DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 04/01/2026 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1, 4, 6 and 14 were amended, and Claims 2, 7-8, 11, 13 and 15-28 were canceled. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12 and 14 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 1, the limitation “each of the plurality of electromagnetic devices” in line 20 is unclear because is it referring to a different each of the plurality of electromagnetic devices than what was stated in line 17? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same each of the plurality of electromagnetic devices and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “each of the plurality of electromagnetic devices” in claim 1.
Claims 3-6, 9-10, 12 and 14 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARCIA (US 20210259236 A1 as cited in IDS) in view of Fiala (US 4097838 A).
Regarding claim 1, GARCIA teaches a pest repellant system (fig. 1), comprising: pulse generator circuitry ([0060] and [0071-0073] as the pulse generator 1 will comprise of a pulse generator circuitry as the pulse generator 1 produces a plurality of pulses) to generate a plurality of pulses ([0060] and [0071-0073] as GARCIA states alternating pulses, and so teaches a plurality of pulses) from power source (1); variable frequency controller circuitry ([0041] as the pulse generator will comprise of a variable frequency controller circuitry in order to alternate the frequency from 100 to 150 Hz) to control a frequency of the plurality of pulses ([0041], [0071]), wherein the variable frequency controller to control the frequency of the plurality of pulses based on a selected species of pest ([0058] and [0106] as the variable frequency controller repels birds by forming a sensorineural interaction ); and wherein the pulse generator circuitry to generate, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, pulse signals having a frequency within a range of 80 Hertz to 150 Hertz ([0041]); a conductive wire (21) coupled to the pulse generator circuitry ([0061], [0067], [0090], [0095] and [0099] as the conductive wire 21 is coupled to the pulse generator circuitry once the pulse generator 1 is connected to the electrical grid, which will generate pulses throughout the conductive wire 21) and configured to conduct the plurality of pulses ([0099]); and a plurality of electromagnetic emitter devices (4 and 22) coupled to the conductive wire ([0061], [0067] and figs. 1-4); wherein the plurality of electromagnetic emitter devices are disposed on and/or near a structure ([0038]) and spaced approximately apart (figs. 1-4 and [0038]) on and/or near the structure ([0038] and [0063-0065]); wherein each electromagnetic emitter device is configured to receive the plurality of pulses ([0063] and [0067]) and to generate a pulsed electromagnetic signal having frequency based on the frequency of the plurality of pulses ([0041]), wherein the frequency of the pulsed electromagnetic signal operates to repel the selected pest species (abstract, [0060] and [0106]); and wherein a number of the plurality of electromagnetic emitter devices is selected to generate a sufficient field strength of the pulsed electromagnetic signal generated by each of the plurality of electromagnetic devices ([0063-0064] and [0067] as the plurality of electromagnetic devices will repel the pests and so the plurality of electromagnetic emitter devices is selected to generate a sufficient field strength of the pulsed electromagnetic signal generated by each of the plurality of electromagnetic devices); and wherein the number of the plurality of electromagnetic emitter devices and the spacing of the electromagnetic emitter devices are further selected to avoid a gap in coverage of the pulsed electromagnetic signal generated by each of the plurality of electromagnetic devices on and/or near the structure ([0063-0065] as the electromagnetic emitter devices are arranged to repel pests, and so the electromagnetic emitter devices will avoid a gap in coverage of the pulsed electromagnetic signal generated by each of the plurality of electromagnetic devices on and/or near the structure to repel pests from all directions).
However, GARCIA is silent about a random frequency; spaced approximately 3-10 feet apart.
Fiala teaches a random frequency (abstract and Col. 5, lines 16-20).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the frequency of GARCIA to include a random frequency as taught by Fiala in order for the frequency to target a larger range of pests and to ensure that the pests do not become accustomed to one set frequency (Col. 1, lines 19-24 of Fiala).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of electromagnetic emitter devices of GARCIA to be spaced approximately 3-10 feet apart so as to cover the desired area to be treated, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, GARCIA as modified by Fiala teaches the system of claim 1, and GARCIA further teaches further comprising: variable voltage controller circuitry ([0041] as the pulse generator will comprise of a variable voltage controller circuitry in order to alternate the voltage from 1,000V to 6,000V) to control a voltage of the plurality of pulses ([0041]), wherein the variable voltage controller to control the voltage of the plurality of pulses based on the selected species of pest ([0041], [0058] and [0106] as the system repels birds by forming a sensorineural interaction and so the variable voltage controller will control the voltage of the plurality of pulses based on the selected species of pest).
Claims 4-5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARCIA as modified by Fiala as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Stokes (US 5896696 A as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 4, GARCIA as modified by Fiala teaches the system of claim 3, but is silent wherein the variable voltage controller circuitry configured to randomly select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, the voltage of the plurality of pulses within a predefined range.
Stokes teaches the variable voltage controller circuitry configured to randomly select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, the voltage of the plurality of pulses within a predefined range (Col. 4, line 61-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variable voltage controller circuitry of GARCIA as modified by Fiala to randomly select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, the voltage of the plurality of pulses within a predefined range as taught by Stokes in order to interfere with the pests central nervous system to incapacitate the pest (Col. 1, lines 5-13 of Stokes).
Regarding claim 5, GARCIA as modified by Fiala teaches the system of claim 3, but is silent wherein the variable voltage controller circuitry configured to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, a stepped-up voltage level within a predefined range.
Stokes teaches the variable voltage controller circuitry configured to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, a stepped-up voltage level within a predefined range (Col. 4, lines 20-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variable voltage controller circuitry of GARCIA as modified by Fiala to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, a stepped-up voltage level within a predefined range as taught by Stokes in order to interfere with the pests central nervous system to incapacitate the pest (Col. 1, lines 5-13 of Stokes).
Regarding claim 9, GARCIA as modified by Fiala teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent about wherein the variable frequency controller circuitry configured to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, a stepped-up frequency level within a predefined range.
Stokes teaches the variable frequency controller circuitry configured to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, a stepped-up frequency level within a predefined range (Col. 3, lines 66-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-37).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variable frequency controller circuitry of GARCIA as modified by Fiala to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, a stepped-up frequency level within a predefined range as taught by Stokes in order to interfere with the pests central nervous system to incapacitate the pest (Col. 1, lines 5-13 of Stokes).
Claims 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARCIA as modified by Fiala as applied to claim 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Lagunas-Solar (US 20060024195 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 6, GARCIA as modified by Fiala teaches the system of claim 3, but is silent wherein the variable voltage controller circuitry configured to provide a user to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, the voltage of the plurality of pulses within a predefined range.
Lagunas-Solar teaches wherein the variable voltage controller circuitry configured to provide a user to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, the voltage of the plurality of pulses within a predefined range ([0054] as a pulse has a voltage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variable voltage controller circuitry of GARCIA as modified by Fiala to provide a user to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, the voltage of the plurality of pulses within a predefined range as taught by Lagunas-Solar in order to allow the user to effectively kill the pest and provide a non-thermal disinfestation ([0005] and [0054] of Lagunas-Solar).
Regarding claim 10, GARCIA as modified by Fiala teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent wherein the variable frequency controller circuitry configured to provide a user to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, a frequency within a predefined range.
Lagunas-Solar teaches the variable frequency controller circuitry configured to provide a user to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, a frequency within a predefined range ([0054]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variable frequency controller circuitry of GARCIA as modified by Fiala to provide a user to select, for at least some of the pulses in the plurality of pulses, a frequency within a predefined range as taught by Lagunas-Solar in order to allow the user to effectively kill the pest and provide a non-thermal disinfestation ([0005] and [0054] of Lagunas-Solar).
Claims 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GARCIA as modified by Fiala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CHONG (US 20210022332 A1 as cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 12, GARCIA as modified by Fiala teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent about further comprising: communications circuitry to exchange commands and data with a remote interface system.
CHONG teaches communications circuitry to exchange commands and data with a remote interface system ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include communications circuitry to exchange commands and data with a remote interface system as taught by CHONG into the system of GARCIA as modified by Fiala in order to utilize one or more electromagnetic waves for interfering perception of the target insect type and provide electrical communication ([0002] and [0017] of CHONG).
Regarding claim 14, GARCIA as modified by Fiala teaches the system of claim 1, but is silent about further comprising: one or more sensors selected from a group of an ambient light sensor to detect daylight, an image sensor to generate a still or video image, and/or a motion sensor to detect the presence of a pest based on motion; and sensor interface circuitry to receive sensor data from the one or more sensors; wherein the pulse generator circuitry to control generation of the plurality of pulses based on, at least in part, the sensor data.
CHONG teaches one or more sensors ([0012] and [0044]) selected from a group of an ambient light sensor to detect daylight, an image sensor to generate a still or video image, and/or a motion sensor to detect the presence of a pest based on motion ([0012] and [0044]); and sensor interface circuitry to receive sensor data from the one or more sensors ([0039]); wherein the pulse generator circuitry to control generation of the plurality of pulses based on, at least in part, the sensor data ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include one or more sensors selected from a group of an ambient light sensor to detect daylight, an image sensor to generate a still or video image, and/or a motion sensor to detect the presence of a pest based on motion; and sensor interface circuitry to receive sensor data from the one or more sensors; wherein the pulse generator circuitry to control generation of the plurality of pulses based on, at least in part, the sensor data as taught by CHONG into the system of GARCIA as modified by Fiala in order to utilize one or more electromagnetic waves for interfering perception of the target insect type and provide electrical communication ([0002] and [0017] of CHONG).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3-6, 9-10, 12 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights