DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Black and white photographs 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, color photographs, including photocopies of photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via EFS-Web or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via EFS-Web, 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 black and white. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with black and white drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color/black and white 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).
In the instant application the drawings are not proper black and white line drawings, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.84 and MPEP §608, requiring solid and clear black lines for the purposes of reproduction. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent. In this case the shading would prevent satisfactory reproduction characteristics.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 5-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BeesNThings Outdoor Wood Device Insect Trap; available since 4/16/2017 (see attached NPL) in view of KIM CHANG SIK et al. (KR 20090048690 A; see NPL translation).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1)]
PNG
media_image1.png
920
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1 BeesNThings discloses an insect trap comprising an entrance unit (corresponding to upper wooden section of Fig. 1) with at least one bee tunnel (Fig. 1 above) providing access to the interior of the entrance unit and a passage to a clear catch basin (corresponding to lower clear catch section of Fig. 1) below the entrance unit, wherein the catch basin comprises: At least one wall (Fig. 1 above); a releasing door (Fig. 1).
BeesNThings does not disclose a closing mechanism horizontally situated below the entrance unit, wherein the closing mechanism extends outwardly from the interior of the catch basin through the wall of the catch basin and is moveable in a horizontal motion such that in a first position the closing mechanism blocks the passage and in a second position the closing mechanism does not block the passage.
Kim teaches a closing mechanism (Fig. 4; 30) horizontally situated below an entrance unit (Fig. 2; 13, 18), wherein the closing mechanism extends outwardly from an interior of a catch basin (10, 40) through the wall of the catch basin and is moveable in a horizontal motion such that in a first position the closing mechanism blocks the passage and in a second position the closing mechanism does not block the passage (page 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the entrance unit and catch basin of BeesNThings to include a closing mechanism below the entrance unit, wherein the closing mechanism extends outwardly from the interior of the catch basin through the wall of the catch basin and is moveable in a horizontal motion, as taught by Kim, in order to close off the through hole access (page 6).
Regarding claim 3 BeesNThings in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. BeesNThings further discloses wherein the releasing door is moveable in a vertical motion and allows insects in the catch basin to be released alive (page 2 of attached NPL).
Regarding claims 5-6 BeesNThings in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. BeesNThings further discloses wherein the entrance unit is manufactured from wood (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 7-9 BeesNThings in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. BeesNThings further discloses at least two bee tunnels (shown in Fig. 1 above).
Regarding claims 10-11 BeesNThings in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. BeesNThings further discloses wherein the entrance unit and the catch basin are generally rectangular in shape (Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 14-15 BeesNThings in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. BeesNThings further discloses wherein the catch basin is manufactured from plastic.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BeesNThings Outdoor Wood Device Insect Trap; available since 4/16/2017 (see attached NPL) in view of KIM CHANG SIK et al. (KR 20090048690 A; see NPL translation), further in view of Prince, Bruce H. (US 20010047612 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13 BeesNThings in view of Kim, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. BeesNThings in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the bee tunnels have a diameter between 3/8" and 1/2".
Prince teaches wherein the bee tunnels have a diameter between 3/8" and 1/2" [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bee tunnels of BeesNThings in view of Kim to be between 3/8" and 1/2", as taught by Prince, in order to attract carpenter bees [0019], and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s), in particular, the arguments directed to Mosher, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm PST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
