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
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2023/0172162) in view of Sandberg (US 2007/0006823), Kimbel (US 2021/0307294), and Xiao et al (US 2022/0053736).
Regarding Claim 1, Johnson discloses a leash-less collar device comprising:
a collar (collar 4) comprised of a fastener (buckle on strap 5 Figure 1);
a housing positioned on the collar (training element housing 6; Figure 1), the housing comprised of a vibration motor (vibration motor 16), a shocking mechanism (stimulating prongs 12; Paragraph [0034]), and a receiver (transceiver 10 Figure 2); and
a fob (cell phone 1) comprised of a transmitter (transceiver 2 Figure 1).
Johnson fails to disclose wherein the collar is reflective, wherein the fastener is magnetic, and a status indicator light.
However, Sandberg teaches a collar, wherein the collar is reflective (“Other embodiments of the device include… reflective tape for more visibility and safety at night and other embellishments integrated onto any part of or location on the device.” Paragraph [0036]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collar device of Johnson, with the reflective tape of Sandberg, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help increase the visibility and safety of the dog wearing the collar (Sandberg Paragraph [0036]).
Additionally, Kimbel teaches a collar wherein the fastener is magnetic (attachment portions 102 and 104; “The attachment mechanisms can be a hook and loop system (VELCRO), button clips, or magnetic attachments” Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fastener of Johnson, with the magnetic fastener of Kimbel, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to more easily remove and re-attach the collar, while maintaining a strong and secure connection.
Additionally, Xiao teaches a similar collar device, wherein the housing on the collar (receiver 2; Figure 6) comprises a status indicator light (“the receiver is provided with a magnetic charger connector, a storage battery and a charging indicator light both electrically connected to the magnetic charger connector, and mode LED lights for displaying a pairing mode” Paragraph [0013]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the housing of Johnson, with the status indicator light of Xiao, in order to help ensure the device is properly working before and throughout use by the pet, to help prevent the pet from escaping.
Regarding Claim 2, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 1, wherein the fob is comprised of a display (cell phone 1 Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 1, wherein the fob is comprised of a button (cell phone 1 Figure 1, cell phones have buttons).
Regarding Claim 4, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 1, wherein the fob creates a boundary distance between the housing and the fob (“The dog training application may allow the owner or trainer to adjust and pre-set certain parameters” Paragraph [0020]; “The distance between the dog and the owner may be the parameter used to determine when to provide positive punishment or positive reinforcement to the dog via the collar” Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 5, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 4, wherein when the boundary distance is exceeded, the vibration motor produces a vibration (“start providing positive punishment when the dog begins to exceed a distance of five (5) feet from the owner.” Paragraph [0032]; “the positive punishment may include, but is not limited to… an unpleasant vibration produced by the vibration motor within the training element housing” Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 6, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 4, wherein when the boundary distance is exceeded, the shocking mechanism produces an electric shock (“start providing positive punishment when the dog begins to exceed a distance of five (5) feet from the owner.” Paragraph [0032]; “the positive punishment may include, but is not limited to… a static correction or electric shock emitted from the stimulating prongs of the training element housing.” Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 7, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 1 further comprised of a mobile application (“the software installed on the mobile device may be a dog training application” Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 8, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 7, wherein the mobile application creates a boundary distance between the housing and a smart device that the mobile application is installed on (“The dog training application may allow the owner or trainer to adjust and pre-set certain parameters” Paragraph [0020]; “The distance between the dog and the owner may be the parameter used to determine when to provide positive punishment or positive reinforcement to the dog via the collar” Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 9, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 8, wherein when the boundary distance is exceeded, the vibration motor produces a vibration (“start providing positive punishment when the dog begins to exceed a distance of five (5) feet from the owner.” Paragraph [0032]; “the positive punishment may include, but is not limited to… an unpleasant vibration produced by the vibration motor within the training element housing” Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 10, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 8, wherein when the boundary distance is exceeded, the shocking mechanism produces an electric shock (“start providing positive punishment when the dog begins to exceed a distance of five (5) feet from the owner.” Paragraph [0032]; “the positive punishment may include, but is not limited to… a static correction or electric shock emitted from the stimulating prongs of the training element housing.” Paragraph [0034]).
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2023/0172162) in view of Kimbel (US 2021/0307294) and Xiao et al (US 2022/0053736).
Regarding Claim 11, Johnson discloses a leash-less collar device comprising:
a bracelet (collar 4) comprised of a fastener (buckle on strap 5 Figure 1);
a housing positioned on the bracelet (training element housing 6; Figure 1), the housing comprised of a vibration motor (vibration motor 16) and a receiver (transceiver 10 Figure 2); and
a fob (cell phone 1) comprised of a transmitter (transceiver 2 Figure 1).
Johnson fails to disclose wherein the fastener is magnetic, the housing having a status indicator light; and a fob status indicator light.
However, Kimbel teaches a collar wherein the fastener is magnetic (attachment portions 102 and 104; “The attachment mechanisms can be a hook and loop system (VELCRO), button clips, or magnetic attachments” Paragraph [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fastener of Johnson, with the magnetic fastener of Kimbel, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to more easily remove and re-attach the collar, while maintaining a strong and secure connection.
Additionally, Xiao teaches a similar collar device, wherein the housing on the collar (receiver 2; Figure 6) comprises a status indicator light (“the receiver is provided with a magnetic charger connector, a storage battery and a charging indicator light both electrically connected to the magnetic charger connector, and mode LED lights for displaying a pairing mode” Paragraph [0013]); and a fob (transmitter 1; Figure 1) comprising a fob status indicator light (“The transmitter is provided with a Micro interface for charging, a storage battery and a charging indicator light both electrically connected to the Micro interface, and mode LED lights for displaying a pairing mode and a charging mode.” Paragraph [0014]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the housing and fob of Johnson, with the status indicator lights of Xiao, in order to help ensure the device is properly working before and throughout use by the pet, to help prevent the pet from escaping.
Regarding Claim 12, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 11, wherein the fob is comprised of a display (cell phone 1 Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 11, wherein the fob is comprised of a button (cell phone 1 Figure 1, cell phones have buttons).
Regarding Claim 14, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 11, wherein the fob creates a boundary distance between the housing and the fob (“The dog training application may allow the owner or trainer to adjust and pre-set certain parameters” Paragraph [0020]; “The distance between the dog and the owner may be the parameter used to determine when to provide positive punishment or positive reinforcement to the dog via the collar” Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 15, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 14, wherein when the boundary distance is exceeded, the vibration motor produces a vibration (“start providing positive punishment when the dog begins to exceed a distance of five (5) feet from the owner.” Paragraph [0032]; “the positive punishment may include, but is not limited to… an unpleasant vibration produced by the vibration motor within the training element housing” Paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 16, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 11 further comprised of a mobile application (“the software installed on the mobile device may be a dog training application” Paragraph [0020]).
Regarding Claim 17, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 16, wherein the mobile application creates a boundary distance between the housing and a smart device that the mobile application is installed on (“The dog training application may allow the owner or trainer to adjust and pre-set certain parameters” Paragraph [0020]; “The distance between the dog and the owner may be the parameter used to determine when to provide positive punishment or positive reinforcement to the dog via the collar” Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 18, Johnson discloses the leash-less collar device of claim 17, wherein when the boundary distance is exceeded, the vibration motor produces a vibration (“start providing positive punishment when the dog begins to exceed a distance of five (5) feet from the owner.” Paragraph [0032]; “the positive punishment may include, but is not limited to… an unpleasant vibration produced by the vibration motor within the training element housing” Paragraph [0034]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 2023/0172162) in view of Bonge (US 2016/0021506) (cited by examiner in 892 dated 3/11/25) and Stapelfeld (US 20160221850).
Regarding Claim 19, Johnson discloses a method of using a leash-less collar device, the method comprising the following steps:
providing a leash-less collar device comprised of a collar (collar 4) comprised of a housing (training element housing 6; Figure 1) comprised of a vibration motor (vibration motor 16) and a shocking mechanism (stimulating prongs 12; Paragraph [0034]), and a mobile application (“the software installed on the mobile device may be a dog training application” Paragraph [0020]);
setting a boundary distance between the mobile application and the housing (“The dog training application may allow the owner or trainer to adjust and pre-set certain parameters” Paragraph [0020]; “The distance between the dog and the owner may be the parameter used to determine when to provide positive punishment or positive reinforcement to the dog via the collar” Paragraph [0032]); and
configuring an intensity (“The strength of the electric shock delivered by the stimulating prongs may be adjustable by the software installed on the mobile device.” Paragraph [0023]), a frequency, or a usage of the vibration motor or the shocking mechanism via the mobile application (“the parameters for positive reinforcement and positive punishment, such as the timing of the stimulus and the amount of the stimulus, may be adjustable” Paragraph [0033]).
Johnson fails to disclose confirming a paired status between the collar and the mobile application via at least one status light; and wherein the mobile application comprises a notification feature configured to send a text alert to a user when the boundary distance is exceeded.
However, Bonge teaches a similar method of using a collar comprising confirming a paired status between the collar (animal worn device 1) and the mobile application (mobile device 4) via at least one status light (“The first training graphical interface 121 may include a status indicator 50 that indicates the status of the connection between the wireless mobile device 4 and the animal-worn device 1.” Paragraph [0085]; Figure 12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the housing and mobile application of Johnson, with the status indicator light of Bonge, in order to help ensure the device is properly working before and throughout use by the pet, to help prevent the pet from escaping.
Additionally, Stapelfeld teaches a similar method of using a collar device wherein the mobile application comprises a notification feature configured to send a text alert to a user when the boundary distance is exceeded (“the base system sends a cell phone text to the owner reporting that the animal has been detected as being outside the boundary.” Paragraph [0045]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the mobile application of Johnson, with the text notification of Stapelfeld, in order to help ensure the user is consistenly aware of the boundary status of the animal, to help prevent the pet from escaping.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/11/25 with respect to claims 1. 11, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Newly added references Sandberg (US 2007/0006823), Kimbel (US 2021/0307294), Xiao et al (US 2022/0053736), Stapelfeld (US 20160221850), and Bonge (US 2016/0021506) along with previously used references teach the amended claims as discussed in the currently presented rejection above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/ASSRES H WOLDEMARYAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642