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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-4, 6-20 are pending, claims 1-4, 6-12 have been examined in this application. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-3, 6-7, 9-10, 12 are amended, claim 4, 8, 11 is original, claim 5 is cancelled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 12/22/2023 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I claims 1-12 in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (CN 112205317 A) to Sun.
In regards to claim 1, Sun anticipates one or more wearable devices configured to be worn by an animal and operable to stimulate said animal, the one or more wearable devices together comprising: an animal activity sensing device configured to sense animal activity data indicative of an initiation of, or an occurrence of, voiding by said animal (Sun; the pet training device having a judging mechanism for judging whether the pet has excreted); at least one stimulus device operable to administer at least one form of stimulus to the animal (Sun; vibrator, loudspeaker; administering a vibration or soft music); and a controller configured to determine the initiation of, or an occurrence of, voiding based on the activity data (Sun; control circuit board connected to the vibrator, the judging mechanism judges the pet is to be excreted, the area detecting mechanism detects that the pet is not in the virtual area, the interference mechanism works, interfering pet excretion, so that it cannot be excreted; see machine translation), and in response: determine an animal orientation based on animal activity data sensed by the activity sensing device (Sun; “the area detecting mechanism detects the pet is not in the virtual area” or “the area detecting mechanism detects that the pet is in the virtual area”); operate the at least one stimulus device to thereby apply a moving stimulus to one ear of the of the animal to thereby encourage the animal to re-orient (Sun; “interference mechanism works, interfering pet excretion, so that it cannot be excreted” the vibration; or “loudspeaker to play the soft music, prompting the pet to enter the virtual area”); and continue to operate the at least one stimulus device to thereby apply the moving stimulus until the controller has determined the animal has re-oriented (Sun; “the pet is in the virtual area, the interference mechanism keeps the non-working state, does not affect excretion of the pet”; the interference mechanism is in a working state when the location is not within the virtual area, and then swaps to a non-working state when in the virtual area).
In regards to claim 4, Sun anticipates the one or more wearable devices as claimed in claim 1, wherein the activity sensing device comprises at least one of: an inertial measurement unit, an accelerometer, a device configured to determine animal orientation, and a device configured to determine movement (Sun; has a gyroscope (detects orientation/angular velocity area detecting mechanism to detect the location of the pet with respect to the virtual area, see machine translation), .
In regards to claim 6, Sun anticipates the one or more wearable devices as claimed in claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to: determine the initiation of or occurrence of voiding by said animal (Sun; “the judging mechanism judges that the pet is to be excreted”), and in response, operate the at least one stimulus device to thereby apply the moving stimulus to the animal to thereby encourage the animal to move, turn, or re-orient in order to increase the void area (Sun; “interference mechanism works, interfering pet excretion, so that it cannot be excreted” the vibration; or “loudspeaker to play the soft music, prompting the pet to enter the virtual area” the virtual area being the void area, where stimulus is applied to direct the animal to the virtual area and is encouraged to orient itself with respect to the virtual area such that the animal can excrete; size of the virtual area can be increased or decreased based on the positions of the locating columns; see machine translation).
In regards to claim 7, Sun anticipates the one or more wearable devices as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a position sensing device configured to determine a location of said animal (Sun; area detecting mechanism detects that the pet is/is not in the virtual area; gyroscope; detects location with respect to the virtual area).
In regards to claim 8, Sun anticipates the one or more wearable devices as claimed in claim 7, wherein the controller is configured to receive a list of predetermined target locations appropriate for the animal to void (Sun; the virtual area; this being with respect to locating columns and can be a urine pad, a rectangular basin filled with cat excrement).
In regards to claim 9, Sun anticipates the one or more wearable devices as claimed in claim 8, wherein the controller is further configured to determine if the animal is not initiating voiding or voiding (Sun; “the judging mechanism judges that the pet is to be excreted”); and determine if the location of said animal matches a predetermined target location (Sun; “the area detecting mechanism detects that the pet is in the virtual area”), and if so: operate the at least one stimulus device to apply a cueing stimulus to the animal (Sun; “loudspeaker to play the soft music, prompting the pet to enter the virtual area”).
In regards to claim 10, Sun anticipates the one or more wearable device as claimed in claim 9, wherein the controller is further configured to determine the animal is initiating voiding or voiding based on the animal activity data sensed from the activity sensing device (Sun; “the judging mechanism judges that the pet is to be excreted”); determine if the location of said animal is at the predetermined target location (Sun; “the area detecting mechanism detects that the pet is in the virtual area”); and if so operate the at least one stimulus device to apply a training stimulus to the animal (Sun; “loudspeaker to play the soft music, prompting the pet to enter the virtual area”).
In regards to claim 11, Sun anticipates the one or more wearable devices as claimed in claim 10, wherein the cueing stimulus and training stimulus are the same or substantially the same stimulus (Sun; “loudspeaker to play the soft music, prompting the pet to enter the virtual area”; the soft music being both a training stimulus to train the pet to know to excrete at a specific area, as well as a cueing stimulus to let a pet know they can excrete at a certain position rather than being interfered with).
In regards to claim 12, Sun anticipates the one or more wearable devices as claimed in claim 8, wherein the target location is one or more selected from: a location comprising nitrogen or other chemically deficient areas; a location comprising carbon-rich soil; a location comprising a preferred soil macro-porosity; an environmentally friendlier location than the animal's current location; a location which is higher than the current location, or of a minimum height; a location comprising lower quality pasture; a location comprising an effluent catchment area or like location; a milking shed, yard, or part thereof; a stand-off pad; and a urine collection area (Sun; urine collecting area such as “rectangular urine pad” or “rectangular basin filled with cat excrement”).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (CN 112205317 A) to Sun in view of (US 20180235182 A1) to Bockneck.
In regards to claim 2, Sun teaches the one or more wearable devices as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising a collar configured to be worn around the neck of said animal.
Bockneck teaches further comprising a collar configured to be worn around the neck of said animal (Bockneck; 260, in addition to 250).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Sun such that it additionally uses a collar in addition to its tail device such as taught by Bockneck. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for the user to collect information through various sensors on the body of the animal which are in communication with each other to determine biological signals to estimate the animal’s condition for training before communicating with the base station.
In regards to claim 3, Sun as modified by Bockneck teachesthe one or more wearable devices as claimed in claim 2, further comprising a tail device configured to be worn proximal to, or on, said animal's tail (Sun; pet training device is worn on or proximal to the animal’s tail) (Bockneck; 250 is a tail piece), and to wirelessly communicate to the collar device (Bockneck; [0145-0146] where the collar and tail piece are paired to communicate wirelessly, see FIG 2B), wherein the tail device comprises a tail controller and data transmission device (Sun; control circuit board; wireless receiving module connected with the control circuit board to communicate with the wireless emitting module installed in the locating columns) (Bockneck; [0069-0076] the wearable supports both having transmitters for transmitting signals), the tail controller configured to: receive the animal activity data from the activity sensing device (Sun; the pet training device having a judging mechanism for judging whether the pet has excreted) (Bockneck; [0075] second sensor for sensing second biological attribute and generating a second signal); and operate the data transmission device to send the animal activity data to the collar device (Bockneck; [0076] transmitting the second signal; see also [0077-0079] where the signals are transmitted between the tail piece and the collar).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the differences with respect to the instant application and Sun, and argues that “Sun’s gyroscope determines voiding posture, not the animal’s orientation or heading, and sun never uses any sensor output to drive the animal toward a new orientation or to determine that the animal has re-oriented. Sun’s only conditional feedback is the pet’s location relative to the virtual area; Sun has no variable representing the animal’s orientation and makes no determination that re-orientation has occurred.” And argues later that the mapping of “continue until re-oriented” to the music ceasing or the interference mechanism switching state on entry to the virtual area conflates a location transition with an orientation determination.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and asserts that Sun’s gyroscope determining voiding posture and positioning with respect to the virtual area teaches the claimed limitation of determining orientation. Though applicant argues that location and orientation are being conflated, it is noted that the definition of “Orientation” as can be found on Dictionary.com is “one's position in relation to true north, to points on the compass, or to a specific place or object.” In this instance, the position of the animal is being monitored with respect to the virtual area. The claim language currently as-written does not require the applicant’s argued ‘compass heading’ – whereby the animal is detected to be facing a certain direction, and therefore the claim language is not currently limited to this interpretation.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the orientation being associated with a compass heading of the animal) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant additionally argues that “Sun does not disclose applying a stimulus to one ear. Sun’s vibrator is non-directional and is described as transferring the pet’s attention or frightening it; it is not applied to one ear and not lateralised. Instead, Sun’s loudspeaker plays ambient music, which is likewise not a stimulus directly to one ear of the animal.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. A device which vibrates or a loudspeaker which plays ambient music would necessarily create noise which is directly transferred to the ear of the animal. It is asserted that the claims as written do not exclude this interpretation.
Applicant additionally argues against the combination of Sun and Bockneck, and argues that it is hindsight to combine them because Bockneck has no stimulus device, performs no voiding detection, and applies no stimulus to reorient the animal, and argues the combination of Sun and Bockneck would yield an animal whose vital signs are monitored, not the claimed arrangement in which voiding activity data drives a directing stimulus.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Both Sun and Bockneck are related art which include animal monitoring devices to assist in monitoring the condition of an animal. Though Bockneck teaches further applications of the monitoring device, this does not teach away from Sun nor is it being bodily incorporated. Bockneck is introduced to indicate that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have both a tail device and a collar device which communicate and work in concert with each other.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, Bockneck provides purpose for including a collar device in conjunction with a tail device to provide greater range of monitoring for an animal’s condition. Just because Bockneck monitors condition, does not overwrite or teach away from Sun’s providing stimulus.
Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, Sun teaches the limitations of the wearable device providing monitoring and stimulus to the animal using a tail device, while Bockneck teaches the use of both a tail and collar device to monitor the animal, and the two wearables working and communicating together.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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, KIMBERLY BERONA can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights