapping module (the sidewalls of the device surrounding trap board 9) adapted for catching pests (in the same way as the instant invention);
a trapping unit (trap board 9) associated with the trapping module for ensuring the pests caught by the trapping module remain on the trapping module (in the same way as the instant invention); and
a cleaning mechanism (ejection plate 29) associated with the trapping module for renewing the trapping unit (in the same way as the instant invention).
For claim 18, Li discloses the modular pest scouting system as claimed in Claim 11, and Li further discloses wherein: the trapping module defines a trapping chamber (Fig. 1); and the cleaning mechanism includes a plurality of trays (Fig. 3: 27, 28), and a pusher that pushes the trays into the trapping chamber one at a time (lead screws 31, 34 discussed in Col. 5, lines 26-46).
For claim 19, Li discloses the modular pest scouting system as claimed in Claim 18, Li further discloses further comprising: a main board including a processor (required for the processing steps outlined starting in Col. 6, line 56); and a motor module connected to the processor (Col. 8, lines 57-67); wherein the pusher of the cleaning mechanism is connected to the motor module, and is controlled by the motor module to move (Col. 8, lines 57-67).
For claim 28, Li discloses the modular pest scouting system as claimed in Claim 18, and Li further discloses wherein the cleaning mechanism further includes at least one support rail that is disposed in the trapping chamber for supporting the trays (slide block 10, Fig. 1).
For claim 29, Li discloses the modular pest scouting system as claimed in Claim 28, and Li further discloses wherein the cleaning mechanism further includes a guiding component (14) that is disposed in the trapping chamber and that is spaced apart from the at least one support rail (Fig. 1), the guiding component having a first part that extends horizontally from a wall segment of the trapping module, and a second part that extends from the first part at an upward angle (14 is clearly angled toward the board 9, and in held from the wall of the device).
For claim 30, Li discloses the modular pest scouting system as claimed in Claim 11, and Li further discloses wherein the trapping module includes a trapping box (formed by the walls around board 9), and an arm (31) that is adapted to be rotatably mounted to a supporting stand (represented by 34, and the bottom of the box shown in Fig. 3) and that is fixedly connected to the trapping box (Fig. 1).
For claim 40, Li discloses the modular pest scouting system as claimed in Claim 18, and Li further discloses wherein the pusher is located at a height that corresponds to a height of a bottommost one of the stack of the trays, and operable to move the bottommost one of the stack of the trays (29 moves the entire stack, Fig. 3).
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 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 30 above.
For claim 31, Li discloses the modular pest scouting system as claimed in Claim 30.
Li is silent to wherein the trapping module further includes two fasteners that are respectively mounted to the supporting stand and the arm, and a wire that is releasably tied to and between the fasteners.
However, such stands and mounting techniques are well known in the art, and are not a portion of the inventive nature of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the trapping module/box/chamber of Li to be hung to a support via a rotatable arm and suspension wires, in order to trap insects at greater heights, and since the Examiner takes Official Notice that hangers for traps are exceedingly well known in the art.
Claims 32 & 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Chyun (US 20070169401 A1).
For claim 32, Li discloses the modular pest scouting system as claimed in Claim 11, and Li further discloses further comprising a monitoring module (as established by the claim below) including: a main board that includes a processor (required for the processing steps outlined starting in Col. 6, line 56); a camera module (12) that is connected to the main board, the camera module being configured to capture images inside the trapping module (Id); and wherein the processor is configured to access an object detection model which is executed on the images to record statistics associated with a number of pests inside the trapping module (the image channel computation method provides real time analysis, meeting the claimed limitation).
Li is silent to a connectivity module that is connected to the main board, and configured to be controlled by the processor to communicate with a remote electronic device.
Chyun, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap device (title, disclosure) further comprising a connectivity module (750) that is connected to a main board, and configured to be controlled by a processor to communicate with a remote electronic device ¶0070.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the trap and monitoring device of Li with the capability to send the information to a remote location as taught by Chyun, in order to allow remote monitoring, yielding predictable results.
For claim 33, Li in view of Chyun teaches the modular pest scouting system as claimed in Claim 32, and Li further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to access1 a prediction model which is executed on the statistics, and which outputs at least one management suggestion associated with pest management (the image channel computation method provides real time analysis, meeting the claimed limitation).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Chyun as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Kerr (US 20100115826 A1).
For claim 34, Li in view of Chyun teaches the modular pest scouting system as claimed in Claim 32, and Li further discloses wherein the monitoring module further includes a power module (in order to operate as intended, power must be provided).
Li in view of Chyun is silent to the power module that includes: a solar panel configured to convert solar power to electrical power; and a charger board connected to the main board and the solar panel, and configured to receive the electrical power and supply the electrical power to the main board with a predetermined voltage.
Kerr, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) further comprising a power module that includes: a solar panel configured to convert solar power to electrical power (¶0040: which includes solar and battery); and a charger board connected to the main board and the solar panel, and configured to receive the electrical power and supply the electrical power to the main board with a predetermined voltage (implied, in order to provide a consistent power to the device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the device of the above-modified reference with a power source provided by solar panel and battery as taught by Kerr, in order to provide consistent power across a period of time in a remote setting, yielding predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 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.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 20200245604 A1 as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: the device must merely be configured to access such software.
Prosecution Insights