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 of Species B in the reply filed on 3/10/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 6 recites limitations not represented in the species/figures elected by applicant. Therefore, claim 6 is also withdrawn.
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 1-4 and 8-25 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12213474. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claims recite the same novel arrangement of the bait holder/sensing module/detector/bait station structure/functions, etc.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 19 is indefinite for simultaneously reciting “independent of any triggering” and “pre-determined intervals” where a pre-determined interval is a type of trigger.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being anticipated by Zirkle US 20170360026.
Regarding claim 1, Zirkle discloses a bait station for pest control, the bait station comprising:
an enclosure defining an access chamber and a bait chamber (105 of figure 1 to the same degree as applicant’s elected species), wherein the access chamber includes at least one entry port configured to permit entry of a pest into the enclosure (125), and wherein the bait chamber is configured to hold therein bait material (130); and
a load sensing module (140), wherein:
(i) the load sensing module is configured to sense changes in weight of bait material positioned in said bait chamber (paragraph 0023), and
(ii) the load sensing module is configured to output an output signal indicative of the sensed changes in the weight of the bait material (paragraphs 0026-0031), and
(iii) the load sensing module or the bait station is configured to transmit said output signal to a remote location (paragraph 0032); and
wherein: (a) the load sensing module is arranged in the bait chamber (figure 1), or (b) the load sensing module is located outside an internal space of the bait chamber or the access chamber to prevent damage to electrical componentry by pests.
Regarding claim 4, Zirkle discloses the bait station in accordance with claim 1, wherein the load sensing module comprises one or more load cells arranged relative to a platform portion of the bait chamber, wherein each load cell is coupled with one or more bait holding members configured to sense changes in weight of the bait material (paragraph 0027 describes contact points being the cells and the platform being the platform and the holding member may be the top surface areas associated with the contact points of the platform).
Regarding claim 19, Zirkle discloses the bait station in accordance with claim 1, wherein the load sensing module is configured to undertake weight measurements at pre-determined intervals independently of any triggering (paragraph 0028 describes “when the sensor 140 is a digital weight scale, a continuously variable analog signal may be transmitted from the sensor 140 to the wireless communication module 150. The analog signal provided by a digital weight scale may be accurate and allow for greater resolution as to the status of bait 130 consumption within the bait station 100. The analog signal generated by a digital weight scale may ultimately be displayed in its native form, namely the weight of the remaining bait, or it may be configured to output a representation of a percentage of remaining bait 130 through a conversion algorithm.”).
Regarding claim 20, Zirkle discloses the bait station in accordance with claim 1, wherein the load sensing module comprises a plurality of load cells, and wherein the load cells are configured to undertake weight measurements at a pre-determined sampling rate (paragraph 0027 describes a number of contact points which would be the plurality of load cells, and rest of paragraph 0027 describes the measurements collected by the contact points which correlate to the weight of the bait at times/rates which would be a pre-determined rate, etc.).
Regarding claim 21, Zirkle discloses the bait station in accordance with claim 1, wherein the bait station comprises a trans-receiver unit which is configured to transmit, to a remotely located server or to a remotely located computing device, the output signal indicative of the sensed changes in the weight of the bait material (150 of figure 1 and paragraph 0032).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zirkle in view of Power US 20190124913.
Regarding claim 2, Zirkle teaches the bait station in accordance with claim 1, but does not specify further comprising a detector module associated with the access chamber, wherein (i) the detector module is configured to detect presence of a pest in the access chamber, and (ii) the detector module is configured to output a signal indicative of presence or otherwise of a pest.
Power; however, does teach such type of sensor (paragraph 0005 “A sensor is in communication with the counting mechanism. The counting mechanism can be mechanically actuated or electronically activated when the sensor detects an event including, but not limited to, the presence of a rodent entering through the opening of the bait chamber.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a sensor, in order to enable power saving options for when no rodent is present for example.
Regarding claim 3, the references teach the bait station in accordance with claim 2, wherein the detector module is operatively coupled with the load sensing module and is configured to activate the load sensing module to sense changes in the weight of the bait material in response to detecting presence of the pest in the access chamber (see claim 2 rejection where the “counting mechanism” may be exchanged for the “load sensing module” since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zirkle.
Regarding claim 18, Zirkle teaches the bait station in accordance with claim 1, but does not specify wherein the load sensing module is located outside an internal space of the bait chamber or the access chamber to prevent damage to electrical componentry by pests.
Zirkle; however, does teach separate compartments for the same reason (110 of figure 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide various orientations of partition walls, in order to prolong the lifespan of the device; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious the combination of limitations recited in claims 1 and 8; particularly the specific arrangement of the horizontal elongate bait holding member, the upper and lower portions of the supporting clip, and the load sensing module, etc.
Claims 22-25 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: similar to those described above in claims 1 and 8, etc.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights