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 .
Response to Arguments
Species III is elect with traverse.
Applicant states that Species I, II, III, and IV are independent and distinct. Applicant notes that Claims 18 and 19, which are part of the elected claim (Clm 1-3 and 10-13, 16-19) set overlaps with that in Species I (Clm 1-3, 4-8).
Hence, Species I and III will be examined (Claims 1-3, 4-8, 10-13, and 16-19), however Species II and IV will remain withdrawn and not examined. The limitations directed to Species II and IV are mutually distinct (See restriction requirement filed 7/25/25) and would require further search and new references to address the respective limitations as they branch off and are directed to different aspects of the invention. In addition explanation in the previous restriction requirement, examiner notes that the requirement for a different search strategy and the need for different references clearly shows burden as the references provided do not teach what is claimed. They have no overlapping features with the elected claim set and, as stated by applicant, are Independent and distinct.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bland (US 20220201977) in view of Mincher (US 8913955) and in further view of Rothbaum (2011/0192857).
Regarding Claim 1, Bland teaches a system comprising: a transmitter having a human machine interface (Fig.6, HMI -buttons) Par.42 and Par.22, pet collar -receiver and Par.11, voice -noise and vibration); the receiver having a first state and a second state (Par.22, remote control may be paired, so 2 states are known… unpaired or paired); Par.22, Par.42, using a command…signal sent via a remote control. Once received, the command triggers the pet collar to generate a vibration, alert, or other stimuli along with an audible command); While Bland teaches the devices are paired, Bland does not teach expressly teach the receiver having a proximity sensor, the receiver being configured to change from the first state to the second state in response to detection of a magnetic field by the proximity sensor; the transmitter being pairable with the receiver when the receiver is in the second state.
Mincher teaches a transmitter with a plurality of magnets (Fig.5, second device 104 and magnets 112. Col.2:line 50-51, second device 104 such as a remote control); and a receiver (Fig.5;102) having a proximity sensor (Col.2:lines 49-67, Col.3:lines 48-63, Col.4:lines 55-61, receiver 102, magnetic/proximity sensor in both devices pairing), the receiver being configured to change from the first state to the second state in response to detection of a magnetic field by the proximity sensor (Col.2:lines 49-67, Col.3:lines 48-63, Col.4:lines 55-61, initiates pair process, unpaired 1st state and pairing 2nd state); the transmitter being pairable with the receiver when the receiver is in the second state (Col.2:lines 49-67, Col.3:lines 48-63, Col.4:lines 55-61, proximity sensor may be used in each device to initiate the pairing process on the respective device, both devices are pairable when pairing process starts). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Blands transmitter (remote control) and the receiver (dog collar) to be paired according to the well-known teachings of Mincher where the two devices utilize magnetic/proximity sensors to provide an enhanced system which can be easily paired, thereby improving the user experience (Mincher Col.5:lines 25-33). However, the combination of Bland and Mincher does not expressly teach the transmitter being magnetically couplable to a user device by the plurality of magnets
Rothbaum teaches that it is very well known in the art to connect devices via magnets (Par.9, attachment mechanism…magnets) to a user device (Par.11-Par.13) so that the devices don’t get lost or misplaced (Par.4). A skilled artisan would immediately recognize that you could simply connect/attach the remote control with plural magnets as taught by the combination of Bland and Mincher to the back of Rothbaums phone case which is partially magnetic and/or metallic (Par.11). The combination fully addresses the limitation “transmitter being magnetically couplable to a user device by the plurality of magnets”. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify Bland and Minchers transmitter (remote control) such that it can be magnetically connectable to a user device by the plural magnets as taught by Rothbaum such that an enhanced device is provided to a user where the transmitter (remote control) can be attached to the users phone to minimize misplacing the device (Rothbuam Par.4).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Bland and Mincher teaches the transmitter includes a radiofrequency transmitter, the receiver includes a radiofrequency receiver, the radiofrequency transmitter being pairable with the radiofrequency receiver when the receiver is in the second state (Bland Par.22, Par.12, using a command…signal sent via a remote control. Once received, the command triggers the pet collar to generate a vibration, alert, or other stimuli along with an audible command). (Mincher Col.2:lines 49-67, Col.3:lines 48-63, Col.4:lines 55-61, proximity sensor may be used in each device to initiate the pairing process on the respective device, both devices are pairable when pairing process starts).
Regarding Claim 3, Bland teaches the radiofrequency transmitter and the radiofrequency receiver each operate at 433MHz (Bland Par.22, Par.12, Par.43, may utilize RF 433 MHZ).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bland (US 20220201977), Mincher (US 8913955), and Rothbaum (2011/0192857) in further view of in further view of Chen (US 9075576).
Regarding Claim 4, Bland teaches the human machine interface incudes a button assembly (Fig.6), the button assembly including an input sensor (Fig.6 and Par.42, button press hence input sensor inherent), a first contact pad (Fig.6: bottom 601) spaced from the input sensor (Fig.6 and Par.42, bottom 601 and input sensor are different elements, hence separated), however Bland, Mincher, and Rothbaum do not expressly teach a second contact pad between the first contact pad and the input sensor.
Chen teaches that it is well-known in the art to have a button assembly (Fig.9A and Fig.10, 305, button/key), the button assembly including an input sensor (Fig.9a:700 and Col.5lines 51-57, dome 700 is input sensor), a first contact pad (Fig.5:310 and Fig.9a:310) spaced from the input sensor (Fig.9a, central axis is imaginary line starting where the line 310 points to and first contact 310 and input sensor 700 are separated), and a second contact pad (Fig.5:410) between the first contact pad and the input sensor (Fig.9a:700).
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Bland, Mincher, and Rothbaum with Chen such that the button assembly has a second contact pad incorporated between the first contact pad and the input sensor as taught by Chen to provide an enhanced device that provides a softer tactile feel and protection (Chen, Col.6:lines 24-39:dust and water protection; Col.6:lines 41-50, softer feel)
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bland (US 20220201977), Mincher (US 8913955), Rothbaum (2011/0192857), and Chen (US 9075576) in further view of Horie (US 20030122698).
Regarding Claim 5, Bland further teaches the human machine interface includes a button assembly (Fig.6 and Par.41-42) however the combination of Bland, Mincher, and Rothbaum a single button assembly.
Horie teaches that it is well known in the art for a transmitter (remote control) to have a single button assembly (Fig.2:8, only a single button). Horie further teaches that the remote control can be in various shapes (Par.100). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the shape/form of the transmitter (remote control) shown in Bland (Fig.6) by implementing the structural features taught by Horie to be in a circular single button assembly form.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify Bland, Mincher, and Rothbaum with Horie as such a substitution would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success, since the modifications are within routine design choices and do not require undue experimentation and can provide the user with a preferred easy to use design.
Regarding Claim 6, the combined teachings of the above references further teaches the noise generator and the vibration motor are each operable by a single button press (Bland: Par.42 and Par.38:14-19, plays voice command along with a vibration) and can be a single button assembly (Horie Fig.2:8).
Regarding Claims 7-8, Chen further teaches the first contact pad (Chen: Col.3:lines 5-8 and Col.5:lines 41-56, actuators 310 are part sheet 300 and are hard) or the second contact pad is rigid (optional, no patentable weight given) and the other of the first contact pad (optional, no patentable weight given) or the second contact pad is resilient (Chen: Col.3:lines 1-5 and Col.6:lines 1-6, second contact pad layer 400 is flexible/resilient).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bland (US 20220201977), Mincher (US 8913955) and Rothbaum (2011/0192857) in further view of Horie (US 20030122698)
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Bland, Mincher, and Rothbaum do not expressly teach the transmitter includes a top section and a central axis, the top section having an opening extending radially from the central axis.
Horie teaches that it is well known in the art for a transmitter (remote control) to include a top section (Fig.2: element 1) and a central axis (Fig.2, triangle represents where the central axis would be), the top section having an opening extending radially from the central axis (Fig.4:9, opening1, Fig.4:13, opening2). Horie further teaches that the remote control can be in various shapes (Par.100). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the shape/form of the transmitter (remote control) shown in Bland (Fig.6) by implementing the structural features taught by Horie.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify Bland, Mincher, and Rothbaum with Horie as such a substitution would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success, since the modifications are within routine design choices and do not require undue experimentation and can provide the user with a preferred easy to use design..
Regarding Claim 11, Horie further teaches the top section includes a top flange (Fig2:I flange or Fig.2:I+Fig.2:7 flange) and a side extending downwardly (Fig.2:4, points to downward section) from the top flange and extending continuously around the central axis (Fig.2), the top flange extending inwardly from the side toward the central axis, the top flange defining the opening (Fig2:I flange or Fig.2:I+Fig.2:7 flange toward central axis and defines opening).
Regarding Claim 12, Horie further teaches the human machine interface is disposed within the opening (Fig.2:8 is HMI or Fig.2:8+Fig.2:7 combined is the HMI).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bland (US 20220201977), Mincher (US 8913955), Rothbaum (2011/0192857), and Horie (US 20030122698) in further view of Backus (US 20210314430).
