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 .
To expedite the prosecution of this application, Examiner is not restricting claim(s) 1-20. Group 1: claim(s) 3, 8, and 17 are directed to an invention independent of the Group 2: claim(s) 4, 5, and 18, Group 3: Claim(s) 9-11, Group 4: Claim(s) 12-15, Group 5: claim 19, combination/subcombination usable together. Claim 2 is directed to specie independent claim 20. Further amendments to claim(s) 1-20 or their dependent claims may cause an undue burden at the US Patent Office, and if so, the claim(s) will be restricted in the subsequent office action under the statute 35 USC 121.
Per the 2019 (PEG) guidance, claim(s) 1-20 were reviewed for abstract idea. Claim(s) 1-20 can be streamlined to determine the subject matter eligibility, and the eligibility of the claims is “self-evident.”
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs, 8, 11, and 12 are informal drawings with illegible text. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a sensing component for scanning an area surrounding the user, and for collecting information during scanning” is interpreted to be “a motion detection and image acquisition system, wherein the device will scan out to a 4 m radius from the use” See ¶ 0113;
“a detection component for receiving and analyzing the information collected during scanning, for detecting an underwater aquatic animal …, and for generating a control signal …” in claim 1, and is interpreted to be “controller 11 is activated responsive to a signal from one or more water sensors… the controller activates the pulse generator 18 and/or the RF generator 14 for generating the signals radiated from the fractal geometry antenna 22” See ¶ 0061, 0062,
“the detection component for determining that the underwater aquatic animal” in claim 12 “an artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithm, as described further herein, that is executed by a processor 12. The Pulsarmis™ algorithm modulates each ELF pulse train of wave pulses based upon the trained dataset of any one of the three lethal shark breeds, that is, great white shark, tiger shark, and bull shark.” See ¶ 0060;
“a signal generating component for receiving the control signal and for generating an electromagnetic signal …” in claim 1, “the signal generating component to activate and terminate generating of the electromagnetic signal” is interpreted to be “signal generator 14 for generating signals under control of a pulse generator 18. When a pulse is input to the generator 14, the generator produces a signal for input to an amplifier 21 and then to an antenna 22” See ¶ 0059, in claim 11, “the signal generating component for generating a signal having characteristics for repelling the identified shark breed” in claim 12, is interpreted to be “Each low frequency pulse, with a pulse frequency of about 40 Hertz, generates an isotropic omnidirectional electromagnetic field to repel an approaching great white shark at about a four meters radius from the wearer. In another embodiment, the ELF train of pulses are triggered by the presence of any one of the lethal three shark breeds according to an algorithm to generate the isotropic radiation pattern out to about 2 m from the user.” See ¶ 0056 and0057;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, and 13-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,172,738 in view of Vinano (US 2011/0174235 A1) in view of Pope (US 2005/0265123 A1), in view of Menezes (US 4,922,468 A), and further in view of Ben-Shmuel (US 2012/0133542 A1).
Subject claim
Patented claim
1. A wearable device for wearing by a user and for generating an electromagnetic signal to repel underwater aquatic animals, the device comprising:
a strap or band for removably attaching the wearable device to the user;
a sensing component for scanning an area surrounding the user, and for collecting information during scanning;
a detection component for receiving and analyzing the information collected during scanning, for detecting an underwater aquatic animal based on results of an analysis, and for generating a control signal responsive to the results;
a signal generating component for receiving the control signal and for generating an electromagnetic signal responsive thereto,
[a fractal geometry] antenna responsive to the electromagnetic signal for transmitting the electromagnetic signal to create a field in an area proximate the user, the field for repelling the underwater aquatic animal; and
a water sensor for enabling the device to transmit the electromagnetic signal when the water sensor senses presence of water[.]
a fractal geometry antenna
wherein characteristics of the electromagnetic signal are determined according to a species or breed of a detected underwater aquatic animal;
Claim 3 The wearable device of claim 1, wherein a frequency of the electromagnetic signal is between about 1 Hz and 100 Hz.
4. The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the fractal geometry antenna geometry comprises a T-square fractal antenna or a Sierpinski triangle antenna.
7. The wearable device of claim 1, further comprising a rechargeable graphene battery.
8. The wearable device of claim 1, wherein characteristics of the electromagnetic signal comprise, a square wave with a frequency in a range of about 20 Hz to 80 Hz, or a sinusoidal signal with a frequency in a range of about 20 Hz to 100 Hz with a pulse-like envelope, a sinusoidal signal with a frequency in a range of about 20 Hz to 100 Hz, or a sawtooth waveform.
9. The wearable device of claim 1, wherein components of the wearable device operate in an ON mode and an OFF mode, controllable according to a configuration of a manually-operated switch.
10. The wearable device of claim 9, wherein in the ON mode the electromagnetic signal is transmitted continuously from the fractal geometry antenna.
11. The wearable device of claim 1, wherein the signal generating component is operable in a manual mode, wherein in the manual mode the user manually controls the signal generating component to activate and terminate generating of the electromagnetic signal.
Claims 12 and 15
Claim 13, 14, 16-20 are rejected in view of the prior art cited in 35 USC 103 rejections.
1. A garment for wearing by a human for repelling underwater aquatic creatures,
a system disposed on or in the garment, the system comprising:
Vinano teaches, “FIG. 10a illustrates a top view of a strap-and-case combination 438 for the electronic shark deterrence device.” See ¶ 0086,
Vinano teaches, “wherein the device includes a sensor for automatically activating its electrode discharge circuit only when the device is immersed in water. The use of a water-contact-sensor for automatic activation improves the water integrity, battery life, and deterrent effectiveness of the electronic shark deterrent device.” See ¶ 0013 Vinano teaches, “the processor measures feedback from a sensor, electrode, or combination of sensors and/or electrodes, to determine whether the electronic shark deterrence device, and/or the electrodes, is in contact with water.” See ¶ 0059 ;
a first component for generating a control signal;
a second component for receiving the control signal and transmitting an electromagnetic signal responsive thereto,
an electromagnetic field created by the electromagnetic signal radiating from the second component into an aquatic area surrounding the garment;
a water sensor disposed on the garment for activating the first and second components to transmit the electromagnet signal when the water sensor senses presence of water; wherein the second component comprises a monopole antenna, a dipole antenna or a fractal antenna; and wherein the fractal antenna comprises a first and second fractal antenna, each disposed laterally right and left relative to a body midline and extending from proximate a shoulder region to proximate a foot region.
16. A garment for wearing by a human for repelling underwater aquatic creatures, a system disposed on or in the garment, the system comprising: …
wherein the system comprises a detection system for determining one or more of a size, speed, and breed of a shark and based one on or more of size, speed, and breed, an artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithm determines an appropriate frequency for the electromagnetic signal.
3 The garment of claim 1, wherein a frequency of the electromagnetic signal is between about 20 Hz and 60 Hz.
4. The garment of claim 1, wherein the first and second fractal antennae each comprises a T-square fractal antenna.
9. The garment of claim 1, further comprising a rechargeable lithium ion battery for supplying power to the first and second components and the water sensor.
10. The garment of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic signal comprises a square wave with a frequency in a range of about 20 Hz to 80 Hz, or a radio frequency signal with a frequency in a range of about 20 Hz to 100 MHz with a pulse-like envelope, or a sinusoidal signal with a frequency in a range of about 20 Hz to 100 MHz.
13. The garment of claim 12, wherein the first and second systems operate according to a manual mode, an ON mode, and an OFF mode.
15. The garment of claim 13, wherein in the ON mode the electromagnetic signal is transmitted continuously from one or both of the first and second systems.
14. The garment of claim 13, wherein in the manual mode a user independently controls the first and second systems to activate and terminate emissions of the electromagnetic signal from either of both of the first and second systems.
Claims 1 and 16 and Pope teaches, “transducers may be configured to the behavior patterns of the fish to be detected. For example, sharks such as great whites frequently swim below the fish that are at the surface of the water that they are about to eat.” See ¶ 0016, 0020 and Menezes teaches, “a method for controlling the population of marine and aquatic species in an area of water includes the development of data concerning the response of various species to stimuli in different environmental conditions, and the generation of stimuli in the control area to affect the species in that area and thus control the population” See abstract, Menezes teaches, “of attracting or repelling a subject specie. Sensitivity to potential stimuli such as… electrical fields, radio frequency waves… As the ability to accurately generate and detect species response to stimuli increases, the ability to use these stimuli to constructively influence the movement of marine and aquatic species is increased.” Col. 1 lines 29-63.
