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 Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 19 read “one or more processors; and a memory storing instructions that,
when executed by the one or more processors, cause the collar to:” which should read either “one or more processors, and a memory storing instructions, wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions and cause the collar to:,” or “one or more processors, and a memory storing instructions, wherein the one or more processors are programmed to execute the instructions and cause the collar to:” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 8186310 B1) in view of Everest (US-7385513-B2).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses a collar comprising:
a strap configured to be worn by an animal (dog collar 210);
a communication interface configured to transmit and receive data (See col 3, lines 5-17, see also figs 4-5);
one or more processors (microprocessor, see col 3, lines 5-17); and
a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the collar to:
receive instructions from a user device (cat collar 110) to activate a keep-away mode (see col 3, lines 33-63);
receive distance threshold data indicative of a predetermined distance metric to be maintained between the collar and an animal-adverse device (see col 3, lines 33-51, predetermined distance range)
determine whether the collar is within the predetermined distance metric from the animal-adverse device (see col 3, lines 33-51, predetermined distance range); and
output a keep-away corrective action responsive to determining that the collar is within the predetermined distance metric from the animal-adverse device (shocking component 228 when range is broken, see col 3, lines 52-63).
Smith fails to disclose the collar configured to receive distance threshold data from the user device indicative of a minimum predetermined distance metric to be maintained between the collar and the animal-adverse device, calculate a distance between the collar and the animal adverse device, determine whether the collar is within the minimum predetermined distance metric from the animal-adverse device based on the calculated distance; and adjust the minimum predetermined distance metric upon receipt of instructions of a new distance metric from the user device.
Everest teaches the animal adverse device configured to receive distance threshold data indicative of a minimum predetermined distance metric to be maintained between the collar and the animal-adverse device (user device with distance input, see col 3, lines 1-9), calculate a distance between the collar and the animal adverse device (distance determination, see col 3, lines 41-52), determine whether the collar is within the minimum predetermined distance metric from the animal-adverse device based on the calculated distance (distance determination and comparison to predetermined distance, see col 3, lines 41-52); and adjust the minimum predetermined distance metric upon receipt of instructions of a new distance metric from the user device (multiple input distances, see col 3, lines 53-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system of Smith with the device with user input, adjustment and distance calculation of Everest with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for updates to keep away mode based on the animal and adverse party present to ensure all members are safe and secure.
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except wherein the computation is conducted on the collar device, as Everest teaches the user device for computation. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system with the computation and distance determinations to be conducted on the collar device itself with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow the collar to calculate and maintain distance from several different animal adverse devices at once, thereby increasing its efficacy, and since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 1, and Smith further discloses wherein the animal-adverse device is the user device (cat collar 110).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 1, and Smith further discloses wherein predetermined distance metric is based on a strength of a signal from the animal-adverse device (this is inherent as the collars provide signals and are measured from each other; therefore the signal is stronger as it is closer to the threshold distance).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 1, and Smith further discloses the animal-adverse device (multiple cat collars 110) is one of a plurality of devices associated with respective animal-adverse parties (multiple cat collars, see col 2, lines 59-61), and the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to output a keep-away corrective action responsive to determining that the collar is within the predetermined distance metric from any of the plurality of devices associated with the respective animal-adverse parties (multiple collars, see col 2, lines 59-61).
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 1, and Smith further discloses wherein the keep-away corrective action is at least one of an emission of light, a vibration, output of an audible warning via a speaker of the collar, output of a pre- recorded voice command via the speaker, outputting an electrical shock (shocking component 228 when distance threshold is broken, see col 3, lines 52-63), and spraying a liquid.
Claim(s) 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 8186310 B1) in view of Everest (US-7385513-B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kelly (US-20150373951-A1).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 1, and Smith further discloses the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the collar to: receive a signal from the animal-adverse device (signal between dog collar and cat collar, see col 2, lines 47-61), output the keep-away corrective action responsive to (i) determining that the collar is within the predetermined distance metric from the animal-adverse device (see col 3, lines 33-51), and (ii) determining that the signal is associated with the animal-adverse device (see col 3, lines 33-51).
Smith fails to disclose the signal comprising a unique identifier associated with the animal-adverse device; and determine whether the signal is associated with the animal-adverse device based on a unique identifier.
Kelly the signal comprising a unique identifier associated with the animal-adverse device (unique ID in communication data, see para 0080); and determine whether the signal is associated with the animal-adverse device based on a unique identifier (see para 0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system with the unique identifier of Kelly with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure they are efficiently and securely transmitted and identified to prevent lag which could result in danger to the animal-adverse party.
Regarding claim 6, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 5 and Smith as modified further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to pair with the animal-adverse device and receive the unique identifier from the animal-adverse device (Cat and dog collar have transmitter/receiver signals with each other, see col 2, lines 48-61).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 8186310 B1) in view of Everest (US-7385513-B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of So (US 6135060 A).
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to output the keep-away corrective action further responsive to: receiving an authorization code associated with the animal-adverse device; and confirming that the authorization code is valid.
So teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to output the keep-away corrective action further responsive to (stimulus on collar, see abstract): receiving an authorization code associated with the animal-adverse device (control signal with security code, see abstract) and confirming that the authorization code is valid (checks if security code from signal is the same as the pre-stored code, see abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system with the authorization code as taught by So with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the signals are confirmed to prevent unessential negative stimuli which could confuse the animal and impede training progress.
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 7.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein confirming the authorization code is valid comprises determining whether the authorization code has expired.
So teaches wherein confirming the authorization code is valid comprises determining whether the authorization code has expired (checks if security code is correct, see abstract and col 2, lines 56-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system with checking if the code is still valid or has expired as taught by So with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the signals are confirmed and still active to prevent unessential negative stimuli which could confuse the animal and impede training progress.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 8186310 B1) in view of Everest (US-7385513-B2) and So (US 6135060 A) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Van Curen (US-5636597-A).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 8.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors are further configured to cause the collar to, in response to determining that the authorization code has expired, disable the keep-away mode.
Van Curen teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors are further configured to cause the collar to, in response to determining that the authorization code has expired (expired if outside time reply interval or time reply delay, see col 6, lines 20-41), disable the keep-away mode (disabled mode, see col 5, lines 57-71).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system to disable the keep away mode once the code is expired as taught by Van Curen with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the system is turned off when no longer needed to prevent unessential negative stimuli which could confuse the animal and impede training progress.
Claim(s) 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 8186310 B1) in view of Everest (US-7385513-B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Anderton (US-20170265432-A1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to receive at least one of (i) first geo-fence data indicative of a first predetermined geographical area in which it is permissible for the collar to be located and (ii) second geo-fence data indicative of a second predetermined geographical area in which it is impermissible for the collar to be located.
Anderton teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to receive at least one of (i) first geo-fence data indicative of a first predetermined geographical area in which it is permissible for the collar to be located (permitted zone, para 0008) and (ii) second geo-fence data indicative of a second predetermined geographical area in which it is impermissible for the collar to be located (restricted zone, para 0008, see also para 0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system with data regarding the collars location in permitted and restricted zones as taught by Anderton with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the animal stays within the designated locations and is humanely taught the boundaries of their yard area.
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 11.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to output a first corrective action responsive to determining that: the collar is located (i) inside the first predetermined geographical area and (ii) within a predetermined distance from a boundary of the first predetermined geographical area, and the animal wearing the collar is moving toward the boundary of the first predetermined geographical area.
Anderton teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to output a first corrective action responsive to determining that: the collar is located (i) inside the first predetermined geographical area (the collar can then be synchronized with the user platform wherein the permitted and restricted zones can work in conjunction with the collar to determine the designation of the present location and then react accordingly, paragraph 0008), and (ii) within a predetermined distance from a boundary of the first predetermined geographical area (audio warning when the collar enters a predetermined threshold distance from a restricted zone when in a permitted zone, paragraph 0014), and the animal wearing the collar is moving toward the boundary of the first predetermined geographical area (involve a location detection that the pet is approaching a restricted boundary, the collar 100 can be configured to provide an audible signal, paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system with the boundaries and corrective stimuli of Anderton with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the animal is safely contained with the designated locations and humanely taught the boundaries of their yard area.
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 12.
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to output a second corrective action responsive to determining that the collar is located outside the first predetermined geographical area or the collar is located inside the second predetermined geographical area.
Anderton teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to output a second corrective action responsive to determining that the collar is located outside the first predetermined geographical area or the collar is located inside the second predetermined geographical area (the collar can then be configured to provide a negative stimulus to the pet when the collar is moved from a permitted zone to a restricted zone, paragraph 0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system with the corrective action for being outside the first area or in the second area as taught by Anderton with a reasonable expectation of success because this will ensure the animal is safely contained with the designated locations and humanely taught the boundaries of their yard area.
Claim(s) 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderton (US-20170265432-A1) in view of Landers (US 10172325 B1).
Regarding claim 19, Anderton discloses a collar comprising:
a strap configured to be worn by an animal (100, see fig 1);
a geolocation sensor (location determination sensor, GPS 110, see para 0030 and 0055);
an accelerometer configured to detect motion of the collar (accelerometers see para 0064);
one or more processors (processors, see paras 0010 and 0054-0055); and
a memory storing instructions (computer instructions, see para 0054) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the collar to:
receive geo-fence data indicative of a geographical area in which it is permissible for the collar to be located (permitted and restricted zones, see abstract, threshold distances to boundaries, see para 0014);
determine whether the collar is located beyond a predetermined distance from a perimeter of the geographical area (threshold distances from boundaries, see para 0014-0015, 0031 and 0035);
determining that the collar is located beyond the predetermined distance from the perimeter (location detection with threshold distance, see para 0031 and 0035);
receive motion data from the accelerometer (tracking data, activities, see para 0054, change various modes based on sensed data, including accelerometer, see para 0065).
Anderton fails to explicitly disclose calculate a distance from the collar to a perimeter of the geographical area, determine whether the collar is located beyond a predetermined distance from a perimeter of the geographical area based on the calculated distance, in response to determining that the collar is located beyond the predetermined distance from the perimeter and that the motion data indicates a motion of the collar is below a threshold level of motion, transition the collar to a resting mode; and decrease a frequency of receiving or transmitting data.
Landers teaches a collar (see col 1, lines 37-42), comprising one or more processors (processors, see claim 1); and a memory storing instructions (see claim 1) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the collar to: receive geo-fence data indicative of a geographical area in which it is permissible for the collar to be located (geo-fence boundaries and safe zones, see fig 6); calculate a distance from the collar to a perimeter of the geographical area (calculate dogs position compared to the boundary, see col 15, lines 60-67 and col 16, lines 1-10); determine whether the collar is located beyond a predetermined distance from a perimeter of the geographical area based on the calculated distance (dogs position change from C to D, moving inward from boundary, see col 15, lines 60-67 and col 16, lines 1-10); receive motion data from the sensors (date from inertial sensors to calculate motion, see col 15, lines 60-67); in response to determining that the collar is located beyond the predetermined distance from the perimeter (dogs position change from C to D, moving inward from boundary, see col 15, lines 60-67 and col 16, lines 1-10) and that the motion data indicates a motion of the collar is below a threshold level of motion (decreased sampling during rest or sleep, see col 15, lines 25-30), transition the collar to a resting mode (decreased sampling mode when in safe zone and at rest, also includes a sleep mode); and decrease a frequency of receiving or transmitting data (decreased sampling when reduced motion, see col 15, lines 61-67 and decreased sampling in the safe zone, see col 15, lines 37-43)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system to switch to low power mode when there is not significant motion data and the animal is inward beyond the predetermined distance from the boundary as taught by Landers with a reasonable expectation of success because this will allow for battery conservation due to less frequent data transmission when the animal is safely resting in a specific location and therefore does not need to be as closely monitored and as this will ensure the correct action or mode is activated based on that distance to prevent unintentional stimuli or mode switches which would hinder training of the animal due to confusing signals.
Regarding claim 20, the modified reference teaches the collar of claim 19, and Anderton further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to prevent output of a corrective action (collar can have no output or positive stimulus from sensor 660, see para 0034).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that the combination of Smith and Everest fail to teach “adjust the minimum predetermined distance metric upon receipt of instructions of a new distance metric from the user device.” The Office respectfully disagrees. Applicant states that Everest teaches “a one-time configuration of a multi-threshold stimulus profile, not a dynamic reconfiguration of a single minimum distance threshold based on new user instructions received during operation.” However, the claim does not specify the order or timing of the sending of the distance instructions, or the frequency, and therefore does not require that the sending of new distance instructions occur after another step or after a certain duration.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 19-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regards to claim 1, Applicant argues that the combination of Smith and Everest fails to teach the claimed invention as the system of Everest conducts the calculations, distance determinations and such on the user device as opposed to on the collar device. However, as seen above, it would be obvious to reverse this to have the computation on the collar device as this will allow the collar to be independently connected to several animal adverse user devices at once, thereby increasing its effectiveness.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments of claims 19-20, these are moot as a new reference has been brought in to explicitly teach the distance to boundary calculation, and determining that the animal (and collar) are moving inward beyond the boundary, and the low power mode.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14-18 are allowed due to the filing and approval of the Terminal Disclaimer.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In regards to independent claim 14, the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious a collar operating in a lost mode and determining a selected return path to the first predetermined geographical area, the selected return path being selected from among a plurality of return paths, the selected return path being a path traveled most frequently by the wearer of the collar compared to any other path of the plurality of return paths. The closest prior art of record regarding the lost mode, Marmen (US 20170135315 A1), teaches a return path being based on a path previously traveled by the wearer of the collar (previously walked path, see para 0120) and instructing, via one or more corrective actions, the wearer of the collar to orient itself in a direction to follow the return path (directing animals along the saved path, see para 0170).
Marmen fails to teach the path being selected from among a plurality of return paths, and the selected return path being a path traveled most frequently by the wearer of the collar compared to any other path of the plurality of return paths. Shen (US 9661827 B1) teaches a plurality of return paths, but again fails to teach the selected return path being a path traveled most frequently by the wearer of the collar compared to any other path of the plurality of return paths.
Claims 15-18 are allowed by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above, exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Landers (10342218) which teaches a dog collar system including a safe zone and several borders.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on (571) 270-5301. 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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights