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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites “identifying means for capturing a pest feature” which is interpreted in light of “a video camera” per P. 4, Para. 4 of the instant invention.
Claim 1 recites “selection means for selecting an influencing factor” which is interpretated in light of “a suitable processor and communication link which enables data exchange, using known information exchange protocols” per P. 6, Para. 6.
Claim 1 recites “means for exposing the identified pest species” which is interpreted in light of “a speaker” per P. 7, Para. 2 of the instant invention.
Claim 2 recites “means to reduce complacency of the identified pest species with respect to the influencing factor” which is interpreted in light of “where the influencing factor includes sounds, the means to reduce complacency include a plurality of sounds, mixed together and/or played sequentially” per P. 8, Para. 1.
Examiner notes, similar claim interpretation has been applied to the remaining claims.
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 17 and 21 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 17 recites “wherein the means to reduce complacency includes at least one of changes in loudness, length of time of emission and/or the selection and/or mix of sounds” which is indefinite, because the Markush group only requires one, and therefore the claim should be amended to recite “
Claim 21 recites “The method of claim 19 when carried out using the system of claim 1” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how the system of claim 1 is utilized in the method of claim 19 since the method does not disclose how to incorporate/utilize the system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, and 17-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerzner et al. (US 11,557,142 B1), hereinafter Kerzner, in view of Birch et al. (US 2018/0310526 A1), hereinafter Birch.
Regarding claim 1, Kerzner discloses a pest management system for reducing or preventing pest damage to a selected location being a crop or an orchard, the system including:
a sensor for sensing presence of a pest in the selected location (Col. 14, lines 45-52, “[t]he camera 530 may be triggered by several different types of techniques. For instance, a Passive Infra-Red (PIR) motion sensor may be built into the camera 530 and used to trigger the camera 530 to capture one or more images when motion is detected. The camera 530 also may include a microwave motion sensor built into the camera and used to trigger the camera 530 to capture one or more images when motion is detected”);
identifying means for capturing a pest feature (Col. 5, lines 30-32, “the analysis server 120 may be processing the video data to classify the object in the video as a particular type of wild animal”), comparing the pest feature with features in a first reference library and thereby identifying the pest species (Col. 7, lines 44-54, “[t]he deep convolutional neural network may be configured with two trained models. The first one is to detect and/or classify the animal, and the second is to extract identifying features for a specific animal (for example, using the intermediate layers of the first model) and cluster the features based on likelihood of being the same individual.” Examiner notes, the first reference library holds information pertaining to the detected/identified animals);
selection means for selecting negative influencing factors for the identified pest species from a second reference library containing influencing factor data (Col. 10, lines 30-42, “[t]he process 300 may additionally or alternatively include selecting an action to perform based on the particular type of the wild animal that the object is classified as. For example, analysis server 120 may obtain actions from the action database 125, identify an action for making a noise that is specified as to be performed for a bear based on the classification of the wild animal as a bear, and, in response, determine to make a noise. The analysis server may apply the wild animal classification information for example the particular type of wild animal information to the action database. Then the system selects a deterrence action from the action database based on the identity of the wild animal.” Examiner notes, the second reference library holds information pertaining to the negative influencing factors);
means for exposing the identified pest species to at least one negative influencing factor for that species (Col. 10, lines, 57-62, “the action to perform based on the particular type of the wild animal that the object is classified as includes at least one of: a sound action that causes a speaker of the home wildlife deterrence system to output sound waves audible to wild animal that enters a home property”).
However, Kerzner does not appear to specifically disclose selection means for selecting positive
influencing factors for the identified pest species from a second reference library containing influencing factor data; and means for exposing the identified pest species to at least one positive influencing factor for that species.
Birch is in the field a monitoring system for influencing animal behavior (Abstract) and teaches selection means for selecting positive influencing factors; and means for exposing the identified pest species to at least one positive influencing factor for that species (Paras. [0022-0023], “an attractant device 108 may include one or more and attractant mechanisms. When placed strategically, attractant devices 108 may be used in coordination with repellent devices 106 to maneuver animals 102 away from a restricted zone 104. Attractant mechanisms include, but are not limited to audio, light, vibration, or olfactory mechanisms. For instance, the sound of an animal in heat or a young animal in distress may be used to attract animals 102. As another example, the smell of food or the sound of a food dispensing machine may be used to attract animals 102. Other modes of attracting animals are considered to be within the scope of this disclosure”).
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 invention of Kerzner such that there was an attractant mechanism as taught by Birch, in order to attract the animal (Birch: Para. [0023]). Furthermore, examiner notes Kerzner discloses that the second reference library holds information pertaining to the negative influencing factor and Birch teaches in at least para. [0022] that the “attractant devices 108 may be used in coordination with repellent devices 106 to maneuver animals 102 away from a restricted zone 104.” Since Birch teaches the addition of attractant devices [i.e., positive influencing factors] used with repellent devices [i.e., negative influencing factors], 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 second reference library of Kerzner such that it also contained the data associated with the attractant mechanism [i.e., the positive influencing factors], in order to keep both the positive and negative influencing factors organized in the same reference library.
Regarding claim 2, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Kerzner further discloses means to reduce complacency of the identified pest species with respect to the influencing factor (Col. 4, lines 13-21, “[a]djusting the speaker to perform sound waves at different wavelengths could result in different effectiveness in deterring various wild animals from the home property. Humans cannot hear ultrasound waves, therefore the wildlife deterrence by ultrasound may not interrupt the homeowner. The home deterrence system speaker 135 could also play other sounds like loud music or simulate human activities to intimidate the wild animals and drive them away”. Furthermore, Col. 4, lines 34-37 discloses, “[t]he speaker 135 may be also configured to use Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) techniques to create new synthetic animal sounds such that they are realistic but unique each time”).
Regarding claim 3, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the pest is chosen from the group consisting of birds, rodents, bats, foxes, deer, sharks and insects, including termites, locusts and grass hoppers (fox, deer, and bird chosen; Col. 7, lines 25-28, “the system 100 may be configured to ignore the actions of a fox that is wandering through a yard, but the system may trigger the deterrence system when the fox is within thirty feet away from a chicken coop.” Furthermore, Col. 11, lines 28-30, “the deterrence system 100 determines that a deer was deterred away by a sound action from the home property”, and Col. 2, lines 5-6, “the system could set a protected area around a strawberry patch to ward off a bird”).
Regarding claim 5, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the negative influencing factor is adapted to deter the pest species from remaining in the selected location (Col. 11, lines 17-20, “[t]he process 300 includes triggering the action to be performed (340). For example, the analysis server 120 may send an instruction to the speaker 135 to make a noise. The deterrence device is then activated and may frighten the wild animal away from the home property”).
Regarding claim 6, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Birch further discloses wherein the positive influencing factor is adapted to entice the pest species away from the selected location (Para. [0035], “[w]hen an animal or a group of animals is detected as being near on in a restricted zone (operation 302), then the monitoring system may activate one or more repellent devices and one or more attractant devices (operation 304) to maneuver the animal(s) away from the restricted zone.” See also Para. [0023]).
Regarding claim 7, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the sensor is adapted to detect presence of the pest by capturing one or more images of the pest, by detecting a pattern in its flight or other movement (Col. 14, lines 46-52, “[f]or instance, a Passive Infra-Red (PIR) motion sensor may be built into the camera 530 and used to trigger the camera 530 to capture one or more images when motion is detected. The camera 530 also may include a microwave motion sensor built into the camera and used to trigger the camera 530 to capture one or more images when motion is detected”), by detecting one or more sounds, by detecting motion or by heat sensing (detecting motion chosen; Col. 13, lines 56-60, “[t]he control unit system that includes the control unit 510 includes one or more sensors. For example, the monitoring system may include multiple sensors 520. The sensors 520 may include…a motion sensor”).
Regarding claim 8, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the pest feature is chosen from an image, a flight pattern, a flock pattern in flight, a sound made by the pest or a combination of any of the foregoing (image chosen; Col 3, lines 28-48, “[t]o classify the wild animal and select the deterrence action, the wildlife deterrence system includes an analysis server 120. In some implementations, the analysis server 120 may be configured to be integrated with the camera 130, or hosted in the cloud. The analysis server 120 may include a data store unit, such as a hard drive or a memory, to store the video data that is captured by the monitor camera 130. The analysis server 120 may also include a processor to process the video data and feed the data into a deep neural network. The deep neural network, such as a deep convolutional neural network, may be trained with specific learning algorithms, so that the deep neural network can obtain video of objects and classify the objects as particular types of wild animals. The video data processing in analysis server 120 may also reveal the pattern of the wildlife activity on the home property. Some examples may include frequently visited areas on the home property, objects the animal interacts with on the property, the observed wild animal's actions when they stay on the property, and other characteristics of the wild animal including size, height, and number of wild animals that enter on to the home property”).
Regarding claim 9, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the identifying means includes the sensor (see claim 1 above; Col. 5, lines 30-32, “the analysis server 120 may be processing the video data to classify the object in the video as a particular type of wild animal”).
Regarding claim 10, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 9, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the identifying means is a motion-activated video camera (Col. 5, lines 30-32, “the analysis server 120 may be processing the video data to classify the object in the video as a particular type of wild animal”).
Regarding claim 11, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Kerzner further discloses wherein first reference library is a database of pest species features (Col. 7, lines 44-54, “[t]he analysis server 120 may apply the video data to a deep convolutional neural network using an open-source framework for wildlife classification as stage B. The deep convolutional neural network may be configured with two trained models. The first one is to detect and/or classify the animal, and the second is to extract identifying features for a specific animal (for example, using the intermediate layers of the first model) and cluster the features based on likelihood of being the same individual. The classification results may indicate it is the same wild animal that entered the home property previously”).
Regarding claim 12, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the second reference library is a database of influencing factors for identified pest species (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the influencing factors include predator sounds, loud noises, sounds of nuisance elements, vibrations, lights, intermittent light patterns and sounds made by the identified pest when in an environment providing plentiful food and/or shelter and/or safety from predators (sound chosen; Col. 4, lines 19-30, “[t]he home deterrence system speaker 135 could also play other sounds like loud music or simulate human activities to intimidate the wild animals and drive them away. The home deterrence system speaker 135 could also play a recordings of other wild animals which wild animals may identify as belonging to its natural enemy. Also, the home deterrence system speaker 135 could play recordings of sounds from that type of wild animal when it is in distress. For example, the speaker 135 could play sounds of dogs barking or sounds of scared deer. Wild animals, such as deer, typically get scared from such sounds and may leave the home property immediately”; as shown in fig. 2, there are fruit trees 160 on the home property 200 which draws in wild animals 150).
Regarding claim 14, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 2, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the influencing factor includes sounds and the means to reduce complacency includes a plurality of sounds, mixed together (Col. 4, lines 19-37, “[t]he home deterrence system speaker 135 could also play other sounds like loud music or simulate human activities to intimidate the wild animals and drive them away. The home deterrence system speaker 135 could also play a recordings of other wild animals which wild animals may identify as belonging to its natural enemy. Also, the home deterrence system speaker 135 could play recordings of sounds from that type of wild animal when it is in distress. For example, the speaker 135 could play sounds of dogs barking or sounds of scared deer. Wild animals, such as deer, typically get scared from such sounds and may leave the home property immediately. The sound from speaker 135 could be configured to alternate the types of sounds played, so it is effective at a relatively low volume and there is little chance of it becoming ineffective as wild animals become habituated to it. The speaker 135 may be also configured to use Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) techniques to create new synthetic animal sounds such that they are realistic but unique each time”).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 14, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the means to reduce complacency includes at least one of changes in loudness, length of time of emission and/or the selection and/or mix of sounds (at least changes in loudness and mix of sounds chosen; Col. 4, lines 13-21, “[a]djusting the speaker to perform sound waves at different wavelengths could result in different effectiveness in deterring various wild animals from the home property. Humans cannot hear ultrasound waves, therefore the wildlife deterrence by ultrasound may not interrupt the homeowner. The home deterrence system speaker 135 could also play other sounds like loud music or simulate human activities to intimidate the wild animals and drive them away”. Furthermore, Col. 4, lines 34-37 discloses, “[t]he speaker 135 may be also configured to use Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) techniques to create new synthetic animal sounds such that they are realistic but unique each time”).
Regarding claim 18, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 17, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the means to reduce complacency occurs in real time for maximum effect in managing the pest (Col. 2, lines 3-4, “[t]he wildlife deterrence system may only trigger actions when a wild animal enters the protected area”. Examiner notes, the system being triggered by a wild animal entering the protected area is occurring in real-time).
Regarding claim 19, Kerzner discloses a method of managing a pest, for reducing or preventing pest damage to a selected location being a crop or an orchard, the method including the steps of:
sensing via a sensor a presence of a pest in the selected location (Col. 14, lines 45-52, “[t]he camera 530 may be triggered by several different types of techniques. For instance, a Passive Infra-Red (PIR) motion sensor may be built into the camera 530 and used to trigger the camera 530 to capture one or more images when motion is detected. The camera 530 also may include a microwave motion sensor built into the camera and used to trigger the camera 530 to capture one or more images when motion is detected”);
capturing a feature of the pest (Col. 5, lines 30-32, “the analysis server 120 may be processing the video data to classify the object in the video as a particular type of wild anima.”), comparing the pest feature with features in a first reference library and thereby identifying the pest species (Col. 7, lines 44-54, “[t]he deep convolutional neural network may be configured with two trained models. The first one is to detect and/or classify the animal, and the second is to extract identifying features for a specific animal (for example, using the intermediate layers of the first model) and cluster the features based on likelihood of being the same individual.” Examiner notes, the first reference library holds information pertaining to the detected/identified animals);
selecting negative influencing factors for the identified pest species from a second reference library containing influencing factor data (Col. 10, lines 30-42, “[t]he process 300 may additionally or alternatively include selecting an action to perform based on the particular type of the wild animal that the object is classified as. For example, analysis server 120 may obtain actions from the action database 125, identify an action for making a noise that is specified as to be performed for a bear based on the classification of the wild animal as a bear, and, in response, determine to make a noise. The analysis server may apply the wild animal classification information for example the particular type of wild animal information to the action database. Then the system selects a deterrence action from the action database based on the identity of the wild animal.” Examiner notes, the second reference library holds information pertaining to the negative influencing factors);
exposing the identified pest species to at least one negative influencing factor for that species (Col. 10, lines, 57-62, “the action to perform based on the particular type of the wild animal that the object is classified as includes at least one of: a sound action that causes a speaker of the home wildlife deterrence system to output sound waves audible to wild animal that enters a home property”).
However, Kerzner does not appear to specifically disclose selection means for selecting positive
influencing factors for the identified pest species from a second reference library containing influencing factor data; and means for exposing the identified pest species to at least one positive influencing factor for that species.
Birch is in the field a monitoring system for influencing animal behavior (Abstract) and teaches selection means for selecting positive influencing factors; and means for exposing the identified pest species to at least one positive influencing factor for that species (Paras. [0022-0023], “an attractant device 108 may include one or more and attractant mechanisms. When placed strategically, attractant devices 108 may be used in coordination with repellent devices 106 to maneuver animals 102 away from a restricted zone 104. Attractant mechanisms include, but are not limited to audio, light, vibration, or olfactory mechanisms. For instance, the sound of an animal in heat or a young animal in distress may be used to attract animals 102. As another example, the smell of food or the sound of a food dispensing machine may be used to attract animals 102. Other modes of attracting animals are considered to be within the scope of this disclosure”).
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 invention of Kerzner such that there was an attractant mechanism as taught by Birch, in order to attract the animal (Birch: Para. [0023]). Furthermore, examiner notes Kerzner discloses that the second reference library holds information pertaining to the negative influencing factor and Birch teaches in at least para. [0022] that the “attractant devices 108 may be used in coordination with repellent devices 106 to maneuver animals 102 away from a restricted zone 104.” Since Birch teaches the addition of attractant devices [i.e., positive influencing factors] used with repellent devices [i.e., negative influencing factors], 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 second reference library of Kerzner such that it also contained the data associated with the attractant mechanism [i.e., the positive influencing factors], in order to keep both the positive and negative influencing factors organized in the same reference library.
Regarding claim 20, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 19, and Kerzner further discloses which includes using means to reduce complacency of the identified pest with respect to the influencing factor (Col. 4, lines 13-21, “[a]djusting the speaker to perform sound waves at different wavelengths could result in different effectiveness in deterring various wild animals from the home property. Humans cannot hear ultrasound waves, therefore the wildlife deterrence by ultrasound may not interrupt the homeowner. The home deterrence system speaker 135 could also play other sounds like loud music or simulate human activities to intimidate the wild animals and drive them away”. Furthermore, Col. 4, lines 34-37 discloses, “[t]he speaker 135 may be also configured to use Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) techniques to create new synthetic animal sounds such that they are realistic but unique each time”).
Regarding claim 21, as best understood in light of the 112b rejection above, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the method of claim 19 carried out using the system of claim 1 (as stated above in claims 1 and 19, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses both the system and method).
Regarding claim 22, Kerzner discloses a management system when used to reduce or prevent damage by birds to a selected location being a crop or an orchard (Col. 2, lines 3-6, “[t]he wildlife deterrence system may only trigger actions when a wild animal enters the protected area. For example, the system could set a protected area around a strawberry patch to ward off a bird”), the system including:
a sensor for sensing presence of a [wild animal] in the selected location (Col. 14, lines 45-52, “[t]he camera 530 may be triggered by several different types of techniques. For instance, a Passive Infra-Red (PIR) motion sensor may be built into the camera 530 and used to trigger the camera 530 to capture one or more images when motion is detected. The camera 530 also may include a microwave motion sensor built into the camera and used to trigger the camera 530 to capture one or more images when motion is detected.”);
identifying means for capturing a [wild animal] feature (Col. 5, lines 30-32, “the analysis server 120 may be processing the video data to classify the object in the video as a particular type of wild animal”), comparing the [wild animal] feature with features in a first reference library and thereby identifying the [wild animal] (Col. 7, lines 44-54, “[t]he deep convolutional neural network may be configured with two trained models. The first one is to detect and/or classify the animal, and the second is to extract identifying features for a specific animal (for example, using the intermediate layers of the first model) and cluster the features based on likelihood of being the same individual.” Examiner notes, the first reference library holds information pertaining to the detected/identified animals);
selection means for selecting negative influencing factors for the identified [wild animal] from a second reference library containing influencing factor data (Col. 10, lines 30-42, “[t]he process 300 may additionally or alternatively include selecting an action to perform based on the particular type of the wild animal that the object is classified as. For example, analysis server 120 may obtain actions from the action database 125, identify an action for making a noise that is specified as to be performed for a bear based on the classification of the wild animal as a bear, and, in response, determine to make a noise. The analysis server may apply the wild animal classification information for example the particular type of wild animal information to the action database. Then the system selects a deterrence action from the action database based on the identity of the wild animal.” Examiner notes, the second reference library holds information pertaining to the negative influencing factors);
means for exposing the identified [wild animal] to at least one negative influencing factor for that species (Col. 10, lines, 57-62, “the action to perform based on the particular type of the wild animal that the object is classified as includes at least one of: a sound action that causes a speaker of the home wildlife deterrence system to output sound waves audible to wild animal that enters a home property”), such that the [wild animal] is deterred from damaging the crop or orchard (Col. 10, lines 57-63, “the action to perform based on the particular type of the wild animal that the object is classified as includes at least one of: a sound action that causes a speaker of the home wildlife deterrence system to output sound waves audible to wild animal that enters a home property”; as shown in fig. 2, there are fruit trees 160 on the home property);
means to reduce complacency of the identified bird species with respect to the influencing factor (Col. 4, lines 13-21, “[a]djusting the speaker to perform sound waves at different wavelengths could result in different effectiveness in deterring various wild animals from the home property. Humans cannot hear ultrasound waves, therefore the wildlife deterrence by ultrasound may not interrupt the homeowner. The home deterrence system speaker 135 could also play other sounds like loud music or simulate human activities to intimidate the wild animals and drive them away”. Furthermore, Col. 4, lines 34-37 discloses, “[t]he speaker 135 may be also configured to use Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) techniques to create new synthetic animal sounds such that they are realistic but unique each time”);
wherein the means to reduce complacency is adapted to operate in real time for maximum effect in managing continued presence of the [wild animal] in the crop or orchard during a single visit (Col. 2, lines 3-4, “[t]he wildlife deterrence system may only trigger actions when a wild animal enters the protected area”. Examiner notes, the system being triggered by a wild animal entering the protected area is occurring in real-time).
While Kerzner specifically mentions a bird (Col. 2, lines 3-6), Kerzner does not appear to
specifically disclose the bird in reference to the above limitations. However, since a bird is a wild animal then 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 invention of Kerzner such that the system was capable of sensing a presence of a bird, capturing a bird feature, exposing the identified bird to at least one negative influencing factor, and reducing complacency of the identified bird with respect to the influencing factor, in order to perform the appropriate action needed to deter the bird from the home property, specifically the fruit trees 160 located on the property.
Furthermore, Kerzner does not appear to specifically disclose selection means for selecting positive influencing factors for the identified bird from a second reference library containing influencing factor data; and means for exposing the identified bird to at least one positive influencing factor for that species.
Birch is in the field a monitoring system for influencing animal behavior (Abstract) and teaches selection means for selecting positive influencing factors; and means for exposing the identified [wild animal] to at least one positive influencing factor for that species (Paras. [0022-0023], “an attractant device 108 may include one or more and attractant mechanisms. When placed strategically, attractant devices 108 may be used in coordination with repellent devices 106 to maneuver animals 102 away from a restricted zone 104. Attractant mechanisms include, but are not limited to audio, light, vibration, or olfactory mechanisms. For instance, the sound of an animal in heat or a young animal in distress may be used to attract animals 102. As another example, the smell of food or the sound of a food dispensing machine may be used to attract animals 102. Other modes of attracting animals are considered to be within the scope of this disclosure”. Furthermore, examiner notes, as modified above the wild animal is a bird).
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 invention of Kerzner such that there was an attractant mechanism as taught by Birch, in order to attract the animal (Birch: Para. [0023]). Furthermore, examiner notes Kerzner discloses that the second reference library holds information pertaining to the negative influencing factor and Birch teaches in at least para. [0022] that the “attractant devices 108 may be used in coordination with repellent devices 106 to maneuver animals 102 away from a restricted zone 104.” Since Birch teaches the addition of attractant devices [i.e., positive influencing factors] used with repellent devices [i.e., negative influencing factors], 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 second reference library of Kerzner such that it also contained the data associated with the attractant mechanism [i.e., the positive influencing factors], in order to keep both the positive and negative influencing factors organized in the same reference library.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerzner in view of Birch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tews et al. (US 2019/0246623 A1), hereinafter Tews.
Regarding claim 4, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 1, and Kerzner further discloses wherein the pest is a bird and a fox, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the pest species is rosella, magpie, magpie-lark, cockatoo or grey-headed flying fox.
However, Tews is in the field of a pest deterrent system (Abstract) and teaches wherein the pest species is a cockatoo (Para. [0240], “the system provides a smart autonomous system for deterring pest animals (such as cockatoos…)”).
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 invention of Kerzner such that the pest species is a cockatoo as taught by Tews, since Cockatoos can be extremely destructive to farming and agriculture so it would be advantageous to use the home wildlife deterrence system of Kerzner to prevent damage to the orchards/crops.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerzner in view of Birch as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Pachet et al. (US 8,838,260 B2), hereinafter Pachet.
Regarding claim 15, Kerzner in view of Birch discloses the invention in claim 14, however the combination does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the plurality of sounds is mixed randomly from a menu.
However, Pachet is in the field of an animal machine used for monitoring the sounds made by animals (Abstract) and teaches sounds mixed randomly (Col. 14, lines 60-65, “the sound selector 18 can be configured to make its own choice of which response protocol to apply at any given time, for example, based on random choice, based on historical data regarding what has happened during prior operation of the system, or based on some other criterion”).
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 plurality of sounds of Kerzner such that they were mixed randomly from a menu as taught by Pachet, in order to alert the prey species that there is still danger within the targeted area, and similarly to alert the wild animals that the perceived predator is still on the move.
Regarding claim 16, Kerzner in view of Birch and Pachet discloses the invention in claim 15, and the combination further discloses wherein the random mixing is chosen from the menu in response to reaction of the pest species to the influencing factor (Col. 4, lines 27-37, “[f]or example, the speaker 135 could play sounds of dogs barking or sounds of scared deer. Wild animals, such as deer, typically get scared from such sounds and may leave the home property immediately. The sound from speaker 135 could be configured to alternate the types of sounds played, so it is effective at a relatively low volume and there is little chance of it becoming ineffective as wild animals become habituated to it. The speaker 135 may be also configured to use Generative Adversarial Network (GAN) techniques to create new synthetic animal sounds such that they are realistic but unique each time”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEVENA ALEKSIC whose telephone number is (571)272-1659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm 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.
/N.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647