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 .
This document is responsive to applicant’s amendments filed 9/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US PG Pub 2014/0137462) in view of Lee (US PG Pub 2021/0400944).
Regarding claim 1, Rocha discloses:
An insect eliminating device comprising: a body (see fig 2, ref 14); a light portion including: a light portion (76); a central conduit providing fluid communication between an open space in a top portion of the body and a bottom portion of the body (see fig 2); a fan (90), mounted in the body to direct air from the top through the central conduit and into the bottom; and a grid (93) mounted at a bottom end of the central conduit including a plurality of openings sized to allow air and insects to pass downward into the bottom of the body and prevent insects from passing upwards into the central conduit (see paragraph 0057).
Rocha does not disclose that the light portion is a flickering light. Lee teaches a similar device having a flickering light (see paragraph 0178). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the flickering light of Lee with the device of Rocha yielding the predictable result of providing a flickering light to attract insects.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses in paragraph 0102 that the light sources may emit light in different wavelengths. Paragraph 0178 discloses that the drive unit may control on/off or flickering of the light sources, and the like. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to control the light sources such that some flicker and some are on or off, thus creating two different patterns.
Regarding claim 5, Rocha as modified discloses the device of claim 1, but does not disclose: further comprising a shade mounted in the body, wherein the shade surrounds the flickering light portion. Lee teaches a light source shade (210). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the shade of Lee with the device of Rocha for the purpose of providing a weatherproof cover for the light (see paragraph 0085).
Regarding claim 6, Rocha as modified discloses:
The insect eliminating device of claim 1, wherein the light portion includes at least one constant light element (see Rocha paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 7, Rocha as modified discloses:
The insect eliminating device of claim 1, further comprising a cage element configured to prevent insects from exiting the bottom of the body (see Rocha ref 16).
Regarding claim 8, Rocha as modified discloses the device of claim 1, but does not disclose:
The insect eliminating device of claim 1, further comprising a control circuit operably connected to the light portion and the fan to selectively activate the flickering light portion and the fan to draw insects from the top of the body into the central conduit and to the bottom of the body. Lee teaches control circuitry to selectively activate the fan and light (see at least paragraphs 0132 and 0178). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the control circuit of Lee with the device of Rocha for the purpose of controlling the operation of the device.
Regarding claim 17, Rocha as modified discloses the device of claim 8, but does not disclose:
further comprising an input device operably connected to the control circuit, wherein the control circuit selectively operates the light portion and the fan based on input provided by the input device. Lee teaches further comprising an input device operably connected to the control circuit, wherein the control circuit selectively operates the light portion and the fan based on input provided by the input device (see paragraph 0133). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the control input of Lee with the device of Rocha yielding the predictable result of being able to control the device.
Regarding claim 19, Rocha as modified discloses:
The insect eliminating device of claim 1, wherein the light portion further comprises a constant light source (see Rocha paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 20, Rocha as modified discloses:
The insect eliminating device of claim 19, wherein the constant light source includes a plurality of constant light elements (see Rocha paragraph 0052).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US PG Pub 2014/0137462) in view of Lee (US PG Pub 2021/0400944) in further view of KR 20240038242, hereinafter 242.
Regarding claim 3, Lee as modified discloses the device of claim 1, but does not directly disclose: wherein the flickering light portion includes a first group of light emitting elements configured to emit light in a first pattern and a second group of light emitting elements configured to emit light in a second pattern.
242 teaches a similar device:
The UV light emitting unit 150 includes a plurality of UV-LEDs with different UV wavelengths or flicker patterns that emit light to attract various types of pests. The UV light emitting unit 150 can emit light from a plurality of UV-LEDs individually or all at the same time. In other words, the UV light emitting unit 150 is not affected by the distribution of different pest species depending on the installed location and can maintain an attractive force against pests.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to control the flicker pattern of different lights differently from each other for the purpose of targeting different species simultaneously.
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified discloses:
The insect eliminating device of claim 3, further comprising a support provided in the body, wherein the first group of light emitting elements and the second group of light emitting elements are mounted on the support (see Lee fig 7, ref 60).
Claims 9 -16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US PG Pub 2014/0137462) in view of Lee (US PG Pub 2021/0400944) in further view of Toledo (US PG Pub 2022/0132824).
Regarding claim 9, Rocha as modified discloses the device of claim 1, but does does not disclose light and the fan being controlled based on an ambient light level detected by a sensor.
Toledo teaches a similar device further comprising a light sensor operably connected to the control circuit, wherein the control circuit selectively activates the light portion and the fan based on an ambient light level detected by the light sensor (see paragraph 0011). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to control the light and fan based on ambient light as taught by Toledo for the purpose of matching use of the device to ambient light conditions (see paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 10, Rocha as modified discloses:
The insect eliminating device of claim 9, further comprising an input device operably connected to the control circuit, wherein the control circuit selectively activates the light portion and the fan based on input provided by the input device (see Toledo paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 11, Rocha as modified discloses:
The insect eliminating device of claim 9, further comprising a power source mounted in the body and configured to provide power to the control circuit, light portion and the fan (see Rocha paragraphs 0015, 0020, and 0052).
Regarding claim 12, Rocha as modified discloses:
The insect eliminating device of claim 11, wherein the power source is a battery (see Rocha paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 13, Rocha as modified discloses a battery, but does not explicitly disclose that the battery is rechargeable. The examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize a rechargeable battery as the battery because batteries mounted within a device similar to Lee or Rocha would necessarily be rechargeable in order to function as described.
Regarding claim 14, Rocha as modified discloses:
The insect eliminating device of claim 11, further comprising a solar panel (see Rocha ref 86) mounted on the body and operably connected to the power source to recharge the power source.
Regarding claim 15, Rocha as modified discloses a battery, but does not explicitly disclose that the control circuit includes a charging circuit configured to control charging of the power source. The examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include charging circuitry in the control circuit for the purpose of recharging the battery as set forth in the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, Rocha as modified discloses a battery, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising a wire connectable to an exterior power source, wherein the wire is electrically connected to the power source and operable to recharge the power source. Rocha further discloses receiving power from an external source. The examiner takes Official Notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the external power source taught by Rocha to charge the battery in order for the battery to function without having to remove or replace it.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rocha (US PG Pub 2014/0137462) in view of Lee (US PG Pub 2021/0400944) in further view of Dolshun (US PG Pub 2022/0022441).
Regarding claim 18, Rocha as modified discloses the device of claim 1, but does not disclose:
furth comprising a stand configured to receive the body. Dolshun teaches a similar device having a stand (see fig 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a stand with the device for the purpose of utilizing the device without needing from which the device can hang.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is found in the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICHARD G DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8am-6:00pm 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Collins can be reached on 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.
/RICHARD G DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
