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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 39-59 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,647,733. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim a method of training animal that transmits, measures, stores, and attaches the computerized controller to the animal collar and is worn by the animal. The claims of the instant application are coextensive in scope to the claims of the patented application. Merely eliminating a method step when that step is not desired is not a patentable distinction.
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) 39, 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 55, 56, 57, 59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,232,916 to Grillo et al in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0205898 to Perrine.
Regarding Claims 39, 47, 48, Grillo teaches a method of animal training comprising: transmitting one or more signals from a computerized controller (Grillo Fig. 2 #12) coupled with an animal collar that is removed from an animal to a device separate from the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar (Grillo #22) to prompt a user to position the animal collar with respect to one or more portions of an object (Grillo abstract and Col. 3 line 12-23); measuring one or more positions of the animal collar positioned by the user with respect to the one or more portions of the object utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar that is removed from the animal (Grillo #18; claim 1); storing the one or more positions of the animal collar with respect to the one or more portions of the object measured utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar and the name of the object on at least the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar or the user smart phone; and attaching the animal collar to the animal after measuring the one or more positions of the animal collar positioned by the user (Grillo Col. 3 line 24; claim 1).
Grillo teaches transmitting to a base station, but is silent on explicitly teaching transmitting to a smart phone. However, Perrine teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to communicate/transmit to a smart phone from a dog collar (Perrine abstract and Fig. 7 #72). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Grillo with the teachings of Perrine before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for an integrated remote access system as taught by Perrine. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results and/or the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 41, Grillo as modified teaches storing maps in a microprocessor and a broad interpretation of the claim is the saved map is a boundary and thus the provided name is PMCA (Grillo Col. 3 line 20-21); alternatively, Grillo is silent on explicitly teaching prompting the user using the user smart phone to provide a name of the object. However, the examiner takes official notice that providing a file name i.e. a name of an object in computer files is old and notoriously well-known and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Grillo before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide an efficient file storage. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 42, Grillo as modified teaches measuring the one or more positions of the animal collar positioned by the user with respect to the one or more portions of the object utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar that is removed from the animal includes: utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar that is removed from the animal and positioned by the user to measure a location (Grillo claim 1) and Grillo teaches providing rewards (Grillo Col. 4 line 60) thus a reward that the user hides. Grillo hides a reward at a certain distance from the perimeter.
Regarding Claim 43, Grillo as modified teaches utilizing one or more stimulation components from a plurality of stimulation components coupled with different portions of the animal collar to direct the animal to the reward that the user hid at the measured location of the reward utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal that was removed from the animal (Grillo Col. 4 lines 1-6 these stimulations keeps the animal in the perimeter and thus directs the animal to the reward of the pleasing sound of Col. 4 line 60).
Regarding Claim 45, Grillo as modified is silent on determining that at least one position from the one or more positions of the animal collar positioned by the user is insufficiently defined; and activating one or more stimulation components from a plurality of stimulation components coupled with different portions of the animal collar to indicate to the user that the at one position from the one of the one or more positions of the animal collar are insufficiently defined. However, a GPS position being insufficiently defined is a common occurrence since from weak satellite signals or obstructions. This does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record and the device of Grillo as modified is capable of performing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Grillo before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to ergonomic ease of operation and for user interface. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 49, Grillo as modified is silent on explicitly teaching comprising transmitting one or more sound signals from one or more speakers coupled with the animal collar to prompt the user to position the animal collar with respect to the one or more portions of the object. However, the examiner takes official notice that signals are old and notoriously well-known in instruments to prompt the user (e.g. oven beeps when it reaches the cooking temperature; phones beep when the battery is low; phones ring when a call is coming in; sensors beep after a certain time or threshold). This does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record and the device of Grillo as modified is capable of performing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Grillo before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to ergonomic ease of operation and for user interface. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 50, Grillo as modified teaches measuring the one or more positions of the animal collar positioned by the user with respect to the one or more portions of the object utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar that is removed from the animal includes utilizing time-difference ranging (Grillo Col. 3 line 1-11).
Regarding Claim 51, Grillo as modified teaches measuring the one or more positions of the animal collar positioned by the user with respect to the one or more portions of the object utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar that is removed from the animal includes utilizing at least a GPS signal or an inertial signal (Grillo abstract).
