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 .
After further consideration, the restriction requirement filed on 06/09/2026 has been withdrawn and the following office action is provided below.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The limitation “air gap” in claim 133.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The reference character 10 has been used to designate both “first position” on page 3, line 26 and “the open position” on page 20, line 4.
The reference character 11 has been used to designate both “second position” on page 3, line 27 and “the closed position” on page 20, line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 133 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.
For claim 133, the limitation “an air gap” in line 2 is unclear as the specification does not specify an air gap.
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 124-125, 127-134 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centre for Invasive Species Solutions, "Use of the HogHopper® for baiting of feral pigs", posted to YouTube on 19 March 2012 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpafwuZENcY ("HogHopper® Video") in view of Monk (US 20170273277 A1) and Roestenberg (US 5864292 A).
Regarding claim 124, HogHopper® Video teaches a method of making a selective access system, comprising: providing a container (container depicted in HogHopper® Video during assembly; see screen capture below) comprising an interior space defined by a side wall disposed between opposing top and bottom walls (depicted in HogHopper® Video during assembly; see screen capture below); disposing an opening (see screen capture at 1:21) within said side wall, said opening communicating with said interior space (see screen capture below); slidably engaging a cover (see screen capture below of cover sliding and see timestamps 1:15-1:25) with said container, said cover configured to slide upward and downward (see timestamps 1:15-1:25) between a first position (door closed, see screen capture at 8:35) and a second position (door open see screen capture at 1:21); wherein in said first position, said cover overlays said opening (see screen capture at 8:35); and wherein in said second position, said cover disposes away from at least a portion of said opening to permit access to said interior space (see screen capture at 1:21); pivotally coupling an access door (see screen capture at 4:12 as the access door pivotally opens on the top wall) to said top wall (see timestamps 4:00-4:15 and see screen capture at 4:12 as the access door pivotally opens on the top wall); a door external surface (external surface of access door and see screen capture at 4:12) of said door.
PNG
media_image1.png
629
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
952
1373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1034
1153
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, HogHopper® Video does not explicitly teach mechanically coupling an electrical conductor to the door external surface of said door; and disposing an insulator between said conductor and said container to electrically separate said conductor from said container and preclude transfer of electricity from said conductor to said container.
Monk teaches a selective access system (species specific feeder 100) (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0005]) comprising mechanically coupling an electrical conductor (paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]- [0015]) to the door external surface of said door (feeder bay cover 130) (Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0009], [0013]-[0015]).
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 selective access system disclosed in HogHopper® Video to include mechanically coupling an electrical conductor to the door external surface of said door as taught by Monk in order to provide an additional deterrent to non-targeted animals to keep them from trying to access the feeder.
Roestenberg teaches disposing an insulator (dielectric flat support strip 11) (Figs. 2-4; Col. 2, lines 16- 18; col. 2, lines 38-50) between said conductor (conductor(s) 14 and/or 15) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 2, lines 38-45) and said container (can and/or lid) (Abstract; Fig. 3 and 4; Col. 1, lines 5-10) to electrically separate said conductor from said container (Figs. 3-4, Col. 2, ln 42-45 and ln 54-57 and as the conductor is attached to the front outer surface of the insulator while the back inner surface of the insulator connects to the container) and preclude transfer of electricity from said conductor to said container (Col. 2, lines 16- 18; Col. 2, lines 38-50 as it is known that insulators preclude transfer of electricity).
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 selective access system taught by HogHopper® Video in view of Monk with disposing an insulator between said conductor and said container to electrically separate said conductor from said container and preclude transfer of electricity from said conductor to said container as taught in Roestenberg in order to assist in retaining the conductor (Col. 1, lines 48-51 of Roestenberg), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 125, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg teaches the method of claim 124, and Monk further teaches wherein upon electrification, said conductor delivers a nonlethal electrical shock to a grounded object which comes into contact therewith (paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 127, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg teaches the method of claim 124, but is silent wherein said conductor comprises copper. Nevertheless, copper is extremely well known as a material with very good conducting properties. 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 conductor of HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg to be made out of copper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claim 128, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg teaches the method of claim 124, but is silent wherein said conductor comprises a copper rod. Nevertheless, copper is extremely well known as a material with very good conducting properties. 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 conductor of HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg to be made out of copper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Also, any known desired shape of conductor could be used for the conductor, including a rod shape. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the conductor of HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg from a conductive rod, since applicant has not disclosed that the conductor being in the shape of a conductive rod solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other shapes.
Regarding claim 129, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg teaches the method of claim 124, and Monk further teaches further comprising electrically coupling a power source (e.g., solar panel 350 or battery 348) (Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0006]) to said conductor (paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]-[0015)).
Regarding claim 130, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg teaches the method of claim 129, and Monk further teaches further comprising coupling said power source to said container (e.g., container of species specific feeder 100) (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 131, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg teaches the method of claim 129, and Monk further teaches further comprising disposing said power source (e.g., battery 348) (Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0006]) within said interior space (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 132, HogHopper® Video teaches a method of making a selective access system, comprising: providing a container (container depicted in HogHopper® Video during assembly; see screen capture below) comprising an interior space defined by a side wall disposed between opposing top and bottom walls (depicted in HogHopper® Video during assembly; see screen capture below); disposing an opening (see screen capture at 1:21) within said side wall, said opening communicating with said interior space (see screen capture below); slidably engaging a cover (see screen capture below of cover sliding and see timestamps 1:15-1:25) with said container, said cover configured to slide upward and downward (see timestamps 1:15-1:25) between a first position (door closed, see screen capture at 8:35) and a second position (door open see screen capture at 1:21); wherein in said first position, said cover overlays said opening (see screen capture at 8:35); and wherein in said second position, said cover disposes away from at least a portion of said opening to permit access to said interior space (see screen capture at 1:21); coupling an access door (see screen capture at 4:12 as the access door pivotally opens on the top wall) to said top wall (see timestamps 4:00-4:15 and see screen capture at 4:12 as the access door is coupled to the top wall); a door external surface (external surface of access door and see screen capture at 4:12) of said door.
PNG
media_image1.png
629
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
952
1373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1034
1153
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, HogHopper® Video does not explicitly teach mechanically coupling an electrical conductor to the door external surface of said door; and disposing an insulator between said conductor and said door external surface of said door to electrically separate said conductor from said container and preclude transfer of electricity from said conductor to said container.
Monk teaches a selective access system (species specific feeder 100) (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0005]) comprising mechanically coupling an electrical conductor (paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]- [0015]) to the door external surface of said door (feeder bay cover 130) (Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0009], [0013]-[0015]).
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 selective access system disclosed in HogHopper® Video to include mechanically coupling an electrical conductor to the door external surface of said door as taught by Monk in order to provide an additional deterrent to non-targeted animals to keep them from trying to access the feeder.
Roestenberg teaches disposing an insulator (dielectric flat support strip 11) (Figs. 2-4; Col. 2, lines 16- 18; col. 2, lines 38-50) between said conductor (conductor(s) 14 and/or 15) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 2, lines 38-45) and said door external surface (external surface of 22) of said door (22; Abstract; Fig. 3 and 4; Col. 1, lines 5-10) to electrically separate said conductor from said container (Figs. 3-4, Col. 2, ln 42-45 and ln 54-57 and as the conductor is attached to the front outer surface of the insulator while the back inner surface of the insulator connects to the container) and preclude transfer of electricity from said conductor to said container (Col. 2, lines 16- 18; Col. 2, lines 38-50 as it is known that insulators preclude transfer of electricity).
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 selective access system taught by HogHopper® Video in view of Monk with disposing an insulator between said conductor and said door external surface of said door to electrically separate said conductor from said container and preclude transfer of electricity from said conductor to said container as taught in Roestenberg in order to assist in retaining the conductor (Col. 1, lines 48-51 of Roestenberg), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding claim 133, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg teaches the method of claim 132, but does not explicitly teach further comprising disposing said conductor in spaced-apart relation to said door external surface such that an air gap exists therebetween.
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 placement of the conductor of HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg to dispose said conductor in spaced-apart relation to said door external surface such that an air gap exists therebetween since applicant has not disclosed that disposing said conductor in spaced-apart relation to said door external surface such that an air gap exists therebetween solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well in any position, 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 134, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg teaches the method of claim 132, and Monk further teaches further comprising mechanically coupling only one electrical conductor (paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]- [0015] as the electrical conductor is mechanically coupled to the door external surface) to said door external surface (feeder bay cover 130) (Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0009], [0013]-[0015]).
Claims 126, 135-136 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg as applied to claims 124 and 132 above, and further in view of Boaz (US 5150665 A).
Regarding claim 126, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg teaches the method of claim 124, but is silent wherein said conductor comprises a conductive rod.
Boaz teaches wherein said conductor (108a) comprises a conductive rod (fig. 9, abstract and Col. 4, lines 57-63 as the perch is a rod shaped).
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 conductor of HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg to be a conductive rod as taught by Boaz since applicant has not disclosed that the conductor being in the shape of a conductive rod solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other shapes, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding 135, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg teaches the method of claim 132, but is silent wherein said conductor comprises a conductive rod.
Boaz teaches wherein said conductor (108a) comprises a conductive rod (fig. 9, abstract and Col. 4, lines 57-63 as the perch is a rod shaped).
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 conductor of HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg to be a conductive rod as taught by Boaz since applicant has not disclosed that the conductor being in the shape of a conductive rod solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with other shapes, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 136, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz teaches the method of claim 135, and Boaz further teaches wherein said rod is rigid (figs. 8-9 and Col. 4, lines 57-63 as the perch maintains its shape and so comprises a degree of rigidness).
Claims 137-143 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centre for Invasive Species Solutions, "Use of the HogHopper® for baiting of feral pigs", posted to YouTube on 19 March 2012 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpafwuZENcY ("HogHopper® Video") in view of Monk (US 20170273277 A1), Roestenberg (US 5864292 A) and Boaz (US 5150665 A).
Regarding claim 137, HogHopper® Video teaches a method of making a selective access system, comprising: providing a container (container depicted in HogHopper® Video during assembly; see screen capture below) comprising an interior space defined by a side wall disposed between opposing top and bottom walls (depicted in HogHopper® Video during assembly; see screen capture below); disposing an opening (see screen capture at 1:21) within said side wall, said opening communicating with said interior space (see screen capture below); slidably engaging a cover (see screen capture below of cover sliding and see timestamps 1:15-1:25) with said container, said cover configured to slide upward and downward (see timestamps 1:15-1:25) between a first position (door closed, see screen capture at 8:35) and a second position (door open see screen capture at 1:21); wherein in said first position, said cover overlays said opening (see screen capture at 8:35); and wherein in said second position, said cover disposes away from at least a portion of said opening to permit access to said interior space (see screen capture at 1:21).
PNG
media_image1.png
629
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
952
1373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1034
1153
media_image3.png
Greyscale
However, HogHopper® Video does not explicitly teach coupling an electrical conductor to said container; and disposing an insulator between said conductor and said container, said insulator configured as an annular member; wherein a portion of said conductor is received within a thru-hole of said annular member.
Monk teaches a selective access system (species specific feeder 100) (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0005]) comprising coupling an electrical conductor (paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]- [0015]) to said container (e.g., container of species specific feeder 100) (Abstract; Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]-[0015] as the electrical conductor is within the container 100).
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 selective access system disclosed in HogHopper® Video to include mechanically coupling an electrical conductor to said container as taught by Monk in order to provide an additional deterrent to non-targeted animals to keep them from trying to access the feeder.
Roestenberg teaches disposing an insulator (dielectric flat support strip 11) (Figs. 2-4; Col. 2, lines 16- 18; col. 2, lines 38-50) between said conductor (conductor(s) 14 and/or 15) (Figs. 1-4; Col. 2, lines 38-45) and said container (can and/or lid) (Abstract; Fig. 3 and 4; Col. 1, lines 5-10).
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 selective access system taught by HogHopper® Video in view of Monk with disposing an insulator between said conductor and said container as taught in Roestenberg in order to assist in retaining the conductor (Col. 1, lines 48-51 of Roestenberg), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Boaz teaches said insulator (131) configured as an annular member (fig. 9 depicts the insulator 131 as a sectional view wherein the conductor 108a being inserted through the insulator 131, and so the insulator is configured as an annular member); wherein a portion of said conductor is received within a thru-hole (hole of 131 in fig. 9) of said annular member (fig. 9).
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 insulator of HogHopper® Video in view of Monk and Roestenberg to be an annular member wherein a portion of said conductor is received within a thru-hole as taught by Boaz in order to securely retain the conductor as it is well known in the art, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
In the event that the applicant disagrees with Examiner’s interpretation of HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz teaching said insulator configured as an annular member; wherein a portion of said conductor is received within a thru-hole of said annular member, 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 insulator of HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz to be an annular member wherein a portion of said conductor is received within a thru-hole in order to securely retain the conductor as it is well known in the art, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 138, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz teaches the method of claim 137, and Monk further teaches wherein upon electrification, said conductor delivers a nonlethal electrical shock to a grounded object which comes into contact therewith (paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]-[0015]).
Regarding claim 139, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz teaches the method of claim 137, and Monk further teaches further comprising coupling said conductor (paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]- [0015] as the electrical conductor is mechanically coupled to the door external surface) to an external surface of said container (paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]-[0015], were the conductor not coupled to the outside surface, the non-targeted animal would not be shocked).
Regarding claim 140, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz teaches the method of claim 137, and HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz further teaches further comprising pivotally coupling an access door (see screen capture at 4:12 as the access door pivotally opens on the top wall of HogHopper® Video) to said top wall (see timestamps 4:00-4:15 and see screen capture at 4:12 as the access door pivotally opens on the top wall of HogHopper® Video); wherein said conductor is coupled to said door (feeder bay cover 130) (Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0009], [0013]-[0015] of Monk).
Regarding claim 141, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz teaches the method of claim 137, and Monk further teaches further comprising electrically coupling a power source (e.g., solar panel 350 or battery 348) (Figs. 1, 2; paras. [0004], [0006]) to said conductor (paras. [0004], [0005], [0007], [0013]-[0015)).
Regarding claim 142, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz teaches the method of claim 137, and Boaz further teaches wherein said conductor (108a) comprises a conductive rod (fig. 9, abstract and Col. 4, lines 57-63 as the perch is a rod shaped).
Regarding claim 143, HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz teaches the method of claim 137, but is silent wherein said conductor comprises copper.
Nevertheless, copper is extremely well known as a material with very good conducting properties. 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 conductor of HogHopper® Video in view of Monk, Roestenberg and Boaz to be made out of copper, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Robbins (US 4973029 A) teaches a conductor rod.
Collins (US 5471951 A) teaches a selective access system.
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 /DARREN W ARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights