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 Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant's amendment and remarks received on 06/23/2026.
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) 1-9 and 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcay et al. (US 20190059357 A1) in view of Henskes et al. (US 20160128315 A1) and Moore (US 6,705,940 B1).
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 in a switch signal.
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 are directed to laser-based deterrence of pest birds from a protected zone and are classified in the same art area (CPC A01M 29/10, scaring or repelling devices using light sources), 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 [0036], [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.
However, Barcay in view of Henskes does not expressly disclose producing a switch signal indicative of a state of the entrance using at least one of an entrance switch configured to open and close the entrance or a sensor configured to sense whether the entrance is open or closed.
In an analogous art, Moore teaches this limitation. Moore is directed to a system for preventing unwanted elements from moving into the interior of a building through an open doorway, the building comprising a wall having an interior side inside the building and an exterior side, and a doorway defined through the wall (Moore, col. 3, ll. 46–52; claim 1(a)–(b)). Moore discloses a control circuit 114 including a switch 116 mounted on the door jamb, wherein the switch may be a proximity switch, and wherein "the proximity of the second side 46 of the door 42 to the switch 116 will be used to open the switch 116" (Moore, col. 5, ll. 38–48; claim 3). Moore's proximity switch thus senses the position of the door and produces a signal indicative of whether the doorway is open or closed — a sensor configured to sense whether the entrance is open or closed. Moore further discloses that the exclusion device "is activated when the door is opened and de-activated when the door is closed" in response to that switch (Moore, Abstract; col. 5, ll. 49–52), thereby producing and using a switch signal indicative of the state of the entrance to control the device. Moore expressly articulates the motivation for this arrangement: continuous operation of a doorway exclusion device is wasteful, and accordingly "there is a need for a system that will prevent movement of insects, debris and the like through a doorway and is activated only when the doorway is open and is inactive at all other times" (Moore, col. 1, ll. 36–44).
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 produce the switch signal of the modified Barcay/Henskes system using Moore's door-position proximity sensor. Barcay expressly identifies open loading dock and automatic doors as the mechanism by which birds "freely enter and exit the facility" (Barcay [0036]) but supplies no automated response to that condition. Moore addresses the same problem — ingress of unwanted pests into a building interior through an open doorway — and teaches the conventional solution of a door position sensor that activates an exclusion device upon opening of the doorway and deactivates it upon closing, expressly to avoid wasteful continuous operation. Moore is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned and is therefore analogous art. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to control the entrance protecting laser units of the modified Barcay/Henskes system according to the state of the entrance would have looked directly to Moore's door position sensor, with a reasonable expectation of success and entirely predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 above. 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 primary bird ingress point identified in Barcay ([0036], [0043]) — in direct application of Henskes' bilateral zone-coverage strategy, with no unpredictable results.).
Regarding claim 3, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 (Moore expressly teaches this limitation. Moore discloses that the doorway exclusion device "is activated when the door is opened and de-activated when the door is closed" (Moore, Abstract). Moore's control circuit implements this through switch 116, which is held in an open position when the door is in the closed position and moves to a closed position when the door is moved into the open position, thereby connecting the power source to the device (Moore, claim 5(f)(1); col. 5, ll. 38–52). Moore thus discloses the precise binary activation-on-opening and deactivation-on-closing scheme recited in the claim. Henskes cumulatively teaches the same binary control character in the laser deterrent context, disclosing that the laser apparatus is switched on only upon the protected zone transitioning to an at-risk state (Henskes [0041]) and is otherwise inactive between scheduled or triggered operations (Henskes [0019]). The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1 and 2 above. Implementing Moore's activation-on-opening and deactivation-on-closing scheme to govern the laser projection of the modified Barcay/Henskes system is the direct and routine application of Moore's teaching to the entrance-protecting laser units, requiring no more than ordinary skill and yielding entirely predictable results — including the avoidance of wasteful continuous operation that Moore expressly identifies as the object of the arrangement (Moore, col. 1, ll. 36–44).).
Regarding claim 4, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1–3 above. The addition of the third interior laser unit requires no modification beyond what Barcay already expressly teaches, and its incorporation into the combined Barcay/Henskes/Moore system 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 and Moore 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 outside the building and oriented to project the one or more laser beams to a fourth area 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 that zone. See Henskes [0039]–[0040], FIG. 4. Henskes further teaches that reducing bird presence in the surrounding area is a direct and intended consequence of this arrangement. 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"). Henskes additionally discloses deploying the laser apparatus on a structure — an oil rig helicopter platform — and directing the laser beam across that structure specifically to scare away birds present on it, thereby keeping birds away from the structure itself. See Henskes [0042]–[0043], FIG. 6. The fourth laser unit of claim 5 — positioned outside the building and oriented to project into an exterior area to keep birds away from the building — maps directly to Henskes' exterior-facing apparatus projecting outward to prevent birds from approaching or occupying the protected structure. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1–3 above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to add an exterior-facing laser unit to the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore system in direct application of Henskes' teaching, as 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 may attempt to enter the building — a problem Barcay expressly identifies. See Barcay [0036], [0043]. The combination yields entirely predictable results with no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Regarding claim 6, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 "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 above. 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 and Moore 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 above. 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 and Moore 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 above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to orient the exterior-facing laser unit of the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore system toward the surrounding exterior area of Barcay's building to discourage birds from approaching and landing on the building, in direct application of Henskes' platform and runway teachings to the building exterior context, with entirely predictable results.).
Regarding claim 9, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 the switch signal (As set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Moore teaches producing such a signal by means of a door-position proximity switch that senses whether the doorway is open or closed (Moore, col. 5, ll. 38–48; claim 3), and further teaches using that signal to control the exclusion device, which "is activated when the door is opened and de-activated when the door is closed" (Moore, Abstract). Moore therefore teaches using the switch signal to control the activation of the deterrent device, satisfying the "at least one of" recitation of claim 9. Henskes cumulatively teaches that the control element of a laser deterrent apparatus uses input signals to govern the direction and pattern of the projected 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 motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejection of claim 1 above. Using Moore's door-state signal to govern activation of the entrance-protecting laser units of the modified Barcay/Henskes system is the direct application of Moore's teaching, requiring no more than ordinary skill and yielding entirely predictable results, including the avoidance of wasteful continuous operation Moore expressly identifies as the object of the arrangement (Moore, col. 1, ll. 36–44).).
Regarding claim 11, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 the sensor signal. 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 another control signal to govern laser activation, rather than as the sole trigger. 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"). Henskes thus teaches controlling laser projection using a bird-presence sensor signal in combination with a separate control signal, which is the arrangement recited in claim 11. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 1 and 9 above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to incorporate Henskes' bird-presence sensor signal into the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore system as an additional control input alongside the entrance-state switch signal, for the reasons Henskes expressly identifies: projecting laser beams only when birds are actually present avoids unnecessary energy consumption and prevents bird habituation to the pattern (Henskes [0021]). Those benefits are directly applicable in Barcay's building context, where the laser units would otherwise remain energized throughout every period the loading dock door is open.).
Regarding claim 12, Barcay discloses the method for bird control for a building having an entrance, an interior, and an exterior (Barcay is directed to bird control in a building or enclosure having an interior and an exterior, the building having an entrance including loading dock doors. See Barcay [0028]; [0036] ("loading dock and automatic doors may allow birds to freely enter and exit the facility"); [0043]–[0047]; [0075] (survey conducted from "the outside of the facility and work into the enclosure," recording exterior and interior bird activity)), 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 interior laser units projecting laser beams to influence bird flight patterns, and expressly teaches directing lasers relative to 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"); [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]; [0071]; [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) deterring birds from entering the interior through the entrance by projecting one or more laser beams from a second laser unit in the exterior to a second area around the entrance; (b) repelling birds from the exterior by projecting one or more laser beams from a fourth laser unit in the exterior; (c) producing a switch signal indicative of a state of the entrance using at least one of an entrance switch configured to open and close the entrance or a sensor configured to sense whether the entrance is open or closed; and (d) adjusting the projection of the one or more laser beams from each laser unit of the first, second, third, and fourth laser units using the switch signal.
In an analogous art, Henskes teaches limitations (a), (b), and (d). Regarding limitations (a) and (b), Henskes expressly discloses deploying two laser apparatuses on opposite sides of a protected transit zone, with each apparatus projecting laser beams into the area flanking that zone to prevent birds from approaching or crossing it from either direction. See Henskes [0039]–[0040], FIG. 4. Henskes further discloses deploying a laser apparatus on the exterior of a structure and directing the beam across that structure to scare away birds present on it and keep birds away from the structure. See Henskes [0042]–[0043], FIG. 6. Regarding limitation (d), Henskes discloses coupling the laser apparatus to an external state-change signal that governs activation of the laser projection. See Henskes [0041].
Barcay in view of Henskes does not expressly disclose limitation (c).
In an analogous art, Moore teaches limitation (c). Moore is directed to a system for preventing unwanted elements from moving into the interior of a building through an open doorway, the building comprising a wall having an interior side inside the building and an exterior side, and a doorway defined through the wall (Moore, col. 3, ll. 46–52; claim 1(a)–(b)). Moore discloses a control circuit 114 including a switch 116 mounted on the door jamb, wherein the switch may be a proximity switch, and wherein "the proximity of the second side 46 of the door 42 to the switch 116 will be used to open the switch 116" (Moore, col. 5, ll. 38–48; claim 3). Moore's proximity switch thus senses the position of the door and produces a signal indicative of whether the doorway is open or closed — a sensor configured to sense whether the entrance is open or closed. Moore further discloses that the exclusion device "is activated when the door is opened and de-activated when the door is closed" in response to that switch (Moore, Abstract; col. 5, ll. 49–52). Moore's proximity switch detects the present physical position of the door and is therefore a signal indicative of a current condition of the entrance.
Moore expressly articulates the motivation for this arrangement: continuous operation of a doorway exclusion device is wasteful, and accordingly "there is a need for a system that will prevent movement of insects, debris and the like through a doorway and is activated only when the doorway is open and is inactive at all other times" (Moore, col. 1, ll. 36–44).
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 bird control system by (1) adding exterior laser units projecting to an area around the entrance and to an exterior area, in direct application of Henskes' bilateral opposite-sides placement and exterior-structure teachings (Henskes [0039]–[0040], [0042]–[0043], FIGs. 4 and 6); (2) adjusting the projection from all four laser units according to the state of the entrance, in application of Henskes' state-change-triggered activation (Henskes [0041]); and (3) producing the entrance-state switch signal using Moore's door-position proximity sensor (Moore, col. 5, ll. 38–48; claim 3). Barcay and Henskes are both directed to laser-based deterrence of pest birds from a protected zone. Barcay expressly identifies open loading dock and automatic doors as the mechanism by which birds "freely enter and exit the facility" (Barcay [0036]) but supplies no automated response to that condition, and Moore addresses that same problem — ingress of unwanted pests into a building interior through an open doorway — by the conventional expedient of a door-position sensor that activates an exclusion device upon opening and deactivates it upon closing. Moore is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned and is therefore analogous art. The combination applies known techniques from closely related contexts to a known problem, with a reasonable expectation of success and no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 (Moore expressly teaches this limitation. Moore discloses that the doorway exclusion device "is activated when the door is opened and de-activated when the door is closed" (Moore, Abstract). Moore implements this through switch 116 of control circuit 114, which is held in an open position when the door is in the closed position and moves into a closed position when the door is moved into the open position, thereby connecting the power source to the device (Moore, claim 5(f)(1); col. 5, ll. 38–52). Moore thus discloses the binary activation-on-opening and deactivation-on-closing scheme recited in claim 13. Henskes cumulatively teaches the same binary control character in the laser deterrent context, disclosing that the laser apparatus is switched on only upon the protected zone transitioning to an at-risk state (Henskes [0041]) and is otherwise inactive between triggered or scheduled operations (Henskes [0019]). The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejection of claim 12 above. Applying Moore's activation-on-opening and deactivation-on-closing scheme to each of the four laser units of the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore system is the direct and routine implementation of Moore's teaching across the system, requiring no more than ordinary skill and yielding entirely predictable results — including the avoidance of wasteful continuous operation Moore expressly identifies as the object of the arrangement (Moore, col. 1, ll. 36–44).).
Regarding claim 14, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 a direction of the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit when the each laser unit is activated (Barcay teaches multiple fixed directional orientations for its interior laser units — vertical, side-angled at 45 degrees, and along the ridge line (Barcay [0072]–[0074], FIGs. 7–9) — but does not expressly disclose dynamically changing the direction of projection during operation. 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 in a second direction); [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 movement occurs while the apparatus is activated, the movement being 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 above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to incorporate Henskes' dynamic directional movement into the activated laser units of the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore system, as Henskes expressly teaches that a moving laser beam has "a much greater dissuasive and deterrent effect than a stationary beam" and that birds "are thereby deterred faster" because they perceive the moving beam as a physical object. See Henskes [0005]. Applying this teaching to each activated laser unit yields predictable improvements in deterrence efficacy with no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Regarding claim 15, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 a pattern of the projection of the one or more laser beams from the each laser unit when the each laser unit is activated (Barcay teaches strobed and patterned laser beams and multi-projection systems producing varying numbers and colors of beams (Barcay [0021], [0071]), but does not expressly disclose dynamically changing both spatial and temporal characteristics of the projection pattern during operation. Henskes expressly teaches both aspects of this limitation. As to 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 the envelope of a structure. 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 change the spatial direction of the exiting beam). As to temporal characteristics, Henskes discloses controlling the speed and timing of the beam movement, including moving the beam at high frequency so that birds perceive it as a surface, moving the beam jerkily, and executing programs at varying or predetermined 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 regular or irregular intervals and executing a different program each time). These spatial and temporal pattern characteristics are changed while the apparatus is activated, the movement being generated upon activation of the laser source by the control unit (Henskes [0037]–[0038]). The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 12 and 13 above. 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 the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore system, as Henskes expressly teaches that varying both the geometry and the timing of the laser pattern increases deterrent effect and prevents bird habituation (Henskes [0008], [0018]) — a consideration of particular significance in Barcay's building context, where birds may be long-term residents with extended exposure to any fixed stimulus (Barcay [0047]). The combination yields entirely predictable results with no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Regarding claim 16, Barcaydiscloses the apparatus for excluding birds from a building having an entrance (Barcay discloses a bird control system for use in a building or enclosure, the building having an entrance including loading dock doors. See Barcay [0028]; [0036] ("loading dock and automatic doors may allow birds to freely enter and exit the facility"); [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"); [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 discloses multiple laser units positioned inside the building, each oriented to project laser beams to specific interior areas. See Barcay [0072] (FIG. 7 — laser unit 702 positioned inside the building projecting upward toward rafters); [0073] (FIG. 8 — laser unit 802 projecting at a 45-degree angle toward rafters); [0074] (FIG. 9 — laser unit 902 projecting along the 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; (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; and (c) a projection switch configured to produce the switch signal, the projection switch including at least one of an entrance switch configured to open and close the entrance or a sensor configured to sense whether the entrance is open or closed.
In an analogous art, Henskes teaches limitations (a) and (b). Regarding limitation (a), Henskes discloses a control unit coupled to an external state-change signal that governs activation of the laser apparatus based on the condition of the protected zone. See Henskes [0041] ("the apparatus is switched on only then"). Henskes further discloses that the control element uses input signals to adjust the direction and pattern of the laser beam. See Henskes [0020]; [0018]. 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 that zone to prevent birds from approaching or crossing it. See Henskes [0039]–[0040], FIG. 4; [0042]–[0043], FIG. 6 (apparatus positioned on an exterior structure projecting a laser beam across the exterior surface to deter birds from the structure).
