DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a first office action non-final rejection on the merits. Claims 1-20 as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (See ¶79, ¶111-113, and ¶180-215) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
Regarding ¶37 of the Specification, Examiner notes that color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Figs. 1B-1X are objected to because they contain excessive amounts of grayscale shading. Details of the claimed invention are difficult to discern, and the drawings are not of sufficient quality so that all details are reproducible in the printed patent. See MPEP 608.02; 37 CFR 1.84.
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.
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Multiple reference numbers (150, 107, 107A, 107B) used to refer to the camera.
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Line 2 of the abstract, the phrase “In one embodiment” is used. Abstract should avoid the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner notes that throughout the Specification there is strange spacing between the letters of the words. Furthermore, several paragraphs in the Specification use different fonts.
In ¶3, the acronym “EEE” should be expanded on first use “eastern equine encephalitis (EEE)”.
In ¶70, the acronym “ASIC” should be expanded on first use “ASIC (application-specific integrated circuit)”.
In ¶76, the short-form “LoRa” should be expanded on first use “LoRa (“long range”)”.
In ¶77, the acronym “GPS” should be expanded on first use “Global Positioning System (GPS)”.
In ¶80, the acronym “R-CNN” should be expanded on first use “R-CNN (Region-based Convolutional Neural Network)”.
In ¶82, the phrase “Reference 35 (Stewart)” should be clarified as it refers to a reference cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶93, the acronym “CPU” should be expanded on first use “central processing unit (CPU)”.
In ¶98, the acronyms “HDMI and USB” should be expanded on first use “HDMI (High-Definition Multimedia Interface) and Universal Serial Bus (USB)”.
In ¶102, the phrase “at least one light source (e.g., 108)” should read “at least one light source (e.g., 108a-d)” to keep the limitation consistent throughout the Specification.
In ¶104, the phrase “lighting (108, etc)” should read “lighting (108a-d, etc.)” to keep the limitation consistent throughout the Specification.
In ¶111, the phrases “Ref. 32” and “Ref. 35” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶112, the phrase “Ref. 34” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶113, the phrase “Ref. 33” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶120, the phrases “Refs. 1-4”, “Refs. 5, 6”, and “Refs. 7-10” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶121, the phrase “Ref. 11” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶122, the phrase “Ref. 12” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶129, the limitation “image data 935A-C” should read “image data 925A-C” to keep the limitation consistent throughout the Specification.
In ¶133, the phrase “Ref. 13” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶134, the phrases “Ref. 14” and “Refs. 6-30” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶138, the phrases “Refs 1,15”, “Ref. 15”, and “Ref. 16”should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563. Examiner notes that the reference numbering is not consistent with ¶92 of parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶139, the phrases “Ref. 19” and “Ref. 20” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563. Examiner notes that the reference numbering is not consistent with ¶93 of parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶140, the phrases “Ref. 11” and “Ref. 20” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563. Examiner notes that the reference numbering is not consistent with ¶94 of parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶141, the phrase “Ref. 21” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563. Examiner notes that the reference numbering is not consistent with ¶95 of parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶142, the phrases “Ref. 12” and “Ref. 23” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶144, the phrase “Ref. 20” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563. Examiner notes that the reference numbering is not consistent with ¶98 of parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶149, the phrase “Ref. 23” should be clarified as referring to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563. Examiner notes that the reference numbering is not consistent with ¶103 of parent application 17/496,563.
In ¶154-156, there are certain numbers in [], which seem to refer to references cited in the IDS of the parent application 17/496,563.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The use of the terms “raspberry pi (R-Pi)” (See ¶63), “Google Coral Accelerator” (See ¶70), “Bosch” (See ¶77), “MediaTek” (See ¶77), “Sensirion” (See ¶77), “Rohm” (See ¶77), “GoPro” (See ¶95), “Android” (See ¶117 and ¶160), “iOS” (See ¶117 and ¶160), “Nvidia” (See ¶128), “iPhone” (See ¶137), “Samsung” (¶137), and “Facebook” (See ¶139), which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 16-17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 16 Line 3, the limitation “the camera assembly” should read “the at least one camera assembly” to keep the limitation consistent with the parent claim 13.
In Claim 17 Line 2, the limitation “the camera assembly” should read “the at least one camera assembly” to keep the limitation consistent with the parent claim 13.
In Claim 20 Line 12, the phrase “an electronics including at least a processor or microcontroller” should read “electronics including at least a processor or microcontroller”.
In Claim 20 Lines 13-14, the phrase “at least one external camera operatively in electronic communication with the at least a processor or microcontroller” should read “at least one external camera operatively in electronic communication with the processor or microcontroller”.
Examiner notes that throughout the Claims there is strange spacing between the letters of the words.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the phrase “a removable/replaceable adhesive material or surface” in Line 6 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear. In other words, is the phrase meant to read “a removable or replaceable adhesive material or surface” or “a removable and replaceable adhesive material or surface”? For the purposes of examination, the phrase in Line 6 of the claim will be interpreted as reading “a removable or replaceable adhesive material or surface”.
In addition, Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends to claim the imaging chamber functionally or as a positively recited structural limitation. Lines 2-3 of the claim recite “an entry aperture configured to lead one or more insects to an imaging chamber within the apparatus”. This is a functional limitation. However, Lines 4-5 of the claim states that “a rear surface of the door is positioned within the imaging chamber in a closed position”, which positively recites the imaging chamber as a structural limitation. For the purposes of examination and in light of the Drawings, Specification, and the dependent claims, the “imaging chamber” was interpreted as being a positively recited structural limitation. Please note that claims 4, 6, and 10 positively recite the imaging chamber as well which is inconsistent with the functional recitation of Claim 1 Lines 2-3.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends to claim the entry chamber functionally or as a positively recited structural limitation. Lines 2-3 of the claim recite “an entry aperture configured to lead one or more insects to an entry chamber within the apparatus”. This is a functional limitation. However, Lines 4-5 of the claim states that “a rear surface of the door is positioned within the entry chamber in a closed position”, which positively recites the entry chamber as a structural limitation. For the purposes of examination and in light of the Drawings, Specification, and the dependent claims, the “entry chamber” was interpreted as being a positively recited structural limitation. Please note that claims 14-17 and 19 positively recite the entry chamber as well which is inconsistent with the functional recitation of Claim 13 Lines 2-3.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends to claim the secondary holding chamber functionally or as a positively recited structural limitation. Lines 5-6 of the parent claim 14 recite “wherein the reversible fan is operable in a second direction to expel insects from the entry chamber into a secondary holding chamber”. This is a functional limitation. However, Lines 1-2 of the claim positively recite the secondary holding chamber as a structural limitation. For the purposes of examination, the secondary holding chamber in Lines 1-2 of the claim was interpreted as being a positively recited structural limitation.
In addition, Claim 15 recites the limitation “the external environment” in Line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding Claim 20, the phrase “a removable/replaceable adhesive material or surface” in Line 7 of the claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear. In other words, is the phrase meant to read “a removable or replaceable adhesive material or surface” or “a removable and replaceable adhesive material or surface”? For the purposes of examination, the phrase in Line 7 of the claim will be interpreted as reading “a removable or replaceable adhesive material or surface”.
In addition, Claim 20 is indefinite because it is unclear if Applicant intends to claim the imaging chamber functionally or as a positively recited structural limitation. Lines 3-4 of the claim recite “an entry aperture configured to lead one or more insects to an imaging chamber within the apparatus”. This is a functional limitation. However, Lines 5-6 of the claim states that “a rear surface of the door is positioned within the imaging chamber in a closed position”, which positively recites the imaging chamber as a structural limitation. For the purposes of examination and in light of the Drawings, Specification, and the dependent claims, the “imaging chamber” was interpreted as being a positively recited structural limitation.
Claims 2-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hawkins (US 20250176521 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 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.);
A door (126) on a side surface of the apparatus (Fig. 1C shows that door 126 is on a side surface of apparatus 100.),
Wherein a rear surface of the door (126) is positioned within the entry chamber (104) in a closed position (Fig. 1C shows that a rear surface of door 126 is positioned within 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.).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 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.);
A door (126) on a side surface of the apparatus (Fig. 1C shows that door 126 is on a side surface of apparatus 100.),
Wherein a rear surface of the door (126) is positioned within the imaging chamber (104) in a closed position (Fig. 1C shows that a rear surface of door 126 is positioned within the imaging chamber 104 in a closed position.),
Wherein rear of the door (126), the apparatus (100) comprises a removable/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.).
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.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) in view of Park (KR 20180063610 A).
Regarding Claim 2, the system of Hawkins, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, the system of Hawkins 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 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 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 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 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.
Claims 3 and 20 are 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 3, the system of Hawkins, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, the system of Hawkins 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 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).
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.);
A door (126) on a side surface of the apparatus (Fig. 1C shows that door 126 is on a side surface of apparatus 100.),
Wherein a rear surface of the door (126) is positioned within the imaging chamber (104) in a closed position (Fig. 1C shows that a rear surface of door 126 is positioned within the imaging chamber 104 in a closed position.),
Wherein rear of the door (126), the apparatus (100) comprises a removable/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.);
An electronics including at least a processor or microcontroller (See Fig. 1A; The apparatus comprises electronics comprising a processor 115.).
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.
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).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) in view of Mailhou (JP 2019528785 A).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of Hawkins, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
The system of Hawkins 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 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 6-9 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).
Regarding Claim 6, the system of Hawkins, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Hawkins further teaches 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).
However, the system of Hawkins fails to explicitly state 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 (11) 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.
Regarding Claim 7, the system of Hawkins as modified by Gan, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 6.
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 6.
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawkins (US 20250176521 A1) in view of Kitterman (US 5634292 A).
Regarding Claim 10, the system of Hawkins, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, the system of Hawkins 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 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 Kitterman, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 10.
The system of Hawkins as modified by 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 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 Kitterman, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 11.
However, the system of Hawkins as modified by 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 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 14 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 14, the system of Hawkins, as shown above, teaches the limitations of claim 13.
Hawkins further teaches that the apparatus comprises 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 14.
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 14 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 14.
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 the 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 the 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 the 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 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 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 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 a secondary holding chamber is physically contiguous with the entry chamber and is sealed off from the external environment except through airflow routes controlled by the reversible fan 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 15.
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Brey et al. (US 20230270097 A1) teaches an invention relates to insect traps, image capture and data collection.
Bergengren (US 20170290318 A1) teaches devices that eliminate flying insect pests.
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
Prosecution Insights