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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US Pub. 2017/0118971 A1) in view of Vernon (US Pat. 5,926,999).
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a hive beetle trap apparatus configured to be mounted on a bee hive and operated by bees, the apparatus comprising:
a capture panel (Fig. 2, column portion 1a);
one or more beetle holes passing through the capture panel (Fig. 2, entrance holes 13);
a first end cap, a second end cap (Fig. 2, plurality of lid portion 1b), wherein a capture space is formed between the capture panel, the first end cap and the second end cap (Fig. 2, the interior of column portion 1a is hollow).
However, Hwang fails to disclose as taught by Vernon, similarly drawn to a bait dispenser, a detainment tank configured to hold hive beetles (Fig. 7, collector bottle 34).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trap of Hwang to include the separate detainment tank of Vernon so as to not overcrowd the interior of the capture panel.
Regarding claim 2, Hwang in view of Vernon discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Vernon, a via tube passing through the first end cap and connecting the capture space to the detainment tank (Fig. 7, exit tube 32).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang in view of Vernon discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Hwang, a side wall with an edge connected to the capture panel (Fig. 2, the column portion 1a comprises three sides with edges between each side).
Regarding claim 4, Hwang in view of Vernon discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Hwang, wherein the side wall is a first side wall and the edge is a first edge, the apparatus further comprising: a second side wall with a second edge connected to the capture panel (See id).
Regarding claim 5, Hwang in view of Vernon discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Hwang, wherein the capture space is formed between the first side wall, the second side wall, the first end cap, the second end cap and the capture panel (Fig. 2, the three sides of column portion 1a surround a hollow interior).
Regarding claim 6, Hwang in view of Vernon discloses the claimed invention in addition to as taught by Hwang, wherein the one or more beetle holes is a plurality of beetle holes (Fig. 2, plurality of entrance holes 13).
However, Hwang in view of Vernon fails to disclose wherein the plurality of beetle holes have a minimum hole-width of no greater than 0.1875 inch. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to designate the size of the opening to be less than 0.1875 inches so as not to be too large for a bug to easily exit, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang in view of Vernon discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the plurality of beetle holes have a minimum hole-width of no greater than 0.125 inch. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to designate the size of the opening to be less than 0.125 inches so as not to be too large for a bug to easily exit, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US Pub. 2017/0118971 A1) in view of Vernon (US Pat. 5,926,999), and further in view of Braun (US Pat. 1,882,380).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang in view of Vernon discloses the claimed invention except for as taught by Braun, similarly drawn to an insect trap, detainment tank holes (Fig. 2, perforations 10) configured in the detainment tank (Fig. 2, receptacle 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trap of Hwang in view of Vernon to include the detainment tank holes of Braun to allow for ventilation of the trap. Doing so would improve the hygiene of the trap and reduce bacterial growth.
Regarding claim 9, Hwang in view of Vernon and Braun discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the detainment tank holes are no greater than 0.0625 inch across. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to designate the detainment tank holes to being less than 0.0625 inch so as not to allow the insects to escape, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY HOOPER MUDD whose telephone number is (571)272-5941. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 5712721467. 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.
/HENRY HOOPER MUDD/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights