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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “for mix” should be replaced with --for mixing-- or similar language. 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, 3, 4, & 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the loose material” in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 3, 4, & 6-10 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claim 1, rejected above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-11, & 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 20170118971 A1, “Hwang) in view of Weil (US 2340256 A).
For Claims 1 & 3, Hwang discloses a system for termite control (title, disclosure), the system comprises:
a structure (main body 1) made of paper (“papers,” ¶0057) and having an interior surface (the inside of the main body 1); and
a soil, natural, or1 artificial material (each possibility of the super absorbent polymer described in ¶0061 reads on one of the claimed natural or artificial materials) with termite chemical therein ¶0067, wherein the loose material is placed on the interior surface (as shown in Fig. 3, insecticide portion 2 comprising base sheet 21 and absorbing material 22 is placed within the interior of, and resting on a bottom surface of, the main body 1).
Hwang is silent to the material being paperboard/cardboard2, the material being mixed with the termite chemical.
Weil, like prior art above, teaches a pest control device (title, disclosure) further comprising a structure made of cardboard (page 2, column 2, the last two paragraphs), and a natural or artificial material with chemical mixed therein (as discussed in page 2, column 1, third paragraph: the poison may be mixed with a powdered filler like “wood flour, china clay, or the like…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the material of the main body of Hwang and the powdered SAP with termiticide of Hwang to be card board and to be mixed, respectively, as taught by Weil, in order to provide well-known materials, and well-known methodologies for providing insecticides to the appropriate targeted areas, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 4, Hwang as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, and Hwang further discloses wherein the structure is shaped into a box (“the main body 1 could have any shapes such as square columns,” ¶0057).
For Claim 6, Hwang as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, and Hwang further discloses wherein the structure defines at least one open end (as seen in Fig. 3, mounting portions 14 formed on each end).
For Claim 7, Hwang as modified above teaches the system of claim 2, and Hwang further discloses wherein the structure defines a first open end and a second open end (as seen in Fig. 3, mounting portions 14 formed on each end).
For Claim 8, Hwang as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, and Hwang further discloses further comprising a removable cap (each of 1b), and
wherein the structure defines an open end that is closable by fitting of the removable cap thereon (as illustrated in Fig. 3, and the accompanying description found in ¶0058).
For Claim 9, Hwang as modified above teaches the system of claim 8, and Hwang further discloses wherein the removable cap is sized and shaped to fit to the open end (as illustrated in Fig. 3, and the accompanying description found in ¶0058).
For Claim 10, Hwang as modified above teaches the system of claim 1, and Hwang further discloses wherein the structure defines an open end that provides a pathway to the interior surface (as illustrated in Fig. 3, a termite is capable of entering open end 14 and accessing the insecticide portion 2, as discussed above).
For Claims 11 & 13, Hwang discloses a method for termite control (title, disclosure, mapped in a similar manner to claim 1 above), the method comprises:
providing a structure (main body 1) made of paper (“papers,” ¶0057) and having an interior surface (the inside of main body 1) with soil, natural, or3 artificial material (each possibility of the super absorbent polymer described in ¶0061 reads on one of the claimed natural or artificial materials) placed on the interior surface, wherein the soil, natural, or artificial material contains a termite chemical (as shown in Fig. 3, insecticide portion 2 comprising base sheet 21 and absorbing material 22 is placed within the interior of, and resting on a bottom surface of, the main body 1); and
placing the structure in a termite pathway (in the normal usage of the device, it is placed in the targeted area).
Hwang is silent to the material being paperboard/cardboard.
Weil, like prior art above, teaches a pest control device (title, disclosure) further comprising a structure made of cardboard (page 2, column 2, the last two paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the material of the main body of Hwang to be card board as taught by Weil, in order to provide well-known materials, and well-known methodologies for providing insecticides to the appropriate targeted areas, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 14, Hwang as modified above teaches the method of claim 11, and Hwang further discloses wherein the structure is shaped into a box (“the main body 1 could have any shapes such as square columns,” ¶0057).
For Claim 15, Hwang as modified above teaches the method of claim 11, and Hwang further discloses wherein the structure defines at least one open end (as seen in Fig. 3, mounting portions 14 formed on each end).
For Claim 16, Hwang as modified above teaches the method of claim 15, and Hwang further discloses wherein the structure defines a first open end and a second open end (as seen in Fig. 3, mounting portions 14 formed on each end).
For Claim 17, Hwang as modified above teaches the method of claim 11, and Hwang further discloses further comprising a removable cap (each of 1b), and
wherein the structure defines an open end that is closable by fitting of the removable cap thereon (as illustrated in Fig. 3, and the accompanying description found in ¶0058).
For Claim 18, Hwang as modified above teaches the method of claim 17, and Hwang further discloses wherein the removable cap is sized and shaped to fit to the open end (as illustrated in Fig. 3, and the accompanying description found in ¶0058).
For Claim 19, Hwang as modified above teaches the method of claim 11, and Hwang further discloses wherein the structure defines an open end that provides a pathway to the interior surface (as illustrated in Fig. 3, a termite is capable of entering open end 14 and accessing the insecticide portion 2, as discussed above).
For Claim 20, Hwang discloses a kit for termite control (title, disclosure, and as illustrated in Fig. 3), the kit comprises:
a structure (main body 1) made of paper (“papers,” ¶0057) and having an interior surface (the inside of main body 1); and
a termite chemical for mix (as discussed in ¶0067, the chemical is capable of being mixed with a base) with soil, natural, or artificial material for placement on the interior surface (as shown in Fig. 3, insecticide portion 2 comprising base sheet 21 and absorbing material 22 is placed within the interior of, and resting on a bottom surface of, the main body 1).
Hwang is silent to the material being paperboard/cardboard.
Weil, like prior art above, teaches a pest control device (title, disclosure) further comprising a structure made of cardboard (page 2, column 2, the last two paragraphs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the material of the main body of Hwang to be card board as taught by Weil, in order to provide well-known materials, and well-known methodologies for providing insecticides to the appropriate targeted areas, yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 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 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.
2 Interpretation note: the instant specification states that “Cardboard is a paper product that termites can and will eat.”
3 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.