Barcay in view of Henskes does not expressly disclose limitation (c).
In an analogous art, Moore teaches limitation (c). Moore is directed to a system for preventing unwanted elements from moving into the interior of a building through an open doorway, the building comprising a wall having an interior side inside the building and an exterior side, and a doorway defined through the wall (Moore, col. 3, ll. 46–52; claim 1(a)–(b)). Moore discloses a control circuit 114 comprising a switch 116 mounted on the door jamb, wherein the switch may be a proximity switch, and wherein "the proximity of the second side 46 of the door 42 to the switch 116 will be used to open the switch 116" (Moore, col. 5, ll. 38–48; claim 3). Moore's switch 116 is a discrete structural element that senses the position of the door and produces a signal indicative of whether the doorway is open or closed — a projection switch including a sensor configured to sense whether the entrance is open or closed, as recited in claim 16. Moore further discloses that the exclusion device "is activated when the door is opened and de-activated when the door is closed" in response to switch 116 (Moore, Abstract; col. 5, ll. 49–52), such that the switch produces the signal used to control the device. Moore's proximity switch detects the present physical position of the door and is therefore a structure producing a signal indicative of a current condition of the entrance. Moore expressly articulates the motivation for this arrangement: continuous operation of a doorway exclusion device is wasteful, and accordingly "there is a need for a system that will prevent movement of insects, debris and the like through a doorway and is activated only when the doorway is open and is inactive at all other times" (Moore, col. 1, ll. 36–44).
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 (Henskes [0039]–[0040], FIG. 4); (2) incorporating a controller configured to govern laser projection using a signal indicative of the state of the entrance, in application of Henskes' state-change-triggered activation (Henskes [0041]); and (3) providing a projection switch to produce that signal in the form of Moore's door-jamb proximity switch (Moore, col. 5, ll. 38–48; claim 3). Barcay and Henskes are both directed to laser-based deterrence of pest birds from a protected zone. Barcay expressly identifies open loading dock and automatic doors as the mechanism by which birds "freely enter and exit the facility" (Barcay [0036]) but provides no structure responsive to that condition, and Moore supplies exactly such a structure for the same problem — ingress of unwanted pests into a building interior through an open doorway. Moore is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned and is therefore analogous art. The combination applies known techniques from closely related contexts to a known problem, with a reasonable expectation of success and no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 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 the rafters from beneath the mist net (Barcay [0072], FIG. 7); laser unit 802 directed at a 45-degree side angle toward the rafters (Barcay [0073], FIG. 8); and laser unit 902 directed along the ridge line toward the rafters (Barcay [0074], FIG. 9). Each unit is oriented to project to a distinct area inside the building different from the areas covered by the others, which is the third laser unit recited in claim 17. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejection of claim 16 above. The addition of a third interior laser unit requires no modification beyond what Barcay already expressly teaches, and its incorporation into the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore apparatus would be 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 and Moore 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 second area (Henskes teaches this limitation. Henskes discloses deploying multiple laser apparatuses on the exterior of a protected zone, each oriented to project into a distinct exterior coverage area. In FIG. 4, two apparatuses 1a, 1b are placed on opposite sides of the protected zone, each generating a laser surface covering a different region of the exterior area surrounding that zone. See Henskes [0039]. Henskes further teaches that the apparatuses may be disposed so that the laser surfaces "extend transversely to the runway," thereby covering a coverage region different from that of the longitudinally oriented arrangement. See Henskes [0040]. Henskes additionally discloses an exterior-mounted apparatus directed across the surface of a structure to deter birds from that structure itself, a coverage area distinct from the approach zone flanking the protected transit corridor. See Henskes [0042]–[0043], FIG. 6. Henskes thus teaches deploying multiple exterior positioned laser units oriented toward different exterior coverage areas, which is the fourth laser unit projecting to a fourth area different from the second area, as recited in claim 18. The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 16 and 17 above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to add a fourth exterior laser unit oriented toward an exterior coverage area distinct from that of the second exterior unit, in direct application of Henskes' teaching that multiple exterior units covering different regions provide more complete protection of the zone birds must traverse. Doing so complements the interior units of the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore apparatus and yields comprehensive deterrence coverage across both the entrance approach and the broader building exterior, with predictable results and no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Regarding claim 19, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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 (Moore expressly teaches this limitation. Moore discloses a control circuit 114 configured such that the exclusion device "is activated when the door is opened and de-activated when the door is closed" (Moore, Abstract). The circuit comprises switch 116 mounted on the door jamb, held in an open position when the door is in the closed position and moving into a closed position when the door is moved into the open position, thereby connecting the power source to the motor and energizing the device (Moore, claim 5(f)(1)–(2); col. 5, ll. 38–52). Moore thus discloses control circuitry configured to activate the device upon an indication that the doorway has opened and to deactivate it upon an indication that the doorway has closed, which is the controller configuration recited in claim 19. Henskes cumulatively teaches the same binary control character in the laser deterrent context, disclosing a control unit that switches the laser apparatus on only upon the protected zone transitioning to an at-risk state (Henskes [0041]) and that leaves the apparatus inactive between triggered or scheduled operations (Henskes [0019]). The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 16–18 above. Configuring the controller of each laser unit of the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore apparatus to implement Moore's activation-on-opening and deactivation-on-closing scheme is the direct and routine implementation of Moore's teaching across the multi-unit system, requiring no more than ordinary skill and yielding entirely predictable results — including the avoidance of wasteful continuous operation Moore expressly identifies as the object of the arrangement (Moore, col. 1, ll. 36–44).).
Regarding claim 20, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore 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. As to direction, Henskes discloses a control unit and 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]; [0036]–[0038] (control unit 10 driving electric motor 7 to rotate mirror 8, changing the direction of the exiting laser beam 12). As to pattern, Henskes discloses a control element configured to execute a different program each time, dynamically changing the projected pattern. 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 beam to move at high frequency such that birds perceive it as a surface); [0014] (apparatus arranged to cause the beam to move jerkily). The motivation to combine is the same as stated in the rejections of claims 16–19 above. A person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to configure the controller of each laser unit of the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore apparatus to implement Henskes' dynamic direction and pattern change capability, as Henskes expressly teaches that a moving laser beam has "a much greater dissuasive and deterrent effect than a stationary beam" and that birds are deterred faster because they perceive the moving beam as a physical object (Henskes [0005]), and that varying the pattern prevents habituation (Henskes [0018]). Applying this controller configuration to each laser unit yields predictable improvements in deterrence efficacy with no reasonable expectation of failure.).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcay et al. (US 20190059357 A1) in view of Henskes et al. (US 20160128315 A1) and Moore (US 6,705,940 B1), further in view of Boyd (US 6,016,100 A).
Regarding claim 10, Barcay in view of Henskes and Moore discloses the method of claim 9 as set forth above, including controlling at least one of the activation, the direction, or the pattern of the projection of the one or more laser beams using the switch signal.
However, Barcay, Henskes, and Moore do not expressly disclose controlling the projection using the switch signal and a timing signal controlling a time interval during which the one or more laser beams are projected.
In the same field of endeavor, Boyd teaches this limitation. Boyd is directed to "the field of systems for deterring an animal from an area" (Boyd, col. 1, ll. 5–8), and discloses a deterrent system in which a trigger signal initiates a deterrent stimulus and a separate deterrent timer independently establishes how long that stimulus is emitted. Specifically, Boyd claims "a deterrent timer responsive to said deterrent initialization signal for activating said output device for a predetermined amount of time, thereby creating a delay between each said deterrent stimulus" (Boyd, claim 1; see also claim 14). As described in connection with FIG. 6, "the deterrent initialization signal activates a timer 68 which activates the ultrasonic tone for a predetermined amount of time" (Boyd, col. 5, ll. 30–35), the timer being implemented as a monostable multivibrator (Boyd, col. 5, ll. 36–38). Boyd thus discloses controlling a deterrent output using both a trigger signal indicative of the condition of the protected area and a separate timing signal establishing the time interval during which the deterrent is emitted. Boyd further articulates the motivation for this arrangement. Boyd explains that in prior deterrent systems, "should an animal enter into the range of the sensor, the deterrent will continuously sound while the animal remains within the sensor range," and that "the use of a continuous deterrent places an unnecessary drain on the power supply" (Boyd, col. 2, ll. 5–11). Boyd additionally teaches that constraining and varying the deterrent output "minimizes the ability of the animal 11 to become accustomed to the deterrent signal" (Boyd, col. 5, ll. 40–45).
Therefore, it would therefore have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control the laser projection of the modified Barcay/Henskes/Moore system using both the entrance-state switch signal and a timing signal establishing the interval during which the laser beams are projected, as taught by Boyd. Boyd is in the same field of endeavor — systems for deterring animals from a protected area — as both Barcay and Henskes, and is therefore analogous art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a laser deterrent activated solely by the open state of a loading dock door would remain continuously energized for as long as that door remained open, producing precisely the unnecessary power drain and habituation risk Boyd identifies. Incorporating Boyd's deterrent timer to establish a defined projection interval would predictably conserve power and reduce bird acclimation — the latter being a benefit Henskes independently identifies as a principal design objective (Henskes [0008], [0018]). The combination applies a known timing technique to a known deterrent system to yield predictable results, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument A. Applicant argues that Henskes' airplane prediction signal is "a prospective, anticipatory signal about a future event," whereas the claimed switch signal produced by an entrance switch or a sensor is "a reactive, real-time signal about a current condition," and that these are "fundamentally different triggering mechanisms" (Response, pp. 8, 11, 13).
This argument is addressed by the newly cited Moore reference. Moore discloses a control circuit including switch 116 mounted on the door jamb of a building doorway, which may be a proximity switch that detects the position of the door: "the proximity of the second side 46 of the door 42 to the switch 116 will be used to open the switch 116" (Moore, col. 5, ll. 38–48; claim 3). Moore's switch detects the present physical position of the door and produces a signal on that basis, such that the exclusion device "is activated when the door is opened and de-activated when the door is closed" (Moore, Abstract). This is a reactive, real-time signal indicative of a current condition of the entrance — precisely the character Applicant asserts is absent from the prior art. The rejections above rely on Moore, not on Henskes' prediction signal, for the switch-signal limitation.
Argument B. Applicant argues that an airport runway is "an open outdoor surface flanked by open ground, without interior/exterior distinction analogous to a building entrance," that a bird "can fly into the 'interior side' from the 'exterior side' anywhere along the airport runway but can only fly into the 'interior side' from the 'exterior side' through only an entrance of a building," and that mapping Henskes' bilateral placement to a building requires "a non-trivial conceptual leap" (Response, pp. 8–9, 11, 14).
This argument is not persuasive for three reasons.
First, the argument attacks Henskes individually. The rejection does not rely on Henskes to supply the building, the wall, the interior, the exterior, or the entrance. Barcay supplies the building with its interior, exterior, and loading dock entrance (Barcay [0028], [0036], [0043], [0075]), and Moore independently supplies a building wall "having an interior side inside the building and an exterior side" with "a doorway defined through said wall" (Moore, claim 1(a)–(b); col. 3, ll. 46–52). Henskes is relied upon only for the concept of positioning laser units on opposite sides of a zone birds must traverse. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also see MPEP 2145 (IV).
Second, Applicant's characterization of Henskes is incomplete. Henskes expressly teaches disposing the apparatuses so that the laser surfaces "extend transversely to the runway," and states that this arrangement "prevents birds from moving in the longitudinal direction of the runway to the part where the airplanes land and take off" (Henskes [0040]). Henskes thereby teaches using paired laser units to create a barrier at a defined transit corridor through which birds must pass — the same functional character as a building entrance. Henskes further teaches deploying the apparatus on a structure, directing the beam across an oil rig helicopter platform to "scare away birds present on the platform" (Henskes [0042]), demonstrating that Henskes is not confined to open ground.
Third, the modification requires only ordinary creativity. A person of ordinary skill in the art is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton," and is able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together. See MPEP 2141.03 (I).
Argument C. Applicant argues that Barcay's interior laser system "uses laser units in conjunction with mist nets to capture birds that are inside the building regardless of the state of the entrance," and that incorporating state-triggered activation "would render this Barcay's system less effective because, for example, the laser unit would be deactivated when the entrance is closed but there are birds inside the building," thereby changing Barcay's principle of operation (Response, pp. 9, 12, 14).
This argument is not persuasive for three reasons.
First, the argument is premised on a modification the rejection does not require. Barcay discloses a plurality of laser units serving distinct purposes and positioned in distinct orientations (Barcay [0072]–[0074], FIGs. 7–9). Nothing in the rejection requires that every laser unit in the combined system be governed by the entrance-state signal. Applicant's own claim 4 recites a third interior laser unit directed to deterring loafing, roosting, or nesting — a function distinct from entrance protection. The rejection applies entrance-state control to the units protecting the entrance, which is the purpose those units serve.
Second, the combination adds a capability without removing any capability Barcay discloses. Barcay's mist nets, box traps, cage wire traps, and flushing techniques all remain fully operative under the combination. A modification is not improper merely because the modified system also acquires a new function.
Third, the asserted disadvantage is one the prior art itself identifies as an advantage. Both Moore and Henskes teach that a deterrent device should operate only when the protected zone is at risk, expressly to avoid wasteful continuous operation and to prevent the target animals from habituating to a constant stimulus (Moore, col. 1, ll. 36–44; Henskes [0021]). Selective activation is a recognized design objective in this art, not a defect.
Argument D. Applicant argues that the Office Action over-generalizes the technical problems solved by Barcay and Henskes, that their objectives differ ("corralling birds into mist nets for capture and removal from a building vs. deterring birds from airport runways and offshore oil rig helicopter platforms"), and that the combination is therefore driven by impermissible hindsight (Response, pp. 9, 15).
This argument is not persuasive. Barcay and Henskes are both directed to laser-based deterrence of pest birds from a protected zone, and both employ projected laser beams to alter bird flight behavior and exclude birds from an area. Barcay expressly teaches using lasers "to change bird flight patterns" and "to discourage their movement to refuge locations" (Barcay [0028]) — deterrence, not merely capture. That the references apply this shared technique in different settings does not render them nonanalogous.
Moore is likewise analogous art. Moore addresses "the field of protecting openings through walls of static structures" and specifically the prevention of unwanted pests from entering a building interior through an open doorway (Moore, col. 1, ll. 5–15). That is the same problem Barcay identifies but leaves unsolved: "loading dock and automatic doors may allow birds to freely enter and exit the facility" (Barcay [0036]). Moore is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
Finally, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The motivation to combine is drawn from the references themselves: Barcay identifies the open entrance as the mechanism of bird ingress and provides no automated response (Barcay [0036], [0043]); Henskes teaches bilateral coverage of a transit corridor and state-triggered activation (Henskes [0039]–[0041]); Moore teaches a door-position sensor activating an exclusion device only when the doorway is open, expressly because continuous operation is wasteful (Moore, col. 1, ll. 36–44); and Boyd teaches a deterrent timer bounding the duration of each activation, expressly because continuous output drains power and promotes habituation (Boyd, col. 2, ll. 5–11; col. 5, ll. 30–45).
Argument E. Applicant's arguments regarding claims 2–11, 13–15, and 17–20 rely solely on the asserted patentability of the independent claims from which they depend (Response, pp. 10, 12, 15). Those arguments are addressed above.
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 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
Prosecution Insights