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 .
This Action is non-final and is in response to the claims filed February 24, 2023, via preliminary amendment. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which claims 4, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 14 are currently amended. Claims 15-20 are newly presented.
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 6-8, 19, and 20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “in morbid state” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim, nor is it clear how this morbid state is arrived to. Examiner suggests language that explicitly links the morbid physiological condition of the pet with an explicit morbid state. Claim 19 recites similar language and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 7 recites “the infrared heater is further provided…” and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. Claim 20 recites similar language and is rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 8 is rejected based on its dependency from above-rejected claim 7.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Specifically, claim 14 is a physical pet house that implements the control system of claim 11. Each limitation of claim 14 is taught by the pet control system of claim 11. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Examiner suggests merely removing the duplicate claim language and recite a pet house that implements the pet control system according to claim 11.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1-7 is/are directed to a method that recites various instances of conditional language.
Claim 1 recites “if a condition set by the pet owner or the current daily behavior of the pet meets a trigger condition”. The conditional nature of this claim language allows for an interpretation where any prior art meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim without having the conditional language even occurring. If the trigger condition for the operation mode Pconfi is never set, then the “triggering” and “performing” never occur.
Claim 2 recites two “if” statements. The conditional nature of this claim language allows for an interpretation when any prior art meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim with only one of the conditional language (“if” statements) occurring.
Claim 3 recites “as the duration…” The conditional nature of this claim language allows for an interpretation where any prior art meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim without having the conditional language even occurring. If the duration is never within another time period, then the claim does not have to be performed.
Claim 4 recites “if the audio and video device detects a motion behavior of the pet”. The conditional nature of this claim language allows for an interpretation where any prior art meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim without having the conditional language even occurring. If there is no motion behavior detected, then the claim does not have to be performed.
Claim 5 recites “if a time preset by the pet owner to start the vacation mode arrives or if the pet owner starts the vacation mode” and the conditional nature of this claim language allow for neither of these conditions to occur and therefore, the claim does not have to occur. Moreover, the test may not even get this far if the condition set by the pet owner or the current daily behavior of the pet fails to meet the trigger condition.
Claim 6 recites “if the pet owner starts the treatment mode or if the current daily behavior of the pet meets a morbid physiological condition of the pet” and the conditional nature of this claim language allow for neither of these conditions to occur and therefore, the claim does not have to occur. Moreover, the test may not even get this far if the condition set by the pet owner or the current daily behavior of the pet fails to meet the trigger condition.
Claim 7 recites “if the pet owner starts the extra comfort mode or if the data of the pet staying on the pressure sensing plate meets a start condition…” and the conditional nature of this claim language allow for neither of these conditions to occur and therefore, the claim does not have to occur. Moreover, the test may not even get this far if the condition set by the pet owner or the current daily behavior of the pet fails to meet the trigger condition.
Therefore, the prior art only needs to read on the language as discussed above (if at all). See MPEP 2111.04(II); see also Ex parte Schulhauser.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejections below cite particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-14, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko (U.S. Publication No. 2022/0373209) and further in view of Horton et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0261425; hereinafter, “Horton”) and Byers (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0083909).
As per claim 1, Ko teaches [a pet house] control method, applied to [a pet house] control system comprising [a pet house], a control terminal and a data center, the method comprising:
receiving, through an Application (App) on the control terminal, settings of multiple operation modes of the [pet house], the settings being set by a pet owner (See Ko para. [0038]: wireless remote control of HVAC system; para. [0043]: selection from room models to be transmitted to thermostat for execution);
computing, by a computing device built in the [pet house], a current daily behavior [of a pet], and transmitting a computing result back to the data center, wherein the computing device comprises a timer and a far infrared instrument, wherein the far infrared instrument is provided with [an audio and video device] and at least one Universal Serial Bus (USB) port, [and the audio and video device comprises a motion sensor] (See Ko paras. [0013] and [0055]: USB connections for sensors, including infrared sensors; para. [0067]: timer used for occupancy intervals; para. [0043]: server for collected data and models);
triggering, by the data center, an operation mode Pconfi of the multiple operation modes if a condition set by the [pet] owner or the current daily behavior of the [pet] meets a trigger condition for the operation mode Pconfi (See Ko paras. [0043], [0046], and [0071]: behavioral modeling for energy usage, including occupancy frequency and temperature tolerances); and
performing, by the computing device related to the operation mode Pconfi, real-time control of the [pet house] according to a control strategy corresponding to the operation mode Pconfi (See Ko paras. [0054], [0068-69], and [0072]: temperature adjustments made based on the occupancy and other factors from the model).
However, while Ko teaches numerous sensors and timers, as discussed above, Ko does not explicitly teach that the infrared sensors comprise audio and video device(s).
Horton teaches that the infrared sensors of Ko can be provided with an audio and video device…and the audio and video device comprise a motion sensor (See Horton paras. [0080] and [0118]: microphone signals and video cameras can be used to detect occupancy and motion; para. [0169]: real-time requests for control).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the climate controls and sensors of Ko with the audio and video motion sensors of Horton. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose occupancy-based climate controls, and Horton further enhances the climate controls of Ko by expanding upon the types of data that can be gathered, allowing for more accurate predictions. Moreover, these sensors allow for further personalization, and therefore an enhancement of the user experience of Ko (See Horton para. [0118]).
Furthermore, while Ko and Horton teach extensive HVAC controls and modeling in a home, Ko/Horton does not explicitly teach a pet house. Furthermore, while Ko monitors occupancy behaviors, and Horton teaches detecting pet presence versus human being, Ko/Horton does not monitor behaviors of a pet.
Byers teaches a pet house and the HVAC controls for the pet, as well as the pet itself (See Byers Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0037-40]: housing with climate control for a domesticated animal like a dog or cat).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the climate controls of Ko/Horton with the pet house of Byers. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose climate controls, including based on occupancy detection, and Byers further enhances the climate controls of Ko/Horton by expanding upon its use cases, increasing the flexibility of the system and its usability. Moreover, pets need suitable enclosures and comforts upon which the control system of Ko/Horton can be deployed (See Byers paras. [0003-05]).
As per claim 2, Ko further teaches the pet house control method according to claim 1, wherein the multiple operation modes comprise a saving mode, and computing, by the computing device built in the [pet house], the current daily behavior of the [pet] and transmitting the computing result back to the data center comprises: detecting, by [the audio and video device], the current daily behavior of the [pet]; and if the audio and video device detects a static behavior of the [pet], counting, by the timer, a duration of the static behavior of the [pet]and returning a counting result to the data center, wherein triggering, by the data center, the operation mode Pconfi of the multiple operation modes if the condition set by the [pet]owner or the current daily behavior of the [pet]meets the trigger condition for the operation mode Pconfi comprises: if the duration of the static behavior of the [pet]is within an earliest time period S of a preset duration range, triggering, by the data center, the saving mode; and wherein performing, by the computing device related to the operation mode Pconfi, real-time control of the [pet house] according to the control strategy corresponding to the operation mode Pconfi comprises: controlling, by the far infrared instrument related to the saving mode, the [pet house] to a temperature corresponding to the earliest time period S according to a temperature adjustment strategy corresponding to the saving mode (See Ko paras. [0054] and [0067]: sensors to detect occupant presence that will affect the treatment/operation mode of the HVAC).
However, while Ko teaches numerous sensors and timers, as discussed above, Ko does not explicitly teach that the infrared sensors comprise audio and video device(s).
Horton teaches that the infrared sensors of Ko can be provided with an audio and video device…and the audio and video device comprise a motion sensor (See Horton paras. [0080] and [0118]: microphone signals and video cameras can be used to detect occupancy and motion).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko with the teachings of Horton for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
Furthermore, while Ko and Horton teach extensive HVAC controls and modeling in a home, Ko/Horton does not explicitly teach a pet house. Furthermore, while Ko monitors occupancy behaviors, and Horton teaches detecting pet presence versus human being, Ko/Horton does not monitor behaviors of a pet.
Byers teaches a pet house and the HVAC controls for the pet, as well as the pet itself (See Byers Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0037-40]: housing with climate control for a domesticated animal like a dog or cat).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko/Horton with the teachings of Byers for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 3, Ko/Horton/Byers teaches the pet house control method according to claim 2. Ko/Horton further teaches as the duration of the static behavior of the pet is within another time period S′ of the preset duration range, controlling, by the far infrared instrument, the pet house to a temperature corresponding to the another time period S′ (See Ko paras. [0046] and [0067]: behavioral modeling and occupancy patterns from one day to the next, including how long a room may be occupied over a given period of time).
However, while Ko and Horton teach extensive HVAC controls and modeling in a home, Ko/Horton does not explicitly teach a pet house. Furthermore, while Ko monitors occupancy behaviors, and Horton teaches detecting pet presence versus human being, Ko/Horton does not monitor behaviors of a pet.
Byers teaches a pet house and the HVAC controls for the pet, as well as the pet itself (See Byers Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0037-40]: housing with climate control for a domesticated animal like a dog or cat).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko/Horton with the teachings of Byers for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 4, Ko/Horton/Byers teaches the pet house control method according to claim 2. Ko/Horton further teaches wherein computing, by the computing device built in [the pet house], the current daily behavior of the [pet] and transmitting the computing result back to the data center further comprises: if the audio and video device detects a motion behavior of the [pet], transmitting, by the audio and video device, a detection result back to the data center; and wherein performing, by the computing device related to the operation mode Pconfi, real-time control of [the pet house] according to the control strategy corresponding to the operation mode Pconfi further comprises: recovering, by the far infrared instrument related to the saving mode, [the pet house] to a comfort temperature from the temperature corresponding to the earliest time period S or the another time period S′ according to the temperature adjustment strategy corresponding to the saving mode (See Ko paras. [0046] and [0067]: behavioral modeling and occupancy patterns from one day to the next).
However, while Ko and Horton teach extensive HVAC controls and modeling in a home, Ko/Horton does not explicitly teach a pet house. Furthermore, while Ko monitors occupancy behaviors, and Horton teaches detecting pet presence versus human being, Ko/Horton does not monitor behaviors of a pet.
Byers teaches a pet house and the HVAC controls for the pet, as well as the pet itself (See Byers Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0037-40]: housing with climate control for a domesticated animal like a dog or cat).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko/Horton with the teachings of Byers for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, Ko/Horton/Byers teaches the pet house control method according to claim 1. However, while Ko teaches various operation modes, Ko does not teach a vacation mode.
Horton teaches wherein the multiple operation modes comprise a vacation mode, and triggering, by the data center, the operation mode Pconfi of the multiple operation modes if the condition set by [the pet] owner or the current daily behavior of [the pet] meets the trigger condition for the operation mode Pconfi comprises: if a time preset by [the pet] owner to start the vacation mode arrives or if [the pet] owner starts the vacation mode, triggering, by the data center, the vacation mode; and wherein performing, by the computing device related to the operation mode Pconfi, real-time control of [the pet house] according to the control strategy corresponding to the operation mode Pconfi comprises: pausing, by the far infrared instrument related to the vacation mode, heating of [the pet house] by the far infrared instrument according to a temperature adjustment strategy corresponding to the vacation mode (See Horton paras. [0437]: heating and cooling settings can be made for a vacation/away mode; paras. [0364-370], [0436], and [0533]: away mode can be used to set a temperature. If a user leaves the HVAC controls can be deactivated).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko with the teachings of Horton for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
Furthermore, while Ko and Horton teach extensive HVAC controls and modeling in a home, Ko/Horton does not explicitly teach a pet house. Furthermore, while Ko monitors occupancy behaviors, and Horton teaches detecting pet presence versus human being, Ko/Horton does not monitor behaviors of a pet.
Byers teaches a pet house and the HVAC controls for the pet, as well as the pet itself (See Byers Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0037-40]: housing with climate control for a domesticated animal like a dog or cat).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko/Horton with the teachings of Byers for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 7, Ko/Horton/Byers teaches the pet house control method according to claim 1. Ko further teaches wherein the multiple operation modes comprise an extra comfort mode, and the infrared heater [is further provided with a pressure sensing plate]; and computing, by the computing device built in [the pet house], the current daily behavior of [the pet] and transmitting the computing result back to the data center comprises:
wherein triggering, by the data center, the operation mode Pconfi of the multiple operation modes if the condition set by [the pet] owner or the current daily behavior of the pet meets the trigger condition for the operation mode Pconfi comprises: if [the pet] owner starts the extra comfort mode or [if the data of the pet staying on the pressure sensing plate meets a start condition] of the extra comfort mode, triggering, by the data center, the extra comfort mode (See Ko); and
wherein performing, by the computing device related to the operation mode Pconfi, real-time control of the pet house according to the control strategy corresponding to the operation mode Pconfi comprises: performing, by the far infrared instrument related to the extra comfort mode, temperature control of the pet house and/or far infrared treatment on the pet according to a temperature adjustment strategy corresponding to the treatment mode (See Ko paras. [0046], [0054], and [0067]: behavioral modeling and occupancy patterns from one day to the next, including how long a room may be occupied over a given period of time. paras. The occupant presence will affect the treatment/operation mode of the HVAC).
However, while Ko teaches occupancy detection, Ko/Horton does not teach or suggest the pet and the pet house, nor does Ko/Horton teach occupancy determinations using a pressure sensing plate.
Byers teaches detecting, by the pressure sensing plate and if the pet stays on the pressure sensing plate, transmitting, by the pressure sensing plate or the audio and video device, data of the pet staying on the pressure sensing plate to the data center, wherein the data of the pet staying on the pressure sensing plate comprises: a duration of the pet staying in the pet house, a duration of movement, a static state duration, and a frequency of entering and leaving the pet house (See Byers paras. [0045-48]: pressure sensor pads to detect the presence of the animal within the housing).
Furthermore, while Ko and Horton teach extensive HVAC controls and modeling in a home, Ko/Horton does not explicitly teach a pet house. Furthermore, while Ko monitors occupancy behaviors, and Horton teaches detecting pet presence versus human being, Ko/Horton does not monitor behaviors of a pet.
Byers teaches a pet house and the HVAC controls for the pet, as well as the pet itself (See Byers Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0037-40]: housing with climate control for a domesticated animal like a dog or cat).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko/Horton with the teachings of Byers for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 9, Ko/Horton/Byers further teaches the pet house control method according to claim 1. Ko/Horton further teaches
acquiring, by the data center, data of the daily behavior of [the pet] through the App on the control terminal or the computing device (See Ko paras. [0043], [0046], and [0071]: behavioral modeling for energy usage, including occupancy frequency and temperature tolerances; para. [0038]: wireless remote control of HVAC system); and
generating control strategies for real-time control of [the pet house] corresponding to the multiple operation modes by establishing a data model according to acquired data of the daily behavior (See Ko paras. [0043], [0046], and [0071]: behavioral modeling for energy usage, including occupancy frequency and temperature tolerances).
However, while Ko and Horton teach extensive HVAC controls and modeling in a home, Ko/Horton does not explicitly teach a pet house. Furthermore, while Ko monitors occupancy behaviors, and Horton teaches detecting pet presence versus human being, Ko/Horton does not monitor behaviors of a pet.
Byers teaches a pet house and the HVAC controls for the pet, as well as the pet itself (See Byers Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0037-40]: housing with climate control for a domesticated animal like a dog or cat).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko/Horton with the teachings of Byers for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 10, Ko/Horton/Byers teaches the pet house control method according to claim 1. While Ko teaches monitoring occupancy, Ko does not do so using an audio and video device.
Horton teaches performing information interaction between [the pet] and [the pet owner] through the control terminal and the audio and video device (See Horton paras. [0080] and [0118]: microphone signals and video cameras can be used to detect occupancy and motion).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko with the teachings of Horton for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
Furthermore, while Ko and Horton teach extensive HVAC controls and modeling in a home, Ko/Horton does not explicitly teach a pet house. Furthermore, while Ko monitors occupancy behaviors, and Horton teaches detecting pet presence versus human being, Ko/Horton does not monitor behaviors of a pet.
Byers teaches a pet house and the HVAC controls for the pet, as well as the pet itself (See Byers Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0037-40]: housing with climate control for a domesticated animal like a dog or cat. Therefore, the pet owner will receive information, such as occupancy, about the pet using the system of Ko/Horton).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko/Horton with the teachings of Byers for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 11, the claim is directed to a pet house control system that implements the same features as the method of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claim 12, Ko/Horton/Byers further teaches the pet house control system of claim 11, comprising a memory, a processor, and computer-executable instructions stored in the memory (See Ko para. [0007]).
As per claim 14, the claim is directed to a pet house that implements the features of the pet house control system of claim 11, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
As per claims 13 and 18, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that implements the same features as the method(s) of claims 1 and 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claims 6 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko/Horton/Byers as applied above, and further in view of Sayadi et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0337470; hereinafter “Sayadi”)
As per claim 6, Ko/Horton/Byers teaches the pet house control method according to claim 1. Ko further teaches wherein the multiple operation modes comprise a treatment mode, and computing, by the computing device built in [the pet house], the current daily behavior of [the pet] and transmitting the computing result back to the data center comprises:
detecting, [by the audio and video device], the current daily behavior of [the pet]; and transmitting, [by the audio and video device], the current daily behavior of [the pet] to the data center (See Ko paras. [0054], [0068-69], and [0072]: temperature adjustments made based on the occupancy and other factors from the model),
wherein performing, by the computing device related to the operation mode Pconfi, real-time control of [the pet house] according to the control strategy corresponding to the operation mode Pconfi comprises: performing, by the far infrared instrument related to the treatment mode, far infrared treatment on [the pet in morbid state] according to a treatment strategy corresponding to the treatment mode (See Ko paras. [0054], [0068-69], and [0072]: temperature adjustments made based on the occupancy and other factors from the model).
However, while Ko teaches numerous sensors and timers, as discussed above, Ko does not explicitly teach that the infrared sensors comprise audio and video device(s).
Horton teaches that the infrared sensors of Ko can be provided with an audio and video device…and the audio and video device comprise a motion sensor (See Horton paras. [0080] and [0118]: microphone signals and video cameras can be used to detect occupancy and motion).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko with the teachings of Horton for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
Furthermore, while Ko and Horton teach extensive HVAC controls and modeling in a home, Ko/Horton does not explicitly teach a pet house. Furthermore, while Ko monitors occupancy behaviors, and Horton teaches detecting pet presence versus human being, Ko/Horton does not monitor behaviors of a pet.
Byers teaches a pet house and the HVAC controls for the pet, as well as the pet itself (See Byers Figs. 1, 2, and paras. [0037-40]: housing with climate control for a domesticated animal like a dog or cat).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ko/Horton with the teachings of Byers for at least the same reasons as discussed above in claim 1.
Additionally, while Ko/Horton/Byers teaches the adjustments and treatment modes, as well as the pet, Ko/Horton/Byers does not teach or suggest a morbid state of said pet.
Sayadi teaches a morbid physiological condition that can trigger the treatments of Ko/Horton/Byers, and therefore teaches wherein triggering, by the data center, the operation mode Pconfi of the multiple operation modes if the condition set by the [pet] owner or the current daily behavior of [the pet] meets the trigger condition for the operation mode Pconfi comprises: if [the pet] owner starts the treatment mode or if the current daily behavior of [the pet] meets a morbid physiological condition of [the pet], triggering, by the data center, the treatment mode (See Sayadi paras. [0040] and [0108]: control actions to prevent overheating/overcooling).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the climate controls of Ko/Horton/Byers with the overheating prevention of Sayadi. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose climate controls to maintain comfort levels, and Sayadi further enhances the climate controls of Ko/Horton/Byers by ensuring that the occupant/pet is comfortable and healthy with a tolerable temperature to ensure stability (See Sayadi para. [0007]).
As per claim 19, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that implements the same features as the method of claim 6, respectively, and is therefore rejected for at least the same reasons therein.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ko/Horton/Byers as applied above, and further in view of Knapton et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0073094; hereinafter, “Knapton”)
As per claim 8, Ko/Horton/Byers further teaches the pet house control method according to claim 7, further comprising:
[drawing], by the data center according to the data of the pet staying on the pressure sensing plate, [a data curve] indicating the daily behavior of the pet staying in the pet house (See Ko paras. [0038] and [0043]: wireless remote control of HVAC system in communication with a server for collected data and models; See Ko paras. [0054] and [0067]: sensors to detect occupant presence that will affect the treatment/operation mode of the HVAC; See Byers paras. [0045-48]: pressure sensor pads to detect the presence of the animal within the housing); and
transmitting, by the data center, [the data curve] back to the App on the control terminal for display (paras. [0038] and [0043]: wireless remote control of HVAC system in communication with a server for collected data and models; See Horton Fig. 5 and paras. [0153-155]: mobile device remote service using API).
However, while Ko/Horton/Byers teaches remote monitoring and control of HVAC systems, Ko/Horton/Byers does not graph any data.
Knapton teaches drawing a data curve that would be displayed on the App of Ko/Horton/Byers (See Knapton Fig. 13 and para. [0065]: data graph showing occupancy signals, which would be populated by the pressure sensor and occupancy of Ko/Horton/Byers).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, the climate controls and remote applications of Ko/Horton/Byers with the graphing/charts of Knapton. One would have been motivated to combine these references because both references disclose climate control dashboard/monitoring, and Knapton further enhances the user experience of Ko/Horton/Byers by allowing users to effortlessly visualize and track the occupancy in an easy-to-read format. This could help the user save time when monitoring the climate conditions, while also allowing them to easily check on the behavior of their pet.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-17 and 20 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. As discussed above, the claim interpretation impacts the rejections of the method claims. Claims 15-17 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and thus require every limitation to occur. Therefore, claim 15 (unlike the conditional method of claim 2) is allowable over the prior art of record. This is because of the various conditions and static behavior of the pet, combined with the durations. Claims 16 and 17 depend from claim 15 and are allowable based on their dependency from otherwise-allowable claim 15. Claim 20 would be allowable over the prior art because of the various data gathered from the sensor plate in combination with the separate mode being triggered.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Klicos whose telephone number is (571)270-5889. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00 AM-5:00 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, Scott Baderman can be reached at (571) 272-3644. 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.
/NICHOLAS KLICOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118