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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/2025 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/10/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on a different combination of references applied as compared to the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejection. However, the new limitations are disclosed by new art, US 2018/0170231 (Song), that is described in the rejections below.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0038886 (Snow) in view of US 2008/0092295 (Flick et al., hereinafter Flick) and US 2018/0170231 (Song).
In regards to claim 1, Snow discloses delivery of audio and tactile stimulation therapy for animals and humans (title and abstract). Of note are figures 1-17 and paragraphs 29-67 which describe the various embodiments of the device. Figures 1-4 show a collar (100) or harness (201,301, 401) that is structured to fit a non-human animal (see figures 2-4) that has a pocket (203,303) for the insertion of a therapeutic device. A therapeutic device (204, 304) delivers vibrational energy to the animal (paragraphs 32-63). Figure 8B and 9 and paragraphs 46 and 48 states that the therapeutic device has a transducer or vibration speaker (830, 930). However, Snow does not state that the transcutaneous vibratory output has variable parameters comprising a perceived pitch, beat, and intensity or the presence of a controller configured to control the transducer to deliver a series of temporally segmented vibrational outputs.
In a related area, Flick discloses a vibration device used to apply vibrations to a user, in this case various vibration cushion embodiments (paragraphs 19-63). Flick describes in paragraph 30 that the pad can generate various types of output such as pulsing waves, variable frequency (pitch) waves, variable amplitude (intensity) waves, and any conventional wave and paragraph 18 describes how the vibration pad can generate beats. Paragraphs 17, 32, and 39-40 state that control units/controllers control the vibration parameters in order to obtain desired vibration characteristics and paragraph 7 states that there are desired vibration forces by the user. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to control the vibration output of Snow to include the parameters of intensity, pitch, and beat, as taught by Flick because it is desirable to control vibration characteristics when applying vibration to users to provide desired vibration application to the user.
Snow and Flick do not state that the controller is configured to control the transducer to deliver a series of temporally segmented vibrational outputs. In a related area, Song discloses a device that performs adaptive massaging (title and abstract). Of note is paragraphs 57-68 where a controller controls massage outputs and adjusts intensity and duration dynamically based on driver condition, which would be control of the output that delivers a series that is temporally segmented (note that as currently written there are no specifics about how the structure of the temporally segmented outputs, which allows the dynamic adjustments of Song to meet the limitation where each adjustment can be interpreted as a new temporal segment). Song shows that this allows for dynamic control of stimulation to maintain a state or move a user to specific target states (paragraphs 57-60). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Snow and Flick to have controller be configured to deliver a series of temporally segmented vibratory outputs as taught by Song in order to maintain a state of a user or move a user to specific target states.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0038886 (Snow) in view of US 2008/0092295 (Flick et al., hereinafter Flick) and US 2018/0170231 (Song) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2017/0083018 (Womble et al., hereinafter Womble).
In regards to claims 2 and 3, Snow, Flick, and Song disclose the limitations of claim 1 but do not explicitly state the use of remote control of the transducer. In a related area, Womble discloses a method and system for remote monitoring, care, and maintenance of animals (title and abstract). Of note are paragraphs 59, 61, and 96-99 which discloses the use of a smart phone to remotely control the operation of various animal care devices. Womble shows that remote functions allow the caregivers to care for the animals regardless of distance. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include remote control functionality as taught by Womble in for the transducer in the system of Snow, Flick, and Song in order to allow for caregivers to take care of animals regardless of distance.
In regards to claims 5, 6, and 10, Snow, Flick, and Song disclose the limitations of claim 1 but do not state the presence of a sensor on the collar or harness. In a related area, Womble discloses a method and system for remote monitoring, care, and maintenance of animals (title and abstract). Of note is paragraph 90 which discloses the use of smart collar (figures 13 and 14; paragraphs 83-90) that includes an imaging system/camera and a measuring device/sensors (724) to measure the animals physiology or the environment surrounding the animal, and a microphone (726) and a GPS system (a contextual sensor structured to identify change in weather or geospatial environment). Paragraph 71-94 states that the smart collar is used to affect animal behavior and detects several potential hazards to the animal. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Snow, Flick, and Song to have various sensors as taught by the smart collar of Womble in order to affect animal behavior and detect potential hazards to the animal.
In regards to claims 7, 8, 9, and 15, Snow, Flick, Song and Womble disclose the limitations of claim 5. The current claim limitations are directed to a component that is not part of the claimed system. Because the limitations are directed to parts that are not part of the claimed system, Snow, Flick, Song and Womble would meet the limitations of the claims.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0038886 (Snow) in view of US 2008/0092295 (Flick et al., hereinafter Flick) and US 2018/0170231 (Song) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0301054 (Banerji).
In regards to claims 13 and 14, Snow, Flick, and Song disclose the limitations of claim 1. However, they do not state the presence of an environmental sensor. In a related area, Banerji discloses systems and methods that examines skill development using biofeedback and environmental monitoring. (title and abstract). Of note are paragraphs 69-74 which disclose the use of sensors that detect environmental parameters and the use of environmental analytics to aid in determination of how environmental conditions influence subject performance and how feedback adjustments can be made based on the data. Paragraph 86 discloses the taking of baseline states. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Snow, Flick, and Song to include environmental sensors as taught by Banerji in order to determine baselines and proper feedback stimulation based on different environmental conditions.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0319815 (Nofzinger et al., hereinafter Nofzinger) in view of US 2018/0170231 (Song).
In regards to claim 16, Nofzinger discloses a device used for modulating sleep (see title and abstract). Of particular note are figures 8-10 and paragraphs 94-99 which show a forehead stimulation applicator with the applicator having cushioning material (figure 9, element 102; paragraphs 94-96) with a contact surface. Nofzinger states that the applicator has several variations which include vibrating transducers protruding through the contact surface of the applicator (figure 10; paragraphs 97-99), which would make the device contact a portion of the patient being treated. Paragraph 99 further describes that the vibration can be selected from different frequencies.
Applicant’s specification shows that the transducer receives the signal and performs the output and has not shown how the transducer is structured to perform the output. The limitation “structured to deliver a transcutaneous vibratory output” appear to be a recitation of intended use of the transducer. 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.
In addition, due to the device shown in figures 8-10 being a forehead applicator, the device can accommodate several non-human animals. Note that Applicant’s specification does not specify how the device is structured to accommodate the non-human animals so a pad that an animal can lay on or be laid on an animal would meet the limitation.
Nofzinger does not state the presence of a controller that is configured to control the transducer to deliver a series of temporally segmented vibrational outputs. In a related area, Song discloses a device that performs adaptive massaging (title and abstract). Of note is paragraphs 57-68 where a controller controls massage outputs and adjusts intensity and duration dynamically based on driver condition, which would be control of the output that delivers a series that is temporally segmented (note that as currently written there are no specifics about how the structure of the temporally segmented outputs, which allows the dynamic adjustments of Song to meet the limitation where each adjustment can be interpreted as a new temporal segment). Song shows that this allows for dynamic control of stimulation to maintain a state or move a user to specific target states (paragraphs 57-60). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Nofzinger to include controller that is configured to deliver a series of temporally segmented vibratory outputs as taught by Song in order to maintain a state of a user or move a user to specific target states.
Claim(s) 17, 18, and 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0319815 (Nofzinger et al., hereinafter Nofzinger) in view of US 2018/0170231 (Song) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of US 2017/0083018 (Womble et al., hereinafter Womble).
In regards to claims 17 and 18, Nofzinger and Song disclose the limitations of claim 16 but does not explicitly state the use of remote control of the transducer. In a related area, Womble discloses a method and system for remote monitoring, care, and maintenance of animals (title and abstract). Of note are paragraphs 59, 61, and 96-99 which discloses the use of a smart phone to remotely control the operation of various animal care devices. Womble shows that remote functions allow the caregivers to care for the animals regardless of distance. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include remote control functionality as taught by Womble in for the transducer in the system of Nofzinger and Song in order to allow for caregivers to take care of animals regardless of distance.
In regards to claims 20 and 21, Nofzinger and Song disclose the limitations of claim 16 but does not state the presence of a sensor on the collar or harness. In a related area, Womble discloses a method and system for remote monitoring, care, and maintenance of animals (title and abstract). Of note is paragraph 90 which discloses the use of smart collar (figures 13 and 14; paragraphs 83-90) that includes an imaging system/camera and a measuring device/sensors (724) to measure the animals physiology or the environment surrounding the animal, and a microphone (726) and a GPS system (a contextual sensor structured to identify change in weather or geospatial environment). Paragraph 71-94 states that the smart collar is used to affect animal behavior and detects several potential hazards to the animal. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Nofzinger and Song to have various sensors as taught by the smart collar of Womble in order to affect animal behavior and detect potential hazards to the animal.
In regards to claims 22-24, Nofzinger, Song, and Womble disclose the limitations of claim 20. The current claim limitations are directed to a component that is not part of the claimed system. Because the limitations are directed to parts that are not part of the claimed system, Nofzinger and Womble would meet the limitations of the claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 25-30 are allowed.
Claims 4, 11, 12, and 19 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:
In regards to claims 4, 19, and 25, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a device or a method that includes multiplicatively combining a sine wave-shaped envelope generated using the perceived beat with a wave pattern generated using the perceived pitch to produce the transcutaneous vibratory output.
Claims 26 and 27 are dependent on allowed from claim 25 and are allowed.
In regards to claims 11 and 28, the prior art of record does note teach or suggest a system, as claimed by Applicant, where the system further comprises a processor in electronic communication with the at least one transducer and the contextual sensor, the processor receiving information about the change in weather or geospatial environment from the contextual sensor, and programmed to perform the following steps:
determine a state of the non-human animal based on the data from the contextual sensor; and
cause the at least one transducer to emit stimulation based on the determined state, wherein the stimulation comprises the transcutaneous vibratory output having parameters comprising the perceived pitch, the perceived beat, and the perceived intensity.
In regards to claims 12, 29, and 30, the prior art of record does note teach or suggest a system, as claimed by Applicant, where the system further comprises a processor in electronic communication with the at least one transducer and the contextual sensor, the processor receiving information about the change in weather or geospatial environment from the contextual sensor, and programmed to perform the following steps:
determine a state of the non-human animal based on the change in weather or geospatial environment;
determine a transcutaneous vibratory output to apply to a portion of the non- human animal to return the non-human animal from the state to at least one of a baseline state and a target state; and
communicate the determined transcutaneous vibratory output to the at least one transducer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DARYL DEANON LANNU whose telephone number is (571)270-1986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 AM - 5 PM, Friday 8 AM -12 PM.
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, Charles Marmor can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/JOSHUA DARYL D LANNU/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791