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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1: Claims 2-16 in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-21 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 repeats the subject matter of claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaye (US 2014/0026467) in view of Steele (US 8314566) and Liang (US 2010/0050499).
For claim 2, Kaye teaches a trap for capturing flies (abstract and figs.) comprising:
(a) a front wall (Fig. 2 and 3, 14 or alternatively elements 14 and 12’), a back wall (Fig. 3, 12”), and at least one opening on the front wall (opening created by louvres 26), the front wall and back wall defining an interior space (see Fig. 2-3), and the front wall comprising one or more baffles (louvres 26 or alternatively 24a-c) adjacent the at least one opening (Fig. 1-3);
(b) a first glueboard (18a, para 0043) mounted on the back wall inside of the interior space (see fig. 3);
(c) an light source (16a-c) mounted within the interior space (Fig. 1), the light source having elongate shape (see Fig. 1) and the light emanating from the light source pointing toward the one or more baffles (see fig. 1 and 2).
Kaye is silent about wherein the light source is an LED having a strip shape and comprising a plurality of LED lightbulbs mounted along the strip shape, and having a wavelength of light emanating from the LED light source being from about 240 nm to about 420 nm.
However LED light strips are well known technology. Steele teaches a light source including an LED having a strip shape and comprising a plurality of LED lightbulbs mounted along the strip shape (abstract, see for instance Fig. 19, LED strip 154, Col. 11, lines 54-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the light source of Kaye an LED strip, as taught by the LED strip lights of Steele, in order to produce a desired voltage, color, or concentration of light (overall description of Steele).
Liang teaches an insect trap including a light source producing a range of light from about 240 nm to about 420 nm (see abstract, 360-420).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the light source of Kaye within the above wavelength range, as taught by Liang, in order to effectively lure insects to the trap.
For claim 3, modified Kaye further teaches wherein the LED light source comprises a plurality of LED light sources each having a strip shape (see Steele, strip 154).
For claim 4, modified Kaye further teaches wherein the trap is configured to be mounted to a wall (can be mounted to a wall by a user in any desired manner).
For claim 5, modified Kaye is silent about wherein the glueboard is removable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the glue board removable, in order replace the board and catch more insects and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
For claim 6, modified Kaye further teaches further comprising a power source (lights of Kaye must include some sort of power source).
For claim 7, modified Kaye is silent about wherein the power source is a battery.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed as substitution of functional equivalent to substitute the power source of modified Kaye with a battery, in order to remotely power the trap and since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
For claim 8, modified Kaye is silent about wherein the power source is an electric cord configured to attach to a power outlet.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed as substitution of functional equivalent to substitute the power source of modified Kaye with a power outlet, in order to continuously power the trap and since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
For claim 9, modified Kaye further teaches further comprising side walls connecting the front wall and the back wall (sides of the trap).
For claim 10, modified Kaye further discloses wherein the LED light source is mounted to at least one of the side walls (see Kaye, 16a-c mount to the sides).
For claim 11, modified Kaye is silent about wherein the glueboard is replaceable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the glue board replacable, in order replace the board and catch more insects and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
For claim 12, modified Kaye is silent about wherein the glueboard is removable.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the glue board removable, in order replace the board and catch more insects and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
For claim 13, modified Kaye is silent about wherein the first glueboard is a color selected from the group consisting of white and black.
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed as matter of design choice to make the glue board white or black, to trap insects, since the court found that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. In re Seid 161 F. 2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947) and applicant has no criticality for the color (applicant's specification states the glueboard maybe any color).
For claim 14, modified Kaye further discloses wherein the front wall is moveable (see Fig. 2).
For claims 15-16, modified Kaye is silent about wherein the LED light source is low voltage, wherein the voltage is less than 50 V.
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the LEDs of modified Kaye low voltage with a voltage of less than 50 V, in order reduce the amount of power needed for the lamps and provide a safe yet effective luring light, and 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. It is noted that applicant's disclosure lacks any criticality to the claimed range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3568. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 5712705301. 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.
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights