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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species V in the reply filed on 17 November 2025 is acknowledged.
No claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 17 November 2025.
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 “lid comprises at least one opening” of claim 1 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 § 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the protrusion in each of claims 1 & 16 are not claimed as a portion of anything else, or connected with another claimed element. Conversely, each protrusion is claimed in functional relationship with another element (base portion) which is not positively claimed (at least not until, and solely in, claim 15). Similarly, each adhesive surface is unattached to another claimed element.
Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “wherein the adhesive surface engages a bottom portion of the front housing” since “engage: c: to interlock with: mesh; also: to cause (mechanical parts) to mesh” (Merriam Webster Dictionary). It is not readily apparent what features are being interlocked or meshed to meet the common definition.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-14, & 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris (US 7191560 B2) in view of Finn et al. (US 20030145511 A1, “Finn”.
For Claims 1 & 16, Harris discloses a removable insect trap portion (as defined by the element claimed below, the device of Harris serves as an insect trap) comprising:
a. a front housing comprising a convex outward-facing surface and a concave inner-facing surface (in the same manner as the instant invention, 30 of Harris has a complementary outwardly curved profile on the inner and outer surfaces);
b. a protrusion configured to engage with a base portion (any one of 24);
c. an adhesive surface (adhesive paper 32) 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 (Fig. 1);
d. 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); and
wherein an insect-attracting substance and a carrier material is contained within the cup (“flour pantry moth pheromone, generic baits for flies and gnats and other flying insects, and color-based baits for fruit flies, particularly yellow baits.” are typically found suspended in a carrier material).
Harris is silent to the cup having a lip protruding from a perimeter of the open end;
e. a lid affixed to the lip of the cup and configured to cover the open end of the cup creating a seal between the lip and the lid, wherein the lid comprises at least one opening and a removable tab disposed over the at least one opening;
[for claim 1 only: wherein the insect-attracting substance comprises molasses].
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);
e. a lid (48) affixed to the lip of the cup and configured to cover the open end of the cup creating a seal between the lip and the lid ¶0047, wherein the lid comprises at least one opening and a removable tab disposed over the at least one opening (in the same manner as the instant invention, the lid of Finn is removed to expose the opening at the top of the cup);
wherein an insect-attracting substance and a carrier material is contained within the cup, wherein the insect-attracting substance comprises molasses (as discussed in ¶0016: slow acting poison and molasses).
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 12 of Harris with the cup and associated control agent of Finn, in order to protect the poison from unintentional release and/or drying out before in the targeted area, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 2, Harris as modified by Finn 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, Harris in view of Finn 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, ¶0016).
For Claims 3 & 18, Harris as modified by Finn 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, Harris as modified by Finn teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claims 1 & 16, and Harris further discloses wherein the cup is positioned adjacent to the concave inner-facing surface of the front housing (Fig. 1).
For Claim 5, Harris as modified by Finn teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 4, and Harris further discloses wherein the cup is joined to the front housing in the bottom portion of the front housing (the placement of 12 is in the bottom portion of the area formed by 30, Fig. 1).
For Claim 6, Harris as modified by Finn teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1, and Harris further discloses wherein the protrusion extends below the bottom surface of the cup (each bottom 24 which is located below the bottom surface of 12).
For Claim 7, Harris as modified by Finn teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1, and Harris further discloses wherein the cup is positioned between the protrusion and the front housing (at least the arc of the cup 12 is between 24 and 30).
For Claims 12 & 19, Harris in view of Finn 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, gel, and combinations are all contemplated by ¶0016).
For Claim 13, Harris in view of Finn teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1, and the resulting combination 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, Harris in view of Finn teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1, and Harris further discloses wherein the cup comprises at least one curved side wall (12).
Claims 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Finn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gardner (US 20040187377 A1).
For Claim 8, Harris as modified by Finn teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1.
Harris as modified by Finn 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 the 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 paper of Harris as modified by Finn 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, Harris as modified teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 8.
Harris in view of Finn 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 Harris in view of Finn and Gardner as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 6393759 B1, “Brown”).
For Claim 10, Harris as modified teaches removable insect trap portion of Claim 8.
Harris as modified is silent to wherein the adhesive surface is transparent or translucent.
Brown, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) comprising 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 Harris as modified to be transparent as taught by Brown, in order to be undetectable by insects, yielding predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris in view of Finn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitterman (US 3968590 A).
For Claim 11, Harris in view of Finn teaches the removable insect trap portion of Claim 1.
Harris in view of Finn is silent to wherein the adhesive surface comprises a second insect-attracting substance.
Kitterman, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure) further comprising adhesive surface comprises an 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 Harris as modified 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18950253 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed “removable tab” and “lid” are synonymous and function in the same fashion. Additionally, any mention of molasses is found unobvious over reference to ¶0016 of Finn (US 20030145511 A1), which lists molasses as a well-known attractant.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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
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 3685199 A, US 3729858 A, DE 3840440 A1, US 5142815 A, US 5915948 A, WO 0240067 A1, US 20030079398 A1, DE 10236531 A1, WO 2005053389 A1, US 20100263260 A1, US 8709337 B2, US 8740110 B2 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