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 .
An amendment was received from the applicant on 6/4/2026.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are currently amended.
Claims 12-19 are cancelled.
Claims 1-11 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/4/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made applying Carstensen, US 10827742 in view of Thompson, US 20080186172. Thompson teaches an intruder detection system with an alert module providing notification of an intruder detection and an associated alarm or siren.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 11 does not end in a period making the claim indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carstensen, US 10827742 in view of Thompson, US 20080186172.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10 and 11: Carstensen discloses A portable marine mammal (pinniped disclosed) deterrence apparatus, comprising:
an insulated cable (bundled cable wires) capable of coupling to an aquatic vessel (see Fig. 1; and Column 5, lines 60-62)
a plurality of cable offshoots (see Fig. 1, wires from the output switch #250 branch to feed electrodes #500, each having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein
each proximal end is electrically connected to the insulated cable;
a plurality of deterrence tips #500, each located at the distal end of each of the plurality
of cable offshoots, wherein a marine mammal contacting at least two deterrence tips forms a circuit that provides a deterrent stimulus;
a control system (#200, #210), electrically connected to the insulated cable, designed to
selectively electrify the circuit when a resistance is within a deterrence range, further
comprising:
a resistance detector #290 (measures current which is a function of resistance) configured to measure a resistance of the circuit,
a relay #220 configured to enable electrification of the circuit, and
an alert module #270 (local status indicator, not disclosed as providing an intruder notification); and
a power source #300 (solar power #312 disclosed), electrically connected to the control system, capable of electrifying the circuit.
Carstensen does not explicitly disclose the functionality of the alert module is configured to provide an intruder notification.
Thompson teaches an intruder detection system with an alert module (211 microcontroller) and alarm for electric fences which incorporates an alarm (siren 108) when a change is voltage is detected such as by being touched by an animal (see claim 1).
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 apparatus of Carstensen to incorporate an alert module configured to provide intruder notification as taught by Thompson when an intruder comes in contact with the electrodes. The motivation for doing so is to be able to track the frequency of alerts to determine the extent of pinniped activity in the vicinity of the system.
Regarding claims: 4, 5, 8, 9: Carstensen discloses the electrodes #500 are patterned to conform to various surfaces of manufactured structures for attaching to different types of surfaces and supports (see column 3, line 14-21). The examiner considers coupling the insulated cable to an external edge, external rail or a swim platform to be within the disclosure of Carstensen. Additionally, the examiner considers staggering the length of the cable offshoots to be a routine design change made by an artisan when fitting the apparatus in a desired location.
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 ANTHONY D WIEST whose telephone number is (571)270-5974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 - 3:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571 272 4530. 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.
/ANTHONY D WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights