Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claims 19-20 recite antecedent basis issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 16, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1&2) as being anticipated by Ingraham US 20060118060.
Regarding claim 1, Ingraham discloses a bird deterrent device, comprising:
a housing comprising a first housing portion and a second housing portion connected to the first housing portion (223 and 423 as shown in figure 2), the first housing portion forming a first planar surface and the second housing portion forming a second planar surface substantially parallel to the first planar surface (figures 1-2), the housing having a side surface with at least one opening extending therethrough (107);
a spool contained within the housing (209 of figure 4);
a spring connected to the spool and configured to rotate the spool in a first direction (213 and paragraph 0035);
a line extending through the opening and having a proximal end and a distal end, the proximal end connected to the spool (109 as shown in figure 4); and
an anchor attached at a first attachment point to the distal end of the line (111);
wherein an increment of the line is configured to be advanced out of the housing through the opening by pulling the anchor in a direction away from the housing (figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 2, Ingraham discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the anchor comprises an elongated structure with at least one slot extending in a direction transverse to a longitudinal axis of the anchor (seen in figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Ingraham discloses the device of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second housing portions comprise a plurality of pin housings, each pin housing configured to house a pin to connect the first housing portion to the second housing portion (401/221/225 of figure 4).
Regarding claim 18, Ingraham discloses a kit comprising the device of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection).
Regarding claim 19, Ingraham discloses the kit of claim 15, further comprising a line deflection element comprising a hook attached to a base, wherein the hook is configured to hold a portion of the line (505 in figure 5 comprises a hook within its shape and is connected to base 507).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-6, 13-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingraham.
Regarding claim 3, Ingraham teaches the device of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the anchor comprises a spherical element comprising a circumferential notch extending along a plane intersecting the spherical element.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a shape, in order to meet ergonomic design preferences; since a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 4, Ingraham teaches the device of claim 3, but does not specify wherein the spherical element comprises a through hole configured to receive the line. However, such arrangement/connection is well known to those with ordinary skill in the art and Ingraham’s figures clearly suggest such an arrangement as inherent/obvious. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such arrangement, in order to meet design preferences; since a through hole to receive the line and provide a knot within the spherical element is a well known type of connection of parts, etc.
Regarding claim 5, Ingraham teaches the device of claim 1, but does not specify further comprising an elongated strap removably attached to the housing.
However, independent “zip tie type” “connecting straps” are generally well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide an additional connecting strap, in order to reinforce the connection of the housing in the desired location, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Ingraham teaches the device of claim 5, but does not specify wherein the elongated strap comprises a first portion configured to slide through an aperture slot in a second portion of the strap.
However again, independent “zip tie type” “connecting straps” are generally well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide an additional connecting strap, in order to reinforce the connection of the housing in the desired location, etc. See Chen US9021665 for an example of such well known types of straps.
Regarding claim 13, Ingraham teaches the device of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the line comprises a webbing structure.
However, “lines” with “webbing” structure are known in general. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such type of line, in order to simply meet design preferences; since it has been held that a prima facie obviousness exists where the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use.
Regarding claim 14, Ingraham teaches the device of claim 13, but does not specify wherein the webbing has a thickness of at least 0.375 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such size to the line, in order to simply meet design preferences; since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15, Ingraham teaches the device of claim 14, but does not specify wherein the line is at least 25 feet in length.
However again, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such size to the line, in order to simply meet design preferences; since a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Ingraham teaches the device of claim 1, but does not specify wherein the anchor is configured to attach at a second attachment point to a portion of the line that is proximal of the distal end of the line to form a loop at a distal portion of the line.
However, the device is capable of performing this function by a user. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such arrangement, in order to simply meet user execution preferences; since a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Ingraham teaches the kit of claim 16, but does not specify wherein the base comprises a suction cup.
However, suction cups are generally well known types of connectors. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a suction cup, in order to simply meet user design preferences; all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingraham in view of Chen US9021665.
Regarding claim 7, Ingraham teaches the device of claim 6, but does not specify wherein the first portion comprises at least one raised feature configured to slide through the aperture in the second portion.
Chen; however, does teach such features (figure 4A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide such a connecting strap, in order to meet user design preferences; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the references teach the device of claim 7, wherein Chen further teaches the elongated strap comprises one or more shoulder portions configured to interface with an attachment point on a boat (such as the other jaws 21/22 that are not provided through the apertures and would interface with the attachment point that it is wrapped around; where the attachment point being a boat is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention which must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious the combination of limitations recited in claims 1 and 9; particularly, the arrangement pertaining to the bayonet/portions of the housing, etc.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights