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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 04/02/2025 and 10/16/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species F, subspecies 1B as shown in FIGs 37-40, 42 in the reply filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged.
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) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2014134371 A1) to Sandford in view of (US 6442889 B1) to Lee.
In regards to claim 1, Sandford teaches a replaceable insert for use with an insect trapping device (Sandford; embodiment of FIG 21 insert being the portion of the adhesive board of 814 which is inserted into the base of 812, better seen in embodiment FIG 3 134), comprising: an upper end region, a lower end region (Sandford; upper end region being the upper half of 814, and the lower end region being the lower half of 814), and a first longitudinal centerline extending from the upper end region to the lower end region (Sandford; centerline the adhesive board of 814 extending through 850); an elongate, substantially planar adhesive surface for trapping an insect (Sandford; surface of 814; see also FIG 3 134 which shows the insert of a trapping portion with elongate adhesive surface 136); and a substantially planar, elongate tab positioned in the lower end region of the replaceable insert and extending away from the elongate, substantially planar adhesive surface (Sandford; tab 818 which is elongate on the lower half of 814 and extends away from the adhesive surface of the trap 814); wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab comprises a first side edge, and a second side edge (Sandford; the two side edges S1, S2 of 818), wherein the first side edge and the second side edge converge at a proximal end of the substantially planar, elongate tab (Sandford; the curved edges of S1, S2 converge at a proximal end of 818 by curving inwards towards each other).
PNG
media_image1.png
641
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
493
452
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sandford fails to teach wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab comprises a second longitudinal centerline that is laterally offset a distance of from about 11 mm to about 15 mm from the first longitudinal centerline; wherein the replaceable insert is asymmetric about the first longitudinal centerline.
Lee teaches wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab comprises a second longitudinal centerline that is laterally offset; wherein the replaceable insert is asymmetric about the first longitudinal centerline (Lee; see FIG 4, where tab 430 is laterally offset from the longitudinal centerline of the adhesively coated substrate 420, 410, therefore making the insert asymmetric about the first longitudinal centerline of the substrate 420, 410).
PNG
media_image3.png
612
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sandford such that the insert’s tab has a longitudinal centerline which is laterally offset from the longitudinal centerline of the adhesive surface thus making the insert asymmetric such as taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so would be to provide the tab closer to a side edge of the adhesive surface such that it is convenient for a user to grasp, use, and manipulate the tab in order to hold the substrate.
Sandford as modified by Lee fail to explicitly teach the second longitudinal centerline is laterally offset a distance of from about 11 mm to about 15 mm from the first longitudinal centerline.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an offset range from about 11 mm to about 15 mm from the first longitudinal centerline based on the parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the offset from 11 mm to about 15 mm could provide benefits to the positioning of the tab and switch with respect to each other, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. Lee teaches the tab’s longitudinal centerline being offset from the longitudinal centerline of the adhesive substrate. With the teachings of Lee, one having ordinary skill in the art would be aware that the distance of offset between the longitudinal centerline of the tab and the longitudinal centerline of the substrate determines the position of the tab and how close or far away it is from the edge of the substrate, as well as the shape of the tab and the overall width of the substrate and the overall width of the tab. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the specification discloses the range of about 11 mm to about 15 mm, however does not provide criticality for these specific ranges as there is no reasoning as to why a value outside of this range such as, for example, 10.5 mm or 16 mm would not also be effective, based on the sizing of the insert and the tab.
In regards to claim 2, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert of claim 1, the width of the substantially planar, elongate tab decreases toward the proximal end (Sandford; S1 and S2, due to the curve, have a larger width at the top where the tab 818 is connected to the frame of the substrate, and a smaller width at the base where it curves inward).
Sandford as modified by Lee fail to explicitly teach wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab has a width at its vertical midpoint that is less than 25% of a width of a bottom edge of the replaceable insert.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the tab have a width at its vertical midpoint that is less than 25% of a width of a bottom edge of the replaceable insert, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the width of the tab lacks criticality, as page 32 lines 27-29 states that the lateral width of the tab can be less than 25% of the lateral width as an example, but fails to provide criticality as to the functionality of this sizing, nor why a larger percentage of size would not be equally as effective. The lateral width of the tab being less than 25% of a width of a bottom edge of the replaceable insert can be advantageous to decrease the amount of material required to make the device, thus making it more cost efficient, but additionally ensuring the tab is large enough to actuate the switch.
In regards to claim 3, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert according to claim 2, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the width of the substantially planar, elongate tab is from about 1 mm to about 14 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the tab width
from about 1-14 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the width and length of the tab lacks criticality, as page 33 lines 27-29 states that the lateral width of the tab can be 1-14mm or 5-13 mm, but fails to provide criticality as to the functionality of this sizing. The width being 1-14mm is advantageous to limit the amount of material required to make the device, thus making it more cost efficient, but additionally ensuring the tab is still large enough to actuate the switch itself.
In regards to claim 4, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert according to claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab has a longitudinal length of from about 8 mm to about 50 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the tab length of 8-50mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the length of the tab lacks criticality, as page 33 lines 27-29 states that the length of the tab can be from 8-50mm or 10-18mm, but fails to provide criticality as to the functionality of this sizing. The length being 8-50 mm is advantageous to limit the amount of material required to make the device, thus making it more cost efficient, but additionally ensuring the tab is still large enough to actuate the switch itself.
In regards to claim 5, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert according to claim 1, further comprising a frame at least partially surrounding the elongate, substantially planar adhesive surface (Sandford; see FIG 3 which shows the insert better in an exploded view, with the adhesive surface 136 surrounded by the frame edge of the 134, 138).
In regards to claim 6, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert according to claim 5, wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab depends from the frame (Sandford; see FIG 3 where the lowermost tab at S3 depends from the frame, and 818 depending from the frame of the adhesive board insert portion of 814, see also FIG 21).
In regards to claim 7, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert according to claim 5, wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab is unitary with the frame (Sandford; tab 818 is unitary with the frame of 814 as seen in FIG 21, and where the tab at S3 is unitary with the frame surrounding the substrate 136 in FIG 3).
In regards to claim 8, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert according to claim 1, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the replaceable insert has an overall thickness between about 0.05 mm and about 3 mm.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the overall thickness of the insert be between about 0.05 mm and about 3 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the specification does not disclose criticality for the overall thickness being between about 0.05 mm and about 3 mm, and only recites the thickness of the adhesive being within this range, or the thickness of a tab in a different embodiment being within this range. The thickness being between about 0.05 mm and about 3mm would be advantageous to provide a stable thickness for the insert being placed into the slot of the base without buckling.
In regards to claim 9, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert according to claim 1, wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab extends in substantially the same plane as the elongate, substantially planar adhesive surface (Sandford; tab 818 extending in the same plane as the planar adhesive surface of 814; see also FIG 3 where the tab at S3 extends in the same plane as the planar adhesive surface 136).
In regards to claim 10, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert according to claim 1, wherein the first side edge and the second side edge are curved (Sandford; side edges S1, S2 are curved, see annotated FIG 21 above).
In regards to claim 11, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert according to claim 1, wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab is configured to close a switch in the insect trapping device (Sandford; [0136] “Trap switch 820 may be configured to close when tab 818 on trap portion 814 engages with it and may be configured to open when the 818 is lifted from trap switch 820”).
In regards to claim 12, Sandford as modified by Lee teach the replaceable insert according to claim 1, wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab is configured to insert the replaceable insert into the insect trapping device in only one orientation (Sandford as modified by Lee; due to the asymmetry of the device with the modification of Sandford as modified by Lee, the insert would only be capable of being inserted into the base 812 in one orientation to align the tab with the switch).
Claim(s) 13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2014134371 A1) to Sandford in view of (US 6442889 B1) to Lee and (US 3023539 A) to Emerson.
In regards to claim 13, Sandford teaches a replaceable insert for use with an insect trapping device (Sandford; embodiment of FIG 21 insert being the portion of the adhesive board of 814 which is inserted into the base of 812, better seen in embodiment FIG 3 134), comprising: an upper end region, a lower end region (Sandford; upper end region being the upper half of 814, and the lower end region being the lower half of 814), and a first longitudinal centerline extending from the upper end region to the lower end region (Sandford; centerline the adhesive board of 814 extending through 850); a substrate comprising a planar adhesive surface for trapping an insect (Sandford; surface of 814; see also FIG 3 134 which shows the insert of a trapping portion with elongate adhesive surface 136); and a substantially planar, elongate tab positioned in the lower end region of the replaceable insert and extending away from the planar adhesive surface (Sandford; tab 818 which is elongate on the lower half of 814 and extends away from the adhesive surface of the trap 814), wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab comprises a first side edge, and a second side edge (Sandford; the two side edges S1, S2 of 818), wherein the first side edge and the second side edge converge at a proximal end of the substantially planar, elongate tab (Sandford; the curved edges of S1, S2 converge at a proximal end of 818 by curving inwards towards each other).
Sandford fails to teach wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab comprises a second longitudinal centerline that is laterally offset a distance of from about 11 mm to about 15 mm from the first longitudinal centerline; wherein the substrate comprises paper, wherein the adhesive surface is covered by a releasable liner.
Lee teaches wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab comprises a second longitudinal centerline that is laterally offset from the first longitudinal centerline (Lee; see FIG 4, where tab 430 is laterally offset from the longitudinal centerline of the adhesively coated substrate 420, 410), wherein the adhesive surface is covered by a releasable liner (Lee; release film; Col 3 lines 49-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sandford such that the insert’s tab has a longitudinal centerline which is laterally offset from the longitudinal centerline of the adhesive surface such as taught by Lee. The motivation for doing so would be to provide the tab closer to a side edge of the adhesive surface such that it is convenient for a user to grasp, use, and manipulate the tab in order to hold the substrate.
Sandford as modified by Lee fail to teach Sandford fails to teach wherein the second longitudinal centerline is laterally offset a distance of from about 11 mm to about 15 mm from the first longitudinal centerline; and wherein the substrate comprises paper.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an offset range from about 11 mm to about 15 mm from the first longitudinal centerline based on the parameters chosen. For example, while limiting the offset from 11 mm to about 15 mm could provide benefits to the positioning of the tab and switch with respect to each other, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. Lee teaches the tab’s longitudinal centerline being offset from the longitudinal centerline of the adhesive substrate. With the teachings of Lee, one having ordinary skill in the art would be aware that the distance of offset between the longitudinal centerline of the tab and the longitudinal centerline of the substrate determines the position of the tab and how close or far away it is from the edge of the substrate, as well as the shape of the tab and the overall width of the substrate and the overall width of the tab. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the instant case, the specification discloses the range of about 11 mm to about 15 mm, however does not provide criticality for these specific ranges as there is no reasoning as to why a value outside of this range such as, for example, 10.5 mm or 16 mm would not also be effective, based on the sizing of the insert and the tab.
Sandford as modified by Lee fail to teach wherein the substrate comprises paper.
Emerson teaches wherein the substrate comprises paper (Emerson; Col 2 lines 15-19; blank 31 consisting of paper; and see also Col 2 lines 51-65 where the window 53 is made of a flexible sheet of a suitable transparent/translucent material such as cellophane; see FIG 2 where these pieces are covered with adhesive to attract insects and allow light to pass through).
PNG
media_image4.png
496
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sandford as modified by Lee such that the substrate comprises a paper structure for stability while maintaining a transparent window to allow light to pass through such as taught by Emerson. The motivation for doing so would be to use a thicker, sturdier but inexpensive material such as paper to ensure the insert maintains its shape, while still providing for a thinner, transparent window to allow light to pass through.
In regards to claim 15, Sandford as modified by Lee and Emerson teach the replaceable insert according to claim 13, wherein the planar adhesive surface comprises a pressure sensitive adhesive (Sandford; [0051] pressure sensitive adhesive).
In regards to claim 16, Sandford as modified by Lee and Emerson teach the replaceable insert according to claim 13, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the planar adhesive surface has a surface area of between about 25 cm2 and about 150 cm2.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make surface area of the planar adhesive surface be about 25 cm2 and about 150 cm2, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the width of the tab lacks criticality, as page 8 surface area of the adhesive portion can be about 25 cm2 and about 150 cm2, but fails to provide criticality as to the functionality of this sizing, nor why a larger or smaller surface area would not be equally as effective. The surface area being about 25 cm2 and about 150 cm2 would be advantageous to minimize the footprint of the device while maximizing the potential area utilized to capture insects.
In regards to claim 17, Sandford as modified by Lee and Emerson teach the replaceable insert according to claim 13, wherein the replaceable insert is asymmetric about the first longitudinal centerline (Sandford as modified by Lee; due to the device having the tab’s second longitudinal centerline being offset from the first longitudinal centerline, the device would be asymmetrical).
In regards to claim 18, Sandford as modified by Lee and Emerson teach the replaceable insert according to claim 13, wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab is configured to close a switch in the insect trapping device (Sandford; [0136] “Trap switch 820 may be configured to close when tab 818 on trap portion 814 engages with it and may be configured to open when the 818 is lifted from trap switch 820”).
In regards to claim 19, Sandford as modified by Lee and Emerson teach the replaceable insert according to claim 13, the width of the substantially planar, elongate tab decreases toward the proximal end (Sandford; S1 and S2, due to the curve, have a larger width at the top where the tab 818 is connected to the frame of the substrate, and a smaller width at the base where it curves inward).
Sandford as modified by Lee and Emerson fail to explicitly teach wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab has a width at its vertical midpoint that is less than 25% of a width of a bottom edge of the replaceable insert.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the tab have a width at its vertical midpoint that is less than 25% of a width of a bottom edge of the replaceable insert, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the width of the tab lacks criticality, as page 32 lines 27-29 states that the lateral width of the tab can be less than 25% of the lateral width as an example, but fails to provide criticality as to the functionality of this sizing, nor why a larger percentage of size would not be equally as effective. The lateral width of the tab being less than 25% of a width of a bottom edge of the replaceable insert can be advantageous to decrease the amount of material required to make the device, thus making it more cost efficient, but additionally ensuring the tab is large enough to actuate the switch.
In regards to claim 20, Sandford as modified by Lee and Emerson teach a method of using the replaceable insert of claim 13, the method comprising the steps of a. providing the replaceable insert of claim 13 (Sandford as modified by Lee and Emerson above in claim 13); b. removing the releasable liner (Lee; release film; Col 3 lines 49-55); c. inserting the replaceable insert into an insect trapping device comprising a base and a light source (Sandford; see FIG 21-23, where the insert of 814 is put into the base 812 which has a light source LEDs 826), wherein the substantially planar, elongate tab of the replaceable insert activates a switch in the base that operates the light source (Sandford; [0136] “Trap switch 820 may be configured to close when tab 818 on trap portion 814 engages with it and may be configured to open when the 818 is lifted from trap switch 820”); d. adhering an insect to the adhesive surface (Sandford; in normal use, an insect would adhere to the adhesive surface of the insert portion of 814) e. removing the replaceable insert from the insect trapping device, wherein upon removing the replaceable insert from the insect trapping device, the light source is deactivated (Sandford; [0136] trap portion 814 is removed from 812 thus opening the switch which would turn off the light); and f. disposing of the replaceable insert (Sandford; see claim 104 where when the first trap portion is removed, the trap portion is then disposed).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 2014134371 A1) to Sandford in view of (US 6442889 B1) to Lee and (US 3023539 A) to Emerson as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of (US 20070068066 A1) to Reatti.
In regards to claim 14, Sandford as modified by Lee and Emerson teach the replaceable insert according to claim 13, but fail to explicitly teach wherein the releasable liner comprises a tab.
Reatti teaches where the releasable liner comprises a tab (Reatti; a first film 12 being releasable from a lower adhesive surface 15 to expose the adhesive surface, the film having tabs 18).
PNG
media_image5.png
313
377
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sandford as modified by Lee and Emerson such that the releasable liner comprises a tab such as taught by Reatti. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a grip portion for a user which is free to allow for the user to grip the tab of the film and peel it off easily without touching the adhesive on the substrate below.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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, KIMBERLY BERONA can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights