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 § 103
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.
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, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over U.S. Patent No. 10,091,972 to Jensen et al in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0011146
to Kates and U.S. Patent No. 2015/0168365 to Connor.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Jensen teaches an animal interaction apparatus, comprising:
a tray (Jensen #103), at least one feedback device (Jensen Col. 8 lines 9-42; Col. 30 lines 54-
59; Col. 31 lines 9-14); at least one camera (Jensen #443); an optical animal food identification
device, the optical animal food identification device determining the contents of the tray (Jensen
Col. 14 lines 45-64; Jensen teaches the type of food is identified, what is in the tray; "optical
animal food identification device" could merely be a human eye without any additional structure
claimed); a computer in communication (Jensen Col. 4 lines 55-67; Col. 5 lines 1-67) with the feedback device and the at least one camera, the computer estimating the animal's position
(Jensen #441) and providing feedback to the animal via the feedback device; and the feedback
based at least in part on the contents of the tray (Jensen Col.7 Line 46-60; #215).
Jensen is silent on the at least one feedback device located on an animal. However,
Kates teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide
a feedback device on the animal (Kates #102; paragraph [0045] computer #103 communicates
with #102 collar on dog; paragraph [0049]) and to a human (Kates #112 cell phone). It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jensen with the
teachings of Kates before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable
expectation of success to provide positive reinforcement and/or training as taught by Kates. The
modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for
improvement to yield predictable results.
Jensen as modified teaches identifying the food optically (Jensen Col. 14 line 45-65), but
is silent on explicitly identifying the food while in the tray and an optical animal food identification device comprising a light source of a known intensity and reflectivity measuring device determining an amount of food in the tray based on the reflectivity of the tray. However, Connor teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide an optical identification device that determines the contents of a tray, with an optical animal food identification device comprising a light source of a known intensity and reflectivity measuring device determining an amount of food in the tray based on the reflectivity of the tray (Connor abstract, paragraph [0121], [0149] spectroscopy, [0163]-[0165], [0101] amount of food; Fig. 12 #1201 and #1001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teaching of Jensen with the teaching of Connor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a weight management tool as taught by Connor. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 4, Jensen as modified teaches determining the contents of the tray
comprises determining the quantity of food dispensed (Jensen Col. 13 lines 25-44).
Regarding Claim 5, Jensen as modified teaches the feedback comprises instructions to
the animal to exercise (Jensen Col. 30 lines 1-23; italics indicates function and these are
apparatus claims and the claim merely claims the structure of instructions; Kates paragraph
[0096], [0097], element #102).
Regarding Claim 6, Jensen as modified teaches the computer determines whether the
animal exercised (Jensen #453 activity sensor; Col. 25 lines 5-19; Kates paragraph [0050)).
Regarding Claim 7, Jensen as modified teaches the instructions comprise audio
instructions (Jensen Col. 29 lines 54-65; Col. 13 lines 1-15).
Regarding Claim 8, Jensen as modified teaches the instructions comprise video
instructions (Jensen Col. 29 lines 54-65; Col. 13 lines 1-15).
Regarding Claim 9, Jensen as modified teaches the instructions comprise a scent
(Jensen #447, smell sensor; in addition, the scent of the food or treat in the dish is an indicator
to eat; applicant hasn't claimed a specific sent nor how the sent is structurally generated; Kates
paragraph [0012]).
Claim(s) 10-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent No. 10,091,972 to Jensen et al in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0011146 to
Kates, US. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0168365 to Connor and PCT WO 2015/101992 to Weisberg et al.
Regarding Claims 10 and 11, Jensen teaches an animal interaction apparatus,
comprising: a food tray (Jensen #103), at least one feedback device (Jensen Col. 8 lines 9-42;
Col. 30 lines 54- 59; Col. 31 lines 9-14); at least one camera (Jensen #443); an optical animal
food identification device, (Jensen Col. 14 lines 45-64; Jensen teaches the type of food is
identified, what is in the tray; "optical animal food identification device" could merely be a human
eye without any additional structure claimed); a computer in communication (Jensen Col. 4 lines
55-67; Col. 5 lines 1-67) with the feedback device and the at least one camera, the computer
providing feedback to the animal via the feedback device; and the feedback based at least in
part on the contents of the tray (Jensen Col.7 Line 46-60; #215).
Jensen is silent on the at least one feedback device located on an animal. However,
Kates teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide
a feedback device on the animal (Kates #102; paragraph [0045] computer #103 communicates
with #102 collar on dog; paragraph [0049]) and to a human (Kates #112 cell phone). It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jensen with the
teachings of Kates before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable
expectation of success to provide positive reinforcement and/or training as taught by Kates. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for
improvement to yield predictable results.
Jensen as modified teaches identifying the food optically (Jensen Col. 14 line 45-65), but
is silent on explicitly identifying the food while in the tray and an optical animal food identification device comprising a light source of a known intensity and reflectivity measuring device determining an amount of food in the tray based on the reflectivity of the tray. However, Connor teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide an optical identification device that determines the contents of a tray, with an optical animal food identification device comprising a light source of a known intensity and reflectivity measuring device determining an amount of food in the tray based on the reflectivity of the tray (Connor abstract, paragraph [0121], [0149] spectroscopy, [0163]-[0165], [0101] amount of food; Fig. 12 #1201 and #1001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teaching of Jensen with the teaching of Connor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a weight management tool as taught by Connor. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Jensen as modified teaches food identification sensor (Jensen Col. 5 line 55; bowl
sensor #215; Connor spectroscopy which could inherently incorporate LEDs), but is silent on explicitly teaching the optical food identification device comprises two LEDS emitting different wavelengths. However, Weisberg teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide an optical food identification device comprises a light source and a reflectivity measuring device two LEDS emitting different wavelengths (Weisberg abstract; Fig. 13; page 39 lines 1-5; page 78 lines 15-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jensen with the teachings of Weisberg before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to determine food safety, amount of meat, food quality and/or energy efficient light source. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known light source/sensor for another to obtain predictable results.
Jensen as modified teaches an optical sensor; at least two LEDs emitting different
wavelengths on a surface of the tray; a computer processor operably coupled to the optical
animal food identification device, the computer processor determining the contents of the food
tray (Weisberg page 39 lines 1-4; Connor abstract).
Regarding Claim 12, Jensen as modified teaches an expected reflectivity range of the
tray is calibrated under different conditions (Weisberg page 6 line 29; page 7 lines 1-7).
Regarding Claim 13, Jensen as modified teaches one of the different conditions is a wet
tray (Jensen Col. 7 lines 45-67; Weisberg abstract; page 78 lines 15-18, these are apparatus
claims and the structure of Jensen as modified by the sensor of Weisberg satisfies the limitation
of the claims).
Regarding Claim 14, Jensen as modified teaches one of the at least two LEDs emits red
wavelengths and another of the at least two LEDs emits green or blue wavelengths, and the tray
is determined to be wet by a high level of absorption of the red wavelengths and a low level of
absorption of the green or blue wavelengths. (Weisberg page 39 lines 1-4)
Regarding Claim 16, Jensen as modified teaches one of the different conditions is a dirty
tray (Jensen Col. 30 lines 54-58 and Table 6).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent
No. 10,091,972 to Jensen et al in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0011146 to Kates, US. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0168365 to Connor and PCT WO 2015/101992 to Weisberg et al as applied to claims 10, 12, 13, 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,363,886 to Statton.
Regarding Claim 15, Jensen as modified is silent on when the tray is determined to be
wet, a drying function is triggered. However, Statton teaches the general knowledge of one of
ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a heater on a feeder that is capable of
performing a drying function (Statton Col. 2 line 9-11). It would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jensen with the teachings of Statton
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success
to us in cold climates as taught by Statton. The modification is merely the application of a known
technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The claims are apparatus claims and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the
apparatus with the apparatus of the dryer of Statton.
Claim(s) 17, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent No. 10,091,972 to Jensen et al in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2006/0011146 to
Kates, US. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0168365 to Connor and PCT WO 2015/101992 to Weisberg et al as applied to claims 10, 12, 13 above, and further in view of United Kingdom Patent GB 2454658 to Friedmann.
Regarding Claim 17, Jensen teaches an animal interaction apparatus, comprising: a tray
(Jensen #103), at least one feedback device (Jensen Col. 8 lines 9-42; Col. 30 lines 54- 59; Col.
31 lines 9-14); at least one camera (Jensen #443); an optical animal food identification device,
the optical animal food identification device determining the contents of the tray (Jensen Col. 14
lines 45-64; Jensen teaches the type of food is identified, what is in the tray; "optical animal food
identification device" could merely be a human eye without any additional structure claimed); a
computer in communication (Jensen Col. 4 lines 55-67; Col. 5 lines 1-67) with the feedback
device and the at least one camera, the computer estimating the animal's position (Jensen
#441) and providing feedback to the animal via the feedback device; and the feedback based at
least in part on the contents of the tray (Jensen Col.7 Line 46-60; #215).
Jensen is silent on the at least one feedback device located on an animal. However,
Kates teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide
a feedback device on the animal (Kates #102; paragraph [0045] computer #103 communicates
with #102 collar on dog; paragraph [0049]) and to a human (Kates #112 cell phone). It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Jensen with the
teachings of Kates before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable
expectation of success to provide positive reinforcement and/or training as taught by Kates. The
modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for
improvement to yield predictable results.
Jensen as modified teaches identifying the food optically (Jensen Col. 14 line 45-65), but
is silent on explicitly identifying the food while in the tray and an optical animal food identification device comprising a light source of a known intensity and reflectivity measuring device determining an amount of food in the tray based on the reflectivity of the tray. However, Connor teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide an optical identification device that determines the contents of a tray, with an optical animal food identification device comprising a light source of a known intensity and reflectivity measuring device determining an amount of food in the tray based on the reflectivity of the tray (Connor abstract, paragraph [0121], [0149] spectroscopy, [0163]-[0165], [0101] amount of food; Fig. 12 #1201 and #1001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teaching of Jensen with the teaching of Connor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a weight management tool as taught by Connor. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Jensen as modified teaches food identification sensor (Jensen Col. 5 line 55; bowl
sensor #215), but is silent on explicitly teaching the optical food identification device comprises
a light source and a reflectivity measuring device, two LEDs emitting different wavelengths.
However, Weisberg teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is
known to provide an optical food identification device comprises a light source and a reflectivity
measuring device two LEDs emitting different wavelengths (Weisberg abstract; Fig. 13; page 39 lines 1-5; page 78 lines 15-18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Jensen with the teachings of Weisberg before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to determine food safety, amount of meat, food quality and/or energy efficient light source. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known light/sensor for another to obtain predictable results.
Jensen as modified teaches an animal interaction apparatus and the feedback device
providing positive feedback in the way of a food reward when the animal substantially follows
the instructions, and the computer adjusting a quantity of the food reward the animal receives
based on identification by the optical animal food identification device of characteristics of the
food being presented (Jensen Col. 24 lines 41-43; Kates paragraph [0008], [0050]); the
computer determines whether the animal exercised (Jensen #453 activity sensor; Col. 25 lines
5-19; Kates paragraph [0050]; Kates paragraph [0096], [0097], element #102)) adjusting the amount of food in the tray based on weight of the animal (Jensen Col. 25 lines 5-19; abstract).
Jensen as modified is silent on a weight management device comprising a pad
operably connected to the animal interaction device and providing positive feedback to the
animal in the way of a food reward when the animal substantially follows the exercise
instructions and steps on the pad, and the computer adjusting a quantity of the food reward the
animal receives based on a weight of the animal. However, Friedman teaches the general
knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art when providing a smart automatic feeder it is known
to provide a weight management device comprising a pad operably connected to the animal interaction device and providing positive feedback to the animal in the way of a food reward
when the animal substantially follows the exercise instructions and steps on the pad, and the
computer adjusting a quantity of the food reward the animal receives based on a weight of the
animal (Friedman Fig. 1 #41 and #11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to further modify the teachings of Jensen with the teachings of Friedman before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for automated care
as taught by Friedman. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a
known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 19, Jensen as modified teaches the instructions comprise audio
instructions (Jensen Col. 29 lines 54-65; Col. 13 lines 1-15).
Regarding Claim 20, Jensen as modified teaches the instructions comprise video
instructions (Jensen Col. 29 lines 54-65; Col. 13 lines 1-15).
Regarding Claim 18, Jensen as modified teaches the instructions comprise a scent
(Jensen #447, smell sensor; in addition, the scent of the food or treat in the dish is an indicator
to eat; applicant hasn't claimed a specific sent nor how the sent is structurally generated; Kates
paragraph [0012]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 3-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
09 March 2026