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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 & 11-19 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.
Specification
The amendment filed 1/20/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. para 41, repelling various rodents was not present or taught within the originally filed disclosure.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 15 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim, the written description must clearly define the claim term and set forth as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice of the terms definition and scope. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Claim 15 recites the term “miaow” in claim 15 is used by the claim to mean “meow.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 11-15, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alvarado, U.S. Patent No. 7,884,730 B2; herein Al in view of De Ginto et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0077663 A1; herein De, Henskes et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0137097 A1; herein Hen, Ohta et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0084886 A1; herein Oh, and Bloomquist, Jr. et al., U.S. Patent No. 12,582,112 B1.
Re claim 1, Al discloses a mouse repelling device, comprising:
a main control board (fig. 5 and col 5-6; 65-13, the circuit board including the microcontroller);
a repelling module comprising a sound simulator (col 4-5; 54-6 & col 5-6; 65-13, the sound device projects a noise when a pest is within a certain distance) and a flashlight (col 4-5; 54-6, the laser light), wherein the sound simulator is electrically connected to the main control board (col 5-6; 65-13, the sound device is controlled by the circuit) and flashlight are electrically connected to the main control board (col 5-6; 65-13, power supplied to the laser pointer is controlled by the circuit board);
a camera electrically connected to the main control board (col 4; 38-41, the camera assists in monitoring pest activities);
a clock module electrically connected to the main control board (col 7; 35-37; the clocks for activating and deactivating components of the system); and
an environmental sensor electrically connected to the main control board (col 3; 58-65, the environmental sensors for controlling aspects of the components).
Al fails to disclose the flashlight being high-frequency, the clock being a real-time clock, the environmental sensors being temperature and humidity sensors, and wherein the main control board is configured to, through data fusion and an intelligent decision-making algorithm, identify patterns and trends of mouse activity based on time and season information acquired by the real-time clock module and environment temperature and humidity information acquired by the temperature and humidity sensor, and intelligently adjust an operating intensity and frequency of the repelling module accordingly to form a targeted repelling strategy. However, De discloses a repelling module (400; the portable pest deterrent, fig. 4) comprising a high-frequency flashlight (para 52, the strobe light being a flashing light that has a high-frequency light).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the flashlight being high-frequency, the clock being a real-time clock, the environmental sensors being temperature and humidity sensors, and wherein the main control board is configured to, through data fusion and an intelligent decision-making algorithm, identify patterns and trends of mouse activity based on time and season information acquired by the real-time clock module and environment temperature and humidity information acquired by the temperature and humidity sensor, and intelligently adjust an operating intensity and frequency of the repelling module accordingly to form a targeted repelling strategy however, De discloses such a flashlight. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lights by utilizing a simple substitution of the known laser light taught by the prior art for the high-frequency flashing light from De in order to obtain the predictable result of driving pests from an area (abstract). See MPEP 2143 I. (B) & (G).
The combination of Al and De fails to disclose the clock being a real-time clock, the environmental sensors being temperature and humidity sensors, and wherein the main control board is configured to, through data fusion and an intelligent decision-making algorithm, identify patterns and trends of mouse activity based on time and season information acquired by the real-time clock module and environment temperature and humidity information acquired by the temperature and humidity sensor, and intelligently adjust an operating intensity and frequency of the repelling module accordingly to form a targeted repelling strategy. However, Hen discloses a repelling device comprising a real-time clock module (para 60, the real time clock that allows the module to keep track of time when power is lost).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the clock being a real-time clock, the environmental sensors being temperature and humidity sensors, and wherein the main control board is configured to, through data fusion and an intelligent decision-making algorithm, identify patterns and trends of mouse activity based on time and season information acquired by the real-time clock module and environment temperature and humidity information acquired by the temperature and humidity sensor, and intelligently adjust an operating intensity and frequency of the repelling module accordingly to form a targeted repelling strategy however, Hen discloses such a real-time clock. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clocks by utilizing a simple substitution of the known programable clocks taught by the prior art for real time clocks as taught by Hen in order to obtain the predictable result of allowing the module to keep track over time during an outage (para 60). See MPEP 2143 I. (B) & (G).
The combination of Al, De, and Hen fails to disclose the environmental sensors being temperature and humidity sensors and wherein the main control board is configured to, through data fusion and an intelligent decision-making algorithm, identify patterns and trends of mouse activity based on time and season information acquired by the real-time clock module and environment temperature and humidity information acquired by the temperature and humidity sensor, and intelligently adjust an operating intensity and frequency of the repelling module accordingly to form a targeted repelling strategy. However, Oh discloses a repelling device comprising temperature and humidity sensors (para 20, the sensors for measuring temperature and humidity).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the environmental sensors being temperature and humidity sensors and wherein the main control board is configured to, through data fusion and an intelligent decision-making algorithm, identify patterns and trends of mouse activity based on time and season information acquired by the real-time clock module and environment temperature and humidity information acquired by the temperature and humidity sensor, and intelligently adjust an operating intensity and frequency of the repelling module accordingly to form a targeted repelling strategy however, Oh discloses such sensors. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the temperature and humidity sensors taught by Oh to the circuit board/environmental sensors of the prior art to yield the predictable result of surveying the weather in the area. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
The combination of Al, De, Hen, and Oh fails to disclose wherein the main control board is configured to, through data fusion and an intelligent decision-making algorithm, identify patterns and trends of mouse activity based on time and season information acquired by the real-time clock module and environment temperature and humidity information acquired by the temperature and humidity sensor, and intelligently adjust an operating intensity and frequency of the repelling module accordingly to form a targeted repelling strategy. However, Bloom discloses a repelling module comprising a main control board (col 25; 12-14, wherein the apparatus; 100 is a printed circuit board) is configured to, through data fusion (264; the fusion module, fig. 4) and an intelligent decision-making algorithm (fig. 8, the decision making matrix of the system is depicted therein as 500; the method of implementing the auto adapting pest deterrent), identify patterns and trends of a pest’s activity (col 11; 11-37, col 13; 19-24, & col 42; 16-18, wherein patterns of the animal or animal behavior are identified by the pest AI module and the reactions to the countermeasures are logged) based on time and season information (col 10; 36-44, wherein the time of day and weather conditions are utilized to determine an appropriate countermeasure) acquired by a real-time clock module (col 3; 33-34, wherein the event records are provided in real time by the AI model) and environment temperature and weather information acquired by a temperature sensor (col 24; 10-13 & col 45-46; 30, wherein the temperature sensor acts to identify the conditions/contextual information about the environment), and intelligently adjust an operating intensity and frequency of the repelling module accordingly to form a targeted repelling strategy (col 2; 59-60, col 10; 36-47, & col 11; 11-37, the AI module allows the system to escalate suitable countermeasures from an identified pest based on event records).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the main control board is configured to, through data fusion and an intelligent decision-making algorithm, identify patterns and trends of mouse activity based on time and season information acquired by the real-time clock module and environment temperature and humidity information acquired by the temperature and humidity sensor, and intelligently adjust an operating intensity and frequency of the repelling module accordingly to form a targeted repelling strategy however, Bloom discloses a main control board that allows for such processing to occur. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the auto adapting pest deterrent abilities taught by Bloom to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the sensor data to be collected and analyzed such that the countermeasure is calculated and more likely to be effective. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 4, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 1, Al further discloses a moving assembly (fig. 8 and col 6; 19-31, the motor imparts movement to the mechanical components of the shell), wherein the moving assembly is configured to drive the mouse repelling device to move (col 5; 34-38 & col 6; 19-31, via the motor imparting movement).
Re claim 11, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 1, Bloom as applied further discloses wherein the main control board is configured to identify whether current time information acquired by the real-time clock module belongs to a preset night time or a preset day time (col 55; 1-8, wherein the AI model determines if it is day or night in order to determine an appropriate countermeasure), and control operation of the repelling module based on the current time information (col 3-4; 67-3, col 10; 36-44, & col 11; 11-18, the time information is utilized to make an intelligent decision on the counter measure).
Re claim 12, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 1, Bloom as applied further discloses wherein the main control board is configured to identify a season to which current date information acquired by the real-time clock module belongs (col 44-46; 63-16, the AI module is capable of determining that it is summer and other contextual information), and control operation of the repelling module based on the current date information (col 44-46; 63-16, the deployed countermeasure is selected/adjusted based on the contextual information collected).
Re claim 13, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 1, Bloom as applied further wherein the main control board is configured to control operation of the repelling module based on environment temperature and humidity information acquired by the temperature and humidity sensor (see the rejection of claim 1 and col 2; 59-60, col 10; 36-47, & col 11; 11-37, the AI module allows the system to escalate suitable countermeasures from an identified pest based on event records thus the targeted repelling strategy/countermeasure is selected based on information from the system’s sensors).
Re claim 14, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 1, Al further discloses wherein the main control board is configured to control operation of the repelling module based on information from the camera (col 4; 38-41, the camera/webcam monitors the area around the shell in order to control and activate the device).
Al fails to disclose wherein the main control board is configured to explicitly identify current image and video information acquired by the camera. However, Bloom discloses the main control board configured to identify current image and video information (col 14; 43-45 & col 28; 45-60, wherein the AI model preforms video and image analysis to classify detected pests in real-time) acquired by a camera (col 6; 27-59, col 14; 53-65, & col 15; 30-41, wherein at least one sensor is a camera and another is a video camera) and control operation of the repelling module based on the current image and video information (col 41-42; 15-40, the AI model allows the video still otherwise known as an image to be analyzed and operate the deterrent devices accordingly).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the main control board is configured to explicitly identify current image and video information acquired by the camera however, Bloom discloses such functionality. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the plurality of cameras and processing capabilities as taught by Bloom to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing accurate determinations to be made by the system. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 15, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 1, Al further discloses wherein the sound simulator is configured to emit a human generated sound (claim 1).
Al fails to disclose wherein the sound simulator is configured to emit miaow, a human voice, or a combination thereof. However, Oh discloses wherein a sound simulator is configured to emit a human voice (para 17, wherein the sound generation unit emits a human voice).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the sound simulator is configured to emit miaow, a human voice, or a combination thereof however, Oh discloses a sound generator producing the sound of a human voice. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound emitted by utilizing a simple substitution of the known human generated noise as taught by the prior art for the human voice from Oh in order to obtain the predictable result of deterring or repelling an animal. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Re claim 17, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 1, Hen further discloses a flashlight (claim 5, the device producing the light beam) that is rotatable (fig. 8 and para 212, wherein the detection system has a rotating base) and a control unit (claim 5, the control unit) is configured to, based on an activity trajectory acquired (claim 5, the trajectory of the created repelling pattern) by a camera (140; the camera captures the images, para 24 & 28), activate the flashlight to flash along the activity trajectory (claim 5, the light beam producing device actives a moving light beam along the trajectory consistent with the repelling pattern).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the high-frequency flashlight is rotatable, and wherein the main control board is configured to, based on a rodent activity trajectory acquired by the camera, activate the high-frequency flashlight to flash along the activity trajectory however, Hen discloses such a process. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known techniques of image analysis, processing devices, and rotatable base as taught by Hen to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing targeted paths to be formed for repelling the rodents. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 2-3 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al in view of De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Xie, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0306631 A1.
Re claim 2, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose an artificial intelligence (Al) smart chip, wherein the Al chip is electrically connected to the main control board, and is configured to process data of the real-time clock module and data of the temperature and humidity sensor and control the repelling module to operate. However, Xie discloses a mouse repelling device comprising an artificial intelligence (Al) smart chip (100; the AI intelligent chip, fig. 1 & 5), wherein the Al chip is electrically connected to a main control board (fig. 1, within the circuit represented by the box diagram within the casing) and is configured to process data (para 13, 32-33 & 52, via the bare chips collection data is stored for calculations and scalable processing) and control the repelling module to operate (para 32, via the input/output information exchange).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose an artificial intelligence (Al) smart chip, wherein the Al chip is electrically connected to the main control board, and is configured to process data of the real-time clock module and data of the temperature and humidity sensor and control the repelling module to operate however, Xie discloses a similar AI chip/processing algorithm. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the AI chip taught by Xie to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by creating replicable chips to simplify manufacturing. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 3, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, Bloom, and Xie discloses the invention of claim 2, Al fails to disclose wherein the repelling module further comprises an ultrasonic generator electrically connected to the main control board. However, De further discloses wherein the repelling module further comprises an ultrasonic generator electrically connected to the main control board (para 56, the motion sensor electronically triggers the deterrent device by sending out ultrasonic sound waves to detect the presence of an animal or pest).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the repelling module further comprises an ultrasonic generator electrically connected to the main control board however, De discloses such a generator. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motion sensor by utilizing a simple substitution of the known sensor taught by the prior art for the ultrasonic motion sensor from De in order to obtain the predictable result of sensing the presence of an animal or pest. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Re claim 19, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 1, Al further discloses wherein the main control board is configured to: control a sound and volume of the sound simulator (col 5-6; 65-13, wherein the microcontroller activates the sound and is capable of adjusting the volume), and control a movement mode of a moving assembly (col 5-6; 65-13, the microcontroller can adjust the movement of the device according to a plurality of variables).
Al fails to disclose wherein the main control board is configured to: control a sound type and frequency of the sound simulator; control a light intensity and frequency of the high-frequency flashlight; and control an output frequency and intensity of an ultrasonic generator. However, Hen discloses wherein a main control board (para 60, the PCB) is configured to: control a light intensity and frequency of a flashlight (para 60, 62, & 160-167, wherein the control board allows for the adjustments of the light intensity and strobe pattern of the lighting assembly; 120).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the main control board is configured to: control a sound type and frequency of the sound simulator; control a light intensity and frequency of the high-frequency flashlight; and control an output frequency and intensity of an ultrasonic generator however, Hen discloses such a controller for a lighting arrangement. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of controlling the variation of light intensity and frequency as taught by Hen to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the high-frequency flashlight of the system to be controlled in the same manor, thus allowing a targeted repelling strategy. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Al, De, and Hen fail to disclose wherein the main control board is configured to: control a sound type and frequency of the sound simulator; and control an output frequency and intensity of an ultrasonic generator. However, Oh discloses wherein a main control unit (60; the main control unit, fig. 2-3) configured to: control a sound type (para 17, 35, 41, 43, & 50, wherein the sound control portion selects which intimidating sound plays) and frequency of the sound simulator (para 38 & 47, the active period and stopping interval of the sound generation unit is controlled by the sound control portion allowing the frequency to be adjusted).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the main control board is configured to: control a sound type and frequency of the sound simulator; and control an output frequency and intensity of an ultrasonic generator however, Oh discloses such a sound controller. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the sound controlling element taught by Oh to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the sounds to be adjusted based on a detection. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom fails to disclose wherein the main control board is configured to: control an output frequency and intensity of an ultrasonic generator. However, Xie discloses a main control unit (300; the controller; fig. 1) configured to control an output frequency and intensity (para 50-51, 53, & 55, the inverter allows the emission intensity and output frequency of the ultrasonic horn) of an ultrasonic generator (500; the ultrasonic horn, fig. 1).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the main control board is configured to: control an output frequency and intensity of an ultrasonic generator however, Xie discloses a control unit with such an ultrasonic generator. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the control unit and ultrasonic generator as taught by Xie to the repeller of the prior art to yield the predictable result of disturbing pests of the environment. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al in view of De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bender et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0380325 A1; herein Bend.
Re claim 16, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 1, Bloom further discloses wherein the main control board is configured to control operation of the repelling module based on weather information (col 10; 31-47 & col 45; 30-16, wherein the countermeasure is selected based on weather conditions).
The combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom fails to disclose wherein the mouse repelling device is configured to connect to a network to obtain real-time weather forecast information, and wherein the main control board is configured to control operation of the repelling module based on the real-time weather forecast information. However, Bend discloses a pest management system configured to connect to a network to obtain real-time weather forecast information (para 16 & 21, the climate server is associated with a network that gathers current weather conditions and the upcoming forecast), wherein a main controller (400; the server computer, fig. 4) is configured to control operation of the repelling module based on the real-time weather forecast information (para 43, the treatment plan is determined based on the forecast).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the mouse repelling device is configured to connect to a network to obtain real-time weather forecast information, and wherein the main control board is configured to control operation of the repelling module based on the real-time weather forecast information however, Bend discloses such a network and process. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the control components, network, and weather forecasting taught by Bend to the repelling device of the prior art to yield the predictable result of making educated/informed decisions on treatment plans. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al in view of De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Porter, U.S. Patent No. 3,799,105 A1; herein Port.
Re claim 18, the combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom discloses the invention of claim 4, Al further discloses wherein the mouse repelling device is mobile (abstract, the components move making the device mobile and the shell is capable of being moved from one location to another), the mouse repelling device internally comprises a mobile power supply (col 6; 25-26, wherein the power supply is a battery).
The combination of Al, De, Hen, Oh, and Bloom fails to disclose a bottom of the mouse repelling device comprises electric pulleys, and the main control board is configured to drive the electric pulleys for movement. However, Port discloses a bottom (fig. 1, the section under the platform; 12) of a repelling device (abstract) comprises electric pulleys (col 2; 28-41, the pulleys; 26 & 26 are power by the electronic motor; 22), and a main controller (col 3; 24-28, the controls within the pedestal) is configured to drive the electric pulleys for movement (col 2; 28-41 & col 3; 24-28, via the belt).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a bottom of the mouse repelling device comprises electric pulleys, and the main control board is configured to drive the electric pulleys for movement however, Port discloses such a mechanism. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the motor, controls, pulleys and belt as taught by Port to the base of the prior art to yield the predictable result of a rotating base as described by Al. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA J MICHENER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642