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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The two information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/16/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. The copies of the NPL documents were provided in the parent application 16/185,976. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 4-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "according to claim, further comprising". It is unclear what claim, claim 4 depends from.
Claims 5-8 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the hook". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers et al. (“Evaluation of three elevated mist-net systems for sampling birds”, Journal of Field Ornithology, 1993) in view of Albanese et al. (“An Inexpensive Elevated Mist Net Apparatus”, Zoological Society of Milwaukee County, 1999), both references cited by Applicant.
For claim 1, Meyers et al. discloses a system (as shown in Fig. 2 on Page 273) for use in capturing a flying vertebrate (as discussed on Pages 272-273 at “Construction of aluminum-pole system”) in a building (as discussed on Page 276, last sentence of the first paragraph), the system comprising: a pole (as discussed on Page 271, paragraph following “Methods” heading and shown in Fig. 2: “aluminum alloy telescoping poles”); a hook (as shown in Fig. 2: at least one hook defined by the bent roller paint handle) positioned at a top end of the pole and configured for being attached to a structure (Fig. 2: a pulley); a bird net (Fig. 2: “Net 1”, “Net 2”) configured for being operatively connected to the pole; and a rope (Fig. 2: “pulley rope”) extending up the pole to the hook and is also attached to the bird net, wherein the hook is configured such that, when the hook is attached to the structure (“pulley rope”), the bird net is positioned using the rope (as discussed on Page 271, last full sentence). Meyers et al. fails to show the rope is attached to the bird net via a plurality of attachment devices.
Albanese et al., in the same field of endeavor of elevated mist nets, teaches a rope (as shown in Fig. 3 on page 131) attached to the bird net via a plurality of attachment devices (Fig. 3: “metal shower curtain pin” and “mist net loops”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meyers et al. to include the plurality of attachments devices as taught by Albanese et al. for the advantage of easily attaching and replacing a mist net.
For claim 2, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the rope (Meyers et al. Fig. 2: “pulley rope”) is indirectly attached to the hook (Meyers et al. Fig. 2: via a pulley).
For claim 3, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the rope is indirectly attached to the hook via a pulley (Meyers et al. Fig. 2: via a pulley).
For claim 4, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. discloses the system according to claim, further comprising a pulley attached to the hook (Meyers et al. Fig. 2: a pulley on the bent roller paint handle defining the hook).
For claim 5, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. discloses the system substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show the system, wherein the pulley comprises a carabiner. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pulley of Meyers et al. and Albanese et al. to include a carabiner for the advantage of easily supporting the movement of the rope, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). Here the carabiner is used to guide the rope through its opening in the same manner as the pulley that guides the rope over its wheel.
For claim 6, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the bird net includes one or more pockets configured for trapping the flying vertebrate (Albanese et al. page 132, paragraph 3).
For claim 7, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. discloses the system according to claim 4, wherein the rope is attached to the pulley, the plurality of attachment devices being configured for attaching the bird net directly to the rope (Albanese et al. as shown in Fig. 3).
For claim 8, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. discloses the system according to claim 7, wherein the plurality of attachment devices comprise a plurality of clips (Albanese et al. Fig. 3: “metal shower curtain pin” and “mist net loops”).
For claim 10, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. discloses the system substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show the system according to claim 1, wherein the pole is configured for being extended to a length of at least 24 feet. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the length of the pole to have a length of at least 24 feet for the advantage of adjusting the length of the system to capture of birds at an elevated height. 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).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers et al. (“Evaluation of three elevated mist-net systems for sampling birds”, Journal of Field Ornithology, 1993) in view of Albanese et al. (“An Inexpensive Elevated Mist Net Apparatus”, Zoological Society of Milwaukee County, 1999), both references cited by Applicant, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bird-B-Gone (Bird-B-Gone Mist Net Capture Kit, 2014 pdf), as cited by Applicant.
For claim 9, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. discloses the system substantially as claimed, but fails to show further comprising: an adaptor positioned at a bottom of the hook which is designed for quick attachment and release from a top of the pole. Bird-B-Gone teaches the system for use in capturing a flying vertebrate (as discussed in “Advantages & Benefits”) in a building (as discussed at “Pole attachments to hang poles from ceiling beams”), the system comprising: a pole (“Telescoping Poles”); a hook (shown at “Pole Attachments” and as discussed at “Pole attachments to hang poles from ceiling beams”); a bird net (at “Mist Net 10’ x 30’”); and an adaptor (threading on one end of the hook) positioned at a bottom of the hook which is designed for quick attachment and release from a top of the pole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meyers et al. and Albanese et al. to include an adaptor as taught by Bird-B-Gone for the advantage of easily attaching or replacing the hook at the top of the pole.
For claim 11, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. discloses the system substantially as claimed, but fails to wherein the pole includes a receiver connector and a quick release connector configured to fit into the receiver connector such that the hook can be positioned at the top end of the pole. Bird-B-Gone teaches the system for use in capturing a flying vertebrate (as discussed in “Advantages & Benefits”) in a building (as discussed at “Pole attachments to hang poles from ceiling beams”), the system comprising: a pole (“Telescoping Poles”); a hook (shown at “Pole Attachments” and as discussed at “Pole attachments to hang poles from ceiling beams”); a bird net (at “Mist Net 10’ x 30’”); and wherein the pole includes a receiver connector (threading within the end of the pole to receive the threading on one end of the hook) and a quick release connector (threading on one end of the hook) configured to fit into the receiver connector such that the hook can be positioned at the top end of the pole. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meyers et al. and Albanese et al. to include a receiver connector and a quick release connector as taught by Bird-B-Gone for the advantage of easily attaching or replacing the hook at the top of the pole.
Claims 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyers et al. (“Evaluation of three elevated mist-net systems for sampling birds”, Journal of Field Ornithology, 1993) in view of Albanese et al. (“An Inexpensive Elevated Mist Net Apparatus”, Zoological Society of Milwaukee County, 1999) and Bird-B-Gone (Bird-B-Gone Mist Net Capture Kit, 2014 pdf), all references cited by Applicant.
For claim 13, Meyers et al. discloses a system (as shown in Fig. 2 on Page 273) for use in capturing a flying vertebrate (as discussed on Pages 272-273 at “Construction of aluminum-pole system”) in a building (as discussed on Page 276, last sentence of the first paragraph), the system comprising: a pole (as discussed on Page 271, paragraph following “Methods” heading and shown in Fig. 2: “aluminum alloy telescoping poles”); at least one net (Fig. 2: “Net 1”, “Net 2”) configured for being operatively connected to the pole; and a rope (Fig. 2: “pulley rope”) extending up to and back down an elevation part of the pole and is attached to the bird net.
Meyers et al. fails to show the rope is attached to the bird net via a plurality of attachment devices. Albanese et al., in the same field of endeavor of elevated mist nets, teaches a rope (as shown in Fig. 3 on page 131) attached to the bird net via a plurality of attachment devices (Fig. 3: “metal shower curtain pin” and “mist net loops”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meyers et al. to include the plurality of attachments devices as taught by Albanese et al. for the advantage of easily attaching and replacing a mist net.
Meyers et al. fails to show an attachment system on the pole, where the attachment system is configured to attach to an elevated portion of an object or structure; wherein the attachment system is configured for being attached to the elevated portion of the object or structure such that, when the attachment system is attached to the object or structure, a portion of the at least one net is positioned proximate to the object or structure. Bird-B-Gone teaches the system for use in capturing a flying vertebrate (as discussed in “Advantages & Benefits”) in a building (as discussed at “Pole attachments to hang poles from ceiling beams”), the system comprising: a pole (“Telescoping Poles”); at least one net (at “Mist Net 10’ x 30’”); an attachment system on the pole (shown at “Pole Attachments”), where the attachment system is configured to attach to an elevated portion of an object or structure (as discussed at “Pole attachments to hang poles from ceiling beams”); wherein the attachment system is configured for being attached to the elevated portion of the object or structure such that, when the attachment system is attached to the object or structure, a portion of the at least one net is positioned proximate to the object or structure (“Designed to capture multiple birds with 1 net”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Meyers et al. to include the attachment system as taught by Bird-B-Gone for the advantage of easily attaching the system to the object or system at an elevated height.
For claim 14, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. and Bird-B-Gone discloses the system according to claim 13, wherein the rope (Meyers et al. Fig. 2: “pulley rope”) is indirectly attached to the pole (Meyers et al. Fig. 2: pulley rope is indirectly attached to the aluminum telescoping rope via a pulley).
For claim 15, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. and Bird-B-Gone discloses the system according to claim 13, wherein the rope (Meyers et al. Fig. 2: “pulley rope”) is indirectly attached to the pole via a pulley attached to the hook (Meyers et al. Fig. 2: pulley rope is indirectly attached to the aluminum telescoping rope via a pulley on the bent roller paint handle defining the hook).
For claim 16, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. and Bird-B-Gone discloses the system substantially as claimed, but fails to specifically show wherein the pulley comprises a carabiner. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pulley of Meyers et al., Albanese et al. and Bird-B-Gone to include a carabiner for the advantage of easily supporting the movement of the rope, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007). Here the carabiner is used to guide the rope through its opening in the same manner as the pulley that guides the rope over its wheel.
For claim 17, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. and Bird-B-Gone discloses the system according to claim 16, wherein the rope is attached to the pulley, the plurality of attachment devices being configured for attaching the bird net directly to the rope (Albanese et al. as shown in Fig. 3).
For claim 18, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. and Bird-B-Gone discloses the system according to claim 17, wherein the plurality of attachment devices comprise a plurality of clips (Albanese et al. Fig. 3: “metal shower curtain pin” and “mist net loops”).
For claim 19, Meyers et al. as modified by Albanese et al. and Bird-B-Gone discloses the system according to claim 13, wherein the pole includes a receiver connector (Bird-B-Gone: the telescoping poles having threading within the end of the pole to receive the threading on one end of the hook) and a quick release connector (Bird-B-Gone: the threading on one end of the hook) configured to fit into the receiver connector such that the hook can be positioned at the top end of the pole.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bird Barrier American Channel (“An Installation Guide To- Mist Net Kit” YouTube video) in view of Albanese et al. (“An Inexpensive Elevated Mist Net Apparatus”, Zoological Society of Milwaukee County, 1999), both references cited by Applicant.
For claim 20, Bird Barrier American Channel discloses a method for capturing a flying vertebrate in a building, the method comprising: attaching a pole (as shown at 0:37: “55-inch extensions”), using an attachment system on the pole (as shown at 1:00-1:08: “attach the adjust magnetic head”), to an elevated portion of an object or structure (as shown at 1:41-2:01); wherein the attachment system is configured for being attached to the elevated portion of the object or structure such that, when the attachment system is attached to the object or structure, a portion of the at least one net is positioned proximate to the object or structure (as shown at 2:02-2:10). Bird Barrier American Channel fails to show the step of raising at the at least one net using a rope.
Albanese et al. in the same field of endeavor of elevated mist nets (Figs. 1-3), teaches a method comprising: raising (Figs. 1-3: via a pulley) at least one net (Fig. 1: “mist net”) using a rope (Fig. 1: “rope”) that extends up to and back down an elevation part of the pole and that is attached to the at least one net via a plurality of attachment devices (Figs. 2-3: “metal shower curtain pin”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bird Barrier American Channel to include raising at least one net using a rope as taught by Albanese et al. for the advantage of selectively adjusting the position of the net when positioned proximate the object or structure without having to take the net down.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE A CLERKLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7611. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5PM.
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.
/DANIELLE A CLERKLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights