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 .
Election/Restrictions
No claims are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/09/2024.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-10 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.
In regard to claim 1, lines 16-17, the phrase “actuating the test mode control mechanism on the signal unit to send a test signal to the animal trap initiating a test mode” renders the claim vague and indefinite since depressing of the test mode button 33 sends a test mode signal via signal unit 30 to the off-site receiver 34 and not to the animal trap 50 which is a spring-loaded trap. It is disclosed in paragraph 0066 that “…a test mode control mechanism 31 for initiating a test mode using test mode button 33…depressing test mode button 33…may send a test mode signal via signal unit 30…if off-site receiver 34 receives signal 32 to register a capture event, this may indicate that animal sensor 20 from ‘end-to-end’…may be operational…On the other hand, if off-site receiver 34 does not receive signal 32, this may indicate that animal sensor 20…may not be operational” and in paragraph 0085 of the present specification that “…optionally initiating a test mode and sending a signal to the off-site receiver (93), in which, when test mode is initiated, if off-site receiver receives the signal to register a capture event, this may indicate that the animal sensor is operational, on the other hand, if off-site receiver does not receive the signal, this may indicate that the animal sensor is not operational”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vickery 2021/0022333 in view of Clifford 2013/0222146, Cristofori et al. 7,026,942, Deering et al. 2021/0029983, Pinzone et al. 2017/0215407, Seiler et al. 2018/0248712, Gardner, Jr. et al. 7,509,770 or Cottee et al. 2008/0204253 or Crezee 10,765,106 and Cristofori et al. 7,026,942.
In regard to claim 1, Vickery discloses a method of trapping an animal comprising proving an animal trap (100); disposing an animal trap sensor (104, 132) unto the animal trap, wherein the animal trap sensor comprises: a first portion comprising a magnet (132); and a second portion comprising a magnetically-responsive component (116) and electrically connected with a signal unit (transmitter of 118) comprising a power supply (power supply of 118), the signal unit (transmitter of 118) is on the animal trap (118 disposed on trap 100 via 104) and electrically connected to the magnetically-responsive component (116; see Fig. 5 which shows transceiver 528 electrically connected to the controller 510 and the magnetic switch 116 electrically connected to the controller 510 via connector 540 to thereby establish the electrical connection between the transceiver 528 & magnetic switch 116); moving the first portion with respect to the second portion (302 in Fig. 3), when the animal trap is tripped, from a first distance (when trap is set; see para. 0071) between each other, which generates an output property, to a second distance (when trap is triggered; see para. 0071) between each other, which is different from the first distance, thereby changing the output property and causing the signal unit to generate a capture signal (switch 116 is in an on/closed state); and wirelessly (via transceiver 528; see para. 0103) sending the capture signal to an off-site receiver (network 550 coupled to server 552 and device 554) to register a capture event, but does not disclose a test mode control mechanism for initiating a test mode, the signal to the off-site receiver is sent to register the capture event in the test mode. Clifford discloses wherein the animal trap sensor (130) further comprises a test mode control mechanism (test switch 180) for initiating a test mode (a device to provide a remote visual signal that a trap has been sprung, along with a way to remotely verify the device is in good operational condition; see para. 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of trapping an animal of Vickery such that it further comprises a test mode control mechanism for initiating a test mode in view of Clifford in order to provide a means for testing whether the animal trap sensor is operational and if the power supply has sufficient charge (see para. 0006 of Clifford). Vickery also does not disclose the signal unit is spaced apart from the animal trap. Cristofori et al. disclose the signal unit (signaling unit 30 may comprise a transmitter for sending the signal of presence of vermin in the trap to a remote console; see col. 5, lines 29-62) is spaced apart from the animal trap (trap 1), wherein when the trap is in a hidden place, e.g. under a piece of furniture, the signaling unit (30) is arranged according to Fig. 6A in a different location spaced therefrom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signal unit of Vickery such that it is spaced apart from the animal trap in view of Cristofori et al. in order to dispose the signal unit at a different location from the trap such as when the trap is in a hidden place so that the signals being sent from the signal unit are not obstructed from being sent. Vickery, Clifford, and Cristofori et al. do not disclose the signal to the off-site receiver is sent to register the capture event in the test mode. Deering et al. disclose a method of trapping an animal comprising disposing an animal trap sensor (sensor station 4250 or 4350) unto the animal trap (station 4200 fitted with a trap and bait or trap 4300) and generating a signal to register the capture event in the test mode (human user such as maintenance person may physically activate the sensor indicator when the person is physically at the site of the bait station, the user may then wave objects in front of sensor to perform other tests to determine if the sensor station is working properly and the user may observe the behavior of the LED light [status indicator 2102 in Fig. 21] such as turning on when the user waves their hand in front of a motion sensor; “Thus the system may be configured so that a human user, such as maintenance person, may physically activate the sensor indicator when the maintenance person is physically at the site of the bait station. The user may then wave objects in front of sensors or perform other tests to determine if the sensor station is working properly, and the user may observe the behavior of the LED light, such as turning on when the user waves their hand in front of a motion sensor. The user may then activate the sensor into dark mode before the user has left the vicinity or the station and after the user has satisfied itself that the sensor is working.” as stated in para. 0185). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vickery, Clifford, and Cristofori et al. such that it comprises a test mode control mechanism which generates the signal [the hand waving in front of the motion sensor performed by the maintenance person] to register the capture event [the turning on of the status indicator LED light 2102] in view of Deering et al. so as to provide a mechanism by which the sensor may be tested specifically through user manipulation of the sensor and its operability conveyed directly to the user during testing thereof. Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., and Deering et al. do not disclose the signal to the off-site receiver is sent to register the capture event in the test mode. Pinzone et al. disclose a method of trapping an animal comprising disposing an animal trap sensor (trap monitor 101 motion sensor 111 such as passive infrared sensor & magnetic interlock 117, clip 121, magnet 124 placed in recess 127 or recess 131 having magnetic flux sensor within enclosure 104) unto the animal trap (204), wherein the animal trap sensor comprises a first portion comprising a magnet (124), and a second portion comprising a magnetically-responsive component (recess 127 or 131 having a magnetic flux sensor within enclosure 104); moving the first portion and the second portion; causing the signal unit (transmitter 524 having antenna 114) to generate a signal (change in magnetic flux due to movement of magnet 124 and by detecting the magnetic flux, the trap monitor 101 can determine when a trap is triggered; see paras. 0019 & 0021); sending the signal to an off-site receiver (trap monitors may forward trap events and other information to a central hub 611 for communication to a server 601) to register a capture event (trap monitor 101 detects change in magnetic flux with magnetic flux sensor and transmits a trap trigger event to a central hub via antenna 114; see para. 0021); and the signal to the off-site receiver is sent to register the capture event in the test mode (beginning with box 801 in Fig. 8, trap monitor 101 performs one or more initialization operations which may include performing diagnostic operations such as verification of operability of infrared receiver 511 in Fig. 5, motion sensor 111 in Fig. 1A, magnetic flux sensors 504 in Fig. 5, or other components of the trap monitor 101; next in box 804 in Fig. 8, the trap monitor 101 determines if a trigger event has occurred and this includes determining if magnetic flux sensor 504 has detected any change in magnetic flux and the trap monitor 101 may be configured to report trigger events in response to motion detected by motion sensor 111 and if a trigger event has occurred, the process advances to box 807 in Fig. 8 where a report 613 in Fig. 6 indicating the trigger event is transmitted to the central hub 611 in Fig. 6 and otherwise the process advances to box 811 where the trap monitor 101 determines if motion is detected by motion sensor 111; the trap monitor can detect and report motion for an untriggered trap or after a trap has been triggered and if motion is detected the process advances to box 807 in Fig. 8 where a report 613 indicating the detected motion is transmitted to the central hub 613, otherwise, the process advances to box 814 in Fig. 8, where the trap monitor 101 determines if a predefined interval has passed and if not, the process returns to box 804 in Fig. 8 to determine if a trigger event has occurred, otherwise, if a predefined interval has passed, the trap monitor 101 transmits a report 613 to the central hub 611 and such a report 613 may include, for example, temperature data, humidity data, dew point data, or other data from environmental sensors 514 and additionally, such a report 613 may include operational data such as a battery level, diagnostic data, or other data; see paras. 0045-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., and Deering et al. such that the signal to the off-site receiver is sent to register the capture event in the test mode in view of Pinzone et al. in order to record all signals pertaining to the animal sensor including diagnostic signals pertaining to the operability of the animal trap sensor so that the user may be fully informed with respect to the proper functioning of the animal trap sensor in addition to the actual catch data so that the user can be informed as to which animal traps of a group of animal traps require replacement or repair. Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., and Pinzone et al. do not disclose providing the signal unit comprising a test control mechanism or actuating the test control mechanism on the signal unit to send a test signal to the off-site receiver initiating a test mode. Seiler et al. disclose providing the signal unit (field device FD1 with electronic circuit 2 with a wireless module BT for wireless communication 3) comprising a test control mechanism (test mode is activated by button press on field device FD1; see paras. 0019,0050) and actuating the test control mechanism (test mode is activated by button press on field device FD1) on the signal unit (FD1) to send a test signal to the off-site receiver (superordinated unit H which is for example a mobile unit, such as a mobile telephone, tablet, notebook or the like) initiating a test mode (see para. 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., and Pinzone et al. such that it comprises the steps of providing the signal unit comprising a test control mechanism and actuating the test control mechanism on the signal unit to send a test signal to the off-site receiver initiating a test mode in view of Seiler et al. in order to provide the test control mechanism in an easily accessible location for the user and to assemble the test mode control mechanism in close association with the signal unit so that the test mode control mechanism can be easily coupled to the transceiver of the signal unit for simplification of the manufacture of the circuitry of the device. Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., Pinzone et al., and Seiler et al. do not disclose wherein the capture event registered in the test mode is not counted as a real capture event. Gardner, Jr. et al. disclose that in order to provide feedback information, each pest device (11) includes one or more feedback mechanisms (13) which permit an inspector to provide physical trap and monitor parameter feedback at the location of the devices (11); the additional parameter data on the devices is tracked against the appropriate ID number and this results in refining of both the data and the resulting reports from database (25) and the devices reporting becomes a feedback loop (50; see Fig. 2); the physical inspection of the initial reports (52) and providing additional physical inspect data at block (53) which can include data on each trap and monitor (11); the feedback loop provides data on false positives, disturbed traps, and other factors and the time data corresponding to when pest activity occurs helps to proactively determine pest infiltration factors and/or information relating to maintaining an optimum pest control plan, such as disturbed traps, etc.. Cottee et al. disclose a trap (20) with three contacts (38,42,44) which when the trap is in various configurations form signalling circuits together with the trap to indicate when the trap is in the set position (see para. 0081), sprung position (see para. 0082), or when the trap has caught an animal where consequently a broken circuit signals the trap has caught an animal (see para. 0083); and in order to improve reporting accuracy to avoid false positives/negatives, the microprocessor (40) is programmed to report only double checked signals and when a signal is received, the remote unit (110) waits a short period before checking the next signal and if the same signal is received the signal is verified as valid and if not the signal is ignored and this prevents transient signals reporting false activity (see para. 0090) and that when a valid signal is recorded, the microprocessor is configured to stop processing signals for a given period to avoid multiple counting of the same event (see para. 0091). Crezee discloses a trap (1) provided with a first sensor (17) which determines whether the striking bar is present in the standby or activated position and a second sensor (19) which determines when a mouse is present between the frame and the striking bar or not and thus the trap can determine three situations with two sensors: standby, tripped and tripped with a mouse in the trap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., Pinzone et al., and Seiler et al. such that wherein the capture event registered in the test mode is not counted as a capture event in a trend analysis for predicting future capture event in view of Gardner, Jr. et al., Cottee et al., or Crezee in order to record only pertinent, true trap capture rates amongst the overall trap data which is used to properly and accurately assess the degree of pest infestation in the area in which the trap is to be deployed so as to minimize the amount of irrelevant data that must be by-passed or overlooked by the operator when reviewing the performance of the trap for its efficacy in performing the task of pest control.
In regard to claim 3, Vickery and Clifford disclose wherein the test mode control mechanism comprises a test mode button (180 of Clifford) for initiating the test mode.
In regard to claim 4, Vickery discloses wherein the signal unit further comprises an indicator (circuitry 118 may include an indicator device 408 e.g. one or more LEDs; see para. 0085) configured to indicate that the animal trap is triggered.
In regard to claim 10, Vickery discloses wherein the signal comprises a trigger message (message 556; see para. 0104).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vickery 2021/0022333 in view of Clifford 2013/0222146, Cristofori et al. 7,026,942, Deering et al. 2021/0029983, Pinzone et al. 2017/0215407, Seiler et al. 2018/0248712, Gardner, Jr. et al. 7,509,770 or Cottee et al. 2008/0204253 or Crezee 10,765,106 and Cristofori et al. 7,026,942 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Howard et al. 2018/0235205 or Moran et al. 2009/0193707.
In regard to claims 6-8, Vickery disclose wherein the magnetically-responsive component is a reed switch (116), but does not disclose wherein the output property comprises a voltage, wherein changing the output property comprises lowering the voltage, or wherein the magnetically-responsive component is a Hall effect sensor. Howard et al. and Moran et al. disclose wherein the magnetically-responsive component is a Hall effect sensor (position sensor 84 may be a Hall-effect sensor; see paras. 0080,0083 OR sensor 110; see para. 0015), wherein the output property comprises a voltage (Hall effect sensors of Howard et al. or Moran et al. generate an output property of a voltage change when there is separation between the sensor and its associated magnet), wherein changing the output property comprises lowering the voltage (Hall effect sensor of Howard et al. or Moran et al. operate to cause a lowering of the voltage when the magnet is moved away from the Hall effect sensor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Hall effect sensor of Howard et al. or Moran et al. for the reed switch of Vickery et al. in order to provide an alternative yet equally effective form of magnetically-responsive sensor for detecting the change in relative position between the first and second portions of the animal trap sensor wherein the Hall-effect sensor of Howard et al. or Moran et al. may have more durability and longevity than the reed switch of Vickery.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vickery 2021/0022333 in view of Clifford 2013/0222146, Cristofori et al. 7,026,942, Deering et al. 2021/0029983, Pinzone et al. 2017/0215407, Seiler et al. 2018/0248712, Gardner, Jr. et al. 7,509,770 or Cottee et al. 2008/0204253 or Crezee 10,765,106 and Cristofori et al. 7,026,942 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borth et al. 2010/0134301.
In regard to claim 9, Vickery does not disclose wherein the magnetically-responsive component is a magnetoresistor. Borth et al. disclose wherein the magnetically-responsive component is a Hall effect sensor or a magnetoresistor (operator-activated switch 76 of a magnetic form comprised of a magnetically-responsive component 77 such as hall-effect device or magnetoresistor to name a couple of nonlimiting examples; see para. 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the magnetoresistor of Borth et al. for the reed switch of Vickery et al. in order to provide an alternative yet equally effective form of magnetically-responsive sensor for detecting the change in relative position between the first and second portions of the animal trap sensor wherein the magnetoresistor of Borth et al. may have a smaller size and a higher level of sensitivity than the reed switch of Vickery.
Claim(s) 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vickery 2021/0022333 in view of Clifford 2013/0222146, Cristofori et al. 7,026,942, Deering et al. 2021/0029983, Pinzone et al. 2017/0215407, Gardner, Jr. et al. 7,509,770, Seiler et al. 2018/0248712, and Gardner, Jr. et al. 7,509,770 or Cottee et al. 2008/0204253 or Crezee 10,765,106.
In regard to claim 11, Vickery discloses a method of trapping an animal comprising: providing an animal trap (100); disposing an animal trap sensor (104, 132) unto the animal trap, wherein the animal trap sensor comprises: a first portion comprising a magnet (132), and a second portion comprising a magnetically-responsive component (116) and electrically connected with a signal unit (detector device 104 with transmitter of 118) comprising a power supply (power supply of 118), the signal unit (transmitter of 118) is on the animal trap (118 disposed on trap 100 via 104) and electrically connected to the magnetically-responsive component (116; see Fig. 5 which shows transceiver 528 electrically connected to the controller 510 and the magnetic switch 116 electrically connected to the controller 510 via connector 540 to thereby establish the electrical connection between the transceiver 528 & magnetic switch 116); moving the first portion with respect to the second portion (302 in Fig. 3), when the animal trap is tripped, from a first distance (when trap is set; see para. 0071) between each other, which generates an output property, to a second distance (when trap is triggered; see para. 0071) between each other, which is different from the first distance, thereby changing the output property and causing the signal unit to generate a signal (switch 116 is in an on/closed state); and wirelessly (via transceiver 528; see para. 0103) sending the capture signal to the off-site receiver (network 550 coupled to server 552 and device 554) to register a capture event, if the off-site receiver receives the signal to register a capture event, this indicates that the animal sensor is operational; and if the off-site receiver does not receive the signal, this indicates that the animal sensor is not operational, but does not disclose initiating a test mode and sending a signal to an off-site receiver or wherein when the test mode is initiated, if the off-site receiver receives the signal to register a capture event, this indicates that the animal sensor is operational; and if the off-site receiver does not receive the signal, this indicates that the animal sensor is not operational. Clifford discloses initiating a test mode (closure/pressing of test switch 180; a device to provide a remote visual signal that a trap has been sprung, along with a way to remotely verify the device is in good operational condition---see para. 0006) and sending a signal to an off-site receiver (LED 170 located remotely from the base 120 of trap 200 via cable 160 is caused by closure of test switch 180) and wherein when the test mode is initiated (closure of test switch 180), if the off-site receiver (LED 170) receives the signal to register a capture event (flashing of LED 170), this indicates that the animal sensor is operational (the trap 200 is operational); and if the off-site receiver (LED 170) does not receive the signal (no flashing of LED 170), this indicates that the animal sensor is not operational (switch 130 which is the sensor is not operational due to charge state of the battery being insufficient to illuminate LED 170). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of trapping an animal of Vickery such that it further comprises initiating a test mode and sending a signal to an off-site receiver and wherein when the test mode is initiated, if the off-site receiver receives the signal to register a capture event, this indicates that the animal sensor is operational; and if the off-site receiver does not receive the signal, this indicates that the animal sensor is not operational in view of Clifford in order to provide a means for testing whether the animal trap sensor is operational and if the power supply has sufficient charge (see para. 0006 of Clifford) so as to inform a user at a distance from the trap itself. Vickery also does not disclose the signal unit is spaced apart from the animal trap. Cristofori et al. disclose the signal unit (signaling unit 30 may comprise a transmitter for sending the signal of presence of vermin in the trap to a remote console; see col. 5, lines 29-62) is spaced apart from the animal trap (trap 1), wherein when the trap is in a hidden place, e.g. under a piece of furniture, the signaling unit (30) is arranged according to Fig. 6A in a different location spaced therefrom. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the signal unit of Vickery such that it is spaced apart from the animal trap in view of Cristofori et al. in order to dispose the signal unit at a different location from the trap such as when the trap is in a hidden place so that the signals being sent from the signal unit are not obstructed from being sent. Vickery, Clifford, and Cristofori et al. do not disclose the signal to the off-site receiver is sent to register the capture event in the test mode. Deering et al. disclose a method of trapping an animal comprising disposing an animal trap sensor (sensor station 4250 or 4350) unto the animal trap (station 4200 fitted with a trap and bait or trap 4300) and generating a signal to register the capture event in the test mode (human user such as maintenance person may physically activate the sensor indicator when the person is physically at the site of the bait station, the user may then wave objects in front of sensor to perform other tests to determine if the sensor station is working properly and the user may observe the behavior of the LED light [status indicator 2102 in Fig. 21] such as turning on when the user waves their hand in front of a motion sensor; “Thus the system may be configured so that a human user, such as maintenance person, may physically activate the sensor indicator when the maintenance person is physically at the site of the bait station. The user may then wave objects in front of sensors or perform other tests to determine if the sensor station is working properly, and the user may observe the behavior of the LED light, such as turning on when the user waves their hand in front of a motion sensor. The user may then activate the sensor into dark mode before the user has left the vicinity or the station and after the user has satisfied itself that the sensor is working.” as stated in para. 0185). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vickery, Clifford, and Cristofori et al. such that it comprises a test mode which generates the signal [the hand waving in front of the motion sensor performed by the maintenance person] to register the capture event [the turning on of the status indicator LED light 2102] in view of Deering et al. so as to provide a mechanism by which the sensor may be tested specifically through user manipulation of the sensor and its operability conveyed directly to the user during testing thereof. Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., and Deering et al. do not disclose the signal to the off-site receiver is sent to register the capture event in the test mode. Pinzone et al. disclose a method of trapping an animal comprising disposing an animal trap sensor (trap monitor 101 motion sensor 111 such as passive infrared sensor & magnetic interlock 117, clip 121, magnet 124 placed in recess 127 or recess 131 having magnetic flux sensor within enclosure 104) unto the animal trap (204), wherein the animal trap sensor comprises a first portion comprising a magnet (124), and a second portion comprising a magnetically-responsive component (recess 127 or 131 having a magnetic flux sensor within enclosure 104); moving the first portion and the second portion; causing the signal unit (transmitter 524 having antenna 114) to generate a signal (change in magnetic flux due to movement of magnet 124 and by detecting the magnetic flux, the trap monitor 101 can determine when a trap is triggered; see paras. 0019 & 0021); sending the signal to an off-site receiver (trap monitors may forward trap events and other information to a central hub 611 for communication to a server 601) to register a capture event (trap monitor 101 detects change in magnetic flux with magnetic flux sensor and transmits a trap trigger event to a central hub via antenna 114; see para. 0021); and the signal to the off-site receiver is sent to register the capture event in the test mode (beginning with box 801 in Fig. 8, trap monitor 101 performs one or more initialization operations which may include performing diagnostic operations such as verification of operability of infrared receiver 511 in Fig. 5, motion sensor 111 in Fig. 1A, magnetic flux sensors 504 in Fig. 5, or other components of the trap monitor 101; next in box 804 in Fig. 8, the trap monitor 101 determines if a trigger event has occurred and this includes determining if magnetic flux sensor 504 has detected any change in magnetic flux and the trap monitor 101 may be configured to report trigger events in response to motion detected by motion sensor 111 and if a trigger event has occurred, the process advances to box 807 in Fig. 8 where a report 613 in Fig. 6 indicating the trigger event is transmitted to the central hub 611 in Fig. 6 and otherwise the process advances to box 811 where the trap monitor 101 determines if motion is detected by motion sensor 111; the trap monitor can detect and report motion for an untriggered trap or after a trap has been triggered and if motion is detected the process advances to box 807 in Fig. 8 where a report 613 indicating the detected motion is transmitted to the central hub 613, otherwise, the process advances to box 814 in Fig. 8, where the trap monitor 101 determines if a predefined interval has passed and if not, the process returns to box 804 in Fig. 8 to determine if a trigger event has occurred, otherwise, if a predefined interval has passed, the trap monitor 101 transmits a report 613 to the central hub 611 and such a report 613 may include, for example, temperature data, humidity data, dew point data, or other data from environmental sensors 514 and additionally, such a report 613 may include operational data such as a battery level, diagnostic data, or other data; see paras. 0045-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., and Deering et al. such that the signal to the off-site receiver is sent to register the capture event in the test mode in view of Pinzone et al. in order to record all signals pertaining to the animal sensor including diagnostic signals pertaining to the operability of the animal trap sensor so that the user may be fully informed with respect to the proper functioning of the animal trap sensor in addition to the actual catch data so that the user can be informed as to which animal traps of a group of animal traps require replacement or repair. Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., and Pinzone et al. do not disclose sending a move signal to the off-site receiver when the sensor is moved or wherein the move signal indicates the sensor has been moved and is not operational. Gardner, Jr. et al. disclose sending a move signal (gross motion sensing switch 603 provides information on rough treatment of trap 605 and resulting pest activity signal sent via transmitter 14) to the off-site receiver (receiver 15 located off-site) when the sensor is moved (603 provides information on rough treatment of the trap 605 such as intentional or inadvertent movement of the trap by workers or inanimate objects in the area; see col. 9, line 57 to col. 10, line 11 & col. 11, lines 44-67); wherein the move signal indicates the sensor has been moved and is not operational (Gardner, Jr. discloses at col. 9, line 57 to col. 10, line 10 that “Fig. 4c illustrates a summary for a particular trap which generated pest presence signals with additional feedback data added to the summary…the trap was disturbed on two separate occasions with no rodent caught. This may be an indication of…a failing trap, or malfunction, among others.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., and Pinzone et al. such that it comprises sending a move signal to the off-site receiver when the sensor is moved or wherein the move signal indicates the sensor has been moved and is not operational in view of Gardner, Jr. in order to inform the user when the animal sensor has been moved from its intended/desired location which may affect its proper operation or to inform the user that the animal sensor has been subjected to rough treatment such as intentional or inadvertent movement of the trap by workers or inanimate objects in the area thus resulting in an indication that the animal sensor has failed or malfunctioned. Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., Pinzone et al. and Gardner, Jr. et al. do not disclose providing the signal unit comprising a test control mechanism or actuating the test control mechanism on the signal unit to send a test signal to the off-site receiver initiating a test mode. Seiler et al. disclose providing the signal unit (field device FD1 with electronic circuit 2 with a wireless module BT for wireless communication 3) comprising a test control mechanism (test mode is activated by button press on field device FD1; see paras. 0019,0050) and actuating the test control mechanism (test mode is activated by button press on field device FD1) on the signal unit (FD1) to send a test signal to the off-site receiver (superordinated unit H which is for example a mobile unit, such as a mobile telephone, tablet, notebook or the like) initiating a test mode (see para. 0050). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., Pinzone et al. and Gardner, Jr. et al. such that it comprises the steps of providing the signal unit comprising a test control mechanism and actuating the test control mechanism on the signal unit to send a test signal to the off-site receiver initiating a test mode in view of Seiler et al. in order to provide the test control mechanism in an easily accessible location for the user and to assemble the test mode control mechanism in close association with the signal unit so that the test mode control mechanism can be easily coupled to the transceiver of the signal unit for simplification of the manufacture of the circuitry of the device. Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., Pinzone et al., Gardner, Jr. et al. and Seiler et al. do not disclose wherein the capture event registered in the test mode is not counted as a real capture event. Gardner, Jr. et al. disclose that in order to provide feedback information, each pest device (11) includes one or more feedback mechanisms (13) which permit an inspector to provide physical trap and monitor parameter feedback at the location of the devices (11); the additional parameter data on the devices is tracked against the appropriate ID number and this results in refining of both the data and the resulting reports from database (25) and the devices reporting becomes a feedback loop (50; see Fig. 2); the physical inspection of the initial reports (52) and providing additional physical inspect data at block (53) which can include data on each trap and monitor (11); the feedback loop provides data on false positives, disturbed traps, and other factors and the time data corresponding to when pest activity occurs helps to proactively determine pest infiltration factors and/or information relating to maintaining an optimum pest control plan, such as disturbed traps, etc.. Cottee et al. disclose a trap (20) with three contacts (38,42,44) which when the trap is in various configurations form signalling circuits together with the trap to indicate when the trap is in the set position (see para. 0081), sprung position (see para. 0082), or when the trap has caught an animal where consequently a broken circuit signals the trap has caught an animal (see para. 0083); and in order to improve reporting accuracy to avoid false positives/negatives, the microprocessor (40) is programmed to report only double checked signals and when a signal is received, the remote unit (110) waits a short period before checking the next signal and if the same signal is received the signal is verified as valid and if not the signal is ignored and this prevents transient signals reporting false activity (see para. 0090) and that when a valid signal is recorded, the microprocessor is configured to stop processing signals for a given period to avoid multiple counting of the same event (see para. 0091). Crezee discloses a trap (1) provided with a first sensor (17) which determines whether the striking bar is present in the standby or activated position and a second sensor (19) which determines when a mouse is present between the frame and the striking bar or not and thus the trap can determine three situations with two sensors: standby, tripped and tripped with a mouse in the trap. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., Pinzone et al., Gardner, Jr. et al. and Seiler et al. such that wherein the capture event registered in the test mode is not counted as a capture event in a trend analysis for predicting future capture event in view of Gardner, Jr. et al., Cottee et al., or Crezee in order to record only pertinent, true trap capture rates amongst the overall trap data which is used to properly and accurately assess the degree of pest infestation in the area in which the trap is to be deployed so as to minimize the amount of irrelevant data that must be by-passed or overlooked by the operator when reviewing the performance of the trap for its efficacy in performing the task of pest control.
In regard to claim 15, Vickery, Clifford, Cristofori et al., Deering et al., Pinzone et al., Gardner, Jr. et al. and Seiler et al. disclose wherein the test mode control mechanism comprises a test mode button (180 of Clifford; button on FD1 of Seiler et al.) for initiating the test mode.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vickery 2021/0022333 in view of Clifford 2013/0222146, Cristofori et al. 7,026,942, Deering et al. 2021/0029983, Pinzone et al. 2017/0215407, Gardner, Jr. et al. 7,509,770, Seiler et al. 2018/0248712, and Gardner, Jr. et al. 7,509,770 or Cottee et al. 2008/0204253 or Crezee 10,765,106 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Howard et al. 2018/0235205 or Moran et al. 2009/0193707.
In regard to claims 17-19, Vickery discloses wherein the magnetically-responsive component is a reed switch (116), but does not disclose wherein the output property comprises a voltage, wherein changing the output property comprises lowering the voltage, or wherein the magnetically-responsive component is a Hall effect sensor. Howard et al. and Moran et al. disclose wherein the magnetically-responsive component is a Hall effect sensor (position sensor 84 may be a Hall-effect sensor; see paras. 0080,0083 OR sensor 110; see para. 0015), wherein the output property comprises a voltage (Hall effect sensors of Howard et al. or Moran et al. generate an output property of a voltage change when there is separation between the sensor and its associated magnet), wherein changing the output property comprises lowering the voltage (Hall effect sensor of Howard et al. or Moran et al. operate to cause a lowering of the voltage when the magnet is moved away from the Hall effect sensor). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Hall effect sensor of Howard et al. or Moran et al. for the reed switch of Vickery et al. in order to provide an alternative yet equally effective form of magnetically-responsive sensor for detecting the change in relative position between the first and second portions of the animal trap sensor wherein the Hall-effect sensor of Howard et al. or Moran et al. may have more durability and longevity than the reed switch of Vickery.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vickery 2021/0022333 in view of Clifford 2013/0222146, Cristofori et al. 7,026,942, Deering et al. 2021/0029983, Pinzone et al. 2017/0215407, Gardner, Jr. et al. 7,509,770, Seiler et al. 2018/0248712, and Gardner, Jr. et al. 7,509,770 or Cottee et al. 2008/0204253 or Crezee 10,765,106 as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Borth et al. 2010/0134301.
In regard to claim 20, Vickery does not disclose wherein the magnetically-responsive component is a magnetoresistor. Borth et al. disclose wherein the magnetically-responsive component is a Hall effect sensor or a magnetoresistor (operator-activated switch 76 of a magnetic form comprised of a magnetically-responsive component 77 such as hall-effect device or magnetoresistor to name a couple of nonlimiting examples; see para. 0024). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the magnetoresistor of Borth et al. for the reed switch of Vickery et al. in order to provide an alternative yet equally effective form of magnetically-responsive sensor for detecting the change in relative position between the first and second portions of the animal trap sensor wherein the magnetoresistor of Borth et al. may have a smaller size and a higher level of sensitivity than the reed switch of Vickery.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 6-11, 15, and 17-20 have been considered but 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.
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 DARREN W ARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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.
/DARREN W ARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
DWA
Prosecution Insights