Regarding Claims 55 and 56, Grillo as modified teaches comprising determining a relative distance between the animal collar and the user smart phone (Grillo #22; Perrine #72) utilizing at least the user smart phone or the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar (Grillo Col. 4 lines 55-60; Col. 3 lines 33-44) activating one or more stimulation components from a plurality of stimulation components coupled with different portions of the animal collar based on the relative distance between the animal collar the smart phone (Grillo #22; Perrine #72).
Regarding Claims 57 and 59, Grillo as modified teaches measuring the one or more positions of the animal collar positioned by the user with respect to the one or more portions of the object utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar that is removed from the animal includes measure three or more portions of the object to define a three- dimensional boundary of the object; wherein the plurality of boundary parameters defines a three-dimensional boundary (Grillo Col. 2 line 64-67 uses 24 satellites for the GPS in six orbits of four satellites which thus measure in three-dimensions; Grillo #12 can be positioned in three directions and any of those positions can be stored).
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,232,916 to Grillo et al in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0205898 to Perrine as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0094946 to Giunta.
Regarding Claim 40, Grillo as modified teaches determining that the animal collar is worn by the animal utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar and to transmit a signal from the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar to the user smart phone separate from the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar, but is silent on to prompt the user to remove from the animal the animal collar that is coupled with the computerized controller. However, Giunta teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is well known to remove a collar when the battery is low for recharging and that the collar communicates through signals (Giunta paragraph [0010], [0019] and [0003]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Grillo with the teachings of Giunta before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to charge the battery as taught by Giunta. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 44 and 58 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,232,916 to Grillo et al in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0205898 to Perrine as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,241,923 to Janning.
Regarding Claim 44 and 58, Grillo as modified teaches transmitting the one or more signals from the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar that is removed from the animal to the user smart phone separate from the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar to prompt the user to position the animal collar with respect to the one or more portions of an object includes: transmitting one or more signals from the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar that is removed from the animal to the user smart phone separate from the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar to prompt the user to position the animal collar with respect to a plurality of corners; and measuring the one or more positions of the animal collar positioned by the user with respect to the one or more portions of the object utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar that is removed from the animal includes: measuring a plurality of positions of the animal collar positioned by the user with respect to the plurality of corners utilizing the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar that is removed from the animal (Grillo Fig. 2 positions A to H and Claim 1). Grillo is silent on a piece of furniture. However, Janning teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to select furniture as an alternate boundary when training animal behavior (Janning Col. 8 line 62, Col. 14 line 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Grillo with the teachings of Janning at the time of the invention for indoor boundaries when training and to provide indoor animal control as taught by Janning. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known boundary for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,232,916 to Grillo et al in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0205898 to Perrine as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Toward Cyber-Enhanced Working Dogs for Search and Rescue, Bozhurt et al, IEEE Computer Society, pgs. 32-39, [retrieved from internet 04 January 2021 https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/69 14468/references#references] published 2014.
Regarding Claim 46, Grillo as modified is silent on determining a training session at the computerized controller coupled with the animal collar worn by the animal; and transmitting one or more other signals from the computerized controller to the user smart phone to prompt the user to gather one or more training materials for the training session. However, Bozhurt teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to transmitting a signal from the computerized controller to the user device to prompt the user to provide the reward to the animal (Bozhurt page 33 Col. 3, first paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Grillo with the teachings of Bozhurt before the filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to train a rescue dog as taught by Bozhurt. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 52, 53, 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,232,916 to Grillo et al in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0205898 to Perrine as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0236514 to Johnson et al.
Regarding Claim 52, Grillo as modified is silent on the plurality of boundary parameters depends on one or more time conditions. However, Johnson teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known when remote training an animal that the plurality of boundary parameters depends on one or more time conditions (Johnson paragraph [0075). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Grillo with the teachings of Johnson before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to control barking and train for various environments as taught by Johnson. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 53, Grillo as modified teaches comprising activating one or more stimulation components from a plurality of stimulation components coupled with different portions of the animal collar based on satisfying the one or more time conditions (Johnson paragraph [0084] reward).
Regarding Claim 54, Grillo as modified teaches the plurality of boundary parameters define at least a room or a piece of furniture and satisfying the one or more time conditions includes defining a specific time of day or at time of year that the animal is allowed in the room or on the piece of furniture (Johnson paragraph [0074], [0003], [0015]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to animal training: U.S. Patent No. 6,487,992; U.S. Patent No. 6,923,146; U.S. Patent No. 7,760,137; U.S. Patent No. 10,154,651; U.S. Patent No. 8,312,845.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
27 May 2025