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 1-20 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 1, it appears that in the phrase (e) “the open end of the cup” is both added and “cup” is struck through. Without “cup,” the claim phrase is unclear and cannot be ascertained.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 1, rejected above.
Claim 16 recites “the at least one opening” in the last line of element e. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17-20 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 16, rejected above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7, 12-14, & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze et al. (US 5915948 A, “Kunze”) in view of Harris (US 7191560 B2) and Finn et al. (US 20030145511 A1, “Finn”).
For Claims 1 & 16, Kunze discloses a removable insect trap portion (elements 16 + 18 of Fig. 3, Kunze meet the claim limitations in the body of the claim below and function as an insect trap) comprising:
a. a front housing (16) comprising a convex outward-facing surface and a concave inner-facing surface (in the same manner as the instant invention, as seen in Fig. 3);
b. a bottom portion of the removable insect trap portion having a protrusion configured to engage with a base portion of an insect trap (17a & 17b accept the outer shoulder of 12);
c. an adhesive surface (18) configured to adhere to a flying insect; wherein the adhesive surface engages a bottom portion of the front housing and extends from the bottom portion to a top portion of the front housing (as seen in Fig. 3, 18 extends parallel to 16 from a bottom to a top).
Kunze is silent to the bottom surface having the protrusion;
d. a cup joined to the front housing, wherein the cup comprises a bottom surface, an open end, and a lip protruding from a perimeter of the open end; and e. a removable tab having a sealing end disposed over the open end of the cup; wherein an insect-attracting substance and a carrier material is contained within the cup.
[for claim 1 only:] wherein the insect-attracting substance comprises molasses.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the protrusion(s) of Kunze extending from the bottom surface of hood 16 in order to allow for the whole device to sit on a flat surface, creating a more versatile apparatus, and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Harris, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) further comprising a cup joined to the front housing (12 is indirectly connected to 30, Fig. 1), wherein the cup comprises a bottom surface, an open end (Col. 1, line 60- Col. 2, line 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the hood 16 of Kunze with a cup housing insect attractant as taught by Harris, in order to provide additional attractants for either the same or different insects, depending on the intent of the user, and yielding predictable results. The hood provides sufficient space for mounting an additional lure structure.
Finn, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising a cup (inner compartment 24, Figs. 4-6) having a lip (25) protruding from a perimeter of an open end (Figs. 4-6); and
e. a removable tab (45) having a sealing end (48) disposed over the open end of the cup ¶0047; wherein an insect-attracting substance and a carrier material is contained within the cup (as discussed in ¶0016: slow acting poison and molasses),
[for claim 1 only:] wherein the insect-attracting substance comprises molasses ¶0016.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the cup of the above-modified reference to provide a removable seal on top and associated control agent(s) of Finn, in order to protect the poison from unintentional release and/or drying out before it is deployed in the targeted area, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 2, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1, and Finn further teaches wherein the carrier material is impregnated with the insect-attracting substance (“mixture” indicates that the molasses is impregnated with the slow acting poison, ¶0016).
For Claim 17, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 16, and Finn further teaches wherein the insect-attracting substance comprises a sugar solution (molasses and peanut butter are solutions with sugar in them, ¶0016).
For Claims 3 & 18, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claims 1 & 17, and Finn further teaches wherein the insect-attracting substance further comprises an evaporable liquid attractant (at least a portion of each of the following components disclosed as portions of the mixture of ¶0016 can evaporate: molasses, oils, dairy products).
For Claims 4 & 20, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claims 1 & 16, and the resulting device further teaches wherein the cup is positioned adjacent to the concave inner-facing surface of the front housing (shown in Fig. 1 of Harris, in the inside cover/hood 16 of Kunze).
For Claim 5, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 4, and the resulting device renders obvious wherein the cup is joined to the front housing in the bottom portion of the front housing (the cup of Harris adjoined to the inside of hood 16, Kunze).
For Claim 6, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1, and the resulting device teaches wherein the protrusion extends below the bottom surface of the cup (as modified above).
For Claim 7, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1, and the resulting device teaches wherein the cup is positioned between the protrusion and the front housing (taking either vertical cross-sections or a diagonal line, at least a portion of the modified cup of Harris lies between the protrusions and the hood of Kunze).
For Claims 12 & 19, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claims 1 & 18, and Finn further teaches wherein the carrier material is chosen from a solid, a liquid, a gel, or a combination thereof (note that solids, liquids, gels, and combinations are all contemplated by ¶0016).
For Claim 13, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1, and the resulting device further teaches wherein the insect-attracting substance is configured to be detectable by an insect for approximately a 2-meter radius from the insect trap portion (the resulting combination, in the same manner as the instant invention, appears to have a lure that is detectable in the functional manner claimed).
For Claim 14, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1, and Harris further teaches wherein the cup comprises at least one curved side wall (the curved wall of the cup 12).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze in view of Harris and Finn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gardner (US 20040187377 A1).
For Claim 8, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1.
Kunze as modified above is silent to wherein the adhesive surface comprises an adhesive material comprising a styrene block copolymer.
Gardner, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising an adhesive surface comprises an adhesive material comprising a styrene block copolymer ¶0020.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the adhesive of Kunze as modified above with the styrene block material as taught by Gardner, in order to use an available and well-known material, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obviousness. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
For Claim 9, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 8.
Kunze as modified above is silent to wherein the adhesive material has a thickness of from about 0.01 mm to about 0.2 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the thickness of the adhesive on the sheet of Harris in view of Finn at a measurement of about 0.01 mm to about 0.2 mm, in order to provide enough material to catch insects, but not so much to weigh down the device or waste material, and since it has been held that 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze in view of Harris, Finn, and Gardner, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 6393759 B1, “Brown”).
For Claim 10, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 8.
Kunze as modified above is silent to wherein the adhesive surface is transparent or translucent.
Brown, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) comprising an adhesive surface is transparent or translucent (Col. 8, lines 41-46).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the adhesive of Kunze as modified above to be transparent as taught by Brown, in order to be undetectable insects, yielding predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunze in view of Harris and Finn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitterman (US 3968590 A).
For Claim 11, Kunze as modified above teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1.
Kitterman, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising an adhesive surface comprises a insect-attracting substance (Col. 3, lines 45-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the adhesive of Kunze as modified above by impregnating it with pheromone or another attracting substance as taught by Kitterman, in order to entice the insects further to the target, yielding predictable results. Such a modification arises to a second attracting substance in the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 might 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
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 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
Prosecution Insights