DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10-12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Canada 2684367 (hereinafter CA367).
Re Claim 1.
CA367 discloses a deterrent device (1) including multiple embodiments (Figs. 3-4, 10, 18, 21): a front surface (2) having plurality of openings (Figs. 3-4, 10, 18, 21; 13, 14, 17, 55, 94, 95, 109-112); a cap unit including a spray nozzle (16, 95) inserted into at least one opening; a camera (94; page 6, lines 32-35) position at the center of the front surface; at least one speaker (109,110) on the front surface; at least one microphone (page 6, lines 32-35) on the front surface; a control unit (93) that monitors the camera and provides an audible sound (speakers 109-110) when motion is detected and sprays fluid (16,95) from at least one nozzle if motion is detected after the audible tone is made.
Re Claim 2.
CA367 discloses the deterrent device of claim 1, wherein the control unit (93) converts sound captured from the microphone (claim 25) to a digital format.
Re Claim 10.
CA367 discloses the deterrent device of claim 1, wherein each nozzle (16/95) is connected to a canister (24) containing a liquid (page 11, lines 11-16).
Re Claim 11.
As discussed above with respect to claim 1, CA367 discloses the deterrent device and a method of performing a deterrent action including: monitoring for motion using a camera attached to the front surface of a deterrent unit via a control unit connected to the camera; sending an audible sound from the control unit via speakers on the front of the deterrent unit when motion is detected; capturing sound on the control unit via at least one microphone on the front surface; spraying fluid from at least one nozzle on the front surface of the deterrent unit controlled by the control unit if motion is detected after the audible tone is made (See entire disclosure, esp page 6, lines 32-35; Abstract).
Re Claim 12.
As discussed above with respect to claim 2, CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device and method of claim 11 including the step of converting sound captured from the microphone to a digital format.
Re Claim 20.
As discussed above with respect to claim 10, CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device and method of claim 11 including the step of connecting each nozzle to a canister containing a liquid.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA367 in view of Scalisi et al US 11,184589 (hereinafter Scalisi)
Re Claim 3.
CA367 discloses the deterrent device of claim 2, but fails to specify wherein the control unit (93) transfers the digitized audio to an external device (remote/smartphone) via a communication unit in the control unit.
Scalisi teaches a similar deterrent device (Figs. 1-5; Abstract) wherein the control unit (Fig.30) transfers the digitized audio to an external device (remote computing device/smartphone 204) via a communication unit (230/416) in the control unit (Figs. 11,13,15-27,30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the external device and communication control as taught by Scalisi with the deterrent device and spray device of CA367 as a well known means of enhancing the security of the deterrent device.
Re Claim 4.
CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device of claim 1, wherein the control unit transmits video (Scalisi-Abstract) from the camera to an external device (204) via a communication unit (230/416).
Re Claim 6.
CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device of claim 1, wherein the audible sound is a recorded audio signal (CA367- page 16, lines 24-25) warning of a potential spray event (intended use).
Re Claim 7.
CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device of claim 1, wherein the control unit (Scalisi -server 206) controls the speakers to allow a user to speak through the speakers (488) via an external device (Scalisi 204; col.16, lines 30-32).
Re Claim 9.
CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device of claim 1, including a rubber coating (Scalisi- rubber seal on 224; col.6, lines 35-36) applied to the periphery of the front surface (224).
Re Claim 13.
As discussed above with respect to claim 3, CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device and method of claim 12 including the step of transferring the digitized audio to an external device via a communication unit in the control unit.
Re Claim 14.
As discussed above with respect to claim 4, CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device and method of claim 11 including the step of transmitting video from the camera to an external device via a communication unit.
Re Claim 16.
As discussed above with respect to claim 6, CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device and method of claim 11, wherein the audible sound is a recorded audio signal warning of a potential spray event.
Re Claim 17.
As discussed above with respect to claim 7, CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device and method of claim 11 including the step of controlling the speakers via the control unit to allow a user to speak through the speakers via an external device.
Re Claim 19.
As discussed above with respect to claim 9, CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device and method of claim 11, wherein a rubber coating is applied to the periphery of the front surface.
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA367 and Scalisi as applied to claims 1-4 above, and further in view of Chiang US 7,015,943 (hereinafter Chiang).
Re Claim 5.
CA367 as combined with Scalisi discloses the deterrent device of claim 1, but fails to specify including a memory card slot capable of accepting a memory card (Scalisi-memory 492) for storage of information from the control unit.
Chiang discloses the well known use of a removable memory card (235) and memory card slot (within control unit 200).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the memory unit of CA367 and Scalisi by providing a removable memory card and slot as taught by Chiang to be beneficial for “storage, playback, analysis and processing” (col.7, line 55-col.7, line 3).
Re Claim 15.
As discussed above with respect to claim 5, CA367 as combined with Scalisi and Chaing discloses the deterrent device and method of claim 11 including the step of inserting a memory card into a memory card slot on the front surface for storage of information from the control unit.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA367 applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wittel US 2,500,050 (hereinafter Wittel).
Re Claim 8.
CA367 discloses the deterrent device of claim 1, including a mounting bracket (Fig. 8) but fails to teach having a threaded ring that engages an interior threaded ring on the back of the deterrent device.
Wittel discloses a well known mounting bracket (Fig.1-2 on a camera lens) having a threaded ring (15) that engages an interior threaded ring (14) on the back of the deterrent device (13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the bracket of CA367 to utilize a threaded ring as is well known in the mounting art and taught by Wittel as an obvious matter of design choice in facilitating mounting to a wall or door.
Re Claim 18.
As discussed above with respect to claim 8, CA367 discloses the deterrent device and method of claim 11, wherein the deterrent device is mounted to a mounting bracket having a threaded ring that engages an interior threaded ring on the back of the deterrent device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUZANNE DINO BARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7053. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
SUZANNE DINO BARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3675B
Sdb
/SUZANNE L BARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675