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Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/23/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 305 & 50. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “wherein the plurality of supply chambers is one of…” is not grammatically correct the plural are would be proper. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “adjusting the operation according to training information.” There is no definition or clear description of what the training information actually is, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably ascertain what said information is.
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 3-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the supply chambers" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 4-6 fail to remedy such deficiency.
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.
Claims 7-8 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 7 recites the limitation "an electrical signal" which is a limitation that was previously recited within claim 1. This creates a clarity issue; is the same feature or discrete of that similar feature recited earlier in the claim(s). Claim 8 fails to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "a power supply" which is a limitation that was previously recited within claim 1. This creates a clarity issue; is the same feature or discrete of that similar feature recited earlier in the claim(s).
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 § 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)(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 1-2, 7-8 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alp et al., the German Publication No. DE 10 2021 127 532 A1; herein Alp.
Re claim 1, Alp discloses a scent generator comprising:
a supply chamber (100; the evaporator tank, fig. 8) configured for receiving a volume of an olfactory stimulant (abstract and para 10, wherein the liquid is a smokeable liquid, smoking stimulates olfactory senses), the supply chamber including an electrically conductive foam (para 9, 16, 18, & 52-53, the n- or p- doped silicon foam, which is electrically conductive), configured to volatilize a portion of the olfactory stimulant (para 20, 40-41, & 52-54, the liquid is vaporized by the heat of the evaporator);
a power supply (15; the voltage source, fig. 1 & 4) configured to provide an electrical signal to the electrically conductive foam (para 11, 16, 20, 37, 48, & 54, the voltage is applied to the silicon foam) and cause the olfactory stimulant to volatilize (para 20, 40-41, & 52-54, the liquid is vaporized by the heat of the evaporator) and be ejected from the supply chamber (para 53, the vapor is released through the flow channel).
Re claim 2, Alp discloses the invention of claim 1, Alp further discloses wherein the olfactory stimulant is provided as a fluid (para 10, wherein a highly viscous fluid is utilized).
Re claim 7, as best understood, Alp discloses the invention of claim 1, Alp further discloses a control system (16; the control and/or regulation unit, fig. 1 & 4) for supplying the electrical signal to the electrically conductive foam (para 40, the heating voltage is controlled by the control and/or regulation unit).
Re claim 8, as best understood, Alp discloses the invention of claim 7, Alp further discloses wherein the control system comprises a power supply (15; the voltage source, fig. 1 & 4 and para 22), a processor (para 22, the microprocessor or microcontroller), memory (para 22, the microcontroller), data storage (para 40, within the control and/or regulation unit), a user interface (para 22, the pressure sensor), and a set of computer executable instructions (para 22, within the microcontroller to initiate heating).
Re claim 10, Alp discloses the invention of claim 1, Alp further discloses wherein the electrically conductive foam comprises a metallized material (para 20 & 42, the metal contact points; 8 & 9 are metallized surfaces).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lillamand et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0231210 A1; herein Lil in view of Alp.
Alp which discloses a vaporizer being analogous with the claimed invention since it is within the same field of endeavor of vaporizing a liquid. See MPEP 2141 (a) 1.
Re claim 1, Lil discloses a scent generator comprising:
a supply chamber (5; the hollow chamber, fig. 1-2) configured for receiving a volume of an olfactory stimulant (para 33-35, 72-77, & 79-80, both the pheromones and CO2 are olfactory stimulants to insects and are received within the hollow chamber), the supply chamber including an electrical connection (para 105, the electrical connection to the hollow chamber) and a porous material (para 77, wherein the liquid carrier is a spongy material) configured to volatilize a portion of the olfactory stimulant (para 34, 72, 74, & 78, heat allows the evaporation of the of the pheromones);
a power supply configured to provide an electrical signal (para 54-55, using some form of power supply).
Lil fails to disclose an electrically conductive foam configured to volatilize a portion of the olfactory stimulant and a power supply configured to provide an electrical signal to the electrically conductive foam. However, Alp discloses a scent generator comprising:
a supply chamber (100; the evaporator tank, fig. 8) including an electrically conductive foam (para 9, 16, 18, & 52-53, the n- or p- doped silicon foam, which is electrically conductive), configured to volatilize a portion of the olfactory stimulant (para 20, 40-41, & 52-54, the liquid is vaporized by the heat of the evaporator);
a power supply (15; the voltage source, fig. 1 & 4) configured to provide an electrical signal to the electrically conductive foam (para 11, 16, 20, 37, 48, & 54, the voltage is applied to the silicon foam) and cause the olfactory stimulant to volatilize (para 20, 40-41, & 52-54, the liquid is vaporized by the heat of the evaporator).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose an electrically conductive foam configured to volatilize a portion of the olfactory stimulant and a power supply configured to provide an electrical signal to the electrically conductive foam however, Alp discloses such a foam. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the natural evaporation of the pheromones and heating of CO2 as taught by Alp to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by controlling the diffusion of the vapors into the environment by actively heating the attractants. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 2, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 1, Lil further discloses wherein the olfactory stimulant is provided as one of a fluid (para 77, wherein the pheromones are initially in the liquid state and are transformed into gases both are fluids).
Re claim 3, as best understood, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 1, Lil further discloses a housing (1; the apparatus, fig. 1-2) configured for housing a plurality of supply chambers (fig. 2 and para 68-70, 73, & 75, both the vessel and source of CO2 act as supply chambers).
Re claim 4, as best understood, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 3, Lil further discloses wherein the plurality of supply chambers are supplied as a plurality of replaceable cartridges (fig. 1-2 and para 68, 73, & 75, the apparatus forms a housing for the flask and removable vessel/cartridge).
Re claim 5, as best understood, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 3, Lil further discloses wherein the housing further comprises a mixing chamber (para 70, the intermediate chamber via the fan therein).
Re claim 6, as best understood, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 5, Lil further discloses wherein the mixing chamber comprises a mixing device (6; the fan, fig. 1-2) which causes discharge of the olfactory stimulant (para 70 & 72-73, the fan mixes the CO2 and pheromones) through a vent of the housing (50; the orifices, fig. 1-2).
Re claim 7, as best understood, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 1, Alp further discloses a control system (16; the control and/or regulation unit, fig. 1 & 4) for supplying the electrical signal to the electrically conductive foam (para 40, the heating voltage is controlled by the control and/or regulation unit).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the doped silicon foam for heating the pheromones and CO2 as taught by Alp to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by controlling the diffusion of the vapors into the environment by controlling the heating of the attractants. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 8, as best understood, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 1, Alp as applied to Lil further discloses wherein the control system comprises a power supply (15; the voltage source, fig. 1 & 4 and para 22), a processor (para 22, the microprocessor or microcontroller), memory (para 22, the microcontroller), data storage (para 40, within the control and/or regulation unit), a user interface (para 22, the pressure sensor), and a set of computer executable instructions (para 22, within the microcontroller to initiate heating).
Re claim 9, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 1, Lil further discloses wherein the olfactory stimulant comprises pheromone analogs and synthetic lures (para 72, the pheromones) and a natural substance (para 72, the CO2).
Re claim 10, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 1, Alp as applied to Lil further discloses wherein the electrically conductive foam comprises a metallized material (para 20 & 42, the metal contact points; 8 & 9 are metallized surfaces).
Re claim 11, Lil discloses a pest trap comprising:
a scent generator (1; the apparatus, fig. 1-2) comprising a plurality of supply chambers (5 & 8; the chamber and flask; fig. 1-2) configured for receiving a volume of an olfactory stimulant (para 33-35, 72-77, & 79-80, both the pheromones and CO2 are olfactory stimulants to insects and are received within the hollow chamber and vessel as respective moments of operation), each supply chamber including an electrical connection (para 105, the electrical connection to the hollow chamber) configured to volatilize a portion of a respective olfactory stimulant (para 34, 72, 74, & 78, heat allows the evaporation of the of the pheromones) and cause a mixture of olfactory stimulants (para 54-55, 62, & 70-73, the fan mixes the CO2 and pheromones); and,
a power supply configured to provide an electrical signal (para 54-55, using some form of power supply) and cause the mixture to volatilize (para 105, wherein the electrical element is at least heating the refectory material to cause evaporation of the pheromones) and be ejected from the supply chamber (para 70-71, the battery powers the fan the mixes the attractant and allows the diffusion from the orifices); and
a body (10; the frame, fig. 1) configured for receiving and retaining unwanted insects attracted to the pest trap by the scent generator (para 59-62, via the net and suction means thereof).
Lil fails to disclose an electrically conductive foam configured to volatilize a portion of a respective olfactory stimulant and a power supply configured to provide an electrical signal to the electrically conductive foam. However, Alp discloses a scent generator comprising:
a supply chamber (100; the evaporator tank, fig. 8) including an electrically conductive foam (para 9, 16, 18, & 52-53, the n- or p- doped silicon foam, which is electrically conductive), configured to volatilize a portion of the olfactory stimulant (para 20, 40-41, & 52-54, the liquid is vaporized by the heat of the evaporator);
a power supply (15; the voltage source, fig. 1 & 4) configured to provide an electrical signal to the electrically conductive foam (para 11, 16, 20, 37, 48, & 54, the voltage is applied to the silicon foam) and cause the olfactory stimulant to volatilize (para 20, 40-41, & 52-54, the liquid is vaporized by the heat of the evaporator).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose an electrically conductive foam configured to volatilize a portion of a respective olfactory stimulant and a power supply configured to provide an electrical signal to the electrically conductive foam however, Alp discloses such a foam. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the natural evaporation of the pheromones and heating of CO2 as taught by Alp to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by controlling the diffusion of the vapors into the environment by actively heating the attractants. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 12, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 11, Lil further discloses a kill chamber into which the insects are drawn (para 60, the net or poison net).
Re claim 13, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 12, Lil further discloses wherein the kill chamber comprises at least one trapping device (para 59-60, the net is a trapping device).
Re claim 14, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 13, Lil further discloses wherein the at least one trapping device comprises an interchangeable catch retainer (para 60, according to the reusable or changeable nature).
Re claim 15, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 12, Lil further discloses wherein the kill chamber is associated with a monitoring system for monitoring efficacy of the pest trap (para 60, the sensor monitoring the capacity).
Re claim 16, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 15, Alp further discloses wherein the monitoring system provides monitoring information to a control system configured to adjust operation of the scent generator (para 18, 22, & 40, wherein the doped silicon foam allows for precise heating power and regulation via the control unit).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the doped silicon foam for heating the pheromones and CO2 as taught by Alp to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by controlling the diffusion of the vapors into the environment by controlling the heating of the attractants. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alp.
Re claim 9, Alp discloses the invention of claim 1, Alp further discloses wherein the olfactory stimulant comprises a cannabinoid (para 10).
Alp discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the cannabinoid is explicitly derived from a plant however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention that such a plant-derived cannabinoid is much more predictable and regulated, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lil in view of Alp as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Fryers et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0029984 A1; herein Fry.
Re claim 17, the combination of Lil and Alp discloses the invention of claim 16, the combination fails to disclose wherein the control system is configured to adjust the operation according to training information. However, Fry discloses a control system (1; the remote unit, fig. 1) configured to adjust the operation according to training information (para 102-104, wherein the remote system is informed by the reference and training data/network for the characteristic parameter).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the control system is configured to adjust the operation according to training information however, Fry discloses such a control operation. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the training information as taught by Fry to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by controlling the heating system in the same way to allow for optimal usage/release of the attractants. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0389533 A1 which discloses multiple supply chambers and mixing the attractants therein. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0150428 A1 which discloses a plug-in mosquito attractant with a mixture of attractants). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0106113 A1 which discloses a metal foam vaporization device. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0361471 A1 which discloses an intelligent insect trap with machine learning capabilities.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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 J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642