DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “space 18” – page 4; “a first package 152” – page 5; “opening 52” – page 6; “tap chamber 270” – page 19; “adhesive 320” and “lower surface 312” – page 20. 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. 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 17-24 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 17 and 24 recite the limitation "the second housing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 18-23 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Duston et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0252074).
For claim 1, Duston et al. discloses an insect trap comprising: a first housing (Fig. 2: 58 – 32, 29, 41, 43, the undersurface of 31); a reservoir (Fig. 2: 47 at bait 28) defined and completely enclosed by the first housing; a protrusion (Fig. 2: 25) disposed within the reservoir and extending inward from an interior surface of the first housing (as shown in Figs. 1-10), the protrusion configured to pierce a package disposed within the reservoir (as discussed in [0047]); an actuator (Figs. 2-8: 21) connected to the protrusion such that when the actuator is moved, the protrusion moves with the actuator within the reservoir (as discussed in [0052]); and a trap chamber (as discussed in [0045] and Fig. 1: 14) partially formed by the first housing and a second housing (Fig. 2: 27) moveably engageable with the first housing (as discussed in [0050] and [0064]: “cover 27 is snapped on the container”).
For claim 6, Duston et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 1, wherein the trap chamber (as discussed in [0045] and Fig. 1: 14) comprises a floor (Fig. 2: at flanged edge 43), and wherein the first housing (Fig. 2: 58 – 32, 29, 41, 43, the undersurface of 31) comprises a bottom wall (Fig. 2: at 41) and wherein the bottom wall forms the floor (as shown in Fig. 2).
For claim 8, Duston et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 1, further comprising an inlet (Fig. 1: 16, 17) into the trap chamber (as discussed in [0045] and Fig. 1: 14), wherein the trap chamber (as discussed in [0045] and Fig. 1: 14) comprises a floor (Fig. 2: at the lowermost surface within the reservoir at bait 18), and wherein the first housing (Fig. 2: 58 – 32, 29, 41, 43, the undersurface of 31) comprises a bottom wall (Fig. 2: at the undersurface of 31), and wherein at least a portion of the bottom wall (Fig. 2: near reservoir 47 at the undersurface of 31) adjacent to the floor (Fig. 2: at the lowermost surface within the reservoir at bait 18) is at an elevation above an elevation of the floor (as shown in Fig. 2), forming a pit to trap insects therein (as discussed in [0051]).
For claim 9, Duston et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 8, where the bottom wall (Fig. 2: near reservoir 47 at the undersurface of 31) rises in elevation from the inlet (Fig. 1: 16, 17) to a point (Figs. 1-2: at the highest elevation of the first housing within the trap chamber 14) in the trap chamber adjacent the floor (Fig. 2: at the lowermost surface within the reservoir at bait 18).
For claim 48, Duston et al. discloses an insect trap comprising: a housing (Fig. 2: 58 – 32, 29, 41, 43, the undersurface of 31); a reservoir (Fig. 2: 47 at bait 28) at least partially defined by the housing; a protrusion (Fig. 2: 25) disposed within the reservoir and extending inward from an interior surface of the housing (as shown in Figs. 1-10), the protrusion configured to pierce a package disposed within the reservoir (as discussed in [0047]); an actuator (Figs. 2-8: 21) connected to the protrusion such that when the actuator is moved, the protrusion moves with the actuator within the reservoir (as discussed in [0052]); and wherein the reservoir is external to a trap chamber (Fig. 2: defined between surface 31 and cover 27) partially formed by the housing and a substrate (Figs. 2-7: weakened area 30).
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 3-4 and 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duston et al. in view of Lang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0044372).
For claims 3-4, Duston et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 1, wherein the trap chamber comprises a floor (Fig. 2: at the upper surface of 31), but fails to show further comprising an adhesive coated on a surface of the floor. Lang et al. teaches an insect trap (as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a trap chamber (Figs. 3-9: between cover 60 and base 62), the trap chamber comprises a floor (as discussed in [0067]: “A glueboard may be received in a lower recess within the base 62”), further comprising an adhesive coated on a surface of the floor (as discussed in [0070]-[0071] and Figs. 8-9: 150, 154, 156), wherein the first housing (Fig. 5: 62) comprises a bottom wall (Fig. 5: at 72) and wherein the floor (Figs. 8-9: pad 150) is adhered to the bottom wall using at least a portion of the adhesive (as discussed in [0062] teaches “Adhesive may be used to secure the cardboard liners to the glueboards.” and [0070]-[0071] and Figs. 8-9: 150). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insect trap of Duston et al. to include the adhesive as taught by Lang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because the crawling insects will be easily immobilized.
For claim 65, Duston et al. discloses an insect trap comprising: a first housing (Fig. 2: 58 – 32, 29, 41, 43, the undersurface of 31); a reservoir (Fig. 2: 47 at bait 28) at least partially defined by the first housing; a protrusion (Fig. 2: 25) disposed within the reservoir and extending inward from an interior surface of the first housing (as shown in Figs. 1-10), the protrusion configured to pierce a package disposed within the reservoir (as discussed in [0047]); an actuator (Figs. 2-8: 21) connected to the protrusion such that when the actuator is moved, the protrusion moves with the actuator within the reservoir (as discussed in [0052]); and a trap chamber (as discussed in [0045] and Fig. 1: 14) partially formed by the first housing and comprising a floor (Fig. 2: at flanged edge 43).
Duston et al. fails to show the floor having an adhesive coated on a surface thereof the floor; wherein a bottom wall of the first housing is adhered to the floor using at least a portion of the adhesive. Lang et al. teaches an insect trap (as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a trap chamber (Figs. 3-9: between cover 60 and base 62), the trap chamber comprising a floor (Fig. 5: interior surface of base 62 at 74) having an adhesive coated on a surface thereof (as discussed in [0067]: “A glueboard may be received in a lower recess within the base 62”), wherein a bottom wall (as discussed in [0070]-[0071] and Figs. 8-9: 150, 154, 156) of the first housing is adhered to the floor (Fig. 5: interior surface of base 62 at 74) using at least a portion of the adhesive (as discussed in [0062] teaches “Adhesive may be used to secure the cardboard liners to the glueboards.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insect trap of Duston et al. to include the adhesive as taught by Lang et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because the crawling insects will be easily immobilized.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duston et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0252074) in view of Majerowski et al. (WO 0101772 A1).
For claim 12, Duston et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show further comprising an attractant configured to attract insects and to be disposed within the reservoir, wherein the attractant comprises an attractant composition configured to attract insects, a first package enclosing the attractant composition, and a second package enclosing the first package therein and configured to be impermeable to gas. Majerowski et al. teaches an attractant (Fig. 6: 42) configured to attract insects and to be disposed within the reservoir (as discussed on Page 10, lines 12-13), wherein the attractant comprises an attractant composition configured to attract insects (as discussed on Page 5, lines 6-15), a first package (Fig. 6: 660) enclosing the attractant composition, and a second package (Fig. 6: 670) enclosing the first package therein and configured to be impermeable to gas. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insect trap of Duston et al. to include the first package and the second package as taught by Majerowski et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because liquid bait will remain contained and sealed within the reservoir until the bait is released by the user and the insect trap is intended to be deployed.
Claim 17-24 and 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duston et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0252074) in view of Parker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0088310).
For claim 17, Duston et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 1, further comprising an inlet (Fig. 1: 16, 17) into the trap chamber, wherein the trap chamber (as discussed in [0045] and Fig. 1: 14) comprises a floor (Fig. 2: at flanged edge 43), and wherein the first housing (Fig. 2: 58 – 32, 29, 41, 43, the undersurface of 31) comprises: a first portion (Fig. 2: at the central portion of the first housing), the reservoir (Fig. 2: 47 at bait 28) being disposed within the first portion of the first housing (as shown in Fig. 2); but fails to show a second portion spaced-apart from the first portion of the first housing; and a space defined between the first and second portions of the first housing; wherein the second housing is positioned over the space and movingly engaged with the first and second portions of the first housing to form the trap chamber and permit the second housing to move between a first position where the inlet is open and a second position where the inlet is closed.
Parker et al. teaches an insect trap (Figs. 1-2 and as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a first housing (Figs. 1-2: 3); a trap chamber (as shown in Fig. 10: interior space formed by the first housing 3 and the second housing 2), an inlet (Figs. 1-5: 34) and wherein the first housing (Fig. 2: 3) comprises: a first portion (Figs. 2, 3 and 5: internal central area of first housing 3); a second portion (Fig. 5: 32) spaced-apart from the first portion of the first housing; and a space defined between the first and second portions of the first housing (as shown in Fig. 5 at 36); wherein the second housing (Fig. 10: 2) is positioned over the space and movingly engaged with the first and second portions of the first housing to form the trap chamber and permit the second housing to move between a first position where the inlet is open and a second position where the inlet is closed (Parker et al. as discussed in last sentence of [0035]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insect trap of Duston et al. to include the second housing movably engaged between a first position where the inlet is open and a second position where the inlet is closed as taught by Parker et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to fully close the insect trap for shipping, storage or merchandising (Parker et al. as discussed in [0034]).
For claim 18, Duston et al. as modified by Parker et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 17, wherein a first tab (Parker et al. Fig. 11b: 381) extends from the first portion of the first housing into the space and a second tab (Parker et al. Figs. 2, 5, 10, 12 and 14: 33) extends into the space from the second portion of the first housing, and wherein the second housing includes a first detent (Parker et al. Fig. 11b: 27) configured to receive the first tab and a second detent (Parker et al. Fig. 12: 23) configured to receive the second tab.
For claim 19, Duston et al. as modified by Parker et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 18, wherein when the first and second tabs are engaged with the first and second detents (Parker et al. as shown in Figs. 11b and 12), the second housing (Parker et al. 2) is held in the first position (Parker et al. as shown in Fig. 14).
For claim 20, Duston et al. as modified by Parker et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 19, wherein when the second housing (Parker et al. 2) is moved from the first position (Parker et al. Fig. 14) to the second position (Parker et al. as shown in Figs. 10 and 13), the second housing is moved below the first and second tabs such that the first (Parker et al. Fig. 11b: 381) and second (Parker et al. Figs. 2, 5, 10, 12 and 14: 33) tabs act as a stop to hold the second housing in the second position (Parker et al. as shown in Fig. 10).
For claim 21, Duston et al. as modified by Parker et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 17, wherein a longitudinal chamber member (Parker et al. Fig. 5: outer wall 32) connects the first portion (Parker et al. Fig. 5: at wall 38) of the first housing to the second portion (Parker et al. Fig. 5: at threads 33) of the first housing.
For claim 22, Duston et al. as modified by Parker et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 21, wherein a plurality of interior channel walls (Parker et al. Figs. 2, 3 and 5: 37) extend perpendicularly from the longitudinal chamber member (Parker et al. Fig. 5: outer wall 32), forming a plurality of channels between each set of adjacent interior channel walls, each channel connected to the inlet (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 10 and 14: 34) when the second housing is in the first position (Parker et al. as shown in Fig. 14).
For claim 23, Duston et al. as modified by Parker et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 17, wherein the second housing (Parker et al. 2) slideably engages the first and second housing portions (Parker et al. as discussed in [0037] and [0053]), enabling the second housing to slide between the first (Parker et al. as shown in Fig. 14) and second (Parker et al. as shown in Fig. 10) positions.
For claim 24, Duston et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 1, further comprising an inlet (Fig. 1: 16, 17) into the trap chamber, but fails to show wherein the first housing comprises a plurality of interior channel walls disposed within the trap chamber forming a plurality of sub-chambers, each sub-chamber connected to the inlet when the second housing is in the a first position where the inlet is open. Parker et al. teaches an insect trap (Figs. 1-2 and as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a first housing (Figs. 1-2: 3); wherein the first housing (Figs. 4, 5, 10 and 14: 3) comprises a plurality of interior channel walls (Figs. 2, 3 and 5: 37) disposed within the trap chamber forming a plurality of sub-chambers, each sub-chamber connected to the inlet (Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, 10 and 14: 34) when the second housing (Fig. 14: 2) is in a first position wherein the inlet is open (as shown in Fig. 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insect trap of Duston et al. to include sub-chambers connected to the inlet when the second housing is in a first position wherein the inlet is open as taught by Parker et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow the insects full access to the trap chamber.
For claim 31, Duston et al. discloses the insect trap of claim 1, further comprising an inlet (Fig. 1: 16, 17) into the trap chamber, but fails to show wherein the first housing comprises a bottom wall disposed at the inlet that is configured to provide grip for insects crawling into the trap chamber via the inlet. Parker et al. teaches an insect trap (Figs. 1-2 and as discussed in the abstract) comprising: a first housing (Figs. 1-2: 3); wherein the first housing comprises a bottom wall disposed at the inlet that is configured to provide grip for insects crawling into the trap chamber via the inlet (as discussed in [0029]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Duston et al. to include the bottom wall to provide grip for insects as taught by Parker et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because this will prevent the insects from sliding off of the insect trap before reaching the trap chamber.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duston et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0252074) in view of Black et al. (WO 2012030717 A2).
For claim 34, Duston et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to show wherein the trap chamber comprises a retention mechanism selected from the group consisting of histamine, a chemical toxin, diatomaceous earth, amorphous silica, and biological control agents. Black et al. teaches an insect trap (as discussed in [0028]) comprising: a retention mechanism selected from the group consisting of histamine, a chemical toxin, diatomaceous earth, amorphous silica, and biological control agents (as discussed in [0044] and [0045)). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Duston et al. to include the retention mechanism as taught by Black et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because this would assist in successfully capturing the insects that enter the trap.
Claim 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duston et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0252074) in view of Black et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0072711, herein Black et al. ‘711).
For claim 44, Duston et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show an outer package and an inner package enclosed within the outer package. However, Black et al. ‘711 teaches an insect trap comprising: an outer package (Fig. 2: 110) disposed within the reservoir and impermeable to gas, and an inner package (Fig. 2: 140) enclosed within the outer package, the inner package being permeable to gas (as discussed in [0057]); and an attractant composition (Fig. 2: 160) disposed with the inner package (as discussed in [0057]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Black et al. to include the outer package and the inner package as taught by Black et al. ‘711 with a reasonable expectation of success because the attractant can be controllably retained and dispersed inside of the reservoir.
Black et al. fails to specifically show wherein the inner package is configured to release the attractant composition at a release rate from about 15 ug per day to about 400 ug per day. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of Duston et al. and Black et al. ‘711 to include the inner package is configured to release the attractant composition at a release rate from about 15 ug per day to about 400 ug per day for the advantage of controllably dispersing the attractant at a desired rate according the type of pests or the amount of pests to be monitored, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8-9, 12, 17-24, 31, 34, 44, 48 and 65 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM.
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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights