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Claims 6-8 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 2, the term “are” should be replaced with --is-- in order to place the proper verb after the term “the plurality”.
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.
Claim 16 is 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 16, the phrase “wherein the first opening comprises the elongated elliptical cross-sectional shape” renders the claim vague and indefinite since it fails to properly refer back to and further modify the recitation “wherein at least one of the plurality of openings comprise an elongated elliptical cross-sectional shape” since presumably the “first opening” and the “at least one of the plurality of openings” represent the same structure.
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 and 5 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 openings (36) 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 the elongated middle channel sections of the plurality of openings (36) taper inward (via tapering walls 46) from the inlet ends (upper wider ends of 36) towards the outlet ends (lower narrow ends of 36 in Fig. 4) and 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).
Claim(s) 4 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 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 10, Meier et al. disclose wherein the plurality of openings (36) extend substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 4).
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 and Studer et al. 2008/0196296.
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. Meier et al. and Willert do not disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of openings comprise an elongated elliptical cross-sectional shape. Studer et al. disclose wherein at least one of the plurality of openings (24) comprise an elongated elliptical cross-sectional shape (entry holes 24 as shown in Figs. 1-4 & 6A-D have a shape that is an elongated elliptical cross-sectional shape due to the elongated elliptical shape shown in Figs. 4 & 6D and that the cross-section throughout the length of entry holes 24 has this same cross-section as shown in Figs. 1-3 & 6A-C). 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 at least one of the plurality of openings of Meier et al. and Willert such that it comprises an elongated elliptical cross-sectional shape in view of Studer et al. in order to provide an alternative, yet equally effective shape for the at least one opening that will facilitate the entry of the insects into the insect trap with its widened cross-sectional shape which can more readily admit insects having either a greater height than width or greater width than height.
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 and Studer et al. 2008/0196296 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) 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 and Studer et al. 2008/0196296 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., Willert, and Studer et al. 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., Willert, and Studer et al. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 would 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to applicant’s argument that “A skilled person would not combine Meier and Cink in the manner contended by the Examiner…Meier’s openings are not merely access holes…Meier’s opening geometry is tied to the trapping function of inhibiting escape after entry…In contradistinction, Cink’s cited openings serve a materially different purpose…the tapered portions act as entry ramps to reduce discontinuities encountered by termites entering the container…Cink, therefore, does not teach optimizing a one-way opening to prevent escape, rather it is an objective of Cink to allow termites to enter and exit its container.”, the Examiner contends that Meier’s openings 36 are intended to provide access to wasps seeking the wasp attractant 40 and that the wasps crawl into the openings 36 at the inlet ends and exit the openings 36 at the outlet ends in an attempt to reach the wasp attractant 40. The Cink reference disclose openings 39 which are chamfered or tapered outward from the base panel outer surface 35 to the inner surface 37 (as shown in Fig. 12) so that the tapered portions act as entry ramps into the interior space, thereby reducing or minimizing discontinuities encountered by termites entering the container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the openings of Meier et al. such that the inlet ends are chamfered such that a transition section of the inlet ends, directly adjacent the exterior surface, has an angle between 15-45 degrees relative to the exterior surface in view of Cink in order to provide inlet ends of the openings which are conducive to the entry of the insects into the openings. While applicant is arguing that the geometry of the openings of Meier et al. is tied to the trapping function of inhibiting escape after entry, the Examiner contends that the modification of the inlet ends of the openings of Meier et al. by making them chamfered to provide a transition section would not destroy the ability of the openings of Meier et al. in trapping insects within the trap and that the openings of Meier et al. would still be able to function in retaining insects that have entered therethrough.
In regard to applicant’s argument concerning claim 14 and that “claim 14 has been amended to include…’wherein at least one of the plurality of openings comprise an elongated elliptical cross-sectional shape’…the cited art does not disclose or teach, or suggest all the elements of amended claim 14”, the Examiner contends that Studer et al. 2008/0196296 was relied upon as a modifying reference to teach this amended limitation of claim 14.
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 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
Prosecution Insights