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 I (claims 1-10) and Species A (Fig 1A) in the reply filed on 09/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/27/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/21/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
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: 110a.
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 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 1-10 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.
Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d at 1212. In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655. Claim 1 recites a power supply arranged to deliver an electrical signal having sufficient energy to exceed a let-go threshold of a target rodent’s prehensile body part. This limitation is unclear as the electrical signal energy is defined based on reference to an object that is variable, particularly to the behavior of a target rodent’s body part, the rodent of undefined size, species, etc. The relationship between the let-go threshold energy and rodent is not sufficiently defined. The specification fails to provide ranges of let-go thresholds for various rodents to help clarify, and the let-go energy thresholds for various rodent prehensile body parts do not appear to be standard values found in the knowledge of ordinary skill. Overall, it is unclear what energy threshold the electrical signal must meet.
The specification defines the term substantially, saying that substantially is understood to mean that the characteristic may vary by up to 30 percent. Claim 3 says that the chamber has an internal surface that is “substantially smooth”. It is unclear how something may be smooth + or – 30%, and therefore the scope of this term and the claim is unclear. Is the applicant requiring the floor be formed of a material with a certain coefficient of friction, texture, etc.?
The term “generally” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “generally” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Is the applicant requiring the floor be formed of a material with a certain coefficient of friction, texture, etc.?
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baldwin (GB 2107164 A, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Baldwin, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding Claim 1:
Baldwin teaches an apparatus (Fig 1, rotated 90 degrees, such that the entrance is oriented downwards), comprising:
a chamber (tube 1, Fig 1) arranged to be self -clearing (self-clearing to the same extent as the applicant’s invention, in that the entrance is located on the bottom, enabling the animal to fall out of the chamber once deceased).
an electrically conductive graspable member (mesh 4a, Fig 1; Pg 2, lines 115-125); and
a power supply (electric cell 15, Fig 3), the power supply coupled to the electrically conductive graspable member and arranged to deliver an electric signal to the electrically conductive graspable member, the electric signal having sufficient energy to exceed a let-go threshold of a target rodent's prehensile body part (Pg 2, lines 105-125).
Regarding claim 3:
Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the chamber has an internal surface that is substantially smooth and generally slippery to a target rodent's paws (as best understood, this is taught by Baldwin, given the lack of texture shown on the internal surface of the chamber in Figs 1-2, and Pg 3, lines 44-46, which says the tube is formed of plastic, same as in the applicant’s invention).
Regarding claim 4:
Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the electrically conductive graspable member is arranged as a metal mesh structure (Pg 1, lines 103-104).
Regarding claim 5:
Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses an electrode (mesh 5a), the electrode coupled to the power supply and electrically isolated from the electrically conductive graspable member wherein the power supply is arranged to provide a first electrical potential to the electrically conductive graspable member and a second electrical potential, different from the first electrical potential, to the electrode (Pg 1, lines 105-120; see Fig 3).
Regarding claim 6:
Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the power supply includes at least one battery (Pg 1, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 7:
Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the power supply is arranged to deliver an electrical signal of between about 10 volts and about 50,000 volts (Pg 1, lines 50-60).
Regarding claim 9:
Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses a trigger circuit arranged to detect the presence of the target rodent in the chamber (Pg 2, lines 80-115).
Regarding claim 10:
Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses an attractant platform wherein the chamber has an open proximal end arranged to receive the target rodent into the chamber (see ‘entrance’ in Fig 1) and a closed distal end (opposite end to ‘entrance’ in Fig 1), the attractant platform arranged proximate the closed distal end (perforated wall 3, Fig 1; when oriented in the 90deg rotated position, as in the mapped embodiment of Baldwin, this wall may function as a ‘platform’ under plain meaning, as it would be elevated).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Rich (US 20050044775 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rich, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Baldwin fails to specifically disclose wherein the chamber has a length of at least three inches (3 in.) and a cross-sectional area of at least four square inches ( 4 sq. in.).
Rich discloses a similar electrocution animal trap with a chamber having a length of at least 3 inches and a cross-sectional area of at least 4 square inches (¶0037).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have ensured the chamber of Baldwin was dimensioned such that it had a length of at least 3 inches and a cross-sectional area of at least 4 square inches, as in Rich, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure sufficient space for the targeted animal, based on its size, to maneuver into the trap across the electrodes. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Tremain (NZ 539551 A), hereinafter referred to as Tremain, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 8:
Baldwin discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the power supply is arranged to deliver an electrical signal as a pulsed direct current (DC) energy (Pg 2, lines 10-50: make or break circuit pulses source DC current by repeatedly switching the current on and off, the result of which would be a square wave).
Baldwin fails to specifically disclose that the pulsed DC has a pulsing frequency of between about 10 Hz and about 1000 Hz.
Tremain discloses a similar rodent electrocution trap, where current is pulsed at a frequency of 250 Hz (Pg 3, line 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 have pulsed the current of Baldwin at a frequency of 250 Hz, as in Tremain, in order to provide a current application cycle that is fast enough to prevent the rodent from recovering between pulses, and in order to more efficiently and quickly kill the targeted rodent. Further, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention, many of which are electric-based rodent traps with metal mesh or metal plates which serve as electrodes across which a potential is formed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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 on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
