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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-8 and 21-32 are pending and have been examined in this application.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 07/28/2023, 02/29/2024, 03/21/2024, 08/23/2024, and 04/02/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 21-22, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150208636) in view of Shon (KR 100791102).
In regard to claim 1, David et al. discloses a pest control device comprising: a capacitive sensor array including a plurality of sensor pads (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0015], where there is a capacitive sensor array 13 with a plurality of sensor pads 12), the capacitive sensor array being configured to generate electrical output signals, each electrical output signal indicating a state of each sensor pad (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0018], where the capacitive sensor array 13 is configured to generate electrical output signals (electrical signals 22 from each individual sensor pad 12 that corresponds to a condition detected by each individual sensor pad 12) at least indicating a state of each individual sensor pad 12); and an electronic controller electrically connected to the capacitive sensor array, the electronic controller including a processor and a memory including a plurality of instructions (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0018], where there is an electronic controller 16 electrically connected to the capacitive sensor array 13 and where the electronic controller 16 at least includes a processor and a memory), which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: receive an updated parameter from a remote system (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0018], where the processor of the electronic controller 16 receives an updated parameter (the parameters and ranges of parameters that are to be observed by the sensor array 13) from a remote system 100 (parameters are changed or updated based on “the season of the year; environmental factors, such as for example humidity and/or temperature, or for the type of biologic activity being observed”)); store the updated parameter in a memory device of the electronic controller (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0018], where the processor of the electronic controller 16 at least stores the updated parameter (“the parameters and ranges of parameters that are to be observed” by the sensor array 13) in a memory device of the electronic controller 16); receive the electrical output signals from the capacitive sensor array (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0018], where the processor of the electronic controller 16 at least receives the electrical output signals (electrical signal 22 that corresponds to a condition detected) from the capacitive sensor array 13); recognize one or more electrical output signals from at least some of the plurality of sensor pads (Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0013], [0018], [0034-0035], and [0037-0038] where one or more electrical output signals 22 are detected and recognized from at least some (a single sensor pad is “some”) of the plurality of sensor pads 12 in the sensor array 13); determine a measured capacitance value for each sensor pad based on each electrical output signal (Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0018], where the processor of the electronic controller 16 at least determines a measured capacitance value (“a capacitive element, or any other type of detecting or sensing device. In other words, the sensor enables a methodology to determine the presence or quality of any one of the foregoing characteristics”) for each sensor pad 12 based on each electrical output signal 22); and detect a presence of a pest based on the measured capacitance value for each sensor pad and the updated parameter stored in the memory device (Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0018], where the processor of the electronic controller 16 at least detects a presence of a pest based on the measured capacitance value (“the sensor enables a methodology to determine the presence or quality”) for each sensor pad 12 and the updated parameter (“the parameters and ranges of parameters that are to be observed” by the sensor array 13) stored in the memory device). David et al. is silent on recognize a sequence of electrical output signals from at least some of the plurality of sensor pads. Shon discloses recognizing a sequence of electrical output signals from at least some of the plurality of sensor pads of a capacitive sensor array (Abstract and Figs. 3-5, where the sensor module 212 at least recognizes a sequence and time of electrical output signals from a capacitive sensor array with a plurality of sensor pads 211). David et al. and Shon are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include capacitive sensor devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. such that recognize a sequence of electrical output signals from at least some of the plurality of sensor pads in view of Shon. The motivation would have been to enable the device to execute different commands, based on the sequence or time that each sensor pads is activated.
In regard to claim 21, David et al. as modified by Shon discloses the pest control device of claim 1, wherein the electronic controller is further configured to record an event when the sequence of electrical output signals matches a predetermined sequence (Shon, Translated Specification Page 4 lines 16-32, where the electronic controller 212 is further configured to record a second event (such as “determining a cursor movement”) when the sequence of electrical output signals (“order in which a part… comes into contact with the plurality of capacitive sensors 211”) matches at least a predetermined sequence).
In regard to claim 22, David et al. as modified by Shon discloses the pest control device of claim 21, wherein the predetermined sequence corresponds to a geometric pattern traced across the plurality of sensor pads (Shon, Translated Specification Page 4 lines 16-32, where the predetermined sequence (such as “right to left”) corresponds to a geometric pattern traced across the plurality of sensor pads 211).
In regard to claim 29, David et al. as modified by Shon discloses the pest control device of claim 1, further comprising a temperature sensor configured to measure temperature of an environment surrounding the pest control device (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0015], where there is at least a temperature sensor (one of sensors 12 outside of 13) configured to measure temperature (“may detect any one or a combination of weight, length, width, height, volume, scent, noise, vibration, speed, chemistry, temperature, moisture, density, any other environmental condition,”) of an environment surrounding the pest control device).
In regard to claim 30, David et al. as modified by Shon discloses the pest control device of claim 1, wherein the capacitive sensor array comprises five sensor pads arranged in an X pattern (Shon, Figs. 3-5, where the capacitive sensor array 214 includes five sensor pads 211 arranged at least in an X pattern).
In regard to claim 31, David et al. as modified by Shon discloses the pest control device of claim 30, wherein each sensor pad is configured to provide higher sensitivity on a first side facing a surface contacted by the pest and lower sensitivity on a second side facing away from the surface (Shon, Figs. 3-5, where each sensor pad 211 is configured to provide higher sensitivity (detects touch) on a first side facing a surface 214 and lower sensitivity (not configured to detect touch) on a second side facing away from the surface 214; David et al., Paragraph [0002], where the device interacts with and detects pests).
In regard to claim 32, David et al. as modified by Shon discloses the pest control device of claim 31. David et al. as modified by Shon is silent on the lower sensitivity on the second side is provided by a cross-hatch grounding pattern. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon such that the lower sensitivity on the second side is provided by a cross-hatch grounding pattern, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the pattern provided on the second side as disclosed in David et al. as modified by Shon. The motivation would have been to provide structural support and increased flexibility for the sensor, in order to prevent damage caused by repeated touching or repeated application of pressure. Cross-hatch grounding patterns are also well known in circuitry and widely used in electronics applications for the aforementioned reasons.
Claims 2-6 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150208636) in view of Shon (KR 100791102) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Borth et al. (U.S. Pub. 20100134301).
In regard to claim 2, David et al. as modified by Shon discloses the pest control device of claim 1, wherein to detect the presence of the pest based on the measured capacitance value for each sensor pad and the updated parameter stored in the memory device comprises to: adapt a baseline for each sensor pad based on the measured capacitance value of the sensor pad and a programmable parameter value to generate an adapted baseline for each sensor pad (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0018], where a baseline is adapted for each sensor pad 12 based on the measured capacitance value (“a capacitive element, or any other type of detecting or sensing device. In other words, the sensor enables a methodology to determine the presence or quality of any one of the foregoing characteristics”) of the sensor pad 12 and a programmable parameter value (“the parameters and ranges of parameters that are to be observed” by the sensor array 13) to generate an adapted baseline (current baseline based on current parameter values) for each sensor pad 12), wherein the adapted baseline adapts to gradual environmental changes (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0018], where the adapted baseline (current baseline) at least adapts to gradual environmental changes (parameters are changed or updated based on “the season of the year; environmental factors, such as for example humidity and/or temperature, or for the type of biologic activity being observed”); Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0026], where the adapted baseline (current baseline) at least uses artificial intelligence to adjust threshold parameters to “improve accuracy of detections”); determine a difference between each measured capacitance value and its corresponding adapted baseline (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0018], where the processor at least determines a difference between each measured capacitance value (“the sensor enables a methodology to determine the presence or quality of any one of the foregoing characteristics”) and its corresponding adapted baseline (current baseline based on current parameter values)); determine whether a difference between the measured capacitance value of at least one sensor pad and its corresponding adapted baseline exceeds a pest value threshold (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0018], where the processor at least detects a presence of a pest (exceeds a pest value threshold) based on the measured capacitance value (“the sensor enables a methodology to determine the presence or quality”) of at least one sensor pad 12 and its corresponding adapted baseline (current baseline based on current parameter values)); record an event indicative of the presence of the pest when the difference exceeds the pest value threshold (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0002], [0015], [0018], and [0038] where the processor at least records an event indicative of the presence of the pest (“report the presence of a specific pest” and “the system 10 may generate reports or other automated alerts that are sent to an end user. These alerts may be based on preset or predetermined threshold levels, or upon unexpected increases or decreases in expected biologic activity”) when the difference exceeds the pest value threshold). David et al. as modified by Shon is silent on mathematical equations which use a measured resistance value and a measured parameter value to calculate a new baseline and which use the measured resistance value and the measured parameter value to calculate a difference compared to a threshold value; and record an event indicative of the presence of the pest when the difference exceeds the pest value threshold for longer than a counter limit. Borth et al. discloses mathematical equations which use a measured resistance value and a measured parameter value to calculate a new baseline and which use the measured resistance value and the measured parameter value to calculate a difference compared to a threshold value (Paragraph [0035], where there are mathematical equations which use a measured resistance value (NewSample) and a measured parameter value (OldSmoothedValue) to calculate a new baseline (NewSmoothedValue) and which use the measured resistance value (NewSample) and the measured parameter value (OldSmoothedValue) to calculate a difference (DIFF) compared to a threshold value); and record an event indicative of the presence of the pest when the difference exceeds the pest value threshold for longer than a counter limit (Paragraph [0035], where an event indicative of the presence of the pest is at least recorded (event message) when the difference (DIFF) exceeds the pest value threshold for longer than a counter limit (HIT COUNTER across a 6.4 second interval)). David et al. and Borth et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include pest management devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon such that mathematical equations which use a measured resistance value and a measured parameter value to calculate a new baseline and which use the measured resistance value and the measured parameter value to calculate a difference compared to a threshold value; and record an event indicative of the presence of the pest when the difference exceeds the pest value threshold for longer than a counter limit in view of Borth et al. The motivation would have been to reduce false alarms and increase detection accuracy of the device (Borth et al., Paragraph [0035]).
David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. is silent on a programmable time constant. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. such that the device uses a mathematical equation with a programmable time constant, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the mathematical equations disclosed in David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. The motivation would have been to use a mathematical equation which uses a variable to associate parameter changes to a baseline value. Furthermore, mathematical manipulation is a known practice in the art and deriving a mathematical relationship between a parameter and a measured capacitance involves only routine skill in the art.
In regard to claim 3, David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. discloses the pest control device of claim 2, wherein to receive the updated parameter from the remote system comprises to receive the programmable parameter value (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0018], where to receive the updated parameter from the remote system 100 comprises to receive the programmable parameter value (“the parameters and ranges of parameters that are to be observed” by the sensor array 13)). David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. is silent on the programmable time constant. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. such that to receive the updated parameter from the remote system comprises to receive the programmable time constant, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the mathematical equations disclosed in David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. The motivation would have been to use a mathematical equation which uses a variable to associate parameter changes to a baseline value. Furthermore, mathematical manipulation is a known practice in the art and deriving a mathematical relationship between a parameter and a measured capacitance involves only routine skill in the art.
In regard to claim 4, David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. discloses the pest control device of claim 3, wherein mathematical equations which use a measured resistance value and a measured parameter value to calculate a new baseline and which use the measured resistance value and the measured parameter value to calculate a difference compared to a threshold value (Borth et al., Paragraph [0035], where there are mathematical equations which use a measured resistance value (NewSample) and a measured parameter value (OldSmoothedValue) to calculate a new baseline (NewSmoothedValue) and which use the measured resistance value (NewSample) and the measured parameter value (OldSmoothedValue) to calculate a difference (DIFF) compared to a threshold value). David et al. as modified by Borth et al. is silent on to adapt the baseline for each sensor pad comprises to calculate each adapted baseline using the following equations:
A(new) = A(old) - A(old) * (Kf/2^16) + Cmeas
Adapted baseline = A(new) * (Kf/2^16)
wherein "Kf" is the updated parameter stored in the memory device, "Cmeas" is the measured capacitance value corresponding to the electrical output signal of one sensor pad, and "A(old)" is a variable stored in memory. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. such that to adapt the baseline for each sensor pad comprises to calculate each adapted baseline using the following equations:
A(new) = A(old) - A(old) * (Kf/2^16) + Cmeas
Adapted baseline = A(new) * (Kf/2^16)
wherein "Kf" is the updated parameter stored in the memory device, "Cmeas" is the measured capacitance value corresponding to the electrical output signal of one sensor pad, and "A(old)" is a variable stored in memory, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the mathematical equations disclosed in David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. The motivation would have been to reduce false alarms and increase detection accuracy of the device (Borth et al., Paragraph [0035]). Furthermore, mathematical manipulation is a known practice in the art and deriving a mathematical relationship between a parameter and a measured capacitance involves only routine skill in the art.
In regard to claim 5, David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. discloses the pest control device of claim 2, wherein to receive the updated parameter comprises to receive the pest value threshold (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0018], where to receive the updated parameter (via remote system 100) comprises to receive the pest value threshold (“the sensor enables a methodology to determine the presence or quality”)).
In regard to claim 6, David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. discloses the pest control device of claim 2, wherein to receive the updated parameter comprises to receive the counter limit (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0018], where to receive the updated parameter comprises to receive the programmable parameter value (“the parameters and ranges of parameters that are to be observed” by the sensor array 13); Borth et al., Paragraph [0035], where the counter limit (HIT COUNTER across a 6.4 second interval) is at least a parameter value).
In regard to claim 24, David et al. as modified by Shon discloses the pest control device of claim 1. David et al. as modified by Shon is silent on wherein the electronic controller is configured to enter a reduced power mode between operations to conserve battery power. Borth et al. discloses wherein the electronic controller is configured to enter a reduced power mode between operations to conserve battery power (Paragraph [0032], where the electronic controller is configured to enter a reduced power mode (“low-power consumption sleep mode”) between operations to conserve battery power). David et al. and Borth et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include pest management devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon such that wherein the electronic controller is configured to enter a reduced power mode between operations to conserve battery power in view of Borth et al. The motivation would have been to conserve energy, when the device is not being actively used, thereby at least reducing operating costs.
In regard to claim 25, David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. discloses the pest control device of claim 2, wherein the electronic controller is configured to change the adapted baseline from the remote system based on environmental factors and past activity recorded by the pest control device (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0018], where the adapted baseline (current baseline) at least adapts to gradual environmental changes (parameters are changed or updated based on “the season of the year; environmental factors, such as for example humidity and/or temperature, or for the type of biologic activity being observed”). David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. is silent on the electronic controller is configured to receive updated values of the programmable time constant from the remote system based on environmental factors and past activity recorded by the pest control device. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. such that to the electronic controller is configured to receive updated values of the programmable time constant from the remote system based on environmental factors and past activity recorded by the pest control device, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the mathematical equations disclosed in David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. The motivation would have been to use a mathematical equation which uses a variable to associate parameter changes to a baseline value. Furthermore, mathematical manipulation is a known practice in the art and deriving a mathematical relationship between a parameter and a measured capacitance involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 7-8 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150208636) in view of Shon (KR 100791102) and Borth et al. (U.S. Pub. 20100134301) as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Chornenky (U.S. Pub. 20140115950).
