DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a second office action final rejection on the merits.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7-8, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 have been amended, Claims 6 and 14 have been canceled, and Claims 2-5, 9-12, and 18 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification, and Claims have overcome almost each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 06/02/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Multiple reference numbers (150, 107, 107A, 107B) used to refer to the camera.
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: 1210.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) in view of Gan et al. (US 20230210102 A1). Per MPEP 2152.01, if the application is a continuation-in-part of an earlier U.S. application or international application, any claims in the new application not supported by the specification and claims of the parent application have an effective filing date equal to the actual filing date of the new application. Because the subject matter in this claim is not supported by the Specification and the claims of the parent application 17/796,563, the effective filing date is equal to the actual filing date of this new application, which is 04/25/2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Hawkins teaches an apparatus (100) comprising:
An entry aperture (106) configured to lead one or more insects to an imaging chamber (104) within the apparatus (Fig. 1B shows that entry aperture 106 leads one or more insects to chamber 104 where a camera can capture an image of the contents of chamber 104. Chamber 104 is within apparatus 100.);
Wherein the imaging chamber (104) is bounded by a door (102) disposed on a side surface of the apparatus such that a rear surface of the door defines a portion of the imaging chamber when the door is in a closed position (Fig. 1C shows that door 126 is on a side surface of apparatus 100 and bounds chamber 104 such that a rear surface of the door 102 defines a portion of the imaging chamber when the door is in a closed position.), and
Wherein rear of the door (126), the apparatus (100) comprises a removable and replaceable adhesive material or surface (122) configured to trap one or more insects thereon (Figs. 1B-1C and ¶27 states that base 122 comprises an adhesive configured to trap one or more insects thereon. ¶29 states that the adhesive may be removed and replaced by a fresh adhesive.); and
At least one imaging sensor (110) positioned opposite the rear surface of the door configured to capture images of the one or more insects adhering to the adhesive material or surface (Figs. 1B-1C show that a camera 110 is positioned towards the left side apparatus 100, opposite the rear surface of door 126 which lies towards the right side. ¶20 states that camera 110 captures images of the contents of chamber 104, where the one or more insects adhering to the adhesive material or surface of base 122 would be trapped.); and
A fan chamber (see Figs. 1A-1C; Fan 114 is placed in a fan chamber.), wherein the fan chamber comprises at least one fan (114).
The system of Hawkins discloses the claimed invention except for the fact that the rear surface of the door comprises a removable/replaceable adhesive material or surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the rear surface of the door of the system of Hawkins with a removable/replaceable adhesive material or surface to provide a larger surface on which to capture more insects, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
The system of Hawkins fails to teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the fan chamber is positioned below the imaging chamber, wherein the at least one fan is configured to generate negative air pressure by pulling air through the entry aperture and imaging chamber. Gan teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches an insect monitoring management system.), the system of Gan teaches a fan chamber (Fan 17 is in an enclosed space or cavity. Therefore, fan 17 is placed in a chamber [Source: “Chamber.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chamber. Accessed 23 Sep. 2026.].) positioned below an imaging chamber (16; see Fig. 1), wherein the at least one fan (17) is configured to generate negative air pressure by pulling air through the entry aperture and imaging chamber (See ¶29; Fan 17 generates negative air pressure and pulls air through an entry aperture 19 and imaging chamber 16.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hawkins to have the fan chamber be positioned below the imaging chamber, wherein the at least one fan is configured to generate negative air pressure by pulling air through the entry aperture and imaging chamber as taught by Gan with reasonable expectation of success to provide an effective method to capture insects, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 7, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hawkins further teaches a mesh grill (230) separating the imaging chamber from the fan chamber (See ¶38 and Figs. 1A-1C; Mesh grill 230 separates the fan chamber [which includes fan 114] from the imaging chamber.).
Regarding Claim 8, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hawkins further teaches at least one of: a pyramidal airflow diverter positioned at a bottom of the fan chamber configured to redirect airflow horizontally outward through open sides, and an electronics chamber positioned below the fan chamber (See Fig. 1A; Electronics chamber 116 lies below the fan chamber that holds fan 114.).
Regarding Claim 9, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 8.
Hawkins further teaches an image capture and processing module (115; ¶43 states that processor 115 serves to analyze the captured images.) configured to transmit the images to a platform for species identification and classification (See ¶40 and ¶43).
The system of Hawkins as modified by Gan teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the image capture and processing module is configured to transmit images to a cloud-based platform that uses artificial intelligence or machine learning techniques. It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the platform of the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan with a cloud-based platform that uses artificial intelligence or machine learning techniques to provide on-demand access and better automate the task of visual identification, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) as modified by Gan et al. (US 20230210102 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (KR 20180063610 A).
Regarding Claim 2, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan fails to explicitly state that the at least one imaging sensor comprises two autofocus cameras.
Park teaches at least one imaging sensor comprising at least two autofocus cameras (290, 390; Pg. 7 states that cameras 290 and 390 have lenses 291,391 that perform auto-focus functions.). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the camera of the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan with at least two autofocus cameras as taught by Park with reasonable expectation of success to automatically capture images of the insects as they pass through (Park, Pg. 4), since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding Claim 4, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hawkins further teaches at least one light source positioned adjacent to the at least one imaging sensor (¶32 states that camera 110 includes a light.).
The system of Hawkins as modified by Gan teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the at least one light source is positioned adjacent to the at least one imaging sensor within the imaging chamber. Parker teaches at least one light source (131) is positioned adjacent to the at least one imaging sensor (190) within the imaging chamber (150; shown in Fig. 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the at least one light source of the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan be positioned adjacent to the at least one imaging sensor within the imaging chamber to provide better illumination to the insects captured by the cameras (Park, Pg. 5), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) as modified by Gan et al. (US 20230210102 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (CN 111328781 A).
Regarding Claim 3, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan fails to explicitly state that the apparatus is in electronic communication with an external camera configured to capture image data in a vicinity of or external to the apparatus.
Xu teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches an insect situation measuring and reporting device.), the system of Xu teaches an apparatus (shown in Fig. 1) that is in electronic communication with an external camera (800) configured to capture image data in a vicinity of or external to the apparatus (See Pg. 4; The external camera 800 captures image data in a vicinity of or external to the apparatus and is also in electronic communication with the apparatus.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan to have the apparatus be in electronic communication with an external camera configured to capture image data in a vicinity of or external to the apparatus as taught by Xu with reasonable expectation of success to allow the user to check the external condition and to check when a person is illegal intruding into the device (Xu, Pg. 4).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) as modified by Gan et al. (US 20230210102 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mailhou (JP 2019528785 A).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The system of Hawkins as modified by Gan teaches the invention except for the fact that the adhesive material or surface is positioned at approximately 35 degrees relative to an inner side surface of the apparatus. Mailhou teaches an adhesive material or surface (7) that is positioned at approximately 35 degrees relative to an inner side surface of an apparatus (shown in Fig. 13B and stated in Pg. 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the adhesive material or surface of the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan be positioned at approximately 35 degrees relative to an inner side surface of the apparatus as taught by Mailhou with reasonable expectation of success to make the trap easier and safer to use (Mailhou, Pg. 7), since 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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) as modified by Gan et al. (US 20230210102 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitterman (US 5634292 A).
Regarding Claim 10, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan fails to explicitly state that the door comprises a frame configured to support the adhesive material or surface within the imaging chamber.
Kitterman teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches an apparatus and method of attracting and trapping insects.), the system of Kitterman teaches a frame (shown in Fig. 21) configured to support the adhesive material or surface (440) within a chamber (shown in Fig. 17 and comprising walls 316, 318, 320, and 322.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan to have the door comprise a frame configured to support the adhesive material or surface within the imaging chamber as taught by Kitterman with reasonable expectation of success to better expose the trapping material on which the insects land.
Regarding Claim 11, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan and Kitterman, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 10.
The system of Hawkins as modified by Gan and Kitterman further teaches (references to Kitterman) that the frame (shown in Fig. 21) includes: a top roller (450) and a bottom roller (410) mounted within the frame (shown in Fig. 21), and a motor (480; Column 9 Lines 20-25 shows that drive module may be a drive motor.) operatively connected to and configured to incrementally rotate the bottom roller to expose fresh adhesive material or surface (shown in Fig. 22 and Column 8 Lines 15-40; Motor 480 helps incrementally rotate bottom roller 410 to dispense and expose the fresh adhesive material or surface 440.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) as modified by Gan et al. (US 20230210102 A1) and Kitterman (US 5634292 A) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Bondeson et al. (US 20170113883 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan and Kitterman, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 11.
However, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan and Kitterman fails to explicitly state that the apparatus comprises one or more sensors operatively coupled to the frame or door, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to: detect an amount of remaining adhesive material or surface, and generate an alert when replacement of the adhesive material or surface is required.
Bondeson teaches an apparatus (10) comprising one or more sensors (22) operatively coupled to a frame (20), wherein the one or more sensors (22) are configured to: detect an amount of remaining adhesive material or surface, and generate an alert when replacement of the adhesive material or surface is required (See ¶14; Sensor 22 detects the amount of the adhesive material and are also capable of generating an alert when replacement of the adhesive material is required.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan and Kitterman to include one or more sensors operatively coupled to the frame or door, wherein the one or more sensors are configured to: detect an amount of remaining adhesive material or surface, and generate an alert when replacement of the adhesive material or surface is required as taught by Bondeson with reasonable expectation of success to provide an accurate prediction of when refill and replacement is needed.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) in view of Kernaghan et al. (GB 2329100 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Hawkins teaches an apparatus (100) comprising:
An entry aperture (106) configured to lead one or more insects to an entry chamber (104) within the apparatus (Fig. 1B shows that entry aperture 106 leads one or more insects to chamber 104. Chamber 104 is within apparatus 100.);
Wherein the entry chamber is bounded by a door (126) disposed on a side surface of the apparatus (Fig. 1C shows that entry chamber 104 is bounded by a door 126 that is on a side surface of apparatus 100.) such that a rear surface of the door (126) defines a portion of the entry chamber (104) in a closed position (Fig. 1C shows that a rear surface of door 126 defines a portion of the entry chamber 104 in a closed position.);
At least one camera assembly (110) positioned opposite the rear surface of the door configured to capture video data of the one or more insects within the entry chamber (Figs. 1B-1C show that a camera 110 is positioned towards the left side apparatus 100, opposite the rear surface of door 126 which lies towards the right side. ¶32 states that camera 110 can capture video of the one or more insects as they enter the entry chamber 104.); and
A fan (114) configured to generate a controlled airflow through the entry chamber (See Figs. 1A-1C and ¶34; Fan 114 is configured to generate controlled airflow through the entry chamber 104.).
However, the system of Hawkins fails to explicitly state that the apparatus comprises a reversible fan, wherein the reversible fan is operable in a first direction to create a negative pressure to draw insects into the entry chamber and house them therein for imaging, and wherein the reversible fan is operable in a second direction to expel insects from the entry chamber into a secondary holding chamber.
Kernaghan teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches an insect catcher.), the system of Kernaghan teaches an apparatus (shown in Fig. 1) comprising a reversible fan (3), wherein the reversible fan (3) is operable in a first direction to create a negative pressure to draw insects into the entry chamber and house them therein for imaging (See Pg. 1 of Application; Reversible fan 3 may be operated in a first direction to create a negative pressure that draws insects into an entry chamber 1 where the insects can be housed for imaging.), and wherein the reversible fan (3) is operable in a second direction to expel insects from the entry chamber into a secondary holding chamber (See Pg. 1 of Application; Reversible fan 3 may be operated in a second direction to expel the insects from the entry chamber 1 into a second holding chamber.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hawkins to have the fan be a reversible fan, wherein the reversible fan is operable in a first direction to create a negative pressure to draw insects into the entry chamber and house them therein for imaging, and wherein the reversible fan is operable in a second direction to expel insects from the entry chamber into a secondary holding chamber as taught by Kernaghan with reasonable expectation of success to provide a safe, humane method to trap and release insects (Kernaghan, Pg. 1 of Application).
Regarding Claim 19, the system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Hawkins further teaches that the apparatus further comprising at least one of:
An electronics chamber including at least one of a microcontroller, printed circuit boards, and a power distribution system, wherein the electronics chamber is positioned above or adjacent to the entry chamber,
A mesh grill separating the entry chamber from the reversible fan, and
A lid to secure or cover at least a portion of the electronics chamber (See Fig. 1A; The apparatus comprises an electronic chambers comprising a microcontroller 115, 116 and power source 118, wherein the electronic chamber is positioned adjacent to the entry chamber 104.).
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) as modified by Kernaghan et al. (GB 2329100 A) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Ulibarri (WO 2016034933 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, the system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 13.
However, the system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan fails to explicitly state that the apparatus comprises a secondary holding chamber is physically contiguous with the entry chamber and is sealed off from an external environment except through airflow routes controlled by the reversible fan.
Ulibarri teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches an insect trap.), the system of Ulibarri teaches an apparatus (1) comprising a secondary holding chamber (6) is physically contiguous with an entry chamber (2) and is sealed off from an external environment except through airflow routes controlled by a fan (5; Fig. 3 and Pgs. 13-14 of the Applicant’s application; Secondary holding chamber 6 is physically contiguous with entry chamber 2 and is sealed off from the external environment except through the airflow routes controlled by fan 5.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan to include a secondary holding chamber is physically contiguous with the entry chamber and is sealed off from an external environment except through airflow routes controlled by the reversible fan as taught by Ulibarri with reasonable expectation of success to provide an effective way to one-way passage to capture the insects (Ulibarri, Pg. 13 of the Application).
Regarding Claim 17, the system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan and Ulibarri, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 15.
Hawkins further teaches at least one lighting element adjacent to the at least one camera assembly configured to illuminate an interior of the entry chamber (See ¶32; Camera assembly 110 comprises a light element adjacent to the camera that illuminates an interior of the entry chamber 104.).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) as modified by Kernaghan et al. (GB 2329100 A) and Ulibarri (WO 2016034933 A1) as applied to claims 15 and 17 above, and further in view of Kurosawa et al. (JP 2013236586 A).
Regarding Claim 16, the system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan and Ulibarri, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 15.
However, the system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan and Ulibarri fails to explicitly state that the apparatus comprises at least one transparent sheet positioned within the entry chamber configured to maintain the one or more insects at a specified focal range relative to the at least one camera assembly.
Kurosawa teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches an insect capturing device.), the system of Kurosawa teaches an apparatus (1) comprising at least one transparent sheet (3e; see Pg. 4) positioned within a chamber (3) configured to maintain the one or more insects at a specified focal range relative to the at least one camera assembly (See Pgs. 3-4 and Fig. 2; Transparent sheet 3e is positioned within a chamber 3 maintains insects in a specified focal range relative to the camera assembly 6.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan and Ulibarri to include at least one transparent sheet positioned within the entry chamber configured to maintain the one or more insects at a specified focal range relative to the at least one camera assembly as taught by Kurosawa with reasonable expectation of success to capture better images of the insects.
Regarding Claim 18, the system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan and Ulibarri, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 17.
The system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan and Ulibarri teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the at least one lighting element comprises one or more circular light emitting diode (LED) strips surrounding or adjacent to a camera assembly mount. Kurosawa teaches an apparatus (1) comprising one or more circular light emitting diode (LED) strips surrounding or adjacent to a camera assembly mount (See Pgs. 3-4 and Fig. 2; Light source 4 can be a circular LED strip that is adjacent to a camera assembly mount 6.). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to substitute the at least one lighting element of the system of Hawkins as modified by Kernaghan and Ulibarri with at least one lighting element comprises one or more circular light emitting diode (LED) strips surrounding or adjacent to a camera assembly mount as taught by Kurosawa with reasonable expectation of success to capture better images of the insects, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) in view of Xu et al. (CN 111328781 A).
Regarding Claim 20, Hawkins teaches a system comprising:
At least one apparatus (100), the at least one apparatus (100) comprising:
An entry aperture (106) configured to lead one or more insects to an imaging chamber (104) within the apparatus (Fig. 1B shows that entry aperture 106 leads one or more insects to chamber 104 where a camera can capture an image of the contents of chamber 104. Chamber 104 is within apparatus 100.);
Wherein the entry chamber (104) is bounded by a door (126) disposed on a side surface of the apparatus (Fig. 1C shows that entry chamber 104 is bounded by a door 126 disposed on a side surface of apparatus 100.) such that a rear surface of the door (126) defines a portion of the entry chamber when the door is in a closed position (Fig. 1C shows that a rear surface of door 126 defines a portion of the imaging chamber 104 when door 126 is in a closed position.), and
Wherein rear of the door (126), the apparatus (100) comprises a removable and replaceable adhesive material or surface (122) configured to trap one or more insects thereon (Figs. 1B-1C and ¶27 states that base 122 comprises an adhesive configured to trap one or more insects thereon. ¶29 states that the adhesive may be removed and replaced by a fresh adhesive.);
At least one imaging sensor (110) positioned opposite the rear surface of the door configured to capture images of the one or more insects adhering to the adhesive material or surface (Figs. 1B-1C show that a camera 110 is positioned towards the left side apparatus 100, opposite the rear surface of door 126 which lies towards the right side. ¶20 states that camera 110 captures images of the contents of chamber 104, where the one or more insects adhering to the adhesive material or surface of base 122 would be trapped.); and
An electronics chamber including at least a processor or microcontroller (See Fig. 1A; The apparatus comprises an electronics chamber comprising a processor 115.).
The system of Hawkins teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the rear surface of the door comprises a removable/replaceable adhesive material or surface. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the rear surface of the door of the system of Hawkins with a removable/replaceable adhesive material or surface to provide a larger surface on which to capture more insects, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
However, the system of Hawkins fails to explicitly state that the system comprises at least one external camera operatively connected with the processor or microcontroller, wherein the at least one external camera is configured to capture image or video data in a vicinity of or external to the apparatus.
Xu teaches in the same field of invention as applicant’s invention (Abstract teaches an insect situation measuring and reporting device.), the system of Xu teaches an apparatus (shown in Fig. 1) comprising at least one external camera (800) operatively connected with the processor or microcontroller (700; Pg. 4 states that external camera 800 is operatively connected with microcontroller 700.), wherein the at least one external camera (800) configured to capture image or video data in a vicinity of or external to the apparatus (See Pg. 4; The external camera 800 captures image data in a vicinity of or external to the apparatus and is also in electronic communication with the apparatus.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hawkins to include at least one external camera operatively connected with the processor or microcontroller, wherein the at least one external camera is configured to capture image or video data in a vicinity of or external to the apparatus as taught by Xu with reasonable expectation of success to allow the user to check the external condition and to check when a person is illegal intruding into the device (Xu, Pg. 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Claim 1, on Pgs. 10-11, Applicant argues the following: “Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection should be withdrawn because the above- statement amounts to a general conclusory statement without a clear articulation of the reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (CA Fed. 2006) ("[R]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulate reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness" (emphasis added)). An obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 cannot be sustained absent some articulate rationale based upon the content of the prior art determined at the time the invention was made by the Applicant and based upon the prior art references being in analogous fields of endeavor. Accord In re Robinson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999); Ex parte Skinner, 2 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1788, 1789 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). See also KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 330, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to provide the rear surface of the door of the system of Hawkins with a removable/replaceable adhesive material or surface to provide a larger surface on which to capture more insects, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In addition, on Pg. 11, Applicant argues that “Gan does not disclose the features for which it is cited. Specifically, Gan doesn't provide a fan chamber as claimed and the alleged fan chamber 11 and fan 17 in Gan are not positioned below the imaging chamber 16 as required in claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2111 establishes that the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification”.
Lines 12-13 of Claim 1 require “a fan chamber positioned below the imaging chamber, wherein the fan chamber comprises at least one fan configured to generate negative air pressure by pulling air through the entry aperture and imaging chamber.”
In the rejection of Claim 1, Hawkins is relied upon for its teaching of a fan chamber (see Figs. 1A-1C; Fan 114 is placed in a fan chamber.), wherein the fan chamber comprises at least one fan (114). Gan teaches a fan chamber (shown in Fig. 1; Fan 17 is in an enclosed space or cavity. Therefore, fan 17 is placed in a chamber [Source: “Chamber.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chamber. Accessed 23 Sep. 2026.].) positioned below an imaging chamber (16; see Fig. 1), wherein the at least one fan (17) is configured to generate negative air pressure by pulling air through the entry aperture and imaging chamber (See ¶29; Fan 17 generates negative air pressure and pulls air through an entry aperture 19 and imaging chamber 16.).
Examiner notes that Applicant's argument seems to amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/A.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
