DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s response filed on 09/16/2025. Claims 5-8, 13-16 and 20 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 9-12, 17-19 and newly adding claims 21-22 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Response to Amendment
Drawing Objection: The amended claims filed on 09/16/2025 overcomes the Drawing Objection in the previous office action.
Applicant Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: Applicant respectfully traverses and submits that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes the following limitation: "the repellent comprising at least one of a water spray nozzle or a seismic driver or a non-fatal olfactory agent". Each element of this list is a physical element and not directed towards an abstract idea. A water spray nozzle is a physical device and not an abstract idea. A seismic driver is a physical device and not an abstract idea. A non-fatal olfactory agent is a physical device and not an abstract idea. For at least these reasons, Applicant believes the pending claims are directed towards patentable subject matter and requests reconsideration. (Remark Page 1)
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102/103:
In regards to Argument 1, with respect to claims 1 and 9, Applicant/s state/s that Claims 1 and 9 further includes the limitation of "a seismic driver". This limitation was integrated from original claim 7. Liu discloses "The multifunction animal repeller of the invention can repel animals through ultrasonic waves and sound waves, specifically... powerful ultrasonic waves are started to repel the animals, and various ultra-strong animal natural enemy sounds are selected". Liu discloses "ultrasonic and sound waves", but these are distinct frequencies from those produced by the "seismic driver" of Claim 1. The Audio Engineering Society Pro Audio Reference uses the following definition: “ultrasonic Of or relating to acoustic frequencies above the range audible to the human ear, or above approximately 20,000 hertz.” (https://www.aes.org/par/u/#ultrasonic). The following publication of the Acoustical Society of America defines seismic frequencies as between 0.1Hz and 20Hz: "The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) is leading research using seismic-infrasound-acoustic-meteorological (SIAM) arrays to determine structural characteristics of critical infrastructure. Fundamental, vibrational modes of motion for large structures, such as dams, are usually in the sub-audible, infrasound frequency range. Infrasound is low-frequency, sub-audible sound, traditionally defined to be between 0.1 to 20 Hz and below the range of human hearing from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz" (Seismic-infrasound-acoustic-meteorological sensors to dynamically monitor the natural frequencies of concrete dams, Diaz-Alvarez, et al.).
The ultrasonic frequencies disclosed by Liu, above 20kHz, cannot anticipate the seismic frequencies of Claim 1 (<20Hz). Based at least on this reason, Liu does not fully anticipate the limitations of Claim 1.
In regards to Argument 2, with respect to claim 19, Applicant/s state/s that Claim 19 includes the limitation of “the identification result based on a protein sequence associated with a venom of the species of animal”, support for which is provided by [0037], [0063-0065] of the specification. Neither Liu nor McCann teach or suggest use of a protein sequence. (Remark Page 3)
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: With respect to claims 1 and 9, Applicant argues that the amended claims 1 and 9 to include patent-eligible subject matter which the repellent is a physical element and not directed towards an abstract idea. After reviewing the amendments and argument filed on 09/16/2025 , the Examiner has withdrawn the previous 101 rejection for the following reason: The claims recites steps and features that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101: With respect to claim 19, Applicant's arguments filed 09/16/2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant respectfully traverses and submits that amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes the following limitation: “the repellent comprising at least one of a water spray nozzle or a seismic driver or a non-fatal olfactory agent". Each element of this list is a physical element and not directed towards an abstract idea. A water spray nozzle is a physical device and not an abstract idea. A seismic driver is a physical device and not an abstract idea. A non-fatal olfactory agent is a physical device and not an abstract idea. For at least these reasons, Applicant believes the pending claims are directed towards patentable subject matter and requests reconsideration. (Remark Page 1)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim amendments does not include the limitation “the repellent comprising at least one of a water spray nozzle or a seismic driver or a non-fatal olfactory agent” as in claims 1 and 9. Further, the claim amendments recites the limitation “the identification result based on a protein sequence associated with a venom of the species of animal.”. The limitations is mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions such as the person can see/identify an animal in the image and/or collect information of the animal and then make an evaluation/judgments such as the animal in the images and/or collected information of the animal compare against images/information of the specific animal in the databases. For further detail, see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 below.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102/103: In response to Argument 1, with respect to claims 1 and 9, Applicant's arguments filed on 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the present application, applicant argues: The ultrasonic frequencies disclosed by Liu, above 20kHz, cannot anticipate the seismic frequencies of Claim 1 (<20Hz). Based at least on this reason, Liu does not fully anticipate the limitations “seismic driver” of Claim 1. (Remark Page 3)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. With respect to the Applicant's arguments that Liu does not teaches/disclose the limitation “the repellent comprising a seismic driver”. The Examiner is interpreted under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the claim limitation base on only the repellent comprising a seismic driver. The primary reference Liu (US-20180125058 A1), discloses “ultrasonic waves and sound waves can be output through infrared trigger to repel animals, or ultrasonic waves and sound waves can be output continuously and intermittent to repel animals.” is interpreted as “the repellent comprising a seismic driver”. Furthermore, the applicant’s argument to bring the frequency range between 0.1 to 20hz of the specific seismic -infrasound is not include in the claims limitation as well as the specification does not disclose the frequency range of the specific seismic-infrasound and/or seismic driver. The following publication of Britannica website (https://www.britannica.com/science/earthquake-geology / Observation-of-earthquakes) defines that “The frequency range of seismic waves is large, from as high as the audible range (greater than 20 hertz) to as low as the frequencies of the free oscillations of the whole Earth,” which is in the frequency range of “sound waves and/or ultrasonic waves”. Additionally, both the sound waves and seismic waves are mechanical waves and both sound waves and seismic waves involve the vibration of particles in the medium. Therefore, The Examiner is interpreted under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the claims limitation that Liu discloses the “ultrasonic waves and/or sound waves” is read as “seismic driver”.
For the purpose of examination, “ultrasonic waves and/or sound waves” is considered as “a seismic driver”, in fact the applicant does not specifically define what “seismic signal and/or seismic driver” is. Thus, it is suggested the applicant at least to amend to define detail about “seismic signal” is for compact prosecution purpose.
The Examiner states that in light of MPEP 2111, the Examiner has interpreted the claims properly. Specifically, during patent prosecution, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation assistant with the specification.” The Examiner has interpreted the claim language in reference to the specification. Because applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, given a claim in its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued will be interpreted more or broadly than is justified. Although the cited reference is different from the invention disclosed, the language of Applicant's claims is sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference. A broad reading does not constitute “teaching away.”
Further, it has been held that nonpreferred embodiments failing to assert discovery beyond that known in the art does not constitute a “teaching away” unless such disclosure criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution claimed. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994), In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004), (see MPEP §2124).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have “relatively acceptable dimensional stability” and “some degree of flexibility,” but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since “Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art.” 27 F.3d at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). (MPEP §2124).
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102/103: In regards to Argument 2, with respect to claim 19, Applicant's arguments filed on 09/16/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) rejection in view of Tan (“Snake Venomics: Fundamentals, Recent Updates, and a Look to the Next Decade”).
Claim Status
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1).
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of McCann et al (U.S. 20220211026 A1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of Barton (U.S. 20170231215 A1).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of McCann et al (U.S. 20220211026 A1), and in further view of Panda et al (“Implementation of a Wild Animal Intrusion Detection Model Based on Internet of Things”; Panda).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of Tan (“Snake Venomics: Fundamentals, Recent Updates, and a Look to the Next Decade”).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of Vedders (U.S. 20050167185 A1).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of McCann et al (U.S. 20220211026 A1), and in further view of Vedders (U.S. 20050167185 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 19, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 19 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze Claim 19 for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 19 limitation of “generating an activation signal, activating a processor circuit based upon the activation signal, capturing images, transmitting the captured images to the processor circuit, identifying a species of animal in the captured images to generate an identification result, the identification result based on a protein sequence associated with a venom of the species of animal. repelling the animal with a repellent intervention based on the identification result, transmitting information based upon the identified species of animal, and receiving information based on the effectiveness of repellent intervention” are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to mental process by a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and/or performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 ; If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that Claim 19 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim are performed by processor see MPEP 2106.05(g). or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). See, MPEP §2106.04(a), Because a judicial exception is not eligible subject matter, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 601, 95 USPQ2d at 1005-06 (quoting Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309, 206 USPQ at 197 (1980)), if there are no additional claim elements besides the judicial exception, or if the additional claim elements merely recite another judicial exception, that is insufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See, e.g., RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. In such a case, after making the appropriate rejection (see MPEP § 2106.07 for more information on formulating a rejection for lack of eligibility), it is a best practice for the examiner to recommend an amendment, if possible, that would resolve eligibility of the claim.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claim(s) is/state Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the processor recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Thus, Claim(s) 19 recite(s) the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a device (Paragraph 27: “FIG. 1 which is a principle block diagram of a multifunctional animal repeller”) comprising:
an image capture device (Fig.1: photosensitive detector; Camera and preamplifier circuit); a processor circuit (Fig.1: Central processing unit) to receive input from an activation signal and to receive images from the image capture device, (Fig.1; Paragraph 23: “specifically, after infrared trigger occurs, a video camera is started to capture animal images,”; Paragraph 37: “after infrared trigger, the camera is started to capture animal images,),
the processor to identify features in the received images based on images stored in a database (Fig.1 : mass memory), the processor to generate an identification result; (Fig.1; Paragraph 23: “the multifunctional animal repeller of the invention can intelligently identify the species of animals, specifically, after infrared trigger occurs, a video camera is started to capture animal images, and the captured animal images are compared with a great number of stored animal images, so that the species of animals are determined;” ; Paragraph 37: “ and the captured animal images are compared with the original images in the memory, so that the species of animals are determined”)
a repellent (Fig.1: Multifunctional light selector; Ultrasonic frequency selection controller; Various animal deterrence sound programmer) to be enabled based at least upon the identification result, (Paragraph 37: “then repelling combinations of ultrasonic waves, animal natural enemy sound waves, light and the like which can repel the animals most effectively are started intelligently according to the species of the animals.”) the repellent comprising at least one of a water spray nozzle or a seismic driver (ultrasonic waves and sound waves) ; (Paragraph 34: “ultrasonic waves and sound waves can be output through infrared trigger to repel animals, or ultrasonic waves and sound waves can be output continuously and intermittent to repel animals … as different animals have different sensitivities to different ultrasonic frequencies, ultrasonic waves with the continuously-changing sweep frequency are used for repelling animals.”, The Examiner is interpreted under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the claim limitation base on only the repellent comprising “a seismic driver”) and
a transceiver (Fig.1 : Wifi Module) to: transmit information from the processor circuit to a mobile communication device, the information based at least on the identification result, and receive information from the from a mobile communication device, the information based upon the effectiveness of the repellent. ( Paragraph 20-21: “the multifunctional animal repeller of the invention has an TOT function, information such as the infrared induction frequency and time for animals can be uploaded to a cloud server for data storage, operation, analysis and summarization with Wifi, Bluetooth, CKB and the like as carriers, and thus the information can be inquired at any time or be transmitted to a mobile phone in real time directly through an APP so as to be supplied to the owner. … the owner can observe the scene in real time through the mobile phone and check data such as the activity condition of animals and video images after infrared trigger occurs” ; Paragraph 36: “the multifunctional animal repeller of the invention is provided with a camera and has the Wifi function, the camera is started and connected with the IOT through Wifi when infrared trigger occurs, then activity tracks of animals can be observed in any place where access to the Internet is available, and thus the repelling mode can be adjusted in time; the camera can also be directly connected with a mobile phone, so that the activity condition of animals is monitored in real time through the mobile phone.”)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 9-12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of McCann et al (U.S. 20220211026 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Liu discloses the image capture device comprising a visible-light camera (Fig.1: photosensitive detector; Camera and preamplifier circuit ; Paragraph 23: “specifically, after infrared trigger occurs, a video camera is started to capture animal images,”)
However, Liu does not disclose a servo motor, the servo motor to rotate the visible-light camera.
McCann discloses a servo motor, the servo motor to rotate the visible-light camera. (Paragraph 98: “At least one of the camera(s) 630 may have a field of view generally in a direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200. In some aspects, at least one of the camera(s) 630 may automatically change direction to the direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200. In other aspects, the drone 202, 1200 may rotate in order to align the field of view along the direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200.”; Paragraph 125: “The steps in this process may be performed by one or more components in the drone 202, 1200 such as the targeting system 842 and the subsystems thereof, in coordination with the drone motor components, the camera/sensor, and/or various remote and external systems that may include an operator interface as described.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu by including camera systems that is taught by McCann, to make the invention that system and method for field treatment and monitoring; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the collect data for treatment and monitor a field.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Liu discloses all the claims invention except the image capture device comprising a LIDAR transmitter and sensor and a servo motor, the servo motor to rotate the LIDAR transmitter and sensor.
McCann discloses the image capture device comprising a LIDAR transmitter (Paragraph 105: “The processor 602 may read position data from one or more positioning sensor(s) 606, such as an altimeter, ultrasonic sensors, radar, lidar, accelerometers, etc. In some aspects, the positioning sensor(s) 606 may be a pair of cameras 630 capturing binocular vision from the drone 202, 1200”) and sensor and a servo motor, the servo motor to rotate the LIDAR transmitter and sensor.(Paragraph 98: “At least one of the camera(s) 630 may have a field of view generally in a direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200. In some aspects, at least one of the camera(s) 630 may automatically change direction to the direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200. In other aspects, the drone 202, 1200 may rotate in order to align the field of view along the direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200.”; Paragraph 125: “The steps in this process may be performed by one or more components in the drone 202, 1200 such as the targeting system 842 and the subsystems thereof, in coordination with the drone motor components, the camera/sensor, and/or various remote and external systems that may include an operator interface as described.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu by including camera system that is taught by McCann, to make the invention that system and method for field treatment and monitoring; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving monitoring and the collect data for treatment and monitoring a field.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Liu discloses a system (Paragraph 27: “FIG. 1 which is a principle block diagram of a multifunctional animal repeller”) comprising: an image capture device (Fig.1: photosensitive detector; Camera and preamplifier circuit); a processor circuit (Fig.1: Central processing unit) to receive input from an activation signal and to receive images from the image capture device, (Fig.1; Paragraph 23: “specifically, after infrared trigger occurs, a video camera is started to capture animal images,”; Paragraph 37: “after infrared trigger, the camera is started to capture animal images,),
the processor to identify features in the received images based on images stored in a database (Fig.1 : mass memory), the processor to generate an identification result; (Fig.1; Paragraph 23: “the multifunctional animal repeller of the invention can intelligently identify the species of animals, specifically, after infrared trigger occurs, a video camera is started to capture animal images, and the captured animal images are compared with a great number of stored animal images, so that the species of animals are determined;” ; Paragraph 37: “ and the captured animal images are compared with the original images in the memory, so that the species of animals are determined”)
a repellent (Fig.1: Multifunctional light selector; Ultrasonic frequency selection controller; Various animal deterrence sound programmer) to be enabled based at least upon the identification result, (Paragraph 37: “then repelling combinations of ultrasonic waves, animal natural enemy sound waves, light and the like which can repel the animals most effectively are started intelligently according to the species of the animals.”), the repellent comprising one of a water spray nozzle or a seismic driver or a non-fatal olfactory agent, (ultrasonic waves and sound waves) ; (Paragraph 34: “ultrasonic waves and sound waves can be output through infrared trigger to repel animals, or ultrasonic waves and sound waves can be output continuously and intermittent to repel animals … as different animals have different sensitivities to different ultrasonic frequencies, ultrasonic waves with the continuously-changing sweep frequency are used for repelling animals.”, The Examiner is interpreted under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the claim limitation base on only the repellent comprising “a seismic driver”) and
a transceiver (Fig.1: Wifi Module) to: transmit information from the processor circuit to a mobile communication device, the information based at least on the identification result, and receive information from the from a mobile communication device, the information based upon the effectiveness of the repellent. ( Paragraph 20-21: “the multifunctional animal repeller of the invention has an TOT function, information such as the infrared induction frequency and time for animals can be uploaded to a cloud server for data storage, operation, analysis and summarization with Wifi, Bluetooth, CKB and the like as carriers, and thus the information can be inquired at any time or be transmitted to a mobile phone in real time directly through an APP so as to be supplied to the owner. … the owner can observe the scene in real time through the mobile phone and check data such as the activity condition of animals and video images after infrared trigger occurs” ; Paragraph 36: “the multifunctional animal repeller of the invention is provided with a camera and has the Wifi function, the camera is started and connected with the IOT through Wifi when infrared trigger occurs, then activity tracks of animals can be observed in any place where access to the Internet is available, and thus the repelling mode can be adjusted in time; the camera can also be directly connected with a mobile phone, so that the activity condition of animals is monitored in real time through the mobile phone.”)
However, Liu does not disclose a vehicle
Panda discloses a vehicle (Paragraph 7: “the field treatment system may have one or more drones receiving one or more pesticides.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu by including one or more drones that is taught by McCann, to make the invention that system and method for field treatment and monitoring; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the collect data for treatment and monitor a field.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Liu, as modified by McCann, discloses all the claims invention. McCann further discloses the image capture device comprising a visible- light camera (Paragraph 103: “The camera(s) 630 may comprise a lens, a filter, and an imaging device, such as a CCD or CMOS imager. … the filter may only permit visible light to pass through. The visible light filter may be a filter mosaic in order to permit the image sensor to capture red-green-blue (RGB) colored light.”) and a servo motor, the servo motor to rotate the visible-light camera. (Paragraph 98: “At least one of the camera(s) 630 may have a field of view generally in a direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200. In some aspects, at least one of the camera(s) 630 may automatically change direction to the direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200. In other aspects, the drone 202, 1200 may rotate in order to align the field of view along the direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200.”; Paragraph 125: “The steps in this process may be performed by one or more components in the drone 202, 1200 such as the targeting system 842 and the subsystems thereof, in coordination with the drone motor components, the camera/sensor, and/or various remote and external systems that may include an operator interface as described.”)
Regarding claim 11, Liu, as modified by McCann discloses all the claims invention. McCann further discloses the image capture device comprising a LIDAR transmitter (Paragraph 105: “The processor 602 may read position data from one or more positioning sensor(s) 606, such as an altimeter, ultrasonic sensors, radar, lidar, accelerometers, etc. In some aspects, the positioning sensor(s) 606 may be a pair of cameras 630 capturing binocular vision from the drone 202, 1200”) and sensor and a servo motor, the servo motor to rotate the LIDAR transmitter and sensor. (Paragraph 98: “At least one of the camera(s) 630 may have a field of view generally in a direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200. In some aspects, at least one of the camera(s) 630 may automatically change direction to the direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200. In other aspects, the drone 202, 1200 may rotate in order to align the field of view along the direction of motion of the drone 202, 1200.”; Paragraph 125: “The steps in this process may be performed by one or more components in the drone 202, 1200 such as the targeting system 842 and the subsystems thereof, in coordination with the drone motor components, the camera/sensor, and/or various remote and external systems that may include an operator interface as described.”)
Regarding claim 12, Liu, as modified by McCann discloses all the claims invention. Liu further discloses the features comprising the presence of dangerous animals in one or more of the captured images. (Paragraph 39: “he multifunctional animal repeller of the invention can be used for repelling noxious animals such as mice, wolves, wild dogs, pheasants, yellow weasel and wild boars and can also repel insects to a certain extent”)
Regarding claim 18, Liu, as modified by McCann discloses all the claims invention. McCann further discloses, the vehicle comprising an aerial drone. (Paragraph 7: “the field treatment system may have one or more drones receiving one or more pesticides.”)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of Barton (U.S. 20170231215 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Liu discloses all the claims invention except the features comprising the presence of dangerous reptiles in one or more of the captured images.
Barton discloses the features comprising the presence of dangerous reptiles in one or more of the captured images. (Fig.12 and Paragraph 59-62: “FIG. 12 is a control flow diagram illustrating one example of step 810 of FIG. 11 where the captured image is analyzed to identify an animal. … Chromatic analysis alone may be sufficient for some purposes, e.g. differentiating between an endangered indigo snake and an invasive Python. … the same chromatic analysis on a brown water snake and an Eastern diamondback snake yield coloration patterns that are quite similar to each other. A combination of the pattern-based and chromatic analysis can provide more definitive recognition.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu by including analyzed image to identify an anima that is taught by Barton, to make the invention that Method and Apparatus for Automated Animal Trapping; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the recognition of object/animals in image analysis.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of McCann et al (U.S. 20220211026 A1), and in further view of Panda et al (“Implementation of a Wild Animal Intrusion Detection Model Based on Internet of Things”; Panda).
Regarding claim 17, Liu, as modified by McCann, discloses all the claims invention except the vehicle comprising a wheeled vehicle.
Panda further discloses, the vehicle comprising a wheeled vehicle. (Fig. 8-9; I. Introduction: E-Vehicle which carries the ESP32 camera module moves around the field to capture the image.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu and McCann by including E-vehicle that is taught by Barton, to make the invention that Wild Animal Intrusion Detection Model; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the monitor of a field such as detect any type of intrusion around the field effectively.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of Tan (“Snake Venomics: Fundamentals, Recent Updates, and a Look to the Next Decade”).
Regarding claim 19, Liu discloses a method (Paragraph 27: “FIG. 1 which is a principle block diagram of a multifunctional animal repeller”) comprising:
generating an activation signal, activating a processor circuit based upon the activation signal, capturing images, (Fig.1; Paragraph 23: “specifically, after infrared trigger occurs, a video camera is started to capture animal images,”; Paragraph 37: “after infrared trigger, the camera is started to capture animal images,)
transmitting the captured images to the processor circuit, identifying a species of animal in the captured images to generate an identification result, (Fig.1; Paragraph 23: “the multifunctional animal repeller of the invention can intelligently identify the species of animals, specifically, after infrared trigger occurs, a video camera is started to capture animal images, and the captured animal images are compared with a great number of stored animal images, so that the species of animals are determined;” ; Paragraph 37: “ and the captured animal images are compared with the original images in the memory, so that the species of animals are determined”)
repelling the animal with a repellent intervention based on the identification result, (Paragraph 37: “then repelling combinations of ultrasonic waves, animal natural enemy sound waves, light and the like which can repel the animals most effectively are started intelligently according to the species of the animals.”)
transmitting information based upon the identified species of animal, and receiving information based on the effectiveness of repellent intervention. (Paragraph 20-21: “the multifunctional animal repeller of the invention has an TOT function, information such as the infrared induction frequency and time for animals can be uploaded to a cloud server for data storage, operation, analysis and summarization with Wifi, Bluetooth, CKB and the like as carriers, and thus the information can be inquired at any time or be transmitted to a mobile phone in real time directly through an APP so as to be supplied to the owner. … the owner can observe the scene in real time through the mobile phone and check data such as the activity condition of animals and video images after infrared trigger occurs” ; Paragraph 36: “the multifunctional animal repeller of the invention is provided with a camera and has the Wifi function, the camera is started and connected with the IOT through Wifi when infrared trigger occurs, then activity tracks of animals can be observed in any place where access to the Internet is available, and thus the repelling mode can be adjusted in time; the camera can also be directly connected with a mobile phone, so that the activity condition of animals is monitored in real time through the mobile phone.”)
However, Liu does not disclose the identification result based on a protein sequence associated with a venom of the species of animal
Tan discloses identifying a species of animal in the captured images (Figs.5-6: Venom) to generate an identification result, the identification result based on a protein sequence associated with a venom of the species of animal. (Figs.5-6; Table 3 and 4; and 3.1.3. Bottom-Up, Middle-Down (Middle-Up), and Top-Down Sequencing Strategies: “the basics of the two MS-sequencing strategies are illustrated in Figure 5 and discussed further in the context of snake venomics … Protein identification through sequencing its truncated form (peptide or polypeptide) obtained by proteolysis is referred to as a “bottom-up” approach … Protein identification following MS analysis relies on a database search that matches the in-silico peptide sequences by homology or similarity shared by other proteins from various other species, akin to assembling a puzzle”; 3.2. Genomics and Venom-Gland Transcriptomics of Snake: “A search for snake genome assemblies (infraorder: Serpentes, Taxonomy ID: 8570) deposited in the NCBI database recalled 39 projects (as of March 2022), of which 24 belonged to front-fanged venomous snake species, 13 were of mildly venomous or non-front-fanged snakes (with distinct and repeated species), one is a non-venomous constrictor snake (python), and another is a blind snake (Table 3).”; 4.1.1. Availability and Authenticity of the Sample: “Virtually all venomous animals are wildlife. The sourcing of sample, be it the venom (for proteomics) or body tissue (for transcriptomics and genomics), … The specimens, be it farmed or wild, must be correctly identified down to the species (or even subspecies) level according to the latest taxonomy … )
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu by including the mass spectrometry (MS) – sequencing strategies in the context of snake venomics by Tan, to make the invention that an overview of the basics, updates, and challenges in the field of snake venomics; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving the accuracy of toxin identification in proteomics for a more comprehensive profiling of snake venom diversity as well as enhancing the availability of mass spectrometry with improved resolution for better peptide detection, and the expanding databases in recent years that complement protein identification.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of Vedders (U.S. 20050167185 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Liu discloses all the claims invention except the seismic driver comprising a piston.
Vedders discloses the seismic driver comprising a piston. (Figs .1-5: piston 148 ; Paragraph 22 : “ the piston 148 is configured to slide within the gas chamber 143 to create a pressure therein. This pressure, in turn, will uniquely be used to assist the drive of the striker 120 toward the surface 110 at a high rate of speed.”; Paragraph 38: “Turning now to FIG. 4, illustrated is the accelerated weight drop 100 of FIG. 3, after the striker 120 has been placed in a cocked position … the decreased volume would tend to cause the striker 120 to drive toward the surface 110, thus creating seismic waves therein.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu by including the accelerated weight drop system by Vedders, to make the invention that an accelerated weight drop for use as a seismic energy source; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving convert a higher amount of the potential energy in the impact source into seismic energy. (Vedders: Paragraph 9)
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (U.S. 20180125058 A1), in view of McCann et al (U.S. 20220211026 A1), and in further view of Vedders (U.S. 20050167185 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Liu, as modified by McCann, discloses all the claims invention except the seismic driver comprising a piston.
Vedders discloses the seismic driver comprising a piston. (Figs .1-5: piston 148 ; Paragraph 22 : “ the piston 148 is configured to slide within the gas chamber 143 to create a pressure therein. This pressure, in turn, will uniquely be used to assist the drive of the striker 120 toward the surface 110 at a high rate of speed.”; Paragraph 38: “Turning now to FIG. 4, illustrated is the accelerated weight drop 100 of FIG. 3, after the striker 120 has been placed in a cocked position … the decreased volume would tend to cause the striker 120 to drive toward the surface 110, thus creating seismic waves therein.”)
Therefore, it would been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Liu and McCann by including the accelerated weight drop system by Vedders, to make the invention that an accelerated weight drop for use as a seismic energy source; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine the references since this will improving convert a higher amount of the potential energy in the impact source into seismic energy. (Vedders: Paragraph 9)
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Goldstein et al (U.S. 20220057519 A1), “Automated Threat Detection and Deterrence Apparatus”, teaches about an automated threat detection and deterrence apparatus includes an imaging device configured to detect a subject in a subject area, a deterrent component including a directed light deterrent and a processor communicatively connected to the imaging device and the deterrent component, wherein the processor is configured to identify the subject as a function of the detection of the subject, determine a behavior descriptor associated with the subject, select one of the first deterrent mode and the second deterrent mode and command the directed light deterrent to perform an action based on the selection.
Cohen (U.S. 20210005086 A1), “Devices And Methods For Preventing Automotive Collisions With Wildlife”, teaches about an autonomous vehicle collision avoidance system designed to detect and deter animals from the road. The sensor suite detects animals using cameras, identifies them and their hearing range using machine learning algorithms, and deters them by emitting animal-specific sound pulses. The system also notifies the driver, may trigger a braking or honking sequence, adjusts subsequent noise emissions based on animal feedback, and collect data on collisions or near collisions for analysis at a central repository.
Kumar et al, “Animal Repellent System for Smart Farming using AI and Edge Computing”, teaches about Using DCNN to detect and recognize animal species, and specific ultrasound emissions to repel them, we are developing a system that combines AI Computer Vision for detection and repelling animals.[3] Once the camera is activated, the edge computing device executes DCNN software to identify the target, a message is sent to the Animal Repelling Module when it detects an animal, indicating the type of ultrasound that should be used, based on the category of the animal.
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 Duy A Tran whose telephone number is (571)272-4887. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, ONEAL R MISTRY can be reached at (313)-446-4912. 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.
/DUY TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674