In regard to claim 7, David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. discloses the pest control device of claim 2, wherein to detect the presence of the pest based on the measured capacitance value for each sensor pad and the updated parameter stored in the memory device further comprises to: determine whether a difference between the measured capacitance value of at least one sensor pad and its corresponding adapted baseline exceeds a threshold (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0018], where the processor at least determines whether a difference between the measured capacitance value (“the sensor enables a methodology to determine the presence or quality”) of at least one sensor pad 12 and its corresponding adapted baseline (current baseline based on current parameter values) exceeds a threshold (exceeds a pest value threshold)); wherein to record the event indicative of the presence of the pest comprises to record an event indicative of the presence of the pest when the difference exceeds the pest value threshold (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0002], [0015], [0018], and [0038] where the processor at least records an event indicative of the presence of the pest (“report the presence of a specific pest” and “the system 10 may generate reports or other automated alerts that are sent to an end user. These alerts may be based on preset or predetermined threshold levels, or upon unexpected increases or decreases in expected biologic activity”) when the difference exceeds the pest value threshold); a counter limit (Borth et al., Paragraph [0035], where there is a counter limit (HIT COUNTER across a 6.4 second interval)). David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. is silent on the capacitance sensor has a human value threshold; the difference is less than the human value threshold for longer than a counter limit. Chornenky discloses the capacitance sensor has a human value threshold (Abstract and Paragraphs [0012], [0068], and [0081], where there is at least a human value threshold (“detect presence of insects, humans, household pets and animals”) for a capacitance sensor 92 to prevent activation when contacted by a human); the difference is less than the human value threshold (Paragraph [0068], where the difference is less than the human value threshold (“the capacitance and capacitance change versus time change”)). David et al. and Chornenky are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include pest management devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. such that the capacitance sensor has a human value threshold; the difference is less than the human value threshold for longer than a counter limit in view of Chornenky, since the human value threshold of Chornenky could be used with the counter limit and capacitance sensor array of David et al. as modified by Shon and Borth et al. The motivation would have been to prevent activation of the device when contacted by a human (Chornenky, Abstract).
In regard to claim 8, David et al. as modified by Shon, Borth et al., and Chornenky discloses the pest control device of claim 7, wherein to receive the updated parameter comprises to receive the human value threshold (David et al., Fig. 1 and Paragraphs [0015] and [0018], where to receive the updated parameter comprises to receive the programmable parameter value (“the parameters and ranges of parameters that are to be observed” by the sensor array 13); Chornenky, Abstract and Paragraphs [0012], [0068], and [0081], where the human value threshold (“detect presence of insects, humans, household pets and animals”) is at least a parameter value).
In regard to claim 26, David et al. as modified by Shon, Borth et al., and Chornenky discloses the pest control device of claim 7, wherein the electronic controller is configured to determine whether a sequence of sensor pad contacts matches a predetermined sequence (Shon, Translated Specification Page 4 lines 16-32, where the electronic controller 212 is further configured to determine whether a sequence of electrical output signals (“order in which a part… comes into contact with the plurality of capacitive sensors 211”) matches at least a predetermined sequence); and the capacitance sensor has a human value threshold (Abstract and Paragraphs [0012], [0068], and [0081], where there is at least a human value threshold (“detect presence of insects, humans, household pets and animals”) for a capacitance sensor 92). David et al. as modified by Shon, Borth et al., and Chornenky is silent on the electronic controller is configured to determine whether a sequence of sensor pad contacts matches a predetermined sequence when the difference exceeds the human value threshold. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon, Borth et al., and Chornenky such that the electronic controller is configured to determine whether a sequence of sensor pad contacts matches a predetermined sequence when the difference exceeds the human value threshold, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the device disclosed in David et al. as modified by Shon, Borth et al., and Chornenky. The motivation would have been to enable the device to execute different commands, based on human interaction with the device.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150208636) in view of Shon (KR 100791102) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Richards (U.S. Pub. 20140144389).
In regard to claim 23, David et al. as modified by Shon discloses the pest control device of claim 1. David et al. as modified by Shon is silent on a first visual indicator and a second visual indicator, wherein the electronic controller is configured to energize only the first visual indicator when a human interaction is detected. Richards discloses a first visual indicator and a second visual indicator, wherein the electronic controller is configured to energize the first visual indicator when a human is detected and energize the second visual indicator when a human is not detected (Paragraph [0031], where LED indicator light 7 on the human detecting ultrasonic sensor 2 would glow green if the human is detected… LED indicator light 8 would glow red if the human is not detected). David et al. and Richards are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include detection devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon such a first visual indicator and a second visual indicator, wherein the electronic controller is configured to energize only the first visual indicator when a human interaction is detected in view of Richards, since the first visual indicator and the second visual indicator of Richards could be used to signal the presence of a human. The motivation would have been to deactivate the device when a human is detected, thereby preventing accidental injury.
David et al. as modified by Shon and Richards is silent on wherein the electronic controller is configured to energize both visual indicators when the pest is detected. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon and Richards such that the electronic controller is configured to energize both visual indicators when the pest is detected, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the pest presence indicators as disclosed in David et al. as modified by Shon and Richards. The motivation would have been to quickly, visually alert the user that a pest was present near or in the device, without needing to look at reports or other forms of alerts sent to the user.
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150208636) in view of Shon (KR 100791102) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gardner et al. (U.S. Pub. 20030213161).
In regard to claim 27, David et al. as modified by Shon discloses the pest control device of claim 1. David et al. as modified by Shon is silent on a position sensor operable to generate position data indicative of movement of the pest control device. Gardner et al. discloses a position sensor operable to generate position data indicative of movement of the pest control device (Paragraph [0064], where there is a position sensor operable to generate position data (GPS sensor or “momentum switch, and other switches which sense physical movement of the trap”) indicative of movement of the pest control device). David et al. and Gardner et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include pest management devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon such a position sensor operable to generate position data indicative of movement of the pest control device in view of Gardner et al. The motivation would have been to record and collect information on rough treatment of the device, due to accidental movement (caused by people or weather).
In regard to claim 28, David et al. as modified by Shon and Gardner et al. discloses the pest control device of claim 27, wherein the position sensor is a momentum switch (Gardner et al., Paragraph [0064], where there is a momentum switch which operates as a position sensor for the device). David et al. as modified by Shon and Gardner et al. is silent on wherein the position sensor comprises a 3-axis digital accelerometer configured to detect orientation of the pest control device. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of David et al. as modified by Shon and Gardner et al. such that the position sensor comprises a 3-axis digital accelerometer configured to detect orientation of the pest control device, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the position sensor as disclosed in David et al. as modified by Shon and Gardner et al. The motivation would have been to detect the orientation of the device along with any positional movement by the device. Additionally, 3-axis digital accelerometers are widely known and used to detect and measure the movement of an object.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 01/23/2026) with respect to the rejection of the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. David et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150208636) in view of Shon (KR 100791102) discloses the applicant’s claim 1, as specified under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above.
In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding the independent claim, the office maintains that Shon is analogous art. Shon, David et al., and the instant claims are directed to sensors with at least a capacitive element, therefore the references are from the same field of endeavor. Furthermore, the device of Shon could be used to detect pests and thereby direct the signal receiver to execute a specific function. Shon clearly discloses the sensor as being used to control the receiver to output a specific function. The motivation to enable the device of David to perform a specific pest control function is a logical and straightforward extension of the controller function disclosed in Shon. Additionally, utilizing a sensor to control an output function is old and well known. Lastly, the argument that Shon’s sequence recognition is fundamentally different than the instant invention is irrelevant to the validity of the rejections. Claim 1 recites limitations which are clearly taught by the combination of David et al. and Shon, with the reliance on Shon being limited to teaching the limitation of “recognize a sequence of electrical output signals from at least some of the plurality of sensor pads”. Therefore, claim 1, as is currently recited, remains rejected by David et al. in view of Shon.
In response to the applicant’s arguments regarding the dependent claims, the applicant does not provide sufficient detail to understand why Borth’s mathematical approach cannot be applied to teach the instant claims. Similarly, it is not specified how Chornenky fails to teach the limitations of claims 7-8 and 26 or how Richards and Gardner fail to teach the limitations of claims 23 and 27-28. Merely reciting that these references do not disclose the limitations or that the combination of four references renders the rejection non-obvious is insufficient to overcome the current rejections.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of pest management and capacitive sensor devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights