DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 08/13/2026.
Claims 1, 8, 10, 14 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beroza et al. (US 2004/0093190) in view of Mathias et al. (DE 2025107347)
Regarding claim 1: Beroza disclose a pest detection device, comprising:
an acoustic sensor (Fig. 2. Item 222); and
a controller connected to the acoustic sensor (Fig. 221), the controller configured to detect one or more pests based at least in part on comparing one or more acoustic signals received from the acoustic sensor with a predetermined sound profile (acoustic signatures) associated with the one or more pests (¶0030, ¶0040).
Beroza does not teach one or more secondary sensors configured to detect one or more prescribed conditions and to provide an activation signal based on the detection and activate the acoustic sensor based at least in part on the activation signal.
In analogous art regarding pest detection, Mathis disclose a pest detection system comprising one or more secondary sensors configured to detect one or more prescribed conditions and to provide an activation signal based on the detection and activate the acoustic sensor based at least in part on the activation signal.(¶0074: ), (c) the evaluation unit (120) is configured such that, upon detection of a movement/change in heat radiation by the PIR sensor (112), it initiates an acoustic verification by means of a microphone (117) is activated and an ultrasonic frequency band from 20 kHz upwards is analyzed for rat ultrasonic vocalizations (USV), in particular 22 kHz long calls and/or 50 kHz short calls).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of one or more secondary sensors configured to detect one or more prescribed conditions and to provide an activation signal based on the detection and activate the acoustic sensor based at least in part on the activation signal, as disclose by Mathias, to the device of Beroza. The motivation is to reduce power consumption by activating the acoustic sensor just when is needed.
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to identify the one or more pests based at least in part on the one or more signals received from the acoustic sensor (Beroza: ¶0030, ¶0040).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to identify disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, wherein the acoustic sensor (Beroza: item 220 which contains 222) and the controller are disposed within a housing (Beroza: housing 210) (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1. Furthermore, it does disclose the controller having a housing (Beroza: Notice enclosure on Fig. 1) and further it suggest in Fig. 2 that the acoustic sensor 222 its outside of the enclosure of controller 221, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the acoustic sensor is disposed in a first housing and the controller is disposed within a second housing. However, this is merely rearranging a structure to make to element separate (by their different housings)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include to disposed the acoustic sensor disposed in a first housing and the controller is disposed within a second housing since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1. Furthermore, it does disclose the controller having a housing (Beroza: Notice enclosure on Fig. 1) and further it suggest in Fig. 2 that the acoustic sensor 222 its external of the enclosure of controller 221, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is disposed within a housing and the acoustic sensor is external to the housing. However, this is merely rearranging a structure to make to element separate (by having one internal and one external)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include wherein the controller is disposed within a housing and the acoustic sensor is external to the housing since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, wherein the predetermined sound profile includes a sound profile of a cockroach. However it does teach detecting insects based on their sound signatures (Beroza: ¶0011) and cockroaches are well known insects. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of , wherein the predetermined sound profile includes a sound profile of a cockroach since having a limited universe of potential options (insects), the selection of any particular option (cockroach) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (identifying a particular insect based on the sound signatures), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, further comprising at least one mechanism to capture the one or more pests. (Beroza: ¶0038)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more secondary sensors include a door switch sensor. However it does disclose secondary sensor that detect presence of pest and activate an acoustic sensor (Mathias: ¶0074). A door switch is mere option of sensor to detect presence of pets. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to substitute the one or more secondary sensors of The combination of Beroza and Mathias, with a door switch, since having a limited universe of potential options (pest presence sensor), the selection of any particular option (door switch) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (detecting the presence of a pest), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, wherein the one or more secondary sensors include one or more of a capacitive sensor, an infrared sensor, or a pressure sensor.(Mathias: ¶0074)
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to activate the acoustic sensor based at least in part on the activation signal so as to reduce power consumption of the acoustic sensor (Mathias: ¶0074: if the acoustic sensors are activated base on a condition, then when they are not active, then they are not using energy, hence reducing power consumption)
Regarding claim 13: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, further comprising wireless communication electronics connected to the controller and configured to provide for wireless communications with one or more external devices (Beroza: ¶0016, ¶0030).
Regarding claim 14: Claim 14 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15: Claim 15 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 2.
Regarding claim 16: Claim 16 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 3.
Regarding claim 17: Claim 17 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 3.
Regarding claim 18: Claim 18 recite a method with the functional limitation of claim 8 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons of claim 8.
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the method of claim 14, further comprising using wireless communication electronics to transmit the one or more signals from the acoustic sensor to the controller (Mathias: ¶0030).
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the methos of claim 19, wherein the wireless communication electronics are compatible with one or more of cellular, Bluetooth, ZigBee, Wi-Fi or LoRa communications.(Mathias: ¶0039)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beroza et al. (US 2004/0093190) in view of Mathias et al. (DE 2025107347) and further in view of Marka at el. (US 2019/0000059).
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to activate the acoustic sensor on a programmable schedule.
In analogous art regarding pest detection systems, Marka disclose a system wherein the controller is configured to activate the acoustic sensor on a programmable schedule. (¶0045, ¶0081).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the controller is configured to activate the acoustic sensor on a programmable schedule, in view of the teachings of Marka, to the system of the combination of Beroza and Mathias. The motivation is to save power by activating the sensor only when needed.(¶0081)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beroza et al. (US 2004/0093190) in view of Mathias et al. (DE 2025107347) and further in view of Bender et al. (US 2019/0380325)
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Beroza and Mathias disclose the pest detection device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller is configured to use machine learning to detect or identify the one or more pests based at least in part on one or more signals received from the acoustic sensor.
In analogous art regarding pest detection systems, Bender disclose wherein the controller is configured to use machine learning to detect or identify the one or more pests based at least in part on one or more signals received from the acoustic sensor. (¶0030-0032)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the controller is configured to use machine learning to detect or identify the one or more pests based at least in part on one or more signals received from the acoustic sensor, as disclose by Bender, to the system of the combination of Beroza and Mathias. The motivation is to make the system more autonomous and efficient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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 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 OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights