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 § 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 5, 9, 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.
Regarding claim 5: It is unclear what “on or art an already installed window” means. Should “art” be “at”? It is assumed so and will be examined accordingly.
Referring to claims 9, 17, and 21: It is unclear what makes “a smart speaker system, monitoring system, and/or alarm system” “smart”. How are they different from a speaker system, monitoring system, and/or alarm system?
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King (US Patent No 11,369,106).
Referring to claim 1: King teaches detecting the presence of the pests (claim 1); and activating the active deterrent system when the pests are detected (claim 1). King does not specifically teach providing an active deterrent system configured to chase the pests away from a protected location. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing claim 1 teaches providing the deterrent system since it teaches the use at a specified location.
Referring to claim 2: King teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches said active deterrent system includes flashing lights (col 3, lines 45-50).
Referring to claim 3: King teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches said active deterrent system includes broadcasting a noise(col 3, lines 45-50).
Referring to claim 4: King teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches said active deterrent system includes moving an object (col 3, lines 45-50).
Referring to claim 5: King teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. King does not specifically teach said active deterrent system is configured for installation on or art an already installed window. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the deterrent system at any location desired in order to deter pests from said location.
Referring to claim 6: King teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. King does not specifically teach wherein said pests are birds. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that the system and method of King would be deployable against birds as the intended pest, especially since the Background of the Invention references patents that are intended to be used against birds.
Referring to claim 7: King teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the camera system of King (claim 1) monitors a location remote from the camera. Therefore King teaches wherein said detecting step utilizes a sensor (camera) located remotely from the protected location.
Referring to claim 8: King teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches wherein said system is configured to interact with a local network (figure 2 shows a local network).
Referring to claim 9: King teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches wherein said local network includes a smart speaker system, monitoring system, and/or alarm system (claim 1 step 7 teaches a “learning” algorithm in the monitoring system). Under broadest reasonable interpretation a learning system would be considered a smart monitoring system.
Referring to claim 10: King teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. King does not specifically teach wherein said system is configured to protect a windmill. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place the deterrent system at any location desired in order to deter pests from said location. It is well-known to protect windmills from birds to prevent damage.
Referring to claim 11: King teaches detecting the presence of the pests (claim 1); and activating the active deterrent system when the pests are detected (claim 1). King does not specifically teach providing an active deterrent system configured to chase the birds away from a window location. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing claim 1 teaches providing the deterrent system since it teaches the use at a specified location. Additionally, it would have been obvious to deploy the system at a window location in order to prevent bird strikes that could injure the birds or cause window breakage. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that the system and method of King would be deployable against birds as the intended pest, especially since the Background of the Invention references patents that are intended to be used against birds.
Referring to claim 12: King teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches said active deterrent system includes flashing lights (col 3, lines 45-50).
Referring to claim 13: King teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches said active deterrent system includes broadcasting a noise(col 3, lines 45-50).
Referring to claim 14: King teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches said active deterrent system includes moving an object (col 3, lines 45-50).
Referring to claim 15: King teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to recognize that the camera system of King (claim 1) monitors a location remote from the camera. Therefore King teaches wherein said detecting step utilizes a sensor (camera) located remotely from the protected location.
Referring to claim 16: King teaches all the limitations of claim 11 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches wherein said system is configured to interact with a local network (figure 2 shows a local network).
Referring to claim 17: King teaches all the limitations of claim 16 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches wherein said local network includes a smart speaker system, monitoring system, and/or alarm system (claim 1 step 7 teaches a “learning” algorithm in the monitoring system). Under broadest reasonable interpretation a learning system would be considered a smart monitoring system.
Referring to claim 18: King teaches detecting the presence of the pests (claim 1); and activating the active deterrent system when the pests are detected (claim 1), said active deterrent system including flashing lights (col 3, lines 45-50). King does not specifically teach providing an active deterrent system configured to chase the birds away from a window location, installing said active deterret system on or at an already installed window. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing claim 1 teaches providing the deterrent system since it teaches the use at a specified location. Additionally, it would have been obvious to deploy the system at a window location in order to prevent bird strikes that could injure the birds or cause window breakage. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to recognize that the system and method of King would be deployable against birds as the intended pest, especially since the Background of the Invention references patents that are intended to be used against birds.
Referring to claim 19: King teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches said active deterrent system also includes broadcasting a noise (col 3, lines 45-50).
Referring to claim 20: King teaches all the limitations of claim 18 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches wherein said system is configured to interact with a local network (figure 2).
Referring to claim 21: King teaches all the limitations of claim 20 as noted above. Additionally, King teaches wherein said local network includes a smart speaker system, monitoring system, and/or alarm system (claim 1 step 7 teaches a “learning” algorithm in the monitoring system). Under broadest reasonable interpretation a learning system would be considered a smart monitoring system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK J MAESTRI whose telephone number is (571)270-7859. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-3.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
/PATRICK J MAESTRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights