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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 6-8 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 10/17/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 14-19 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 5, the term “wall” should be replaced with --walls--; and
Claim 17, line 2, the term --is-- should be inserted after “openings”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 9-19, and 21 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.
In regard to claim 1, line 11, the phrase “wherein the outlet end of the plurality of openings at least partially extends…” renders the claim vague and indefinite since it was previously recited in claim 1 at lines 8-9 that “each of the plurality of openings having…an outlet end” and therefore the plurality of openings would therefore have “outlet ends” and not an “outlet end” as claimed. Possibly the phrase should be rewritten as --wherein the outlet ends of the plurality of openings at least partially extend--.
In regard to claim 1, lines 13-14, the phrase “wherein the inlet end of the plurality of channels…of the inlet end” renders the claim vague and indefinite since the “elongated middle channel section” was previously recited as part of each of the plurality of openings and the “inlet end” was previously recited as part of each of the plurality of openings. The phrase should be rewritten as --wherein the inlet ends of the plurality of openings…of the inlet ends--.
In regard to claim 14, lines 4-5, the phrase “wherein the second end and the plurality of wall define;” renders the claim vague and indefinite since the phrase appears incomplete in that it is unclear what the second end and plurality of walls actually define.
In regard to claim 14, lines 6 and 10, the terms “the inner cavity” lack positive antecedent basis.
In regard to claim 14, lines 9-10, the term “the interior cavity” lacks positive antecedent basis.
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) 1-3, 5, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. 2007/0044371 in view of Cink 2009/0000181.
In regard to claim 1, Meier et al. disclose an insect trap comprising a base (12) including a first end (top end of 12 in Fig. 4) and an opposite second end (28 in Fig. 2) defining a longitudinal axis (axis of 12 in Fig. 4); and a plurality of walls (27) extending between the first end and the second end, wherein an inner cavity (38) is defined by the plurality of walls and the second end, the inner cavity configured to receive insect bait (liquid attractant; see para. 0012); and a lid (30) configured to couple to the first end of the base and enclose the inner cavity (see Fig. 5), the lid defining a plurality of openings (36) allowing access into the inner cavity, each of the plurality of openings (36) having an inlet end (upper wider ends of 36) defined on an exterior surface of the lid (see Fig. 5), an outlet end (lower narrow ends of 36 in Fig. 4), and an elongated middle channel section (middle portions of 46 in Fig. 4) extending between the inlet end and the outlet end, wherein the outlet end of the plurality of openings at least partially extends into the first end of the base (see Fig. 4); and wherein the inlet end of the plurality of channels is chamfered (see chamfers of 36 at the upper surface of 30 in Figs. 3-5) such that a transition section of the inlet end, directly adjacent the exterior surface, has an angle relative to the exterior surface (see Figs. 3-5), but do not disclose the transition section of the inlet end having an angle between 15° and 45° relative to the exterior surface. Cink discloses openings (39) in the base panel (25) which are generally chamfered, or tapered outward (e.g., expanding in the planar dimension) from the base panel outer surface (35) to the inner surface (37) thereof as illustrated in Fig. 12 so that the tapered portions act as entry ramps 45 into the interior space (33) of the container (23), thereby reducing or minimizing discontinuities encountered by termites entering the container, and in one embodiment the tapered openings (39) define a ramp (45) angle from the outer surface (35) to the inner surface (37) of the base panel (25) in the range of about 15 to about 60 degrees, and more suitably of about 45 degrees (see para. 0037). 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 angle of the transition section of the inlet end of Meier et al. such that it is between 15° and 45° relative to the exterior surface in view of Cink in order to reduce or minimize discontinuities encountered by termites entering the container so that the insects more reliably move into the inner cavity of the base for capture thereof.
In regard to claim 2, Meier et al. and Cink disclose wherein the transition section of the inlet end has a 30° angle (Cink discloses in one embodiment the tapered openings (39) define a ramp (45) angle from the outer surface (35) to the inner surface (37) of the base panel (25) in the range of about 15 to about 60 degrees, and more suitably of about 45 degrees; see para. 0037) relative to the exterior surface.
In regard to claim 3, Meier et al. disclose wherein an opening area of the inlet end at the transition section is larger than an opening area of the outlet end (see Fig. 4 of Meier et al.).
In regard to claim 5, Meier et al. disclose wherein the lid (30) has a top end (upper surface/end of 30) that defines the plurality of openings (36), wherein the plurality of openings are less than half of a total surface area of the top end (see Figs. 3 & 5 which show that collectively the openings 36 are less than half of the total surface area of the top).
In regard to claim 9, Meier et al. disclose wherein the elongated middle channel section of the plurality of openings (36) taper inward (via tapering walls 46) from the inlet end towards the outlet end (see Fig. 4).
In regard to claim 10, Meier et al. disclose wherein the plurality of openings (36) extend substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. 2007/0044371 in view of Cink 2009/0000181 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP 2014-147384 to Koyama et al.
In regard to claim 4, Meier et al. discloses wherein the plurality of openings comprise at least a first opening (36 at the uppermost corner in Figs. 3, 5) and a second opening (any of the other three openings 36 in Figs. 3, 5), the first opening having the same shape and size than the second opening, but do not disclose the first opening having a different shape and size than the second opening. Koyama et al. disclose wherein the plurality of openings (23a-e) comprise at least a first opening (23a) and a second opening (23c), the first opening having a different shape and size than the second opening (see Fig. 5; Koyama et al. disclose “At least half of the attracting openings 23a to 23e formed in the step portions 21a to 21d have shapes different from each other. “Different shapes” means shapes that do not completely match when superimposed. Therefore, for example, a similar shape or a shape having a line symmetry (mirror image) relationship does not completely coincide with each other even if they are overlapped with each other. In addition, although it is most preferable if all of the plurality of attracting openings 23 formed in the attracting structure portion 21 have different shapes, it is not essential, and more than half of the attracting openings 23 have different shapes. It only has to be. If more than half of the attracting openings 23 have different shapes, the attracting ingredients included in the drug part 30 inside the flying insect trap 100 are volatilized to the outside via the attracting openings 23. The attracting component is released while diffusing in a complicated manner due to the difference in the shape of 23. Therefore, the attracting component can easily reach the flying pests flying in various patterns in various environments, and as a result, the flying pests can be attracted to the flying pest trap 100 effectively and continuously.”). 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 first opening and second opening of Meier et al. and Cink such that the first opening has a different shape and size than the second opening in view of Koyama et al. in order to provide openings which are conducive to the volatilization of the insect bait to the surrounding area about the insect trap so as to reach the flying insects flying in various patterns in various environments, and as a result, the flying pests can be attracted to the insect trap.
In regard to claim 11, Meier et al. and Cink do not disclose wherein the lid comprises latches to removably couple to the first end of the base. Koyama et al. disclose wherein the lid (lid portion 20) comprises latches (connecting portion 22) to removably couple to the first end of the base (at flange portion 12 of tray portion 10; see Fig. 4). 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 lid of Meier et al. and Cink such that comprises latches to removably couple to the first end of the base in view of Koyama et al. in order to provide a mechanism which can securely attach the lid to the base so that the lid and base do not become easily dislodged from each other so that the insect trap remains intact and to potentially avoid spilling the contents inside the insect trap and creating a mess.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. 2007/0044371 in view of Cink 2009/0000181 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Willert 2019/0110457 or Studer et al. 2008/0196296 and Kagawa 8,448,376.
In regard to claim 12, Meier et al. and Cink disclose do not disclose a refillable container configured to hold the insect bait, the container portion disposed within the inner cavity of the base. Willert and Studer et al. disclose a refillable container (lure pod 108; see para. 0028 OR container of attractant 30; claim 10 recites “the housing may be opened for…replacing the…attractant”) configured to hold the insect bait (see para. 0014 OR see paras. 0007,0033), the container portion disposed within the inner cavity (base cavity 112 OR cavity within the bottom portion 18 of housing 10) of the base (container 102 OR bottom portion 18). 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 insect trap of Meier et al. and Cink such that it further comprises a refillable container configured to hold the insect bait, the container portion disposed within the inner cavity of the base in view of Willert or Studer et al. in order to provide a component which is both distinct and separate from the base for holding the insect bait and not disposable and may be removed, refilled, and reinserted into the inner cavity so as to reduce waste and conserve resources. Meier et al., Cink, and Willert or Studer et al. do not disclose wherein the outlet end of the plurality of openings extend into the container portion. Kagawa discloses a base (201,235) defining an inner cavity (see Fig. 38); a lid (202) configured to couple to the base and enclose the inner cavity (see Fig. 38), the lid (202) defining an opening (tapered opening defined through top wall 221 in Figs. 37-38) allowing access into the inner cavity (see Fig. 38); a container (211) configured to hold the insect bait (impregnated mat 215 with an attractant and insecticide), the container portion disposed within the inner cavity of the base (see Fig. 38), wherein the outlet end of the opening (224) extends into the container portion (see Fig. 38). 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 outlet ends of the plurality of openings of Meier et al., Cink, and Willert or Studer et al. such that they extend into the container portion in view of Kagawa in order to guide the flying insects, which enter the insect trap through the plurality of openings, directly to the insect bait within the container portion so as to more reliably and effectively trap the incoming flying insects.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. 2007/0044371 in view of Cink 2009/0000181 and further in view of JP 2014-147384 to Koyama et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bishop 11,980,178 or Nchekwube et al. 2016/0157496 or CN 213961423 to Fan.
In regard to claim 13, Meier et al., Cink, and Koyama et al. do not disclose wherein the elongated middle channel section of the first opening has a longer longitudinal length than the elongated middle channel section of the second opening. Bishop, Nchekwube et al., and Fan disclose wherein the elongated middle channel section (14 in Fig. 2 OR channel of one of the diagonally oriented 26 in Fig. 2 OR the length from the wide end to the narrow end of 6) of the first opening (14,16 in Fig. 2 OR one of the diagonally oriented 26 in Fig. 2 OR rightmost and uppermost 6 in Fig. 1) has a longer longitudinal length than the elongated middle channel section (22 in Fig. OR channel of vertically oriented 26 in Fig. 2 OR the length from the wide end to the narrow end of 6) of the second opening (18,20,22 in Fig. 2 OR vertically oriented central 26 in Fig. 2 OR leftmost 6 in Fig. 1). 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 first and second openings of Meier et al., Cink, and Koyama et al. such that the elongated middle channel section of the first opening has a longer longitudinal length than the elongated middle channel section of the second opening in view of Bishop, Nchekwube et al., or Fan in order to provide varying lengths of the middle channel sections such that the shorter middle channel lengths allow the flying insects to more easily reach the inner cavity and the longer middle channel lengths allow the flying insects to be more closely positioned to the insect bait and present a greater obstacle to escape due to the longer enclosed path that the flying insects must take to exit the longer middle channel sections.
Claim(s) 14 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. 2007/0044371 in view of Willert 2019/0110457.
In regard to claim 14, Meier et al. disclose an insect trap comprising a base (12) including a first end (top end of 12 in Fig. 4) and an opposite second end (28 in Fig. 2) defining a longitudinal axis (axis of 12 in Fig. 4); a plurality of walls (27) extending between the first end and the second end, wherein an inner cavity (38) is defined by the plurality of walls and the second end, the inner cavity configured to receive insect bait (liquid attractant; see para. 0012); and a lid (30) configured to removably couple to the first end of the base and enclosing the inner cavity (see Fig. 5), the lid defining a plurality of openings (36) allowing access into the inner cavity, each of the plurality of openings (36) having an inlet end (upper wider ends of 36) at an exterior surface of the lid (see Fig. 5), an outlet end (lower narrow ends of 36 in Fig. 4), and an elongate middle channel section (middle portions of 36 in Fig. 4) extending between the inlet end and the outlet end, wherein the plurality of openings (36) extend substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 4), wherein the inlet end of the plurality of openings is larger than the outlet end (see Fig. 4 of Meier et al.), but do not disclose a refillable container removably disposed within the inner cavity of the base, the refillable container configured to hold insect bait, wherein an open top of the refillable container is positioned higher than the first end of the base. Willert discloses a refillable container (lure pod 108; see para. 0028) configured to hold the insect bait (see para. 0014), the container portion disposed within the inner cavity (base cavity 112) of the base (container 102), wherein an open top (arm 114 and rim 115 define an open top) of the refillable container is positioned higher than the first end of the base (arm 114 extends through container 102 at slot 206 while lure pod 108 is secured within base such that the arm 114 is above a portion of the ridge 118 of base 106 that defines the lower half of slot 206 and the underside of rim 115 rests on the top surfaces of base shoulders 116). 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 insect trap of Meier et al. such that it further comprises a refillable container removably disposed within the inner cavity of the base, the refillable container configured to hold insect bait, wherein an open top of the refillable container is positioned higher than the first end of the base in view of Willert in order to provide a component which is both distinct and separate from the base for holding the insect bait and not disposable and may be removed, refilled, and reinserted into the inner cavity so as to reduce waste and conserve resources and also to position the container higher than the first end of the base such that the container can be merely lifted off of the base when the container is removed from the base.
In regard to claim 17, Meier et al. disclose wherein the lid (30) has a thickness (see Fig. 4), a longitudinal length of the elongate channel (middle portions of 36 in Fig. 4) of the plurality of openings (36) is larger than the thickness of the lid (thickness of 30 in Fig. 4).
In regard to claim 18, Meier et al. and Willert disclose wherein the lid (30 of Meier et al.; 104 of Willert) does not form a seal against the open top end of the refillable container (108 of Willert; lid 104 of Willert is configured to be removably coupled to base 106 and also the presence of slot 206 between base 106 and lid 104 means no seal can be formed against the top end of the pod 108 and the contents of pod 108 are free to emanate through nozzle 110 to attract insects---see para. 0029).
In regard to claim 19, Meier et al. and Willert disclose wherein the second end of the base (lower end of base 106) comprises a seat (base shoulders 116 of Willert extend upwardly from the lower end of 106), the seat supporting the refillable container (108 of Willert).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. 2007/0044371 in view of Willert 2019/0110457 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Cink 2009/0000181.
In regard to claim 15, Meier et al. disclose wherein the inlet end is chamfered (see chamfers of 36 at the upper surface of 30 in Figs. 3-5) and has a transition section adjacent the exterior surface with an angle relative to the exterior surface (see Figs. 3-5), but do not disclose the transition section of the inlet end with an angle of about 30° relative to the exterior surface. Cink discloses openings (39) in the base panel (25) which are generally chamfered, or tapered outward (e.g., expanding in the planar dimension) from the base panel outer surface (35) to the inner surface (37) thereof as illustrated in Fig. 12 so that the tapered portions act as entry ramps 45 into the interior space (33) of the container (23), thereby reducing or minimizing discontinuities encountered by termites entering the container, and in one embodiment the tapered openings (39) define a ramp (45) angle from the outer surface (35) to the inner surface (37) of the base panel (25) in the range of about 15 to about 60 degrees, and more suitably of about 45 degrees (see para. 0037). 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 angle of the transition section of the inlet end of Meier et al. such that it is about 30° relative to the exterior surface in view of Cink in order to reduce or minimize discontinuities encountered by termites entering the container so that the insects more reliably move into the inner cavity of the base for capture thereof.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. 2007/0044371 in view of Willert 2019/0110457 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of JP 2014-147384 to Koyama et al.
In regard to claim 16, Meier et al. and Willert do not disclose at least some of the plurality of openings are ellipses. Koyama et al. disclose at least some of the plurality of openings (23a, 23b, 23e) are ellipses (see Fig. 5). 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 plurality of openings of Meier et al. and Willert such that at least some of the plurality of openings are ellipses in view of Koyama et al. in order to provide an alternative yet equally effective shape for at least some of the plurality of openings, wherein the shape has a greater transverse width so as to more easily admit flying insects through the lid and into the inner cavity of the base and to also more freely allow the scent of insect bait to permeate the surroundings of the insect trap.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meier et al. 2007/0044371 in view of Willert 2019/0110457 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of CN 109566572 to Li et al.
In regard to claim 21, Meier et al. and Willert do not disclose wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface of the lid is a dark color. Li et al. disclose wherein at least a portion of the exterior surface of the lid (cover body 5 with through holes 6) is a dark color (cover body 5 made of brown opaque material). 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 lid of Meier et al. and Willert such that at least a portion of the exterior surface of the lid is a dark color in view of Li et al. in order to provide a contrasting color, which is a visual attractant to the flying insects, at the points of entry into the insect trap so as to positively entice the flying insects to enter the insect trap for capture thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W ARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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.
/DARREN W ARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
DWA