> If you look at those patents, you'll see that they are bizarrely trivial.
They may or may not be trivial, but I've only known the patent numbers for an hour, and you only knew them for 15 minutes when you posted--and it is not possible to have read them in sufficient detail to make such a judgement in that time.
To find out what a patent actually covers you have to read more than just the title and the abstract. The title and abstract are mostly useful for determining what a patent does not cover rather than determining what it covers.
The title just tells you the broad area the patent is in, and the abstract narrows that down a bit, but both will cover a lot of ground. That's why they are most useful for exclusion, not inclusion.
To find out what the patent actually covers, it is the claims that matter. The claims are interpreted in light of the specification, so you must read that to understand the claims.
For instance, a patent might have a title of "Acoustic Repelling of Mosquitoes", which seems really broad, but when you read the specification and claims, it might turn out that the patent only applies when the mosquitoes are a specific species, exactly three sound generators are being used, they are arranged in an equilateral triangle, the temperature is above 95F, and it is daylight.
(Actually, to really tell what is covered, you need to check the file for the patent from the patent office. The examiner and the applicant often go back and forth arguing over whether a claim should be allowed. The arguments and concessions the applicant makes to convince the examiner to allow the claim become limits on the claim).