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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 10-13, 16-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7, and similarly claim 13, states “the first housing being entirely distinct from the collar device and not being radially adjacent to the second housing.” There is not sufficient support in the specification or the figures for “not being radially adjacent to the second housing.” Figure 1 shows the first housing (108) and the second housing (111) both being attached to the collar device (103) and being radially adjacent to one another, with the broadest reasonable interpretation of “radially adjacent” being that they are positioned next to one another along the collar device. Figure 1 shoes the two housings being next to one another. The specification fails to describe any situation where they are NOT next to each other along the collar device.
Claims 10-12, 16-18, and 20-21 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base 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 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers et al. (US 10893662) in view of Gerig (US 6327999) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 11/5/21) and Dacheux (US 2004/0252524)
Regarding Claim 7, Landers discloses an animal behavior modification system, comprising:
an animal behavior modification assembly configured for modifying a behavior of an animal, the animal behavior modification assembly including:
a collar device configured for being worn by the animal (collar 40); and
a stimulation apparatus attached to the collar device (stimulation generator 127; Figures 5 and 12), the stimulation apparatus including a plurality of electrodes (electrodes 132) configured for providing an electrical stimulation to the animal (“a control system may then adjust one or more of a voltage, current, and even oscillation frequency of an electrical signal applied to stimulation electrodes 32, 132a-f.” Col. 15 lines 8-10) the stimulation apparatus including a first housing coupled with the collar device and the plurality of electrodes (stimulation unit 101; Figures 5 and 6);; and
a stimulation connection test apparatus (impedance detector 126) attached to the collar device and electrically coupled with the stimulation apparatus (Figures 12, 6, and 5) and configured for determining whether the plurality of electrodes are adequately electrically coupled with the animal (“When an appropriate impedance is detected, this detection is used to determine that the preferred embodiment collar-mounted location sensor and stimulation unit 1, 101 is in place on an animal” Col. 13 line 50-53), the stimulation connection test apparatus including a second housing (planar coupling 130 Figure 8) coupled with the collar device, the stimulation connection test apparatus being spaced apart from the stimulation apparatus (Figure 12; Low impedance detector 126 is separate and spaced out from stimulation generator 127), the first housing being entirely distinct from the collar device (animal collar 40 held to stimulation unit 101 by quick mount slips 12-15; Figures 4-5);.
Landers fails to disclose the apparatus wherein the electrodes are positioned in contact with a skin of the animal, a stimulation connection test apparatus (see 112f interpretation) comprising a pulse stretcher and analog-to-digital converter, the stimulation connection test apparatus lacking a common housing with the stimulation apparatus such that the second housing of the stimulation connection test apparatus is spaced apart circumferentially from the first housing of the stimulation apparatus along the collar device, the first housing not being radially adjacent to the second housing; a wired connection, the stimulation connection test apparatus being electrically coupled with the stimulation apparatus by the wired connection, the wired connection including a plurality of electrically conductive wires extending circumferentially in a gap between and thus outside of the first housing and the second housing and circumferentially adjacent to, but not attached to, the collar; and a transmitter configured for communicating with both the stimulation apparatus and the stimulation connection test apparatus.
However, Gerig teaches a similar apparatus wherein the electrodes are configured for being positioned in contact with a skin of the animal (“if collar 12 has been correctly installed on the animal so that electrodes 16, 18 are in good electrical contact with the animal's skin,” Col. 4 lines 46-48), the stimulation connection test apparatus (see 112f interpretation; Abstract) comprising a pulse stretcher (pulse stretcher circuit 36) and analog-to-digital converter (Claim 4); and a transmitter (transmitter 10) configured for communicating with both the stimulation apparatus (claim 22) and the stimulation connection test apparatus (“The test may be initiated by either an airborne signal transmitted by transmitter” Col. 4 lines 42-43; Gerig is there for “configured for” communication between the transmitter and both sub-apparatuses).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrodes of Landers, to be in contact with the skin of the animal as taught by Gerig, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the animal is receiving the proper level of stimulation without being injured, and to have provided the apparatus of Landers, with the ability to communicate with a transmitter, as taught by Gerig, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to have easy control over device operation.
Additionally, Dacheux teaches a pet collar wherein the electronics housing (battery 14) is lacking a common housing with the stimulation apparatus (lights 40, 42, 44) such that the second housing of the electronics apparatus is spaced apart circumferentially from the first housing of the stimulation apparatus along the collar device (Figures 1 and 3), the electronics housing (battery 14) not being radially adjacent to the stimulation apparatus (lights 40, 42, 44; Figure 3); a wired connection (wires 20 and 22), the electronics housing being electrically coupled with the stimulation apparatus by the wired connection (Figure 3), the wired connection including a plurality of electrically conductive wires extending circumferentially in a gap between and thus outside of the first housing and the second housing and circumferentially adjacent to, and partially attached to, the collar (Figures 1-3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stimulation apparatus and test apparatus of Landers, to be spaced apart, lack a common housing, and be connected via wires as taught by Dacheux, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help distribute the weight across the collar, to help provide further comfort for the animal, 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.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the partially non-attached wired of Dacheux, to be fully unattached, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily provide maintenance to the stimulation portion of the apparatus, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 13, Landers discloses a method for modifying a behavior of an animal, the method comprising the steps of:
providing an animal behavior modification assembly including a collar device (collar 40), a stimulation apparatus (stimulation generator 127), and a stimulation connection test apparatus (impedance detector 126), the collar device configured for being worn by the animal (dog collar 40), the stimulation apparatus being attached to the collar device (Figure 5) and including a plurality of electrodes (electrodes 132) configured for providing an electrical stimulation to the animal (“a control system may then adjust one or more of a voltage, current, and even oscillation frequency of an electrical signal applied to stimulation electrodes 32, 132a-f.” Col. 15 lines 8-10); the stimulation apparatus including a first housing coupled with the collar device and the plurality of electrodes (stimulation unit 101; Figures 5 and 6); and
determining, using the stimulation connection test apparatus attached to the collar device and electrically coupled with the stimulation apparatus, whether the plurality of electrodes are adequately electrically coupled with the animal (“When an appropriate impedance is detected, this detection is used to determine that the preferred embodiment collar-mounted location sensor and stimulation unit 1, 101 is in place on an animal” Col. 13 line 50-53), the stimulation connection test apparatus including a second housing coupled with the collar device (planar coupling 130 Figure 8), the stimulation connection test apparatus being spaced apart from the stimulation apparatus (Figure 12; Low impedance detector 126 is separate and spaced out from stimulation generator 127), the first housing being entirely distinct from the collar device (animal collar 40 held to stimulation unit 101 by quick mount slips 12-15; Figures 4-5).
Landers fails to disclose the method comprising a transmitter, the stimulation connection test apparatus (see 112f interpretation) comprising a pulse stretcher and analog-to-digital converter, wherein the electrodes are positioned in contact with a skin of the animal; the transmitter being configured for communicating with both the stimulation apparatus and the stimulation connection test apparatus; the stimulation connection test apparatus lacking a common housing with the stimulation apparatus such that the second housing of the stimulation connection test apparatus is spaced apart circumferentially from the first housing of the stimulation apparatus along the collar device; the animal behavior modification assembly further including wired connection, the stimulation connection test apparatus being electrically coupled with the stimulation apparatus by the wired connection, the wired connection including a plurality of electrically conductive wires extending circumferentially in a gap between and thus outside of the first housing and the second housing and circumferentially adjacent to the collar device, the first housing not being radially adjacent to the second housing.
However, Gerig teaches a similar method comprising a transmitter (transmitter 10) wherein the electrodes are configured for being positioned in contact with a skin of the animal (“if collar 12 has been correctly installed on the animal so that electrodes 16, 18 are in good electrical contact with the animal's skin,” Col. 4 lines 46-48), the transmitter being configured for communicating with both the stimulation apparatus (claim 22) and the stimulation connection test apparatus (“The test may be initiated by either an airborne signal transmitted by transmitter” Col. 4 lines 42-43).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrodes of Landers, to be in contact with the skin of the animal as taught by Gerig, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure the animal is receiving the proper level of stimulation without being injured, and to have provided the apparatus of Landers, with the ability to communicate with a transmitter, as taught by Gerig, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to have easy control over device operation.
Additionally, Dacheux teaches a pet collar comprising the electronics housing (battery 14) is lacking a common housing with the stimulation apparatus (lights 40, 42, 44) such that the second housing of the electronics apparatus is spaced apart circumferentially from the first housing of the stimulation apparatus along the collar device (Figures 1 and 3); a wired connection (wires 20 and 22), the electronics housing being electrically coupled with the stimulation apparatus by the wired connection (Figure 3), the wired connection including a plurality of electrically conductive wires extending circumferentially in a gap between and thus outside of the first housing and the second housing and circumferentially adjacent to, and partially attached to, the collar device (Figures 1-3), the electronics housing (battery 14) not being radially adjacent to the stimulation apparatus (lights 40, 42, 44; Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the stimulation apparatus and test apparatus of Landers, to be spaced apart, lack a common housing, and be connected via wires as taught by Dacheux, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help distribute the weight across the collar, to help provide further comfort for the animal, 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.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the partially non-attached wired of Dacheux, to be fully unattached, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily provide maintenance to the stimulation portion of the apparatus, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claims 10-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Gerig and Dacheux as applied to claim 7 and 13 above, and further in view of Seltzer et al. (US 2019/0174716).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Landers teaches the system of claim 7.
Landers fails to disclose the animal behavior modification system wherein the stimulation connection test apparatus is configured for determining whether the plurality of electrodes are adequately electrically coupled by at least in part using a voltage level signal corresponding to a voltage level between the plurality of electrodes.
However, Seltzer teaches the animal behavior modification system wherein the stimulation connection test apparatus is configured for determining whether the plurality of electrodes are adequately electrically coupled by at least in part using a voltage level signal corresponding to a voltage level between the plurality of electrodes (“This stored charge is monitored by the processor via a feedback loop. Once the processor determines a threshold voltage level is reached and any additional desired delay time is added, a high voltage switch (i.e., transistor) is switched on by the processor for the desired stimulus pulse length to complete a return path on a second electrode providing a path for current to flow from one electrode, through the pet's skin, into the second electrode, and to system return.” Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the test apparatus of Landers, to test via a voltage signal as taught by Seltzer, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily ensure the collar is properly fitted to the animal, without causing the animal pain.
Regarding Claim 11, modified Landers teaches the system of claim 10.
Landers fails to disclose the animal behavior modification system wherein the stimulation connection test apparatus is configured for determining that the plurality of electrodes are not adequately electrically coupled when the voltage level is greater than a predetermined voltage level.
However, Seltzer teaches the animal behavior modification system, wherein the stimulation connection test apparatus is configured for determining that the plurality of electrodes are not adequately electrically coupled when the voltage level is greater than a predetermined voltage level (“Measured time values provide information of skin breakdown. If the measured time value is greater than a value indicating breakdown 437, then low resistance is detected 438. In this event, the voltage threshold is set to a lower value considering that skin resistance is low 440. If the measured time value is less than a value indicating minimal to no skin contact 442, then high resistance is detected 444. In this event, the voltage threshold is set to a higher value to increase the chance of a low skin resistance scenario 446.” Paragraph [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the test apparatus of Landers, to test via a voltage signal as taught by Seltzer, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily ensure the collar is properly fitted to the animal, without causing the animal pain.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Landers teaches the system of claim 11. Landers further discloses the animal behavior modification system, wherein the stimulation connection test apparatus includes a controller configured for determining whether the plurality of electrodes are adequately electrically coupled (“Based upon the detected impedance, a control system may then adjust one or more of a voltage, current, and even oscillation frequency of an electrical signal applied to stimulation electrodes 32, 132a-f.” Col. 15 lines 7-10).
Regarding Claim 16, modified Landers teaches the method of Claim 13.
Landers fails to disclose the method, wherein the step of determining includes using a voltage level signal corresponding to a voltage level between the plurality of electrodes.
However, Seltzer teaches the method, wherein the step of determining includes using a voltage level signal corresponding to a voltage level between the plurality of electrodes (“This stored charge is monitored by the processor via a feedback loop. Once the processor determines a threshold voltage level is reached and any additional desired delay time is added, a high voltage switch (i.e., transistor) is switched on by the processor for the desired stimulus pulse length to complete a return path on a second electrode providing a path for current to flow from one electrode, through the pet's skin, into the second electrode, and to system return.” Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the test apparatus of Landers, to test via a voltage signal as taught by Seltzer, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily ensure the collar is properly fitted to the animal, without causing the animal pain.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Landers teaches the method of claim 16.
Landers fails to disclose the method, wherein the step of determining includes determining that the plurality of electrodes are not adequately electrically coupled when the voltage level is greater than a predetermined voltage level.
However, Seltzer teaches the method wherein the step of determining includes determining that the plurality of electrodes are not adequately electrically coupled when the voltage level is greater than a predetermined voltage level (“Measured time values provide information of skin breakdown. If the measured time value is greater than a value indicating breakdown 437, then low resistance is detected 438. In this event, the voltage threshold is set to a lower value considering that skin resistance is low 440. If the measured time value is less than a value indicating minimal to no skin contact 442, then high resistance is detected 444. In this event, the voltage threshold is set to a higher value to increase the chance of a low skin resistance scenario 446.” Paragraph [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the test apparatus of Landers, to test via a voltage signal as taught by Seltzer, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily ensure the collar is properly fitted to the animal, without causing the animal pain.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Landers teaches the method of claim 17. Landers further discloses the method, wherein the stimulation connection test apparatus includes a controller which performs the step of determining (“Based upon the detected impedance, a control system may then adjust one or more of a voltage, current, and even oscillation frequency of an electrical signal applied to stimulation electrodes 32, 132a-f.” Col. 15 lines 7-10).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Gerig and Dacheux as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Van Curen et al. (US 2018/0368365).
Regarding Claim 20, modified Landers teaches the method of claim 7.
Landers fails to disclose the animal behavior modification system, wherein the plurality of electrically conductive wires include at least one plug and the stimulation connection test apparatus includes at least one socket, wherein the at least one plug matingly interconnects with the at least one socket of the stimulation connection test apparatus.
However, Van Curen teaches that it is well known in the art of animal behavior modification to provide wires (cable 230) with a plug (Figure 1) and electronics housing (transmitter body 210 and inputter 220) with a socket (port 214; Figure 1) wherein the at least one plug matingly interconnects with the at least one socket (Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wired connection of Landers as modified above, with the plug and socket of Van Curen, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier maintenance of the device, 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landers in view of Gerig and Dacheux as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wang (CN 107157200).
Regarding Claim 21, modified Landers teaches the method of claim 7.
Landers fails to disclose the animal behavior modification system, wherein the plurality of electrically conductive wires do not contact the collar device or extend within the collar device.
However, Wang teaches a stimulation apparatus wherein the plurality of electrically conductive wires do not contact the collar device or extend within the collar device (two housings of emitter 10 and buzzer/stimulation apparatus 11 with receiver 13: “the emitter and the receiver is wired or wireless, wired, emitter and capable of vibrating buzzer connected by line conductor” Page 2 Paragraph 11 of translation; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wired connection of Landers as modified above, with the wired not touching the collar device as taught by Wang, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier access of the wires to the user, to allow for easier maintenance of the wires and devices.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 that Dacheux fails to disclose the first housing not being radially adjacent to the second housing. The Office respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the currently presented rejection, the housings being referred to in Dacheux is not the hollow tube 12, but the housing of the battery 14, and the stimulation apparatuses (lights 40, 42, and 44. The hollow tube 12 is equivalent to applicant’s collar device. Therefore, Dacheux teaches that there are two housings spaced apart around the collar device, the first housing not being radially adjacent to the second housing.
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 ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642