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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features/details upon which applicant relies (i.e., pertaining to the fit of the removable foil lid in relation to the one or more compartments) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
With regard to the arguments that Peterson fails to disclose either “the receptacle having the one or more compartments” of claim 1 or “the receptacle having the compartment” of claim 10. There is no distinction between the claimed limitations as stated above and the receptacle and compartment depicted in fig. 1A-C & 9A-B, and supported by paragraph 43 which states a foil film makes a suitable sealing layer for containing the attractant prior to release/diffusion.
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 1-2 & 4-9 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 the limitation of "[the] receptacle having the one or more compartments" which is a limitation that was previously introduced within the second line of the claim. This creates a definiteness issue; it is not apparent how the receptacle is being further limited by having the one or more housings. Claims 2 & 4-9 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peterson et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0014524 A1; herein Peter.
Re claim 1, as best understood, Peter discloses an article of manufacture comprising:
a receptacle (115; the outer shell of the three compartment lures, fig. 1A-3) having one or more compartments (110; the compartments, fig. 1A-C & 9A-B);
a breathable membrane (125; the diffusion membranes, fig. 1A-C) designed to fit over the top of the receptacle (fig. 1A-C and para 28, the diffusion membranes are each disposed on a top of the outer shell/compartments); and
a removable foil lid (130; the sealing layer, fig. 1A-C and para 43) designed to fit over a top of the breathable membrane (again see fig. 1A-C and para 28), the receptacle having the one or more compartments (again see fig. 1A-C & 9A-B).
Re claim 2, as best understood, Peter discloses the invention of claim 1, Peter further discloses wherein the one or more compartments are configured to house one or more insect attractants (102; the insect attractants, fig. 1A-C).
Re claim 9, as best understood, Peter discloses the invention of claim 1, Peter further discloses wherein the breathable fabric is water repellent (Table 1 and para 32, wherein the membrane is either PP or PE, which are water resistant materials due to their hydrophobic nature).
Re claim 10, Peter discloses a pod comprising:
a receptacle (115; the outer shell of the three compartment lures, fig. 1A-3) having a compartment (110; the compartments, fig. 1A-C & 9A-B) configured to house an insect attractant (102; the insect attractants, fig. 1A-C);
a membrane (125; the diffusion membranes, fig. 1A-C) designed to fit over the top of the receptacle having the compartment (fig. 1A-C and para 28, the diffusion membranes are each disposed on a top of each outer shell/compartments); and
a removable foil lid (130; the sealing layer, fig. 1A-C and para 43) designed to fit over the top of the membrane (again see fig. 1A-C and para 28).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter as applied to claim 2 above.
Re claim 4, Peter discloses the invention of claim 2, Peter further discloses article of manufacture containing pheromones as an alternative to the insect attractant (para 68).
However, the examiner asserts it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention since to utilize pheromones since they are known to be utilized as a superior attractant themselves, therefore it is being held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 5 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter as applied to claim 2 or 10 above respectively, in view of Lloyd et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0110892 A1; herein Lloyd.
Re claim 5, Peter discloses the invention of claim 2, Peter fails to disclose wherein one or more insect attractants includes 1-Octen-3-ol. However, Lloyd discloses 1-Octen-3-ol as an insect attractant (para 26, 1-octen-3-ol is being utilized as a mosquito attractant).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein one or more insect attractants includes 1-Octen-3-ol however, Lloyd discloses such an insect attractant. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure by utilizing a simple substitution of the known attractant taught by the prior art for the 1-Octen-3-ol from Lloyd in order to obtain the predictable result of attracting mosquitos to the lure. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize 1-Octen-3-ol, since it has been known as a suitable insect attractant and it is being held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 13, Peter discloses the invention of claim 10, Peter fails to disclose wherein the insect attractant is 1-Octen-3-ol. However, Lloyd discloses 1-Octen-3-ol as an insect attractant (para 26, 1-octen-3-ol is being utilized as a mosquito attractant).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein one or more insect attractants includes 1-Octen-3-ol however, Lloyd discloses such an insect attractant. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure by utilizing a simple substitution of the known attractant taught by the prior art for the 1-Octen-3-ol from Lloyd in order to obtain the predictable result of attracting mosquitos to the lure. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize 1-Octen-3-ol, since it has been known as a suitable insect attractant and it is being held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter as applied to claim 1 above.
Re claim 6, Peter discloses the invention of claim 1, Peter further discloses wherein the breathable membrane is manufactured from polyethylene (Table 1 and para 32, wherein the membrane is PE).
Peter discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the polyethylene is fabric, nonwoven, and fibrous however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize such a polyethylene with such structure since such properties enhance water repelling and those pertaining diffusion/breathability, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 7, Peter discloses the invention of claim 1, Peter further discloses wherein the breathable membrane is manufactured from polypropylene (Table 1 and para 32, wherein the membrane is PP).
Peter discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the polypropylene is fabric and fibrous however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize such a polypropylene with such structure since such properties enhance water repelling and those pertaining diffusion/breathability, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 8 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chebny, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0059245 A1; herein Che.
Re claim 8, Peter discloses the invention of claim 1, Peter fails to disclose the breathable membrane being a fabric manufactured from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibers. However, Che discloses a chemical dispenser with a breathable membrane made from polytetrafluoroethylene (para 22, wherein the perforated membrane is PTFE).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the breathable membrane being a fabric manufactured from polytetrafluoroethylene fibers however, Che discloses a membrane made of such material. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the membrane by utilizing a simple substitution of the known material taught by the prior art for the PTFE from Che in order to obtain the predictable result of a membrane to release the attractant over a period of time. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Peter discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the polytetrafluoroethylene is fabric and fibrous however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize such a polytetrafluoroethylene with such structure since such properties enhance water repelling and those pertaining diffusion/breathability, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 17, the modification of Peter discloses the invention of claim 14, Peter fails to disclose the breathable membrane being a fabric manufactured from polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) fibers. However, Che discloses a chemical dispenser with a breathable membrane made from polytetrafluoroethylene (para 22, wherein the perforated membrane is PTFE).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the breathable membrane being a fabric manufactured from polytetrafluoroethylene fibers however, Che discloses a membrane made of such material. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the membrane by utilizing a simple substitution of the known material taught by the prior art for the PTFE from Che in order to obtain the predictable result of a membrane to release the attractant over a period of time. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claim 10 above, in view of Nchekwube et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0157496 A1; herein Wube.
Re claim 11, Peter discloses the invention of claim 10, Peter fails to disclose wherein the insect attractant is dry ice. However, Wube discloses wherein an insect attractant of dry ice (para 64, the dry ice is the attractant).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose dry ice as the insect attractant however, Wube discloses such an attractant. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lure by utilizing a simple substitution of the known attractant taught by the prior art for the dry ice attractant from Wube in order to obtain the predictable result of attracting insects to the lure. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize dry ice since it is a known component of insect attractants, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 12, 14-16, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter as applied to claim 10 above.
Re claim 12, Peter discloses the invention of claim 10, Peter further discloses a pod containing pheromones as an alternative to the insect attractant (para 68).
However, the examiner asserts it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention since to utilize a variety of pheromones within the three-compartment lure since they are known to be utilized as a superior attractants themselves, therefore it is being held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 14, Peter discloses the invention of claim 10, Peter further discloses wherein the membrane is breathable (para 41 & 42, via the diffusion properties thereof).
Peter discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the breathable membrane is a fabric. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize a fabric since the material is known to show superior properties pertaining to diffusion/breathability, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 15, the modification of Peter discloses the invention of claim 14, Peter further discloses wherein the breathable membrane is manufactured from polyethylene (Table 1 and para 32, wherein the membrane is PE).
Peter discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the polyethylene is fabric, nonwoven, and fibrous however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize such a polyethylene with such structure since such properties enhance water repelling and those pertaining diffusion/breathability, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 16, the modification of Peter discloses the invention of claim 14, Peter further discloses wherein the breathable membrane is manufactured from polypropylene (Table 1 and para 32, wherein the membrane is PP).
Peter discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the polypropylene is fabric and fibrous however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to utilize such a polypropylene with such structure since such properties enhance water repelling and those pertaining diffusion/breathability, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 18, Peter discloses the invention of claim 14, Peter further discloses wherein the breathable fabric is water repellent (Table 1 and para 32, wherein the membrane is either PP or PE, which are water resistant materials due to their hydrophobic nature).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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 J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642