Fishing – trapping – and vermin destroying – Traps – Insect
Reexamination Certificate
2000-04-13
2003-03-18
Ark, Darren W. (Department: 3643)
Fishing, trapping, and vermin destroying
Traps
Insect
C043S107000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06532695
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
The present invention relates to a single structure environment for multiple lure structures to enable consistent sampling and more precise data collection; multiple selection and utilization of baits for sampling; multiple trap installations and support; and elimination of the need for multiple trap structures each having different capabilities.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
For the purpose of using and sampling the effectiveness of lure products, insect populations, and trap environments, or to reduce the insect population, there is currently a need to use a variety of trap types which are conventionally available in order to take utilize different lure structure support capabilities as dictated by the physical shapes often dictated by the types of lure structures upon which different types of lure chemicals are supported. The term “lure” generally relates to a chemical agent or attractant and may exist in a pure state or with some other agent. Other agents may include killing agents where the lure structure also provides a killing mechanism for the insects or bonding agents with which the lure may be affixed to a structure to which it is attached. Killing can occur by adhesion, poison or other disabling mechanism.
Most available single traps will accommodate only one or two kinds of lure structures, and allow a maximum of two lure structures to be simultaneously employed. Lures are typically not always available in a variety of structures, the structure being often dictated by the characteristics of material transport or simply by the manufacturer's fiat. Because most conventional traps do not invite the use of more than one lure structure at a time, nor provide support for the majority of lure support structures available, the ability to utilize many different lures and lure structures both for investigating lure effectiveness and insect sampling could prove quite costly. The difference in lure support structures can be due to the makeup of the lure itself. Not all compositions are amenable to being supported from a card, for example. Some compositions must of necessity exist as a liquid and their liquid nature may be vital to the material transport of the lure attractant. Since each different type of lure structure would require the purchase of a trap which would accommodate its corresponding shape, size and support requirements. Conventional designs that disallow the use of simultaneous lures will, as a result, require a user to purchase and keep a larger number of traps each type of which facilitates utilizing a single type of lure, especially where several lures are generally never available in a single structure. For a user who required a large number of traps to cover a significant area, the cost of purchasing many different kinds of traps in order to utilize different types of lure structures could be prohibitively expensive and storage prohibitively burdensome. For example, a user requiring only 100 traps to cover a given area would be required to purchase 300 traps in order to utilize three different kinds of lure structure, three times the number that would normally be necessary.
Furthermore, studies conducted to investigate lure efficacy and that utilize conventional traps of various configurations would likely yield unreliable results. For example, if lure A were placed in a triangular paper trap and lure B were placed in a cylindrical plastic trap, it would be difficult, if not impossible to determine whether a discrepancy in the level of insect attraction and capture was due to trap shape and characteristics, or difference in lure composition between the two traps.
It is also obvious that the expense associated with performing a survey using two lures within a given area requires using multiple traps within a same area in order to support two lure structures, each having different structure requiring a different trap. Conventional traps then prevent a user from gaining the savings of the multiple of less types of traps, as well as with the common mixing and diffusion effect of placing the lures and lure structures in a very close proximity at the locations where atmospheric diffusion of the attractant begins. In addition, where the attractant and capturing structure are provided in a single package, the conventional traps available on the market would still not enable a user to test the effects of using such lures in the presence of each other, and to measure the competitive attraction and killing efficacy simultaneously. For example, if lure A was known to attract insect A successfully, and lure B was known to attract insect B successfully, the combination of lure A with lure B might well be observed to attract not only insects A and B, but insect C as well. Such experimentation by a user would not be possible using conventional traps. On the other hand if combination lure and killing structures A and B were provided simultaneously, and more insects attached themselves to structure A than B, it may result in a finding that A is more attractive than B at higher concentrations, such as may be found within an enclosed trap.
In regard to trap placement, conventional traps may be suspended, or may be placed on a flat surface, but are not usually configured such that either method of use may be implemented as the available structure warrants. Some traps have a flat bottom and must therefore be used as hanging traps, since they have no route for insects to enter if the trap placed on a flat surface, or with a special support which allows access to the bottom entrance. Similarly, most traps designed for surface use have no means by which they may be suspended. Although a surface type trap could certainly be modified in order to facilitate suspension, the process would require considerable time and energy, especially as effort multiplied for a large number of traps, and the modified traps may not necessarily continue to function as expected. The placement limitations of either of the conventionally available traps may also interfere with attraction of certain insects, or may lead to erroneous results in studies conducted to test the efficacy of a trap or to sample certain insect populations or certain lure attractants. For this reason, neither of the conventional options for traps makes an optimal sampling instrument.
Another important disadvantage of most traps is that they are not ventilated. In addition to not being ventilated, conventional traps may have connecting parts that fit together very snugly, further decreasing air circulation within the trap. This may prove problematic in extremely hot and humid conditions, as the trapped heat and moisture may cause damage to the lures that may render them ineffective. More importantly, where a liquid lure or exterminator were used in the reservoir of the trap, any significant amount of heating might create a vapor-heat barrier at the opening in the trap. Because there is only one opening for insect egress in conventional traps, such a barrier would very likely prove to be a deterrent to insects that might otherwise enter the trap. This is another potential problem in conducting studies that analyze the usefulness of the different types of traps and lures.
Finally, most conventional traps are designed such that they are not amenable to the utilization of an adherent type lure structure that is best affixed to a relatively flat surface. This is yet another feature of conventional traps that hinders the use of different lure structures in tandem for the object of targeting heightened performance of the trap or lures. Many traditional traps may also obscure viewing of the trap contents, making it fairly difficult to accurately analyze the results especially spot checks during the middle of the progression of a sampling without first opening or actually emptying the trap. Having to interrupt a sampling period by removing a trap for inspection introduces a further source of error both for the time the trap is missing and by tampering with the trap.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The insect trap of the pr
Ark Darren W.
Hovet Kenneth J.
LandOfFree
Multiple bait structure insect trap does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Multiple bait structure insect trap, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Multiple bait structure insect trap will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3044065