Regarding Claim 13, Bland, Mincher, Rothbaum, and Horie teaches the transmitter includes a bottom section (Fig.2), the bottom section having an outer edge (Fig.2:4 points to edge), however the combination above does not expressly teach a channel extending continuously around the bottom section adjacent the outer edge, the plurality of magnets being arranged in the channel.
Backus teaches that it is very well known for a circular accessory (Fig.3:105) which can be magnetically connected to a user equipment (Fig.3:100, image on right handside) to have a channel extending continuously around the bottom section adjacent the outer edge (Par.53, Par.9, peripheral channel, Fig.9:140, has channel/groove), the plurality of magnets being arranged in the channel (Par.53, Fig.9:135, Fig.16:135, channel/groove holds magnet and is encapsulated by 105). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify the combined teachings of Bland, Mincher, Rothbaum, and Horie such that the transmitter (remote control) has a channel along the bottom perimeter where it can connect to the user equipment as taught by Backus as a an obvious design choice to conform to the latest design trends in order to increase demand (Backus Par.16, conform w/ MagSafe).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie (US 20030122698) in further view of Backus (US 20210314430).
Regarding Claim 16, Horie teaches an assembly comprising: a housing having a top section (Fig.2, top), a bottom section (Fig.2, bottom), and a central axis (Fig.2, central axis by triangle in middle); the top section having an opening extending radially from the central axis (Fig.4:9, opening1, Fig.4:13, opening2); a human machine interface, the human machine interface being disposed within the opening (Fig.2:8 is HMI or Fig.2:8+Fig.2:7 combined is the HMI); a base supported on the bottom section (Fig.2, must have a base), the base including a radio frequency transmitter (Fig.7,10, interpreted as the base includes (i.e. contains) the tx10). However Horie does not expressly teach the bottom section having a channel extending continuously around the central axis; and a plurality of magnets supported by the bottom section, the plurality of magnets being arranged within the channel.
Backus teaches that it is well known for a circular accessory (Fig.3:105) which can be magnetically connected to a user equipment (Fig.3:100, image on right hand side) to have a channel extending continuously around the bottom section adjacent the outer edge (Par.53, Par.9, peripheral channel, Fig.9:140, has channel/groove), the plurality of magnets being arranged in the channel (Par.53, Fig.9:135, Fig.16:135, channel/groove holds magnet and is encapsulated by 105). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combined teachings of Horie such that the assembly (remote control – circular accessory) has a channel along the bottom perimeter where it can attach to the user equipment as taught by Backus as an obvious design choice to design a remote control that can attach to a user equipment (phone) so misplacement of the assembly can be reduced while conforming to the latest design trends in order to increase demand (Backus Par.16, conform w/ Mag Safe).
Regarding Claim 17, Backus teaches the housing is magnetically couplable to a user device by the plurality of magnets (Fig.3).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie (US 20030122698) and Backus (US 20210314430) in further view of Chen (US 9075576).
Regarding Claim 18, Horie and Backus teaches the human machine interface includes a button assembly (Horie Fig.4), the button assembly including an input sensor (Fig.4:6a), a first contact pad (Fig.4:8, bottom side is interpreted as first contact pad) spaced from the input sensor on the central axis (Par.71-72 and Fig.4: button 8 is separate from 6a and requires pressing to cause selection), however does not expressly teach a second contact pad between the first contact pad and the input sensor.
Chen teaches that it is well-known in the art to have a button assembly (Fig.9A and Fig.10, 305, button/key), the button assembly including an input sensor (Fig.9a:700 and Col.5lines 51-57, dome 700 is input sensor), a first contact pad (Fig.5:310 and Fig.9a:310) spaced from the input sensor on the central axis (Fig.9a, central axis is imaginary line starting where the line 310 points to and first contact 310 and input sensor 700 are separated), and a second contact pad (Fig.5:410) between the first contact pad and the input sensor (Fig.9a:700). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Horie and Backus with Chen such that the button assembly has a second contact pad incorporated between the first contact pad and the input sensor as taught by Chen to provide an enhanced device that provides a softer tactile feel and protection (Chen, Col.6:lines 24-39:dust and water protection; Col.6:lines 41-50, softer feel)
Regarding Claim 19, The assembly of claim 18, wherein the first contact pad (Chen: Col.3:lines 5-8 and Col.5:lines 41-56, actuators 310 are part sheet 300 and are hard) or the second contact pad is rigid (optional, no patentable weight given) and the other of the first contact pad (optional, no patentable weight given) or the second contact pad is resilient (Chen: Col.3:lines 1-5 and Col.6:lines 1-6, second contact pad layer 400 is flexible/resilient).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY LEO KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7867. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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.
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.
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648