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 .
Claims 1-7 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
claim 1, line 3, “flying insects the base having a recess floor surface” should read “flying insects, the base having a recess floor surface”,
claim 1, line 4, “the cabinet comprising a base and cover plate” should read “the cabinet comprising the base and the cover plate”,
claim 1, line 10, “the glue board the light source being” should read “the glue board, the light source being”,
claim 7 is objected to, because the recitation “wherein one or more of the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) provided on the underside surface of the lighting strip” lacks antecedent basis. Please amend the claim to say “wherein one or more of the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) is provided on an underside surface of the lighting strip so to direct light downwardly toward the glue board and cause luminescence on the glue board.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening et al. (US 20130312314 A1), hereafter referred to as “Greening” in view of Seetharam et al. (US 20220295774 A1), hereafter referred to as “Seetharam”.
Regarding claim 1, Greening teaches flying insect trap (10; figs. 1-7) comprising:
a cabinet (20; figs. 1-3) comprising a base (24) and a cover plate (22), the cover plate having at least one window (25, 26, 27) configured to allow ingress of flying insects (paragraph [0096] and fig. 1), the base having a recessed floor surface (fig. 6 showing a recessed portion where 40 is inserted);
a glue board (40) positioned within the cabinet (fig. 3) comprising the base and the cover plate (fig. 3), the cover plate and visible through the window (fig. 3), the glue board comprising:
a substrate (402; paragraph [0112], in view of paragraph [0016] of the instant specification);
an adhesive layer (404) applied to the substrate (paragraph [0099]); and
and
a light source (30, 32, 34, 36) disposed beneath an underside surface of the cover plate (figs. 1-3) and positioned to illuminate the glue board (fig. 3), but does not explicitly teach a fluorescent photoluminescent pigment incorporated within the adhesive layer; and
the light source being configured to emit light that activates the fluorescent photoluminescent pigment to cause the glue board to emit visible light substantially simultaneously with illumination by the light source, thereby attracting flying insects to the adhesive layer.
Seetharam teaches a flying insect trap (figs. 6-9; abstract) including fluorescent photoluminescent pigment (66; paragraphs [0052]-[0055]) incorporated within an adhesive layer (66; paragraphs [0052]-[0055]), and a light source (102) positioned to illuminate a glue board (62, 64, 66; fig. 9 and paragraph [0066]) and configured to emit light that activates the fluorescent photoluminescent pigment to cause the glue board to emit visible light substantially simultaneously with illumination by the light source (paragraphs [0052] and [0062]), thereby attracting flying insects to the adhesive layer (paragraphs [0052] and [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trap of Greening to include fluorescent photoluminescent pigment incorporated within the adhesive layer, and the light source being configured to emit light that activates the fluorescent photoluminescent pigment to cause the glue board to emit visible light substantially simultaneously with illumination by the light source, thereby attracting flying insects to the adhesive layer, as taught by Seetharam, in order to improve the attracting and repelling effect by creating a broader, combined spectrum from a narrow-band LED source, which can be turned to match specific insects visual sensitivity (claim 1 and paragraphs [0031]-[0033] of Seetharam).
Regarding claim 2, Greening in view of Seetharam teaches the flying insect trap of claim 1, and Seetharam further teaches that the fluorescent photoluminescent pigment (66) comprises fluorescent organic pigments (paragraph [0054], e.g., teaching optical brightening agents).
Regarding claim 3, Greening in view of Seetharam teaches the flying insect trap of claim 1, and Seetharam further teaches that the fluorescent photoluminescent pigment (66) is directly mixed into the adhesive layer (paragraph [0057]).
Regarding claim 4, Greening in view of Seetharam teaches the flying insect trap of claim 1, and Greening further teaches that the light source (32, 34, 26) comprises a plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (paragraph [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Greening in view of Seetharam teaches the flying insect trap of claim 4, and Greening further teaches that the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (32, 34, 26) are configured to emit light in a wavelength range of 300-700 nanometers (claim 20).
Regarding claim 7, Greening in view of Seetharam teaches the flying insect trap of claim 6, but does not explicitly teach that one or more of the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) provided on an underside surface of a lighting strip are configured to direct light downwardly toward the glue board and cause luminescence of the glue board.
Seetharam further teaches that one or more of the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) provided on an underside surface of a lighting strip (102; fig. 9) are configured to direct light downwardly toward the glue board and cause luminescence of the glue board (paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trap of Greening in view of Seetharam, such that one or more of the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) provided on an underside surface of a lighting strip are configured to direct light downwardly toward the glue board and cause luminescence of the glue board, as further taught by Seetharam, in order to improve the irradiation of the fluorescent surface to further improve the attracting effect (paragraph [0066] of Seetharam).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greening in view of Seetharam as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Preuschl (US 20140027800 A1), hereafter referred to as “Preuschl”.
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings of Greening in view of Seetharam teaches the flying insect trap of claim 4, and further teaches wherein the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) (30, 32, 34, 36 of Greening) are provided on a lighting strip (102 as relied on Seetharam) having an upper surface and an underside surface (fig. 9 of Seetharam), and whereby one or more of the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) are provided on the underside surface of the lighting strip (fig. 9 and paragraph [0066] of Seetharam), but does not explicitly teach that one or more of the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) are provided on the upper surface of the lighting strip.
Preuschl teaches a lighting strip with one or more of a plurality of light emitting diodes (13) provided on both the upper surface and underside surface of the lighting strip (paragraphs [0026] and [0030]; see also fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the trap of Greening in view of Seetharam to include that one or more of the plurality of light emitting diodes (LEDs) are provided on the upper surface of the lighting strip, as taught by Preushl, in order to increase the attracting effect of the trap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully 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. As shown in the rejection above, Greening in view of Seetharam teaching each and every limitation of claim 1.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights