Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
Claim 18 recites the broad recitation optical function curve, and the claim also recites an absorption curve or reflection curve which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 18 recites the broad recitation quantitative functional effect, and the claim also recites degree of absorption or reflectance which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 15-19 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donoho (US 2020/0281188 A1) in view of Klem, Jr. (US 2009/0047487 A1).
Claim 15: Donoho teaches a middle layer 104 in an avian pest repellant tape 100 (Fig. 1, [0017] and [0029]), wherein the middle layer 104 can comprise a plastic sheet imprinted with a pattern formed by alternating ultraviolet (UV) light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements to create a pattern that is visible to birds without being distinguishable to humans [0037]. The avian pest repellant tape 100 meets the claimed film product and the middle layer 104 meets the claimed film body. The pattern with the UV light-absorbing elements meets the claimed primary section with primary function, and the pattern with the UV light-reflecting element meet the claimed secondary section with secondary function. Donoho does not specify the wavelength of the UV range. Klem, Jr. teaches window panes having a pattern containing elements creating a protective pattern will be invisible to the normal human eye but will be visible to the avian eye if created using alternating ultraviolet (UV) reflective in the 300 nm to less than 400 nm wavelength range and UV absorption in the 300 to less than 400 nm wavelength range [0011]. It is well established that the wavelength of UV-A is 315-400 nm.
Donoho and Klem, Jr. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the bird deterrent window art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Klem, Jr., (i.e., having the pattern of UV reflective/absorption in wavelength range of 300-400 nm) with the invention of Donoho, and the motivation for combining would be to provide sufficient optical absorption to make them visible to birds, but not to humans, which in turn may deter birds from flying into windows.
Claims 16 and 17: Donoho teaches a middle layer 104 in an avian pest repellant tape 100 (Fig. 1, [0017] and [0029]), wherein the middle layer 104 can comprise a plastic sheet imprinted with a pattern formed by alternating ultraviolet (UV) light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements to create a pattern that is visible to birds without being distinguishable to humans [0037]. The avian pest repellant tape 100 meets the claimed film product and the middle layer 104 meets the claimed film body. The pattern with the UV light-absorbing elements meets the claimed primary section with primary function, and the pattern with the UV light-reflecting element meet the claimed secondary section with secondary function. Donoho does not specify the wavelength of the UV range. Klem, Jr. teaches window panes having a pattern containing elements creating a protective pattern will be invisible to the normal human eye but will be visible to the avian eye if created using alternating ultraviolet (UV) reflective in the 300 nm to less than 400 nm wavelength range and UV absorption in the 300 to less than 400 nm wavelength range [0011]. It is well established that the wavelength of UV-A is 315-400 nm.
The alternating UV reflective in the 300-400 nm wavelength range and UV absorption in the 300-400 nm wavelength range of Klem, Jr. [0011] meet the claimed optical effect of the primary function and secondary function is a UV-A absorption optical effect or a UV-A reflection optical effect.
Donoho and Klem, Jr. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the bird deterrent window art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Klem, Jr., (i.e., having the pattern of UV reflective/absorption in wavelength range of 300-400 nm) with the invention of Donoho, and the motivation for combining would be to provide sufficient optical absorption to make them visible to birds, but not to humans, which in turn may deter birds from flying into windows.
Claim 18: Donoho teaches a middle layer 104 in an avian pest repellant tape 100 (Fig. 1, [0017] and [0029]), wherein the middle layer 104 can comprise a plastic sheet imprinted with a pattern formed by alternating ultraviolet (UV) light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements to create a pattern that is visible to birds without being distinguishable to humans [0037]. The avian pest repellant tape 100 meets the claimed film product and the middle layer 104 meets the claimed film body. The pattern with the UV light-absorbing elements meets the claimed primary section with primary function, and the pattern with the UV light-reflecting element meet the claimed secondary section with secondary function. Donoho does not specify the wavelength of the UV range. Klem, Jr. teaches window panes having a pattern containing elements creating a protective pattern will be invisible to the normal human eye but will be visible to the avian eye if created using alternating ultraviolet (UV) reflective in the 300 nm to less than 400 nm wavelength range and UV absorption in the 300 to less than 400 nm wavelength range [0011]. It is well established that the wavelength of UV-A is 315-400 nm.
The alternating UV reflective in the 300-400 nm wavelength range and UV absorption in the 300-400 nm wavelength range of Klem, Jr. [0011] meet the claimed optical function parameter of option (i).
Donoho and Klem, Jr. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the bird deterrent window art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Klem, Jr., (i.e., having the pattern of UV reflective/absorption in wavelength range of 300-400 nm) with the invention of Donoho, and the motivation for combining would be to provide sufficient optical absorption to make them visible to birds, but not to humans, which in turn may deter birds from flying into windows.
Claim 19: Donoho teaches a middle layer 104 in an avian pest repellant tape 100 (Fig. 1, [0017] and [0029]), wherein the middle layer 104 can comprise a plastic sheet imprinted with a pattern formed by alternating ultraviolet (UV) light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements to create a pattern that is visible to birds without being distinguishable to humans [0037]. The avian pest repellant tape 100 meets the claimed film product and the middle layer 104 meets the claimed film body. The pattern with the UV light-absorbing elements meets the claimed primary section with primary function, and the pattern with the UV light-reflecting element meet the claimed secondary section with secondary function. Donoho does not specify the wavelength of the UV range. Klem, Jr. teaches window panes having a pattern containing elements creating a protective pattern will be invisible to the normal human eye but will be visible to the avian eye if created using alternating ultraviolet (UV) reflective in the 300 nm to less than 400 nm wavelength range and UV absorption in the 300 to less than 400 nm wavelength range [0011]. It is well established that the wavelength of UV-A is 315-400 nm.
The alternating UV light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements of Donoho [0037] meets the claimed primary section and secondary section having different materials. It is well established that UV absorbing and UV reflecting materials are different materials.
Donoho and Klem, Jr. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the bird deterrent window art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Klem, Jr., (i.e., having the pattern of UV reflective/absorption in wavelength range of 300-400 nm) with the invention of Donoho, and the motivation for combining would be to provide sufficient optical absorption to make them visible to birds, but not to humans, which in turn may deter birds from flying into windows.
Claim 21: Donoho teaches the middle layer 104 is preferably transparent [0038] which overlaps with the claimed transmittance of more than about 80% of visible light.
Claim 22: The middle layer 104 comprising pattern formed by alternating UV light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements of Donoho [0037] meets the claimed primary section and secondary section are adjacent with each other.
Claim 23: It is interpreted that the surface areas of UV light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements of Donoho [0037] would have different contrasting effects because it is well established that UV absorbing and UV reflecting materials are different materials.
Claim 24: Donoho teaches the middle layer 104 comprises pattern formed by alternating UV light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements [0037].
Claim 25: Donoho teaches a bottom layer 106 in the avian pest repellant tape 100 (Fig. 1, [0017] and [0029]). The bottom layer 106 meets the claimed base layer.
Donoho and Klem, Jr. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the bird deterrent window art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Klem, Jr., (i.e., having the pattern of UV reflective/absorption in wavelength range of 300-400 nm) with the invention of Donoho, and the motivation for combining would be to provide sufficient optical absorption to make them visible to birds, but not to humans, which in turn may deter birds from flying into windows.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donoho (US 2020/0281188 A1) in view of Klem, Jr. (US 2009/0047487 A1).
Claim 27: Donoho teaches a middle layer 104 in an avian pest repellant tape 100 (Fig. 1, [0017] and [0029]), wherein the middle layer 104 can comprise a plastic sheet imprinted with a pattern formed by alternating ultraviolet (UV) light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements to create a pattern that is visible to birds without being distinguishable to humans [0037]. The avian pest repellant tape 100 meets the claimed film product and the middle layer 104 meets the claimed film body. The pattern with the UV light-absorbing elements meets the claimed primary section with primary function, and the pattern with the UV light-reflecting element meet the claimed secondary section with secondary function. Donoho teaches the avian pest repellant tape 100 is to be secured to a non-porous surface such as glass [0046].
Donoho does not specify the wavelength of the UV range. Klem, Jr. teaches window panes having a pattern containing elements creating a protective pattern will be invisible to the normal human eye but will be visible to the avian eye if created using alternating ultraviolet (UV) reflective in the 300 nm to less than 400 nm wavelength range and UV absorption in the 300 to less than 400 nm wavelength range [0011]. It is well established that the wavelength of UV-A is 315-400 nm.
Donoho and Klem, Jr. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the bird deterrent window art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Klem, Jr., (i.e., having the pattern of UV reflective/absorption in wavelength range of 300-400 nm) with the invention of Donoho, and the motivation for combining would be to provide sufficient optical absorption to make them visible to birds, but not to humans, which in turn may deter birds from flying into windows.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donoho (US 2020/0281188 A1) in view of Klem, Jr. (US 2009/0047487 A1).
Claim 28: Donoho teaches a middle layer 104 in an avian pest repellant tape 100 (Fig. 1, [0017] and [0029]), wherein the middle layer 104 can comprise a plastic sheet imprinted with a pattern formed by alternating ultraviolet (UV) light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements to create a pattern that is visible to birds without being distinguishable to humans [0037]. The avian pest repellant tape 100 meets the claimed film product and the middle layer 104 meets the claimed film body. The pattern with the UV light-absorbing elements meets the claimed primary section with primary function, and the pattern with the UV light-reflecting element meet the claimed secondary section with secondary function. Imprinting pattern formed by alternating UV light-absorbing and UV light-reflecting elements meets the claimed method of manufacturing. Donoho does not specify the wavelength of the UV range. Klem, Jr. teaches window panes having a pattern containing elements creating a protective pattern will be invisible to the normal human eye but will be visible to the avian eye if created using alternating ultraviolet (UV) reflective in the 300 nm to less than 400 nm wavelength range and UV absorption in the 300 to less than 400 nm wavelength range [0011]. It is well established that the wavelength of UV-A is 315-400 nm.
Donoho and Klem, Jr. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the bird deterrent window art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teaching of Klem, Jr., (i.e., having the pattern of UV reflective/absorption in wavelength range of 300-400 nm) with the invention of Donoho, and the motivation for combining would be to provide sufficient optical absorption to make them visible to birds, but not to humans, which in turn may deter birds from flying into windows.
Claims 20 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donoho (US 2020/0281188 A1) and Klem, Jr. (US 2009/0047487 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Theios (US 2014/0168760 A1).
Donoho and Klem, Jr. teach the claimed invention as set forth above.
Claims 20 and 26: Donoho teaches the middle layer 104 has at least one transparent filling layer. However, Theios teaches a transparent filler material 4 may optionally be provided in the gaps in the UV absorbing pattern 2 [0030]. Donoho and Theios are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor that is the bird deterrent window art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the transparent filler material 4 of Theios with the invention of Donoho, and the motivation for combining would be to provide desirable aesthetic effect.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BETELHEM SHEWAREGED whose telephone number is (571)272-1529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7am-4:30pm.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at 571-272-1291. 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.
BS
December 1, 2025
/BETELHEM SHEWAREGED/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1785