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.
Claim 5 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.
Claim 5 recites "the fourth laser unit positioned inside the building and oriented to project the one or more laser beams to a fourth area inside the building to deter birds from loafing, roosting, or nesting inside the building outside the building to keep birds away from the building." The claim simultaneously places the fourth laser unit inside and outside the building, rendering its scope unclear. Claim 5 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite, as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty. Applicant is invited to amend claim 5 to clarify whether the fourth laser unit is positioned inside or outside the building.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcay et al. (US 20190059357 A1 cited in IDS filed 02/17/2025) in view of Henskes et al. (US 20160128315 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barcay discloses a method for bird control for a building having an entrance (Barcay is directed to bird control in a building or enclosure (e.g., a retail store, warehouse, or facility). See Barcay [0028] ("pest birds, such as sparrows, are corralled into nets for removal and relocation"); [0043]–[0047] (describing birds entering and roosting in buildings). The building has an entrance, specifically including loading dock doors. See Barcay [0036] ("loading dock and automatic doors may allow birds to freely enter and exit the facility").), the method comprising:
projecting one or more laser beams from each laser unit of multiple laser units including at least a first laser unit positioned inside the building (Barcay expressly discloses a multi-projection laser system with multiple laser units, each projecting laser beams from a position inside the building. See Barcay [0071] ("The use of lasers, particularly multi-laser projectors…which can produce between one to thousands of laser beams of one or more colors to corral birds into mist nets and deter movement to unwanted locations"); [0072] (FIG. 7 — laser unit 702 "placed directly under a mist net 704 and under rafters of an enclosure. Laser beams 705 are directed up towards the net"); [0073] (FIG. 8 — laser unit 802 "placed such that the laser beams 805 are directed at an angle towards rafters 808"); [0074] (FIG. 9 — laser unit 902 directing beams toward rafters along a ridge line). Each of these is a distinct laser unit positioned inside the building.).
However, Barcay does not expressly disclose (a) a second laser unit positioned outside the building; and (b) adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit in response to a change of a state of the entrance.
In an analogous art, Henskes teaches limitations (a) and (b). Regarding limitation (a), Henskes expressly discloses deploying two laser apparatuses on opposite sides of a protected zone — specifically, on opposite sides of a runway — so that their laser beams collectively prevent birds from approaching or transiting the zone from either direction. See Henskes [0039]–[0040], FIG. 4. Regarding limitation (b), Henskes expressly discloses coupling the laser apparatus to an external state-change signal — a prediction device linked to air traffic control — so that the apparatus is switched on only when the protected zone transitions to an at-risk state, i.e., upon the predicted approach of an airplane. See Henskes [0041] ("the above described apparatuses may be coupled with a prediction device for predicting the arrival of an airplane, so that the apparatus is switched on only then").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barcay's interior multi-laser bird control system by incorporating Henskes' bilateral unit placement and entrance-state-triggered activation. Both references address the identical problem of deterring birds from a defined protected transit zone using laser technology, providing a clear reason to combine them. The bilateral placement of Henskes (FIG. 4, [0039]–[0040]) is directly applicable to Barcay's building entrance — a zone with an interior side and an exterior side — yielding the predictable benefit of deterring approaching birds before they reach and transit the entrance, a problem Barcay explicitly identifies but does not solve. See Barcay [0031], [0043]. Similarly, Henskes' event-triggered activation ([0041]) directly addresses Barcay's identified but unresolved problem of birds exploiting open doors, by providing the straightforward and routine step of coupling the laser system to the open/closed state of the building entrance — the structural and functional equivalent of Henskes' airplane-approach trigger — so that laser deterrence is activated precisely when and only when the entrance presents an ingress risk. The combination applies known techniques from a closely analogous field to a known problem, with no reasonable expectation of failure and no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein projecting the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit comprises: projecting the one or more laser beams from the first laser unit to a first area around the entrance to deter birds from entering the building through the entrance; and projecting the one or more laser beams from the second laser unit to a second area around the entrance to deter birds from entering the building through the entrance (Barcay teaches directing laser beams toward specific areas within the building interior to influence bird movement relative to exit and entry points, including open doors and entrances. See Barcay [0056] ("Scare tactics may be used to force or herd a bird 202 to an open window, door 204 or open skylight. Good options for directing birds are…laser pointers 208"); also see [0071]. Barcay does not, however, disclose either laser unit specifically projecting to an area around the entrance, nor the exterior laser unit, for the same reasons stated in the rejection of claim 1. Henskes expressly teaches both limitations. Henskes discloses two laser apparatuses on opposite sides of a protected transit zone, with each apparatus directing its laser beam into the zone immediately flanking that transit corridor to prevent birds from approaching or crossing from either direction. See Henskes [0039]–[0040], FIG. 4. This maps directly to claim 2's first and second areas around the entrance — the interior and exterior coverage zones flanking the building entrance — projected into by paired units for the identical purpose of preventing bird transit through that point. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejection of claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to orient both laser units toward the areas flanking the building entrance — the identified primary bird ingress point in Barcay ([0031], [0043]) — in direct application of Henskes' bilateral zone-coverage strategy, with no unpredictable results.).
Regarding claim 3, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 2, wherein adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit comprises: activating the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit in response to an opening of the entrance; and stopping the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit of the multiple laser units in response a closing of the entrance (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses that the laser apparatus is switched on only when the protected zone transitions to an at-risk state, and by direct implication is switched off when that at-risk state resolves. See Henskes [0041] ("the apparatus is switched on only then" upon prediction of airplane approach); [0019] (control element "arranged for executing a program at predetermined points of time," implying the apparatus is inactive between those times). The binary on/off character of Henskes' state-triggered activation — active during the at-risk state, inactive otherwise — is precisely the activation/stopping scheme recited in claim 3, applied to the entrance open/closed state rather than the airplane approach/departure state. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1 and 2. Implementing Henskes' binary on/off activation scheme in Barcay's building context — switching laser projection on when the entrance opens and off when it closes — is a straightforward and routine application of Henskes' teaching to the identified problem in Barcay, requiring no more than ordinary skill and yielding entirely predictable results.).
Regarding claim 4, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising projecting one or more laser beams from a third laser unit of the multiple laser units, the third laser unit positioned inside the building and oriented to project the one or more laser beams to a third area inside the building to deter birds from loafing, roosting, or nesting inside the building (Barcay discloses multiple laser units positioned inside the building and directed toward ceiling rafters — the primary loafing, roosting, and nesting locations for pest birds in a building — for the explicit purpose of discouraging birds from occupying those locations. See Barcay [0028] ("Lasers can be utilized to change bird flight patterns, flush birds into mist nets and to discourage their movement to refuge locations such as ceiling rafters"); [0071] (" laser beams of one or more colors to corral birds into mist nets and deter movement to unwanted locations such as ceiling rafters"); [0072] (FIG. 7 — laser unit 702 directed upward toward rafters); [0073] (FIG. 8 — laser unit 802 angled toward rafters at 45 degrees); [0074] (FIG. 9 — laser unit 902 directed along the ridge line toward rafters). Each of FIGS. 7–9 discloses a distinct laser unit inside the building oriented to project laser beams to a specific interior area for the express purpose of deterring birds from roosting and loafing in the rafters — which is precisely the third laser unit recited in claim 4. The motivation to combine remains the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1–3. The addition of the third interior laser unit requires no modification beyond what Barcay already expressly teaches, and its incorporation into the combined system of Barcay and Henskes would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking comprehensive bird deterrence both at the building entrance and within the building interior.).
Regarding claim 5, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising projecting one or more laser beams from a fourth laser unit of the multiple laser units, the fourth laser unit positioned inside the building and oriented to project the one or more laser beams to a fourth area inside the building to deter birds from loafing, roosting, or nesting inside the building outside the building to keep birds away from the building (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses laser apparatuses positioned on opposite sides of a protected zone, with each unit projecting laser beams into the surrounding area to prevent birds from approaching the protected zone. See Henskes [0039]–[0040], FIG. 4. The exterior-facing laser unit of claim 5 — positioned outside the building to project into the exterior area and keep birds away from the building — maps directly to Henskes' apparatus positioned on the exterior-facing side of the protected zone, projecting outward to prevent birds from approaching. Henskes further teaches that reducing bird presence in the surrounding area is a direct and intended consequence of the bilateral deterrence strategy. See Henskes [0040] ("this prevents birds from moving in the longitudinal direction of the runway to the part where the airplanes 17 land and take off"). Additionally, Henskes discloses that the laser apparatus can be deployed on structures such as oil rig helicopter platforms specifically to keep birds away from the structure itself. See Henskes [0042]–[0043], FIG. 6. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1–3. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to add an exterior-facing laser unit to Barcay's system in direct application of Henskes' teaching that reducing bird presence in the exterior approach zone surrounding a protected structure is both a natural extension of bilateral deterrence coverage and a predictable means of reducing the number of birds that can attempt entry — a problem Barcay explicitly identifies. See Barcay [0031], [0043]. The combination yields entirely predictable results with no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Regarding claim 6, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 3, wherein adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit comprises adjusting a direction of the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit for efficacy in deterring birds while ensuring human safety (Barcay teaches adjusting the direction of laser projection for efficacy in deterring birds, disclosing multiple directional orientations of laser units — vertical, side-angled at 45 degrees, and along the ridge line — each selected to maximize the effect on bird flight patterns. See Barcay [0072]–[0074], FIGs. 7–9. Barcay does not, however, explicitly address adjusting laser direction to ensure human safety. Henskes expressly teaches both the efficacy and human safety aspects of directional adjustment in combination. Henskes states: "it is important that the birds actually see the deterrent laser beam…In particular with air traffic, the laser beam hindering pilots or other persons should be prevented." See Henskes [0010]. Henskes further discloses that the apparatus is provided with "means for limiting the angle of elevation of the exiting laser beam" specifically to prevent the laser from radiating toward humans. See Henskes [0013]. These teachings directly and expressly map to claim 6's requirement of adjusting the direction of laser projection for both deterrence efficacy and human safety simultaneously. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1–3. Human laser safety was a well-recognized concern in the art at the time of the invention, and a person of ordinary skill in the art implementing Henskes' laser deterrence strategy in Barcay's building context — where human occupants including employees and customers are present — would have been directly motivated to incorporate Henskes' directional adjustment for human safety as a routine and predictable design consideration, yielding no unexpected results.).
Regarding claim 7, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 3, wherein adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit comprises adjusting a pattern of the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit to cause desirable movements of birds while preventing the birds from becoming acclimated to the one or more laser beams (Barcay teaches adjusting the pattern of laser projection to cause desirable movements of birds, disclosing strobed and patterned laser beams, as well as multi-projection laser systems producing varying numbers and colors of beams directed to influence bird flight patterns toward mist nets and away from rafters. See Barcay [0021], [0071]–[0074]. Barcay does not, however, explicitly address adjusting the laser pattern for the specific purpose of preventing bird acclimation. Henskes expressly teaches both aspects of claim 7 in combination. Regarding pattern adjustment for desirable bird movements, Henskes discloses that the control element causes the laser beam to move jerkily, describe figures, and execute varying programs to maximize the deterrent effect on bird behavior. See Henskes [0014] ("the apparatus is arranged for causing the laser beam to move jerkily"); [0015] (laser arranged to describe a figure forming the envelope of a structure). Regarding prevention of acclimation, Henskes directly and expressly addresses this concern: "the control element is arranged for each time executing a different program. The deterrent effect is then greater as the birds are surprised by the pattern changing each time, since habituation by the birds will hardly occur." See Henskes [0018]. Henskes further states: "more variation in the pattern is obtained, so that habituation of the birds will occur less rapidly." See Henskes [0008]. These teachings map directly and precisely to claim 7's dual requirement of pattern adjustment for desirable bird movements and prevention of acclimation. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1–3. Anti-habituation through pattern variation was an explicitly recognized and addressed design goal in Henskes, and a person of ordinary skill in the art incorporating Henskes' deterrence strategy into Barcay's building system would naturally and predictably apply Henskes' pattern variation teaching to prevent birds in the building environment from becoming acclimated to the laser system — a particularly important consideration given that Barcay's Category 3 birds are long-term building residents with extended exposure to any fixed stimulus. See Barcay [0047]. The combination yields entirely predictable results with no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Regarding claim 8, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein projecting the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit comprises projecting the one or more laser beams from the second laser unit to an area outside the building to discourage birds from flying toward the building and from landing on the building (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses a laser apparatus deployed on an oil rig helicopter platform and directed across the platform surface specifically to scare away birds present on the platform and prevent them from landing on the structure. See Henskes [0042] ("This apparatus is arranged for generating a laser beam 25, which is directed towards the helicopter platform 22. The laser beam can then move over the platform 22 in both directions to scare away birds present on the platform"); [0043] ("the laser source or the water cannon may be arranged to be activated only upon detection of birds or in anticipation of the arrival or departure of a helicopter"). Henskes further teaches in the runway context that the bilateral laser deterrence strategy prevents birds from approaching the protected zone from the surrounding exterior area. See Henskes [0040]. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejection of claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to orient Henskes' exterior-facing laser unit toward the surrounding exterior area of Barcay's building to discourage birds from approaching and landing on the building, directly applying Henskes' platform and runway teachings to the building exterior context, with entirely predictable results.).
Regarding claim 9, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit comprises adjusting at least one of an activation, a direction, or a pattern of the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit using a switch signal indicative of the state of the entrance (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses that the laser apparatus is coupled to an external signal source — a prediction device linked to air traffic control — that produces a signal indicative of the state of the protected zone, and that this signal is used to control the activation of the laser apparatus. See Henskes [0041] ("the apparatus is switched on only then" upon receipt of the prediction signal). Henskes further discloses that the control element uses input signals to adjust the direction and pattern of the laser beam. See Henskes [0020] ("the control element is provided with input means…arranged for inputting the properties of the path to be described by the laser"); [0018] (control element arranged to execute different programs, varying pattern in response to control inputs). The switch signal recited in claim 9 — a binary signal indicating whether the entrance is open or closed — is the direct functional equivalent of Henskes' prediction signal indicating whether the protected zone is at risk, used in identical fashion to control activation, direction, and pattern of the laser projection. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejection of claim 1. Implementing Henskes' signal-driven control scheme in Barcay's building context using a door state switch — a thoroughly routine and well-known component in commercial facilities — to produce a switch signal indicative of the entrance state requires no more than ordinary skill and yields entirely predictable results.).
Regarding claim 10, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 9, wherein adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit comprises controlling the at least one of the activation, the direction, or the pattern of the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit using the switch signal and a timing signal controlling when the switch signal is to be used to control the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses that the control element is "arranged for executing a program at predetermined points of time," and that "it is also possible to take the influence of light into account in determining the points of time at which the program is executed." See Henskes [0019]. Henskes further discloses that "the program is repeated only at twilight and in darkness," explicitly teaching that a timing-based condition gates when the laser deterrence program is executed. See Henskes [0016]. These teachings collectively disclose using a timing signal to control when the laser projection is active — which maps directly to claim 10's timing signal controlling when the switch signal governs the projection. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that restricting the door-state trigger to specific time periods — for example, daylight hours when birds are active, or business hours when the dock door is in regular use — is the direct and natural application of Henskes' time-gating teaching to Barcay's building context. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1 and 9. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to implement Henskes' time-gating mechanism in Barcay's building system to restrict door-state-triggered laser activation to periods when bird activity and door usage make such activation both necessary and appropriate, yielding entirely predictable results with no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Regarding claim 11, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 9, wherein adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit comprises controlling the at least one of the activation, the direction, or the pattern of the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit using the switch signal and a sensor signal indicative of whether a presence of one or more birds is detected (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses that the apparatus is "provided with a bird detection element for detecting birds in the surroundings of the apparatus, the bird detection element is connected with the control element, and the control element is arranged for executing a program after detection of a number of birds by the bird detection element." See Henskes [0021]. Henskes further discloses that this bird detection signal may be used in combination with other control signals — specifically in combination with the airplane prediction signal — to govern laser activation. See Henskes [0022] ("Alternatively, or in combination with the above-mentioned feature, the apparatus is provided with a prediction element"); [0041] ("a link with a presence detector for birds can be made in order to generate a laser beam only when birds are present"). The sensor signal recited in claim 11 — indicative of detected bird presence — maps directly and precisely to Henskes' bird detection element signal, used in identical fashion as an additional input to control laser projection alongside the primary state-change trigger signal. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1 and 9. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to incorporate Henskes' bird presence sensor signal into Barcay's building system as an additional control input alongside the door state switch signal, for the same reasons Henskes expressly identifies: projecting laser beams only when birds are actually present avoids unnecessary activation, reduces bird acclimation, and prevents the laser from becoming a nuisance or safety concern to building occupants — all predictable and recognized benefits requiring no more than ordinary skill to implement.).
Regarding claim 12, Barcay discloses the method for bird control for a building having an entrance, an interior, and an exterior (Barcay expressly discloses this context in its entirety, including a building with a loading dock entrance, interior, and exterior. See Barcay [0036], [0043]), the method comprising:
deterring birds from entering the interior through the entrance by projecting one or more laser beams from a first laser unit in the interior to a first area around the entrance (Barcay teaches first and second laser units in the interior projecting to areas around the entrance to deter birds from entering — Barcay teaches multiple interior laser units projecting laser beams to influence bird flight patterns, and explicitly teaches using lasers to herd and direct birds toward and away from entrance points. See Barcay [0056] ("Scare tactics may be used to force or herd a bird 202 to an open window, door 204 or open skylight. Good options for directing birds are…laser pointers 208"); also see [0071]–[0074], FIGs. 7–9.);
deterring birds from entering the interior through the entrance by projecting one or more laser beams from a second laser unit in the interior to a second area around the entrance (Barcay teaches first and second laser units in the interior projecting to areas around the entrance to deter birds from entering — Barcay teaches multiple interior laser units projecting laser beams to influence bird flight patterns, and explicitly teaches using lasers to herd and direct birds toward and away from entrance points. See Barcay [0056] ("Scare tactics may be used to force or herd a bird 202 to an open window, door 204 or open skylight. Good options for directing birds are…laser pointers 208"); also see [0071]–[0074], FIGs. 7–9.);
repelling birds from the interior through the entrance by projecting one or more laser beams from a third laser unit in the interior (Barcay expressly teaches using laser pointers and multi-projection laser systems to flush and herd birds out of the building through open doors and entrances. See Barcay [0056] and [0071]; also see [0028] ("Lasers can be utilized to change bird flight patterns, flush birds into mist nets for safe removal").);
However, Barcay does not expressly disclose (a) repelling birds from the exterior by projecting one or more laser beams from a fourth laser unit in the exterior; and (b) adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from each laser unit of the first laser unit, the second last unit, the third laser unit, and the fourth laser unit using a switch signal indicative of a state of the entrance.
In analogous art, Henskes expressly teaches limitations (a) and (b). Regarding limitation (a), Henskes discloses laser apparatuses positioned on opposite sides of a protected transit zone, with the exterior-facing apparatus projecting into the surrounding area to repel birds from approaching the protected zone. See Henskes [0039]–[0040], FIG. 4; also see [0042]–[0043], FIG. 6 (apparatus on oil rig platform projecting laser beam across the platform to scare away birds from the structure). Regarding limitation (b), Henskes discloses coupling the laser apparatus to an external state-change signal — the airplane prediction signal from air traffic control — that governs activation of the laser projection across the system. See Henskes [0041]. Using this signal to adjust projection from all laser units in the system simultaneously is the direct and natural implementation of Henskes' system-wide triggered activation, applied to each of the four laser units in the combined Barcay-Henskes system.
The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejection of claim 1. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to implement Henskes' bilateral exterior unit placement and entrance-state-triggered activation across all laser units of Barcay's multi-unit interior system, as doing so comprehensively addresses the identified bird ingress problem from all directions — interior deterrence at the entrance, interior expulsion, exterior deterrence, and system-wide activation tied to the door state — with entirely predictable results and no reasonable expectation of failure.
Regarding claim 13, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 12, wherein adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit comprises: activating the each laser unit to project the one or more laser beams from that laser unit in response to the switch signal indicating an opening of the entrance; and deactivating the each laser unit to stop protecting the one or more laser beams from that laser unit in response to the switch signal indicating a closing of the entrance (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses that the laser apparatus is switched on only upon receipt of the state-change trigger signal, and by direct implication is switched off when that trigger condition resolves. See Henskes [0041] ("the apparatus is switched on only then" upon prediction of airplane approach); [0019] (control element "arranged for executing a program at predetermined points of time," implying the apparatus is inactive between those times). The application of this binary activation/deactivation scheme to each of the four laser units of claim 12 is the direct and natural implementation of Henskes' system-wide triggered activation, requiring no more than routine skill. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejection of claim 12. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to apply Henskes' binary on/off activation scheme to each of the four laser units in Barcay's system simultaneously, as coordinated system-wide activation tied to the entrance state change is the most straightforward and predictable implementation of Henskes' teaching in the building context, yielding no unexpected results.).
Regarding claim 14, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 13, wherein adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from each laser unit further comprises dynamically changing the direction of the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit when the laser projector is activated (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses driving means arranged for causing repetitive movement of the laser light generator, dynamically changing the direction of the laser beam during operation. See Henskes [0005] ("the driving means are arranged for causing a repetitive movement to be executed of at least a drivable part of the laser light generator"); [0007]–[0008] (laser beam caused to move in a single direction or a second direction during operation); [0038] ("it is also possible…to utilize a movable laser beam…the electric motor 7 is to drive the mirror such that the exiting laser beam 12 moves in the vertical direction"). Henskes further discloses that this dynamic directional change occurs precisely when the apparatus is activated, as the movement is generated upon activation of the laser source by the control unit. See Henskes [0037]–[0038]. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 12 and 13. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to incorporate Henskes' dynamic directional movement into the activated laser units of Barcay's building system, as Henskes explicitly teaches that a moving laser beam has "a much greater dissuasive and deterrent effect than a stationary beam" and that birds are "deterred faster" by a moving beam perceived as a physical object. See Henskes [0005]. Applying this teaching to each activated laser unit in Barcay's system yields entirely predictable improvements in deterrence efficacy with no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Regarding claim 15, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the method of claim 13, wherein adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from each laser unit further comprises dynamically changing spatial and temporal characteristics of the pattern of the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit when the laser projector is activated (Henskes expressly teaches both aspects of this limitation. Regarding spatial characteristics, Henskes discloses driving means that dynamically change the direction and geometry of the laser beam during operation, including movement in a single direction, movement in a second direction, and the description of figures forming envelopes of structures. See Henskes [0007]–[0008] (laser beam caused to move in one or two directions, obtaining "more variation in the pattern"); [0015] (laser arranged to describe a figure forming the envelope of a structure); [0038]–[0040] (mirror driven to dynamically change the spatial direction of the exiting laser beam). Regarding temporal characteristics, Henskes expressly discloses controlling the speed and timing of the laser beam movement, including causing the beam to move at high frequency so that birds perceive it as a surface, causing the beam to move jerkily, and executing programs at varying or predetermined time intervals. See Henskes [0011] ("the control element is arranged for causing the laser beam to move with such a high frequency that a bird perceives the moving laser beam as a surface"); [0014] ("the apparatus is arranged for causing the laser beam to move jerkily"); [0016]–[0019] (control element executing programs at varying time intervals, executing different programs each time to prevent habituation). The combination of these spatial and temporal pattern characteristics, dynamically changed during activation, maps directly and precisely to claim 15's dual requirement of dynamic spatial and temporal pattern adjustment. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 12 and 13. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to incorporate Henskes' dynamic spatial and temporal pattern variation into the activated laser units of Barcay's building system, as Henskes explicitly teaches that varying both the spatial geometry and temporal characteristics of the laser pattern maximizes deterrence efficacy and prevents bird habituation — recognized and critical design goals in Barcay's long-term building bird control context. See Henskes [0018]; Barcay [0047]. The combination yields entirely predictable results with no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Regarding claim 16, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the apparatus for excluding birds from a building having an entrance (Barcay expressly discloses a bird control system for use in a building or enclosure, including a loading dock entrance through which birds enter. See Barcay [0028], [0036], [0043].), comprising:
multiple laser units each including a laser projector configured to project one or more laser beams (Barcay expressly discloses a multi-projection laser system comprising multiple laser units, each producing a plurality of laser beams of one or more colors. See Barcay [0071] ("The use of lasers, particularly multi-laser projectors…which can produce between one to thousands of laser beams of one or more colors"); also see [0072]–[0074], FIGs. 7–9 (laser units 702, 802, 902, each projecting laser beams in distinct orientations).), the multiple laser units including:
a first laser unit positioned inside the building with the laser projector oriented to project the one or more laser beams to a first area (Barcay expressly discloses multiple laser units positioned inside the building, each oriented to project laser beams to specific interior areas including toward rafters, mist nets, and bird flight paths. See Barcay [0072] (FIG. 7 — laser unit 702 positioned inside building projecting upward toward rafters); [0073] (FIG. 8 — laser unit 802 positioned inside building projecting at 45-degree angle toward rafters); [0074] (FIG. 9 — laser unit 902 positioned inside building projecting along ridge line toward rafters).).
However, Barcay does not expressly disclose (a) a controller configured to control the projection of the one or more laser beams from the laser projector using a switch signal indicating a state of the entrance; and (b) a second laser unit positioned outside the building with the laser projector oriented to project the one or more laser beams to a second area.
In an analogous art, Henskes expressly teaches limitations (a) and (b). Regarding limitation (a), Henskes discloses a control unit coupled to an external state-change signal — a prediction device linked to air traffic control — that governs activation of the laser apparatus based on the state of the protected zone. See Henskes [0041] ("the apparatus is switched on only then" upon receipt of the prediction signal indicating the protected zone is at risk). Henskes further discloses that the control element uses input signals to adjust the direction and pattern of the laser beam. See Henskes [0020] ("the control element is provided with input means…arranged for inputting the properties of the path to be described by the laser"); [0018] (control element arranged to execute different programs in response to control inputs). The controller recited in claim 16 — configured to control laser projection using a switch signal indicative of entrance state — is the direct structural and functional equivalent of Henskes' control unit configured to control laser projection using an external state-change signal, applied to the building entrance context. Regarding limitation (b), Henskes expressly discloses deploying two laser apparatuses on opposite sides of a protected transit zone, with the exterior-facing apparatus positioned and oriented to project laser beams into the area flanking the protected zone to prevent birds from approaching or crossing it. See Henskes [0039]–[0040], FIG. 4 ("two apparatuses 1a, 1b…are placed on opposite sides of a runway 15…two laser beams 12 are generated which…keep the runway 15 clear of birds"); [0042]–[0043], FIG. 6 (apparatus positioned on exterior structure projecting laser beam across the exterior surface to deter birds from the structure). The second laser unit of claim 16 — positioned outside the building and oriented to project to a second exterior area — maps directly to Henskes' exterior-facing apparatus positioned on the opposite side of the protected transit zone.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Barcay's multi-unit interior laser system by: (1) adding a second laser unit on the exterior side of the building entrance, in direct application of Henskes' bilateral opposite-sides placement strategy (FIG. 4, [0039]–[0040]); and (2) incorporating a controller configured to use a door-state switch signal to govern laser projection across all units, in direct application of Henskes' state-change-triggered activation ([0041]). Both references are directed to the same technical field of automated laser bird deterrence, share the identical goal of preventing birds from occupying or transiting a protected zone, and Barcay itself identifies the open building entrance as the primary and unresolved bird ingress problem ([0036], [0043]) that Henskes' teachings directly address. The combination applies known techniques from a closely analogous context to a known problem, with no unpredictable results and no reasonable expectation of failure.
Regarding claim 17, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the multiple laser unit further comprises a third laser unit positioned inside the building with the laser projector oriented to project the one or more laser beams to a third area different from the first area (Barcay expressly teaches this limitation. Barcay discloses no fewer than three distinct interior laser units, each positioned inside the building and each oriented to project laser beams to a different interior area: laser unit 702 directed vertically upward toward rafters (FIG. 7, [0072]); laser unit 802 directed at a 45-degree side angle toward rafters (FIG. 8, [0073]); and laser unit 902 directed along the ridge line toward rafters (FIG. 9, [0074]). Each unit projects to a distinct area inside the building different from the others, directly and expressly satisfying the third laser unit recited in claim 17. The motivation to combine remains the same as stated in the rejection of claim 16. The addition of the third interior laser unit requires no modification beyond what Barcay already expressly teaches, and its incorporation into the combined system of Barcay and Henskes would be entirely natural and obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking comprehensive bird deterrence coverage across multiple distinct interior areas of the building.).
Regarding claim 18, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the multiple laser unit further comprises a fourth laser unit positioned outside the building with the laser projector oriented to project the one or more laser beams to a fourth area different from the third area (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses laser apparatuses positioned on opposite sides of a protected transit zone, with the exterior-facing apparatus oriented to project laser beams into an exterior area distinct from the interior coverage areas of the interior-facing units. See Henskes [0039]–[0040], FIG. 4. Henskes further discloses a laser apparatus positioned on an exterior structure — an oil rig helicopter platform — oriented to project laser beams across the exterior platform surface, a distinct area separate from any interior coverage zone. See Henskes [0042]–[0043], FIG. 6. The fourth laser unit of claim 18 — positioned outside the building and oriented to project to a fourth area different from the third interior area — maps directly to Henskes' exterior-facing apparatus oriented to project into an exterior area distinct from the interior coverage zones of the interior units. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 16 and 17. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to add a fourth exterior laser unit oriented toward a distinct exterior coverage area in direct application of Henskes' bilateral placement strategy, complementing the three interior units of the combined Barcay-Henskes system to provide comprehensive bird deterrence coverage both inside and outside the building, with entirely predictable results and no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Regarding claim 19, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the controller of each laser unit of the multiple laser units is configured to activate the laser projector of the each laser unit to project the one or more laser beams in response to the switch signal indicating the opening of the entrance and to deactivate the laser projector of the each laser unit to stop protecting the one or more laser beams in response to the switch signal indicating the closing of the entrance (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses a control unit configured to activate the laser apparatus only upon receipt of the state-change trigger signal indicating the protected zone is at risk, and to deactivate it when that condition resolves. See Henskes [0041] ("the apparatus is switched on only then" upon prediction of airplane approach); [0019] (control element "arranged for executing a program at predetermined points of time," implying the apparatus is inactive between those times). The controller recited in claim 19 — configured to activate each laser projector upon an entrance opening signal and deactivate it upon a closing signal — is the direct structural and functional equivalent of Henskes' control unit configured to activate and deactivate the laser apparatus based on the state-change trigger signal, applied to each of the four laser units of claim 18. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 16–18. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to configure the controller of each laser unit in Barcay's system to implement Henskes' binary activation/deactivation scheme, as coordinated system-wide activation and deactivation of all laser units tied to the entrance state change is the most straightforward and predictable implementation of Henskes' teaching across the four-unit combined system, yielding no unexpected results.).
Regarding claim 20, Barcay in view of Henskes discloses the apparatus of claim 19, wherein the controller of the each laser unit is configured to cause the laser projector of the each laser unit to dynamically change at least one of a direction or a pattern of projection of the one or more laser beams (Henskes expressly teaches this limitation in both its direction and pattern aspects. Regarding direction, Henskes discloses a control unit driving means arranged to cause repetitive movement of the laser light generator, dynamically changing the direction of the laser beam during operation in one or two directions. See Henskes [0005] ("the driving means are arranged for causing a repetitive movement to be executed of at least a drivable part of the laser light generator"); [0007]–[0008] (laser beam caused to move in a single direction or a second direction); [0036]–[0038] (control unit 10 driving electric motor 7 to rotate mirror 8, dynamically changing the direction of the exiting laser beam 12). Regarding pattern, Henskes discloses a control element configured to execute different programs each time, dynamically changing the pattern of laser projection to prevent bird habituation. See Henskes [0018] ("the control element is arranged for each time executing a different program. The deterrent effect is then greater as the birds are surprised by the pattern changing each time"); [0011] (control element causing the laser beam to move at high frequency to create a surface pattern perceived by birds); [0014] (apparatus arranged for causing the laser beam to move jerkily). The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 16–19. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to configure the controller of each laser unit in Barcay's system to implement Henskes' dynamic direction and pattern change capability, as Henskes explicitly teaches that a dynamically moving laser beam with varying patterns has a "much greater dissuasive and deterrent effect than a stationary beam" and that birds are "deterred faster" by such dynamic projection. See Henskes [0005]. Applying this controller configuration to each laser unit in the combined system yields entirely predictable improvements in deterrence efficacy with no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS whose telephone number is (571)270-7838. The examiner can normally be reached M to F, 10am to 5pm.
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, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached at (571) 272-3114. 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.
/RAJSHEED O BLACK-CHILDRESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2685