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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recited the limitation “mechanics configured to create the visual deterrence that moves relative to the ground” and claim 4 recites the limitation “mechanics configured to establish the visual deterrent, wherein the visual deterrent includes a moving output beam which creates a variable pattern” in claim 4. In both instances, the use of the term “mechanics” fails to particularly point out a specific mechanical structure that moves or changes the visual deterrence/deterrent as claimed respectively in claims 3 and 4. For the purposes of examination, ”mechanics” is interpreted to encompass any physical element that alters or controls the relative motion or appearance of the visual output.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-10, 18-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito (JP 2022059156 A)1.
Regarding Claim 1: Ito discloses (in at least figures 1-3, the description, and the claims) a pest animal deterrent system (fig. 1 and par.’s 11-12: pest repellant device) comprising:
a support system including a mast attached to a tripod, the mast including an arm opposite the tripod (fig. 1 and par.’s 11-12: vertical support rod of motor 93 connects tripod 92 to base of the casing (housing of device 1 as shown in fig. 1). See also fig. 2: vertical rod central to motor 93);
an optical module attached to the arm (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 12: projector 4 projects an image of a onto screen 2 when sensor 10 detects a pest. See par.’s 14-15: screen 2 has through holes 21 and is translucent to transmit light from projector 4. See also par. 17: “The projector 4 is a laser projector that emits laser light, and projects an image of a wild animal from behind onto the screen 2 when a vermin is detected by the sensor 10 based on instructions from the controller (5)”);
a noise generator module attached to the arm, the noise generator module in operative communication with the optical module (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 20: controller 5 comprehensively controls the entire device. See par. 24: controller is connected to projector 4, screen 2, speaker 3, and omnidirectional speaker 6. See also par. 7, par. 17 and par.’s 26-28: controller 5 instructs projector 4 and speaker 3 to produce specific images and sounds simultaneously to replicate a predator based upon the type, location, and relative direction of vermin detected by sensor 10.);
a speaker in operative communication with the noise generator module (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 24: sound outputs connected to controller 5 include speaker 3 and omnidirectional speaker 6);
a battery electrically coupled to the optical module and the noise generator module (fig. 1, par. 19: “device 1 further includes a solar power generation panel 7 and a battery 8 for supplying power to the sensor 10, the speaker 3, and the projector 4”, and par. 21: “controller 5 is connected to a solar power generation panel 7 that supplies electricity, and a battery 8 such as a lithium ion battery”); and
a solar collector electrically coupled to the battery (fig. 1, par. 19: “device 1 further includes a solar power generation panel 7 and a battery 8 for supplying power to the sensor 10, the speaker 3, and the projector 4”, and par. 21: “controller 5 is connected to a solar power generation panel 7 that supplies electricity, and a battery 8 such as a lithium ion battery” ).
Regarding Claim 2: Ito discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to claim 1, wherein the optical module is configured to generate a visual deterrent, simultaneously with the noise generator module configured to emit the auditory deterrent (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 20: controller 5 comprehensively controls the entire device. See par. 24: controller is connected to projector 4, screen 2, speaker 3, and omnidirectional speaker 6. See also par. 7, par. 17 and par.’s 26-28: controller 5 instructs projector 4 and speaker 3 to produce specific images and sounds simultaneously to replicate a predator based upon the type, location, and relative direction of vermin detected by sensor 10. See also par. 12 and par. 16).
Regarding Claim 3: Ito discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to claim 2, wherein the optical module includes an illumination source and mechanics configured to create the visual deterrence that moves relative to the ground (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 24: motor 93 allows entire device 1, including projector 4 and screen 2 to move relative to stationary tripod 92. See fig. 3 and par. 28: projection of predator image is angled towards vermin on the ground and direction identification function 53 with motor 93 and senor 10 enables device 1 to move relative vermin on the ground such that the projection is continuously aimed facing the target vermin.).
Regarding Claim 4: Ito discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to claim 2, wherein the optical module includes a visible light laser diode (par. 30: projector 4 utilizes laser/LED light) combined with collimating optics and mechanics configured to establish the visual deterrent, wherein the visual deterrent includes a moving output beam which creates a variable pattern (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 24: motor 93 allows entire device 1, including projector 4 and screen 2 to move relative to stationary tripod 92. See fig. 3 and par. 28: projection of predator image is angled towards vermin on the ground and direction identification function 53 with motor 93 and senor 10 enables device 1 to move relative vermin on the ground such that the projection is continuously aimed facing the target vermin. See also par.’s 30-31: “the main body 20 of the screen 2 has numerous through holes 21, ... formed in a dispersed manner over almost the entire surface, so that the laser/LED light enters the field of view of harmful animals, further enhancing the deterrent effect. That is, when a harmful animal moves, the first visual passing light from the countless through holes 21, ... provided on the surface of the screen 2 is blocked, and another passing light enters the field of vision, which is perceived by the harmful animal as a flashing light and acts as a strong stimulus to the harmful animal.” See also par.’s 24-28: projector 4 is able to produce variable images as instructed by controller 5).
Regarding Claim 5: Ito discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to claim 4 wherein the optical module includes a multi frequency laser system combined with associated optics (fig.’s 1-3 and par. 17: projector 4 is a laser/LED projector that emits laser light capable of producing images through screen 2. See par.’s 24-28: projector 4 is able to produce variable images as instructed by controller 5. Accordingly, laser/LED projector 4 must be a multi-frequency laser system, as is required to have the adaptable refresh rate functionally required by Ito’s disclosure. Furthermore, a standard laser/LED projector in the art is multi-frequency. See also par.’s 30-31).
Regarding Claim 6: Ito discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to claim 4, wherein the visual deterrent output beam is aimed below the horizon (fig. 3 and par. 28: projection of predator image is angled towards vermin on the ground).
Regarding Claim 7: Ito discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to claim 1, wherein the noise generator module is configured to produce a sound saturation per area that includes a predetermined decibel level configured to agitate and scare a pest animal proximate a crop (par. 27: controller 5 changes the volume of speaker 3 based on the distance of the vermin relative to the device 1, as detected by sensor 10. See also par. 2: device 1 addresses issue of vermin/pests damaging crops).
Regarding Claim 8: Ito discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to claim 1, wherein the noise generator module is configured to create animal distress calls (par. 34: “sounds such as the cry of this wild animal (hostile animal) can be played to effectively intimidate the pests” and par. 35: “With this configuration, it appears to the harmful animals as if they were hearing the cry of a wild animal (hostile animal) on the screen 2, which increases the reality and enhances the intimidating effect.”).
Regarding Claim 9: Ito discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to claim 1, wherein the pest animal deterrent system is configured to produce dual stimulation, the dual stimulation including an audio deterrent stimulation and a visual deterrent stimulation of a target pest animal, the dual stimulation configured to create at least one of a perception that the auditory deterrent is a consequence of the visual deterrent and a perception that the visual deterrent is a consequence of the auditory deterrent (fig. 3 and par. 16: “The loudspeaker 3 emits the sounds of the wild animals (hostile animals) projected onto the screen 2, warning sounds, etc. In this way, by emitting sound from the screen 2 itself, the wild animal projected on the screen 2 appears to be growling and roaring, which is thought to be more realistic for harmful animals.”).
Regarding Claim 10: Ito discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to claim 1, wherein the noise generator module is configured to create predator animal calls (par. 16: “loudspeaker 3 emits the sounds of the wild animals (hostile animals) projected onto the screen 2, warning sounds, etc […] In this way, by emitting sound from the screen 2 itself, the wild animal projected on the screen 2 appears to be growling and roaring”).
Regarding Claim 17: Ito discloses(in at least figures 1-3, the description, and the claims) a process for deterring a pest animal with a pest animal deterrent system (fig. 1 and par.’s 11-12: pest repellant device) comprising:
providing a support system including a mast attached to a tripod, the mast including an arm opposite the tripod (fig. 1 and par.’s 11-12: vertical support rod of motor 93 connects tripod 92 to base of the casing (housing of device 1 as shown in fig. 1). See also fig. 2: vertical rod central to motor 93);
attaching an optical module to the arm (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 12: projector 4 projects an image of a onto screen 2 when sensor 10 detects a pest. See par.’s 14-15: screen 2 has through holes 21 and is translucent to transmit light from projector 4. See also par. 17: “The projector 4 is a laser projector that emits laser light, and projects an image of a wild animal from behind onto the screen 2 when a vermin is detected by the sensor 10 based on instructions from the controller (5)” );
attaching a noise generator module to the arm; coupling the noise generator module in operative communication with the optical module (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 20: controller 5 comprehensively controls the entire device. See par. 24: controller is connected to projector 4, screen 2, speaker 3, and omnidirectional speaker 6. See also par. 7, par. 17 and par.’s 26-28: controller 5 instructs projector 4 and speaker 3 to produce specific images and sounds simultaneously to replicate a predator based upon the type, location, and relative direction of vermin detected by sensor 10.);
coupling a main speaker in operative communication with the noise generator module (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 24: sound outputs connected to controller 5 include speaker 3 and omnidirectional speaker 6);
electrically coupling a battery to the optical module and the noise generator module (fig. 1, par. 19: “device 1 further includes a solar power generation panel 7 and a battery 8 for supplying power to the sensor 10, the speaker 3, and the projector 4”, and par. 21: “controller 5 is connected to a solar power generation panel 7 that supplies electricity, and a battery 8 such as a lithium ion battery”); and
electrically coupling a solar collector to the battery (fig. 1, par. 19: “device 1 further includes a solar power generation panel 7 and a battery 8 for supplying power to the sensor 10, the speaker 3, and the projector 4”, and par. 21: “controller 5 is connected to a solar power generation panel 7 that supplies electricity, and a battery 8 such as a lithium ion battery” ).
Regarding Claim 18: Ito discloses the process of claim 17, further comprising:
generating a visual deterrent with the optical module; and simultaneously emitting an auditory deterrent with the noise generator module (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 20: controller 5 comprehensively controls the entire device. See par. 24: controller is connected to projector 4, screen 2, speaker 3, and omnidirectional speaker 6. See also par. 7, par. 17 and par.’s 26-28: controller 5 instructs projector 4 and speaker 3 to produce specific images and sounds simultaneously to replicate a predator based upon the type, location, and relative direction of vermin detected by sensor 10. See also par. 12 and par. 16).
Regarding Claim 19: Ito discloses the process of claim 17, further comprising:
coupling additional speakers in operative communication with the noise generator module (fig. 1 and par. 40: device 1 includes “an omnidirectional speaker 6 in addition to the speaker 3 […] With this configuration, the deterrent effect can be increased even against harmful animals that are in a position that cannot be captured by the sensor 10”); configuring the additional speakers to create a disorienting effect by being remotely located relative to the main speaker (fig. 1 and par. 24: device 1 includes “an omnidirectional speaker 6 which is separate from the speaker 3 […] The omnidirectional speaker 6 is placed on the casing of the pest repelling device 1 and emits sound in all directions”); configuring the additional speakers to output different deterring noises; and creating a disorienting effect (par. 24 and par. 40: omnidirectional speaker 6 emits various sounds separate from speaker 3 to increase the deterrent effect of the device. See also fig. 1, par. 14 and par. 18: omnidirectional speaker and speaker 3 comprise diaphragms constructed of different materials, oriented differently, positioned apart from one another. Furthermore, the volume of speaker 3 is dependent upon the relative distance of the detected vermin whereas 6 produces sound for vermin not detected by sensor 10 (See par.’s 18, 27, and 40) Accordingly, their respective sound outputs will differ significantly in pitch, volume, and direction regardless of controller 5’s instructions.).
Regarding Claim 21: Ito discloses the process of claim 17, further comprising:
configuring the pest animal deterrent system to produce dual stimulation, the dual stimulation including an audio deterrent stimulation and a visual deterrent stimulation of a target pest animal; and configuring the dual stimulation to create at least one of a perception that the auditory deterrent is a consequence of the visual deterrent and a perception that the visual deterrent is a consequence of the auditory deterrent (fig. 3 and par. 16: “The loudspeaker 3 emits the sounds of the wild animals (hostile animals) projected onto the screen 2, warning sounds, etc. In this way, by emitting sound from the screen 2 itself, the wild animal projected on the screen 2 appears to be growling and roaring, which is thought to be more realistic for harmful animals.”).
Regarding Claim 22: Ito discloses the process of claim 17, further comprising:
utilizing the support system to suspend the noise generator module and the optical module components above a crop (fig. 1 and par. 12: device 1 is elevated above the ground by tripod 92. See par. 2: device 1 addresses issue of vermin/pests damaging crops. See also fig. 3: pest repelling device 1 including noise, optical, and sensing modules are elevated configured to project a repellant toward vermin at a distance on the ground below. Accordingly, device 1 is suspends components, noise, optical, and sensing modules, such that they can function above a planted crop.).
Regarding Claim 23: Ito discloses the process of claim 22, further comprising:
configuring the noise generator module to produce a sound saturation per area that includes a predetermined decibel level configured to agitate and scare a pest animal proximate a crop (par. 27: controller 5 changes the volume of speaker 3 based on the distance of the vermin relative to the device 1, as detected by sensor 10. See also par. 2: device 1 addresses issue of vermin/pests damaging crops).
Claims 11-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 200421265 Y1 (hereinafter referred to as KR’265)2.
Regarding Claim 11: KR’265 discloses (in at least figures 1-2, the description, and the claims) pest animal deterrent system network (fig. 2 and page 3 par.’s 2 and par. 7: harmful tide control device 1. Note: “Harmful tide” as translated refers to the influx of vermin or pest animals such as birds) comprising:
multiple systems including a first animal deterrent system in operative communication with a second animal deterrent system and an nth animal deterrent system (fig. 2: multiple harmful tide deterrent systems 1 installed in various locations within a local area);
wherein the first animal deterrent system, the second animal deterrent system and the nth animal deterrent system cooperate to create simultaneous coordinated visual deterrent and auditory deterrent (fig. 2 and page 5 par. 3: array of deterrent systems 1 communicate via short range communication modem 61 such that when “sensing information is input to any one of the microcomputers 30 through the sensing information, the sensing information is transmitted to the microcomputer 30 installed at an adjacent position via the transmitting and receiving unit 60 to operate at least a plurality of alarm means 40 simultaneously.”).
Regarding Claim 12: KR’265 discloses the pest animal deterrent system network according to claim 11, wherein each of the first animal deterrent system, the second animal deterrent system and the nth animal deterrent system comprise:
a support system including a mast attached to a tripod (fig. 1 and page 3 par.’s 7-10: strut support body 10 in the form of a vertical column. See page 3 par. 9: support body 10 can include a tripod), the mast including an arm opposite the tripod (fig. 1 and page 3 par.’s 7-10: detection sensor 20, alarm means 40, and transmission unit 60 extend from support body 10 opposite the base); an optical module attached to the arm (fig. 1 and page 4 par. 5: “alarm means 40 is selectively operated by receiving an output signal from the microcomputer 30 by the configuration electrically connected to the microcomputer 30 described above, and outputs an alarm sound through a speaker and light emission. It consists of a warning lamp 42 which lights up a
diode”);
a noise generator module attached to the arm, the noise generator module in operative communication with the optical module (fig. 1 and page 4 par. 5: “alarm means 40 is selectively operated by receiving an output signal from the microcomputer 30 by the configuration electrically connected to the microcomputer 30 described above, and outputs an alarm sound through a speaker and light emission. It consists of a warning lamp 42 which lights up a diode”);
a main speaker in operative communication with the noise generator module (fig. 1 and page 4 par. 5: “alarm means 40 is selectively operated by receiving an output signal from the microcomputer 30 by the configuration electrically connected to the microcomputer 30 described above, and outputs an alarm sound through a speaker and light emission. It consists of a warning lamp 42 which lights up a diode”);
a battery electrically coupled to the optical module and the noise generator module; and a solar collector electrically coupled to the battery (page 4 par. 7: power supply 50 may include solar cells and batteries).
Regarding Claim 15: KR’265 discloses the pest animal deterrent system network according to claim 11, wherein each of the first animal deterrent system, the second animal deterrent system and the nth animal deterrent system utilizes the support system to suspend the noise generator module and the optical module components above a crop (page 2 par. 1 and par. 3: control system designed to protect crops and crop fields against birds from above. See fig. 2 and page 3 par. 6: “the harmful tidal control device 1 of the present invention is largely perpendicular to the farmland such as orchards, paddy fields, fields, etc., which is provided in the support body 10 and the support body 10 to access the birds.”).
Regarding Claim 16: KR’265 discloses the pest animal deterrent system network according to claim 11, wherein the optical module is configured to generate a visual deterrent, simultaneously with the noise generator module configured to emit the auditory deterrent; and the multiple systems networked in operative communication to provide an overlapping pattern with both visual deterrent and auditory deterrent (fig. 2 and page 5 par. 3: array of deterrent systems 1 communicate via short range communication modem 61 such that when “sensing information is input to any one of the microcomputers 30 through the sensing information, the sensing information is transmitted to the microcomputer 30 installed at an adjacent position via the transmitting and receiving unit 60 to operate at least a plurality of alarm means 40 simultaneously.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR’265 as applied to claim 12 above, further in view of Ito.
Regarding Claim 13: KR’265 discloses the pest animal deterrent system network according to claim 12, wherein additional speakers in the network are configured to output the same deterring noises as a main speaker (fig. 2 , page 3 par. 2, page 4 par.’s 5-6, and page 5 par. 3: individual control devices communicate to produce a coordinated alarm sound via the speaker of each alarm means 40 in response to a detection in the network).
KR’265 does not disclose wherein individual deterrent systems further comprise additional speakers.
Ito discloses an analogous art (fig. 1 and par.’s 11-12: pest repellant device) comprising additional speakers (fig. 1 and par. 40: device 1 includes “an omnidirectional speaker 6 in addition to the speaker 3 […] With this configuration, the deterrent effect can be increased even against harmful animals that are in a position that cannot be captured by the sensor 10”) in operative communication with a noise generator module (fig.’s 1-2 and par. 20: controller 5 comprehensively controls the entire device. See par. 24: controller is connected to projector 4, screen 2, speaker 3, and omnidirectional speaker 6.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the additional speakers, as taught by Ito, to be included in the systems of KR’265 to produce a louder, richer sound from multiple directions that strengthens and expand the range of the overall deterrent effect (Ito par. 40: “the deterrent effect can be increased even against harmful animals that are in a position that cannot be captured by the sensor”).
Regarding Claim 14: KR’265 in view of Ito disclose the pest animal deterrent system network according to claim 13, and KR’265 discloses the first animal deterrent system, second animal deterrent system and nth animal deterrent system (fig. 2).
Ito further discloses wherein the additional speakers are configured to create a disorienting effect by being remotely located relative to an individual animal deterrent system (fig. 1 and par. 24: device 1 includes “an omnidirectional speaker 6 which is separate from the speaker 3 […] The omnidirectional speaker 6 is placed on the casing of the pest repelling device 1 and emits sound in all directions”); the additional speakers configured to output different deterring noises; and creating a disorienting effect (par. 24 and par. 40: omnidirectional speaker 6 emits various sounds separate from speaker 3 to increase the deterrent effect of the device. See also fig. 1, par. 14 and par. 18: omnidirectional speaker and speaker 3 comprise diaphragms constructed of different materials, oriented differently, positioned apart from one another. Furthermore, the volume of speaker 3 is dependent upon the relative distance of the detected vermin whereas 6 produces sound for vermin not detected by sensor 10 (See par.’s 18, 27, and 40) Accordingly, their respective sound outputs will differ significantly in pitch, volume, and direction regardless of controller 5’s instructions.).
The rationale to combine is the same as for claim 13.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claim 17 above, further in view of KR’265
Regarding Claim 20: Ito discloses the process of claim 17, but does not disclose networking the pest animal deterrent system with at least on other pest animal deterrent system.
KR’265 discloses an analogous art (fig. 2 and page 3 par.’s 2 and par. 7: harmful tide control device 1. Note: “Harmful tide” as translated refers to the influx of vermin or pest animals such as birds) that includes networking the pest animal deterrent system with at least one other pest animal deterrent system in operative communication to provide an overlapping pattern with both visual deterrent and auditory deterrent (fig. 2: multiple harmful tide deterrent systems 1 installed in various locations within a local area. See fig. 2 and page 5 par. 3: array of deterrent systems 1 communicate via short range communication modem 61 such that when “sensing information is input to any one of the microcomputers 30 through the sensing information, the sensing information is transmitted to the microcomputer 30 installed at an adjacent position via the transmitting and receiving unit 60 to operate at least a plurality of alarm means 40 simultaneously.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pest deterrent system of Ito to be networked with additional pest deterrent systems, as taught by KR’265, to provide enhanced protection over a larger area with a sensors that can coordinate detections across an expanded range (KR’ 257 fig. 2 and page 5 par. 3. See also page 2 par. 1 and page 2 par. 9 – page 3 par. 1)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes:
Marka (US 20180303079 A1) discloses the pest animal deterrent system network according to certain limitations of claims 11, and 13-14.
Knox (US 12279606 B2) discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claims 1-7 and the process for deterring a pest animal with a pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claim 17.
Bhullar (US 20030101634 A1) discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claims 1-7 and the process for deterring a pest animal with a pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claim 17.
Arman (US 20130025544 A1) discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claims 1-7 and the process for deterring a pest animal with a pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claim 17.
Lee (US 9706765 B2) discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claims 1-7 and the process for deterring a pest animal with a pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claim 17.
Donoho (US 9521838 B2) discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claims 1-7 and the process for deterring a pest animal with a pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claim 17.
Carpenter (US 10426155 B2) discloses the pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claims 1-7 and the process for deterring a pest animal with a pest animal deterrent system according to certain limitations of claim 17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN MANCINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM.
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, KRISTINA DEHERRERA can be reached at (303)297-4237. 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.
/EVAN MANCINI/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 12/1/25
1 Citations made to attached translation of description.
2 Citations made to attached translation of description.