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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on October 06, 2025. Claims 1, 7, 16, and 18-19 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 5-6, 9, and 20 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10-19 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 11, it is suggested to amend “material” to --the material-- or --the strap material-- in order to more clearly refer back to the “strap material” previously recited in claim 1, line 4.
Claim 15 is dependent upon cancelled claim 5. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 15 to be dependent upon claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “wherein the strap material is selected…”; however, multiple “strap materials” are recited in claim 1, upon which claim 7 is dependent. It is unclear whether the limitation of clam 7 refers to the strap material of the elongate flexible member or to the strap material of the flexible elongate hanging members. It is thus unclear what materials are being used for each element of the system, thereby rendering the scope of the claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets claim 7 to refer to the strap material of the elongate flexible member.
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.
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) 1-4, 7-8, 10, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (US 2018/0016801 A1), hereinafter Davis, in view of Meaux et al. (US 2008/0173854 A1), hereinafter Meaux, and Electro Tape (https://www.electrotape.com/product/pennant-flags-osha-rated/, last visited 01/05/2026), hereinafter Electro Tape), hereinafter Electro Tape.
Regarding claim 1, Davis discloses a system for deterring animals from entering a protected region (shown in fig. 1, note that the device taught by Davis is capable of deterring animals from entering a protected region) comprising:
an elongate flexible member (flag line 14) extending between first and second ends (fig. 1) formed of a length of flat material (para [0042], flag line 14 is described as “flat”); and
a plurality of flexible elongate hanging members (“pennant flags” para [0042]) each formed of a length of flat material secured to and suspended from the elongate flexible member (fig. 1-2; para [0042], note that hanging members may be “any shaped flag”),
wherein the plurality of flexible elongate hanging members are permanently secured to the elongate flexible member at a fixed substantially perpendicular orientation thereto at a connection location therebetween (fig. 1, longitudinal axes of pennant flags are perpendicular to longitudinal axis of flag line 14; pennant flags are fixed to flag line 14 and are not disclosed as being removable therefrom and are thus considered “permanently secured” to flag line 14).
Davis does not appear to specifically disclose:
the elongate flexible member formed of a length of webbing strap material;
the plurality of flexible elongate hanging members each formed of a length of rectangular shaped webbing strap material;
wherein material that forms the elongate flexible member is substantially inelastic.
However, Meaux is in the field of barrier systems (title; abstract) and teaches:
the elongate flexible member (strap 12) formed of a length of webbing strap material (para [0018], “straps 12 and 14 may be manufactured of material similar to a seat belt, another cloth material, a woven type of material, synthetic materials, or any combination thereof…”);
the plurality of flexible elongate hanging members (straps 14) each formed of a length of rectangular shaped webbing strap material (fig. 1A; para [0018], “straps 12 and 14 may be manufactured of material similar to a seat belt, another cloth material, a woven type of material, synthetic materials, or any combination thereof…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for deterring animals comprising an elongate flexible member and flexible elongate hanging members of Davis to have made the members of webbing strap material as taught by Meaux with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize well-understood materials such as woven cloth to improve durability, strength, and comfortability of the device during handling and use (para [0018]).
Additionally, Electro Tape is in the field of high visibility flag systems (see Description, “highly effective at drawing attention for protection, traffic or other events where safety is of utmost concern”) and teaches wherein material that forms the elongate flexible member is substantially inelastic (see Description, “pennants carried on a sturdy poly rope to prevent draping”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for deterring animals comprising an elongate flexible member of Davis to have made the elongate flexible member of a substantially inelastic material as taught by Electro Tape with a reasonable expectation of success to make the overall system more sag-resistant such that it can be more effectively strung across an extended area (see Description, “pennants carried on a sturdy poly rope to prevent draping”).
Regarding claim 2, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 1 and further discloses further comprising anchors (stanchions 18) secured to a surface to either side of the protected region (fig. 1-2, area shown beneath flag line 14 may be interpreted as a protected region).
Regarding claim 3, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 2 and further discloses wherein the anchors (stanchions 18) comprise posts (fig. 2, stanchions 18 comprise rigid, vertical, elongate tubing and are thus interpreted as posts).
Regarding claim 4, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 3 and further discloses further comprising a tensioning adjustor (from Meaux, rachet 8) extending from at least one of the posts (from Meaux, second pole 2a) to the elongate flexible member (from Meaux, strap 12; fig. 1A; para [0017]).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the strap material (from Meaux, interpreted as material of strap 12) is selected from the group consisting of nylon, polyester polypropylene, plastics or fabrics (from Meaux, para [0018], strap 12 may be formed of a “cloth material”).
Regarding claim 8, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the hanging members (from Meaux, straps 14) is selected from the group consisting of nylon, polyester polypropylene plastics or fabrics (from Meaux, para [0018], straps 14 may be formed of a “cloth material”).
Regarding claim 10, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 8 and further discloses wherein the hanging members have a different color than the elongate flexible member (from Electro Tape, see “Physical Properties” section, “Multi-Color” embodiment has blue rope, thus the color of at least some hanging members differs from that of the elongate flexible member).
Regarding claim 14, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 1 and further discloses wherein the hanging members (“pennant flags” para [0042]) are spaced along the elongate flexible member (flag line 14) at regular intervals (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Davis discloses a method of deterring animals from entering a protected region (shown in fig. 1, note that the method of Davis is capable of deterring animals from entering a protected region) comprising:
providing an elongate flexible member (flag line 14) with a plurality of hanging members (“pennant flags” para [0042]) therefrom (fig. 1), wherein the elongate flexible member is formed of a length of flat material (para [0042], flag line 14 is described as “flat”), and wherein the plurality of hanging members are each formed of a length of flat material (fig. 1-2; para [0042], note that hanging members may be “any shaped flag”) and permanently secured to the elongate flexible member at a fixed substantially perpendicular orientation thereto at a connection location therebetween (fig. 1, longitudinal axes of pennant flags are perpendicular to longitudinal axis of flag line 14; pennant flags are fixed to flag line 14 and are not disclosed as being removable therefrom and are thus considered “permanently secured” to flag line 14);
extending the elongate flexible member across the protected region (fig. 1, area shown beneath flag line 14 may be interpreted as a protected region); and
securing the ends of the elongate flexible member to an anchor (stanchions 18) so as to suspend the elongate flexible member above the protected region (fig. 1).
Davis does not appear to specifically disclose:
providing the substantially inelastic elongate flexible member;
wherein the elongate flexible member is formed of a length of webbing strap material, and wherein the plurality of hanging members are each formed of a length of rectangular shaped webbing strap material.
However, Electro Tape is in the field of high visibility flag systems (see Description, “highly effective at drawing attention for protection, traffic or other events where safety is of utmost concern”) and teaches providing the substantially inelastic elongate flexible member (see Description, “pennants carried on a sturdy poly rope to prevent draping”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of deterring animals comprising providing an elongate flexible member of Davis to have made the elongate flexible member of a substantially inelastic material as taught by Electro Tape with a reasonable expectation of success to make the overall system more sag-resistant such that it can be more effectively strung across an extended area (see Description, “pennants carried on a sturdy poly rope to prevent draping”).
Additionally, Meaux is in the field of barrier systems (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the elongate flexible member (strap 12) is formed of a length of webbing strap material (para [0018], “straps 12 and 14 may be manufactured of material similar to a seat belt, another cloth material, a woven type of material, synthetic materials, or any combination thereof…”), and wherein the plurality of hanging members (straps 14) are each formed of a length of rectangular shaped webbing strap material (fig. 1A; para [0018], “straps 12 and 14 may be manufactured of material similar to a seat belt, another cloth material, a woven type of material, synthetic materials, or any combination thereof…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of deterring animals comprising providing an elongate flexible member and hanging members of Davis to have made the members of webbing strap material as taught by Meaux with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize well-understood materials to improve durability, strength, and comfortability of the device during handling and use (para [0018]).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Davis (US 2018/0016801 A1), hereinafter Davis, in view of Meaux et al. (US 2008/0173854 A1), hereinafter Meaux, and Electro Tape (https://www.electrotape.com/product/pennant-flags-osha-rated/, last visited 01/05/2026), hereinafter Electro Tape), hereinafter Electro Tape, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mutual Industries (https://www.amazon.com/Mutual-Industries-14962-27-18-Reflective-Heavy-Duty/dp/B00KTAMSXS/ref=sr_1_46?crid=3IL6R5WQ7YHGT&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Gf0ZCrleMCwNDpOODV7Isk8g2Grv0GrK5UwKz1MsFsVUhqrEqUwh2tQ1pD0MfN3pr6-indiZeL5DxNoRzcyF-3poc-7XlaV-umEjYDsrVq2bkqJ8pmWprl_mLNfDxcPY4T0k84ev7LrwbvfUPiB0Z3PlL4ytS1RL2MBT4v4AuCGRQA1_bvLPjvYrXuaowNyOTG9SAAmAcfK5ypzmTu2gQEb1yCtCTRR03VdvV5EfcWSFiEn6ZusT12cUJPTH0aocGfA8T8sysmUHQVBs8tj9MyIAgO8M8NsSlqkLW0GXmxg.W14SMCKVwXyRulyfSTkPwNyJFWVPIwRPxlCZ8SRR-6g&dib_tag=se&keywords=reflective+safety+flags&qid=1720732797&sprefix=reflective+safety+flags%2Caps%2C99&sr=8-46, last visited 12/19/2024), hereinafter Mutual Industries.
PNG
media_image1.png
881
1393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Image from Mutual Industries (Examiner-Annotated)
Regarding claim 11, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 8 but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the hanging members includes a bright or reflective portion.
However, Mutual Industries is in the field of high visibility flag systems (see title, “Reflective Heavy-Duty Safety Traffic Warning Flag”) and teaches wherein the hanging members includes a bright or reflective portion (see annotated fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for deterring animals comprising hanging members of Davis as modified to incorporate bright or reflective portions as taught by Mutual Industries with a reasonable expectation of success to increase visibility of the device such that people and animals are better able to see the device in low-light environments.
Regarding claim 12, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 11 and further discloses wherein the reflective portion comprise strips along the length of the hanging members (from Mutual Industries, see annotated fig. 1).
Regarding claim 13, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 12 and further discloses wherein the strips are proximate to each of a first and second edge of the hanging members (from Mutual Industries, see annotated fig. 1).
Claim(s) 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Davis (US 2018/0016801 A1), hereinafter Davis, in view of Meaux et al. (US 2008/0173854 A1), hereinafter Meaux, and Electro Tape (https://www.electrotape.com/product/pennant-flags-osha-rated/, last visited 01/05/2026), hereinafter Electro Tape), hereinafter Electro Tape, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Long (US 5,615,889 A), hereinafter Long.
Regarding claim 15, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 5 (interpreted as claim 1 based on the objection noted above) but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the hanging members are secured to the elongate flexible member by stitching.
However, Long is in the field of barrier systems (abstract) and teaches wherein the hanging members (loops 20) are secured to the elongate flexible member (vertical webbing straps 18) by stitching (col 4, lines 35-37; fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for deterring animals comprising elongate flexible member and hanging members of Davis as modified to incorporate securement via stitching as taught by Long with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize attachment means well understood in the art to more securely connect elements of the system to one another (col 4, lines 31-40).
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that no criticality has been described in the instant disclosure regarding the means of attachment between the elongate flexible member and plurality of hanging members, as the disclosure lists a number of optional attachment means (e.g., rivets, screws, bolts) and states that in regard to “stitching 44”, “any desired or common pattern for such connection method may be utilized” (para [0022] of specification filed May 25, 2023).
Regarding claim 17, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 15 and further discloses wherein the stitching extends through the hanging members (from Long, loops 20) and the elongate flexible member (from Long, vertical webbing straps 18) along at least first and second stitch sides proximate to side edges of the hanging members across the width of the elongate flexible member (from Long, col 4, lines 31-40; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 17 and further discloses wherein the stitching extends along first and second cross lengths between opposite ends of the first and second stitch sides so as to form an x-shape therebetween (from Long, col 4, lines 31-40; fig. 2, stitching forms x-shape).
Regarding claim 19, Davis as modified discloses the system of claim 17 and further discloses wherein the stitching forms a box defined by the first and second stitch sides and third and fourth stitch sides proximate to side edges of the elongate flexible member across the hanging members (from Long, col 4, lines 31-40; fig. 2, stitching forms a box shape).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 2-5 of 5), filed October 06, 2025, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 1 and 16 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Applicant argues that the prior art, including Davis (US 2018/0016801 A1), does not teach "an elongate flexible member extending between first and second ends formed of a length of flat webbing strap material" and "a plurality of flexible elongate hanging members each formed of a length of flat rectangular shaped webbing strap material secured to and suspended from the elongate flexible member" (Remarks, page 3 of 5). However, in the instant rejection, Meaux et al. (US 2008/0173854 A1) has been included to modify Davis for teaching the limitations in question, thereby rendering Applicant’s arguments against the prior art moot.
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 ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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 at (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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647