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 19 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 19 recites, “[a] first wearable device of claim 1 for attaching the first wearable device to a first region of the user's body and a second wearable device of claim 1 for attaching the second wearable device to a second region of the user's body,” First, it is unclear to the examiner whether the claim 19 is an independent claim or a dependent claim. Second, the claim 1 is directed to “a wearable device… comprising:…” and it is unclear to the examiner, how does the “wearable device…” further comprising: a first wearable device and a second wearable device. Finally, it is unclear to the examiner, whether claims 19 is in fact directed to a different invention where the system comprising a plurality of wearable device. Applicant is requested to the present claim 19 as an independent claim.
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) 1-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinano (US 2011/0174235 A1) in view of Pope (US 2005/0265123 A1), in view of Menezes (US 4,922,468 A), and further in view of Ben-Shmuel (US 2012/0133542 A1).
Consider claim 1, Vinano teaches, a wearable device (438) for wearing by a user and for generating an electromagnetic signal to repel underwater aquatic animals, Vinano teaches, “an improved electronic shark deterrent method and device employing a novel output waveform comprising pulse bursts of alternating polarity.” See ¶ 0008, Vinano teaches, “physical structure for an electronic shark deterrent device comprising a thin-profile case and mounting structure for mounting the device to a user's body using a fastener strap.” See ¶ 0011, and Figs. 10a and 10d, the device comprising:
a strap or band (440) for removably attaching the wearable device to the user, Vinano teaches, “FIG. 10a illustrates a top view of a strap-and-case combination 438 for the electronic shark deterrence device.” See ¶ 0086, Vinano teaches, “FIG. 10d illustrates one method for affixing the device case 410 to the user's ankle by attaching the strap-and-case combination around the user's right foot 450 by attaching the ends of the fastener strap 440 together.” See ¶ 0089;
a sensing component for scanning an area surrounding the user, and for collecting information during scanning, Vinano teaches, “wherein the device includes a sensor for automatically activating its electrode discharge circuit only when the device is immersed in water. The use of a water-contact-sensor for automatic activation improves the water integrity, battery life, and deterrent effectiveness of the electronic shark deterrent device.” See ¶ 0013 Vinano teaches, “the processor measures feedback from a sensor, electrode, or combination of sensors and/or electrodes, to determine whether the electronic shark deterrence device, and/or the electrodes, is in contact with water.” See ¶ 0059 ;
a detection component for receiving and analyzing the information collected during scanning, and for generating a control signal responsive to the results, Vinano teaches, “control of the water-detection probe 255 may be configured to initiate pulse activation based on the submergence of fewer components or other components added to the device. Algorithms may be programmed into the processor 125 to provide enhanced control to ensure that the electronic shark deterrent device is properly submerged before pulses are generated” See ¶ 0072
a signal generating component for receiving the control signal and for generating an electromagnetic signal responsive thereto, Vinano teaches, “When the water-detection probe 255 is immersed in water 257 with the electrodes 210 and 215, a current path is established between the probe, the electrodes, and the pull-down resistors 230 and 235, and a voltage drop is detected across resistor 245 by the processor 125, which then sends signals to activate the high-voltage-output generator 180 to apply high-voltage pulses to the electrodes.” See ¶ 0071, Vinano teaches, “if the device, and/or the electrodes, is in contact with water then the processor executes a randomized pulse program to deter sharks and other aquatic creatures from the vicinity of the user.” See ¶ 0060, Vinano teaches, “the processor generates signals to synchronize the charging and discharging of a high-voltage capacitor. In step 65, the high-voltage capacitor is charged and discharged by the synchronization of signals to create an output waveform comprising pulse trains made up of a series of alternating-polarity pulse bursts, wherein the delay between pulses and the voltage amplitude of the pulses may be varied.” See ¶ 0061, 0062;
a [fractal geometry] antenna responsive to the electromagnetic signal for transmitting the electromagnetic signal to create a field in an area proximate the user, the field for repelling the underwater aquatic animal, Vinano teaches, “the output waveform is transmitted from the electrodes in contact with water to deter sharks and other members of the aquatic Elasmobranchi subclass from the vicinity of the user.” See ¶ 0063;
a water sensor for enabling the device to transmit the electromagnetic signal when the water sensor senses presence of water, Vinano teaches, “When the water-detection probe 255 is immersed in water 257 with the electrodes 210 and 215, a current path is established between the probe, the electrodes, and the pull-down resistors 230 and 235, and a voltage drop is detected across resistor 245 by the processor 125, which then sends signals to activate the high-voltage-output generator 180 to apply high-voltage pulses to the electrodes.” See ¶ 0071.
With respect to, a detection component … for detecting an underwater aquatic animal based on results of an analysis, in an analogous art, Pope teaches, “personal sonar system that can be used in most water sport applications and comprises a sonar transducer, a processor and an output device.” See ¶ 0004, Pope teaches, “devices are suitable for the sonar device include, surfboards, scuba equipment, windsurfers, boats and handheld underwater devices. The invention allows the individual to detect or be alerted to the presence of a large fish so that evasive action can be taken. By detecting the presence of sharks, severe personal injury may be avoided” see ¶ 0015, Pope teaches, “signals detected by the sonar transducer are compared to the database of stored signals by the processing system. This comparison process includes data analysis steps, including performing feature extraction to measure specific characteristics of the echo. The system produces digital echoes to determine whether the sonar pulse has bounced off an object and returned. The system also uses feature information in the fuzzy neural network to determine the type object” See ¶ 0021
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the invention of Vinano detecting an underwater aquatic animal based on results of an analysis as suggested by Vinano, in an effort to identify specific type of fish in the vicinity of the user and prevent possible shark attack.
With respect to, wherein characteristics of the electromagnetic signal are determined according to a species or breed of a detected underwater aquatic animal, Pope teaches, “a digital processor filters the broadband echoes to produce frequency spectra. Spectral processing provides a representation of fish not available to existing fish finding sonar systems. Prior art sonar fish finding devices use time-domain processing that counts and integrates echoes. Using spectral decomposition, it is possible to determine which frequencies are most strongly reflected by the fish targets. The spectral information is presented to a neural network classifier which is used to identify specific objects. In the sonar sense, different size or species fish reflect a broadband illumination at specific frequencies. Further sonar data has been collected for various types of sea creatures. By using the proper frequency and identifying the reflected signal pattern, the inventive sonar device can be tuned to detect the bladder of specific types of fish. Broadband sonar techniques are able to identify frequency-dependent fish bladder resonance for several species of fish. This can be particularly useful for identifying hazardous fish such as great white sharks and filtering out all other reflected signals.” See ¶ 0020; “By tuning the detection to specific types of hazardous sharks, the public beaches can be made safer” See ¶ 0032. Furthermore, in an analogous art, Menezes teaches, “a method for controlling the population of marine and aquatic species in an area of water includes the development of data concerning the response of various species to stimuli in different environmental conditions, and the generation of stimuli in the control area to affect the species in that area and thus control the population” See abstract, Menezes teaches, “the term "marine creatures" or "marine species" refers to fish, crustaceans, and other non-mammalian species which are resident in water and which are self-propelling and responsive to external stimuli… , the term "stimuli" is intended to encompass a single stimulus and multiple stimuli, whether sequentially or simultaneously generated, and which may have the effect of attracting or repelling a subject specie. Sensitivity to potential stimuli such as… electrical fields, radio frequency waves… As the ability to accurately generate and detect species response to stimuli increases, the ability to use these stimuli to constructively influence the movement of marine and aquatic species is increased.” Col. 1 lines 29-63. Menezes teaches, “this invention may effectively use integrated circuitry and computer programmable algorithms to automatically or manually control the synthesis, reproduction, and generation of electronic signals which are converted to underwater acoustic energy by powerful and rugged underwater transducers, or converted to other forms of user-designated stimuli such as light or radio frequency waves by other types of emitters.” Col. 4 line 3+ Menezes teaches, “Video image/pattern recognition algorithms can also identify the type of fish or animal which is present. Either method provides feedback for signal/response processor 72 and control unit 10 which initiates, modifies, or ceases signal generation.” Col. 9 line 3 +
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Vinano-Pope and emit the electromagnetic signal based on a species or breed of a detected underwater aquatic animal as suggested by Menezes, in an effort to effectively stimuli type of fish in the vicinity of the user and prevent possible shark attack.
With respect to, a fractal geometry antenna, in an analogous art, Ben-Shmuel teaches, “a first preferred embodiment, appropriate for example for security, crowd control and intruder repellant systems, the transmission power is set to cause discomfort to an animal in proximity to the reflector. As used herein the term animal includes humans, domestic and non-domestic animals (both mammalian and non-mammalian). The transmission power is preferably set in order to provide the desired amount of discomfort.” See ¶ 0183. Ben-Shmuel teaches, “a transmitter having transmission antenna… embodiments may utilize any antenna providing the required radiated pattern, including, for example, … fractal antenna,” See ¶ 0108.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Vinano-Pope- Menezes and user a fractal geometry antenna as suggested by Ben-Shmuel, Per KSR v Teleflex, this is simple substitution of one known element with another, See MPEP 2143, Rationale B.
Consider claim 2, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the strap further comprises a wristband, Vinano teaches, “[t]he belt connector 420 has a curved inner surface for mounting on a user's body part, such as an ankle, wrist, or elbow.” See ¶ 0080.
Consider claim 3, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein a frequency of the electromagnetic signal is between about 1 Hz and 100 Hz. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the prior art to generate electromagnetic signal is between about 1 Hz and 100 Hz.
Consider claim 4, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the fractal geometry antenna geometry comprises a T-square fractal antenna or a Sierpinski triangle antenna. Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the prior art for fractal antenna to be either T-square fractal antenna or a Sierpinski triangle.
Consider claim 5, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein a radiation pattern of the fractal geometry antenna comprises an isotropic radiation pattern, Ben-Shmuel teaches, “a reflector gain of about 10 to 13 dBi (decibel from isotropic radiation pattern), the electric field at the reflector's edges will range between approximately 1000 to 2500 V/m.” See ¶ 0208.
Consider claim 6, the wearable device of claim 1, further comprising a GPS device for determining a location of the user, Pope teaches, “the system may utilize additional input information such as temperature, depth, GPS location” See ¶ 0018 Pope teaches, “[a]s optional features, a GPS device and/or a radio may also be integrated into the device 361.” See ¶ 0027.
Consider claim 7, the wearable device of claim 1, further comprising a rechargeable [graphene] battery (85), Vinano teaches, rechargeable battery, “the deterrence device emitted pulse patterns with voltage amplitude varied between about 200 and 300 V for approximately 5 hours using a rechargeable lithium-ion battery rated at 750 milliampere-hour (mAh).” See ¶ 0057, Examiner takes Official Notice that rechargeable graphene batteries are well known in the prior art and would be an obvious substitute.
Consider claim 8, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein characteristics of the electromagnetic signal comprise, a square wave with a frequency in a range of about 20 Hz to 80 Hz, or a sinusoidal signal with a frequency in a range of about 20 Hz to 100 Hz with a pulse-like envelope, a sinusoidal signal with a frequency in a range of about 20 Hz to 100 Hz, or a sawtooth waveform. Vinano’s On/ Off Pulses “the period pulse train bursts” See ¶ 0023 with generate a square wave. Examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the prior art to generate electromagnetic signal with a square wave with a frequency in a range of about 20 Hz to 80 Hz.
Consider claim 9, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein components of the wearable device operate in an ON mode and an OFF mode, controllable according to a configuration of a manually-operated switch, Vinano teaches, “water detection and pulse generation may be enabled only if the device is activated manually, remotely or automatically.” See ¶ 0072. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, the duplicated repellent system would have been obvious for providing the back-up system, and therefore an obvious expedient.
Consider claim 10, the wearable device of claim 9, wherein in the ON mode the electromagnetic signal is transmitted continuously from the fractal geometry antenna, Vinano teaches, “pulse generation may be enabled only if the device is activated manually” therefore, transmitting continuously until manually turned off, See ¶ 0072.
Consider claim 11, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the signal generating component is operable in a manual mode, wherein in the manual mode the user manually controls the signal generating component to activate and terminate generating of the electromagnetic signal, Vinano teaches, “pulse generation may be enabled only if the device is activated manually” therefore, only transmitting pulse upon manual control, See ¶ 0072.
Consider claim 12, the wearable device of claim 1, the detection component for determining that the underwater aquatic animal comprises a bull shark, a tiger shark, or a great white shark based on a dataset comprising one or more of a size, speed, and anatomical features of the bull shark, the tiger shark, and the great white shark,
Pope teaches, “transducers may be configured to the behavior patterns of the fish to be detected. For example, sharks such as great whites frequently swim below the fish that are at the surface of the water that they are about to eat.” See ¶ 0016, Pope teaches, “The spectral information is presented to a neural network classifier which is used to identify specific objects. In the sonar sense, different size or species fish reflect a broadband illumination at specific frequencies. Further sonar data has been collected for various types of sea creatures. By using the proper frequency and identifying the reflected signal pattern, the inventive sonar device can be tuned to detect the bladder of specific types of fish.” See ¶ 0020
and
for generating the control signal identifying a shark breed, and wherein responsive to the control signal and an identified shark breed, the signal generating component for generating a signal having characteristics for repelling the identified shark breed, Menezes teaches, “a method for controlling the population of marine and aquatic species in an area of water includes the development of data concerning the response of various species to stimuli in different environmental conditions, and the generation of stimuli in the control area to affect the species in that area and thus control the population” See abstract, Menezes teaches, “the term "marine creatures" or "marine species" refers to fish, crustaceans, and other non-mammalian species which are resident in water and which are self-propelling and responsive to external stimuli… , the term "stimuli" is intended to encompass a single stimulus and multiple stimuli, whether sequentially or simultaneously generated, and which may have the effect of attracting or repelling a subject specie. Sensitivity to potential stimuli such as… electrical fields, radio frequency waves… As the ability to accurately generate and detect species response to stimuli increases, the ability to use these stimuli to constructively influence the movement of marine and aquatic species is increased.” Col. 1 lines 29-63.
Consider claim 13, the wearable device of claim 12, wherein the dataset is updated over time, Pope teaches, “[e]lectrical signals from the transducer are filtered to remove background noise which is caused by the movement of the surfboard due to ocean swells and stationary underwater objects on the sea floor. The electrical filter can be frequency based or may be a software algorithm running on a microprocessor. The algorithm may be a neural network or an adaptive system.” See ¶ 0004.
Consider claim 14, the wearable device of claim 12, wherein characteristics of the signal are determined by a distance between the wearer and the underwater aquatic animal, Pope teaches, “The distance between the sonar device and the object can be determined by measuring the time between the pulse transmission and reflected pulse reception.” See ¶ 0002.
Consider claim 15, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the detection component comprises an artificial intelligence/machine learning algorithm trained on datasets representing a great white shark, a tiger shark, and a bull shark, Pope teaches, “The system detects the normal reflected signals produced by all companions or signals emitted by each companion and learns to recognize the companion signals.” See ¶ 0007, Pope teaches, “transducers may be configured to the behavior patterns of the fish to be detected. For example, sharks such as great whites frequently swim below the fish that are at the surface of the water that they are about to eat.” See ¶ 0016, Pope teaches, “The signal processor filters the transducer signals so that signals from target objects are detected while the ambient non-target objects do not produce false detection readings. This filtering device may be: frequency/amplitude based, an adaptive algorithm, a adaptive neural network which analyzes a number of input signals or any other filter that can remove ambient signals.” See ¶ 0018, Pope teaches, “The spectral information is presented to a neural network classifier which is used to identify specific objects.” See ¶ 0020.
Consider claim 16, the wearable device of claim 1, the sensor comprising a motion detector and an image acquisition component for scanning to about a 4 m radius from the user, Menezes teaches, “Several forms of image detection recognition, classification, and quantification capabilities exist… Video pattern recognition and recording systems which are operable under low light conditions are also available. Sonic detectors are designed to detect the presence or absence, and the quantity of fish. Video image/pattern recognition algorithms can also identify the type of fish or animal which is present. Either method provides feedback for signal/response processor 72 and control unit 10 which initiates, modifies, or ceases signal generation.” Col. 8 line 61 to col. 9 line 8.
Consider claim 17, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the electromagnetic signal can repel the underwater aquatic animal at a distance of about 4 m, Examiner takes Official notice that it is well known in the prior art to be able to detect objects at a distance of about 4 m, and would be obvious to execute the repel frequency in response.
Consider claim 20, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the strap comprises a closure mechanism for securing the wearable device to the user, Vinano teaches, “FIG. 10b shows an exploded view of a preferred embodiment of the contact-fastening material 445 comprised of an outer contact-fastening surface 475 of Velcro.TM. hook fabric and an inner contact-fastening surface 485 of Velcro.TM. loop fabric. In other embodiments, the layers of the fastener strap 440 may be attached together using other means known by those skilled in the art, including the use of a Safety Lock clasp.” See ¶ 0087.
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinano (US 2011/0174235 A1) in view of Pope (US 2005/0265123 A1), in view of Menezes (US 4,922,468 A), and further in view of Ben-Shmuel (US 2012/0133542 A1), and further in view of Uysal (US 2010/0271187 A1).
Consider claim 18, the wearable device of claim 1, wherein the fractal geometry antenna comprises a micro strip patch antenna with a fractal geometry, in an analogous art, Uysal teaches, “a wearable RFID system is provided, including an antenna, an RFID reader, a host system, and a holder for holding at least the antenna and the reader.” See ¶ 0006. FIGS. 2a and 2b show fractal patch antennas in accordance with an embodiment of the subject invention. See ¶ 0011.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Vinano-Pope- Menezes- Ben-Shmuel and user a fractal geometry antenna as suggested by Uysal, Per KSR v Teleflex, this is simple substitution of one known element with another, See MPEP 2143, Rationale B.
Claim(s) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinano (US 2011/0174235 A1) in view of Pope (US 2005/0265123 A1), in view of Menezes (US 4,922,468 A), and further in view of Ben-Shmuel (US 2012/0133542 A1), and further in view of Wescombe-Down (US 2005/0000465 A1).
Consider claim 19, a first wearable device of claim 1 for attaching the first wearable device to a first region of the user's body and a second wearable device of claim 1 for attaching the second wearable device to a second region of the user's body, the first region different from the second region, Vinano teaches, “The belt connector 420 has a curved inner surface for mounting on a user's body part, such as an ankle, wrist, or elbow.” See ¶ 0080. “The dimensions of the belt connector 420 and the belt loops 425 may be made larger or smaller to accommodate fastener straps of different dimensions to attach to different parts of a user's body.” See ¶ 0085. In an analogous art, Wescombe-Down teaches, “[a] device (10) for repelling selected aquatic creatures, such as sharks. The device consists of an electromagnetic field generator (21, 30) for generating an electromagnetic field (50) that repels sharks and is supported by a buoyant device (20). This provides a shark-free region about the device (10). Multiple devices can be connected together to form an array of repelling devices, thereby extending the shark-free region.” See Abstract, “These devices may be carried by the diver either as a separate hand held device, or as a part of the scuba equipment attached to the back of the diver.” See ¶ 0006 “An electromagnetic field generator for generating an electromagnetic field which repels selected aquatic creatures” See claim 1. “A repelling array for repelling selected aquatic creatures, the array comprising a plurality of repelling devices according to claim 1” See claim 9. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. In this case, the duplicated repellent system would have been obvious for providing the back-up system, and therefore an obvious expedient.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention (effective filing date for AIA application) to modify the combination of Vinano-Pope- Menezes- Ben-Shmuel and user a fractal geometry antenna as suggested by Wescombe-Down, Per KSR v Teleflex, this is use of known technique to improve similar device, See MPEP 2143, Rationale C-F.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omer S. Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-5146. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am to 8:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian A. Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/Omer S Khan/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686