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 Group I in the reply filed on 7 April 2026 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)).
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7 April 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “formed with” should be replaced with a grammatically correct phrasing (e.g. formed in, formed by, received within). Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by Toledo (US 20220132824 A1).
For Claim 1, Toledo discloses an insect trap receptacle (lower portion 160, Fig. 13) for an insect trap (“A housing attachment feature 158 attaches the upper portion 150 to the lower portion 160 of the housing (e.g., via corresponding housing attachment features 168),” ¶0069), comprising:
a hollow body (hollow body 160, seen in Fig. 13 and in light of the alternative closure embodiment of Fig. 15B, ¶0081) defining an open upper end attachable to the insect trap for receiving insects from the insect trap (“via corresponding housing attachment features 168”, ¶0069), and an open lower end (the end sealed by the frictional closure type, Fig. 15B); and
a floor (base 170) mounted to the lower end of the body and movable between a closed position wherein the floor covers the open lower end (the position in which 160 & 170 are attached by the frictional closure, Figs. 13 & 15B), and an open position wherein the lower end is open and to a surrounding environment (open position is represented by the ajar configuration of 160 & 170 shown in Fig. 15B).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claims 5-7 & 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Toledo or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Toledo in view of Ryan (US 20190166820 A1).
For Claim 5, Toledo discloses the insect trap receptacle of claim 1, and it appears that Toledo further teaches wherein the floor is hingedly mounted to the body and is rotatable relative thereto by at least 90 degrees between the closed position and the open position (the hinge shown in Fig. 15B does not appear to include any structure(s) that would keep the floor from rotating to at least 90°).
However, if Applicant disagrees, then Ryan, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) further comprising a floor (door 38) hingedly mounted to a body (container 34) and rotatable relative thereto by at least 90 degrees between the closed position and the open position (hinge 42 is externally mounted, thereby allowing an increased swinging motion).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the hinged base arrangement of Toledo with an externally mounted hinge, to avoid the moving hinge component being bogged down by falling debris from the device, and yielding predictable results.
For Claim 6, Toledo discloses/teaches the insect trap receptacle of claim 5, and Toledo further discloses further comprising a latch mounted to the body for selectively securing the floor in the closed position (Fig. 15B).
For Claim 7, Toledo discloses/teaches the insect trap receptacle of claim 6, and Toledo further teaches wherein the latch is rotatably mounted to the body (at least one portion of the latch moves with the base, and thus is rotatable upon the opening of the door) and is moveable between a latched position wherein the latch engages with the floor (the latch engages with the base in the closed position), and an open position wherein the latch is disengaged from the floor and the floor is rotatable relative to the body (the latch moves at least a little in order to release the base into the open position).
For Claim 9, Toledo discloses/teaches the insect trap receptacle of claim 6, and Toledo further discloses wherein the floor defines a notch for receiving a portion of the latch in the latched position (as seen in the “friction lock” inset of Fig. 15B: several undulating, mating notches are found between the latch components).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rocha (US 20140137462 A1).
For Claim 2, Toledo discloses the insect trap receptacle of claim 1, and Toledo further discloses “A housing attachment feature 158 attaches the upper portion 150 to the lower portion 160 of the housing (e.g., via corresponding housing attachment features 168),” ¶0069 but is silent to the specifics of the attachment features.
Thus, Toledo is silent to further comprising a locking ring selectively fixable to the body about the open upper end and including a first locking feature adapted to selectively engage with a housing of the insect trap.
Rocha, like prior art above, teaches an insect control device (title, disclosure), further comprising a locking ring (locking mechanism 54 connected to the cylindrical upper portion of the upper perimeter 66 of cage 16) selectively fixable to the body about the open upper end and including a first locking feature adapted to selectively engage with a housing of the insect trap ¶0050-51,621.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the attachment mechanism between the upper end and the insect trap of Toledo with a bayonet type fixture as taught by Rocha, in order to ensure a strong and reliable connection between components, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 3, Toledo in view of Rocha teaches the insect trap receptacle of claim 2, and Rocha further teaches wherein the first locking feature is adapted to engage with the housing of the insect trap via rotation of the locking ring relative to the housing (“The lock pieces 58 are fitted with the holes 56. The user then rotates the bottom base 52 and retaining cage 16 in opposite directions to secure the locking pieces 58 within the holes 56,” ¶0062).
For Claim 4, Toledo in view of Rocha teaches the insect trap receptacle of claim 2,
Toledo in view of Rocha is silent to wherein the locking ring further comprises a second locking feature selectively engaging with a corresponding locking feature of the body of the receptacle for selectively fixing the locking ring to the body.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the locking ring 66 of Toledo in view of Rocha as a separate element which is affixable using the same locking technique as the locking mechanism 54 of Rocha, in order to provide a well-known adapter between the container and trap, 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.
Claims 8 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo (or Toledo in view of Ryan) as applied to claims 7 & 6 respectively above, and further in view of Maltz (US 20100200581 A1).
For Claim 8, Toledo discloses (or Toledo in view of Ryan teaches) the insect trap receptacle of claim 7.
Toledo is silent to wherein the latch is elastically biased into the latched position.
Maltz, like prior art above, teaches a two-part hinged container (title, disclosure) further comprising a latch elastically biased into the latched position (push button latch 16 biased via latch spring 36, Fig. 3 and ¶0024).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the latch mechanism of Toledo with a spring latch as taught by Maltz, in order to facilitate one-handed opening of the container ¶0029, and yielding predictable results.
For Claim 12, Toledo discloses (or Toledo in view of Ryan teaches) the insect trap receptacle of claim 6.
Toledo is silent to wherein the latch includes: a body defining a pressing face oriented radially outward from the body of the receptacle; a pair of protrusions extending from lateral sides of the body for rotatably engaging with the body of the receptacle; and a latching protrusion extending radially inward from the body for engaging with the floor.
Maltz, like prior art above, teaches a two-part hinged container (title, disclosure) further comprising a latch includes: a body defining a pressing face oriented radially outward from the body of the receptacle (the push surface of the push button 16, Fig. 3); a pair of protrusions extending from lateral sides of the body for rotatably engaging with the body of the receptacle (the two arms about which the button rotates, in the same manner as the instant invention); and a latching protrusion extending radially inward from the body for engaging with the floor (the inward protrusion in the same manner as the instant invention).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the latch mechanism of Toledo with a spring latch as taught by Maltz, in order to facilitate one-handed opening of the container ¶0029, and yielding predictable results.
Claims 10 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo (or Toledo in view of Ryan) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ryan and Maltz.
For Claim 10, Toledo discloses (or Toledo in view of Ryan teaches) the insect trap receptacle of claim 6.
Toledo is silent to wherein the body defines a first recess and a second recess on an exterior surface thereof receiving a hinge mount of the floor and the latch, respectively.
Ryan, like prior art above, teaches an insect trap (title, disclosure) further comprising a recess (holding 242) housing a hinge mount (hinge 242) of a floor (240).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the bottom of the container of Toledo to receive a hinge mount as taught by Ryan, in order to provide a housing groove to hold the hinge to avoid the moving hinge component being bogged down by falling debris from the device, and yielding predictable results.
Maltz, like prior art above, teaches a two-part hinged container (title, disclosure) further comprising a latch received in a recess on an exterior surface of the body (push button latch 16 housed in the box groove shown in Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the latch mechanism of Toledo with a spring latch as taught by Maltz, in order to facilitate one-handed opening of the container ¶0029, and yielding predictable results.
For Claim 11, Toledo as modified above teaches the insect trap receptacle of claim 10, and the resulting device further renders obvious wherein: the hinge mount is formed with the floor and rotatably mounted within the first recess (hinge 242 of floor 240 is rotatable in the housing of Ryan, represented in Fig. 15B, Toledo); and the latch is rotatably mounted within the second recess (as modified in by Maltz).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo as applied to claim 1 above.
For Claim 13, Toledo discloses the insect trap receptacle of claim 1, and Toledo further discloses wherein: the floor includes a base abutting the lower end of the body (the bottom end of 170, Fig. 15B).
Toledo is silent to wherein: a raised center portion extending from the base and into an interior of the body with the floor in the closed position; and the raised center portion of the floor includes a perimeter wall extending from the base of the floor, the perimeter wall having a size and shape corresponding to an inner wall of the lower end of the body, the perimeter wall arranged directly adjacent to and opposing the inner wall of the lower end of the body with the floor in the closed position for sealing the interior of the body relative to the floor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the bottom wall of Toledo to include a reinforcing wall which abuts and/or receives the mating wall, in order to ensure that the end wall is closed and sealed, to avoid releasing debris at an inopportune time, and since the Examiner takes Official Notice that a reinforcing wall for sealing containers is exceedingly well known in the art.
For Claim 14, Toledo discloses the insect trap receptacle of claim 13.
Toledo is silent to wherein the perimeter wall defines a corresponding recess formed in an underside of the floor, and a plurality of stiffening ribs defined by the floor extend through the recess.
However, Toledo shows the value of stiffening ribs (see 170, Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify an underside of the floor to provide an indentation corresponding with the perimeter wall of Toledo as modified above, and providing stiffening ribs in the indentation, since this is a well- known manufacturing technique for saving material and/or shipping weight while providing sufficient strength, and since the Examiner takes Official Notice that changing the topography of bottoms of containers is exceedingly well known in the art.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,302,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because instant claim 1 is wholly encompassed by claim 1 of ‘885.
Claims 13 & 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,302,885 in view of Toledo and/or Maltz (relied upon above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the latch required by the instant claim 14 is exceedingly well known in the art for moving a floor, door, or other closure from a closed to an open position about a hinge. Both Toledo (Fig. 15B) and Maltz (16, Fig. 3) show well-known latches cooperating with hinges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the opening mechanism of ‘885 to be latched, as shown in Toledo and/or Maltz, in order to improve the user interface and provide a well-known closure mechanism, yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of US 2852054 A, US 6293044 B1, US 20010047612 A1, US 20080315005 A1, US 20120110894 A1, US 20180213763 A1, US 20200120915 A1, US 1440301 A, US 20210323737 A1 as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention. The remaining references cited establish the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 In the same manner as described in ¶0026 of the instant specification, ¶0062 of Rocha notes a partial rotation for the de-/attachment of the two components.
Prosecution Insights