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 status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 12/29/2025.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 13 and 18 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 & 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg (US 2009/0002188) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0143532)
Regarding claim 1: Greenberg disclose an animal collar device in an animal collar system for monitoring an animal, the animal collar device comprising:
at least one monitoring component configured to collect data about the animal (in the same manner as the instant invention, at least the location of the animal/trackee 600, discussed throughout the disclosure, but specifically in [0093]) ;
a plurality of communication components configured to communicate the data about the animal to at least one of a base station and a user device (as discussed in [0026] and [0101]), the plurality of communication components comprising first local transceiver (RF transmission ([0026]), a second cellular network transceiver ([0093]: SMS communication), an a geological transceiver ([0093]: GPS)
a battery coupled to the at least one monitoring component and the plurality of communication components; (Fig. 3, item 310); and
a processor coupled to the at least one monitoring component, the plurality of communication components, and the battery (Fig. 4, GSM 301 and/or microprocessor 304), the processor configured to
determine whether the at least one communication component is connected to at least one of the base station (as discussed in [0026], the connection of the animal collar 400,600) and the user device to provide a location of the animal relative to the base station and the user device (the location within or outside of the virtual fence is comparative with the base station, [0005 & 0038]; the confirmation with the owner via call/message provides a location relative to the user, [0007 & 0039]),
based upon the location of the animal, cause the animal collar device to enter one of a plurality of communication states, the plurality of communication states comprising
an away alone state (“lost pet recovery mode”) when not connected to the base station and the user device (as indicated above, the wireless connection of the virtual fence, and either the physical or communicative connection between the owner/user and the pet), and
a home alone state when connected to the base station and not connected to the user device (when the animal is within the virtual fence), and
when in the away alone state, selectively enable the geolocation and the second cellular network transceiver to transmit the data about the animal via an external network [0013, 0030, 0068-0072 & 0093].
Greenberg does not explicitly disclose selectively enable to first local transceiver determine whether the first local transceiver is directly connected to the user device and subsequently whether the first local transceiver is directly connected to the base station.
In analogous art regarding pet monitoring, Lee disclose selectively enable to first local transceiver determine whether the first local transceiver is directly connected to the user device and subsequently whether the first local transceiver is directly connected to the base station.([0065])
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of selectively enable to first local transceiver determine whether the first local transceiver is directly connected to the user device and subsequently whether the first local transceiver is directly connected to the base station, as disclose by Lee to the system of Greenberg. The motivation is to ensure proper connection to the user in order to improve the reliability of the communication
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Greenberg and Lee disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, wherein the geolocation receiver includes a global positioning system (GPS) radio (Greenberg: [0093]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first local transceiver comprises at least one of a Bluetooth and a Wi-fi transceiver .
However it does disclose RF transmission and Bluetooth and Wi-fi transceiver are well known option for RF transmission. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the first local transceiver comprises at least one of a Bluetooth and a Wi-fi transceiver since having a limited universe of potential options (RF transmission), the selection of any particular option (Bluetooth or a Wi-fi transceiver .) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (communication between animal tracker and owner), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Greenberg and Lee disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to selectively enable and disable the at least one monitoring component based upon the location of the animal relative to the base station [0057].
Regarding claim 9: The combination of Greenberg and Lee disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to selectively enable and disable the plurality of communication components based upon the location of the animal relative to the base station. (Greenberg: the microprocessor goes into standby or sleep mode when the system determines that tracking is not needed at that moment, due to “safe” indicator, or communication with the user, see [0051-57] for non-limiting disclosure).
Regarding claim 10: The combination of Greenberg and Lee disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to process at least one of the data about the animal (Greenberg: the location of the animal as determined by GSM) and the location of the animal relative to the base station (Greenberg: base station 900) based upon a predefined threshold (Greenberg: the threshold being the virtual fence perimeter, see the radius discussion found in [0099], for example) and a logic combination (Greenberg: the logic determining whether the animal has left the virtual fence, [0008-0010].
Regarding claim 11: The combination of Greenberg and Lee disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to notify a user of an event correlated with the predefined threshold and the logic combination. (upon the determination that the animal has breached the virtual fence, communication is sent to the service center, which is then relayed to the user, thus notifying the user, [0090-91]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-6 & 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greenberg (US 2009/0002188) in view of Lee et al. (US 2016/0143532) and further in view of Kelly et al. (US 20150373951).
Regarding claim 2: The combination of Greenberg and Lee disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one monitoring component includes at least one of a first thermometer configured to measure a temperature of the animal, an accelerometer, and a heart rate sensor.
In analogous art regarding animal monitoring, Kelly teaches a companion animal tracking and reporting system (title, disclosure) further comprising at least one monitoring component includes at least one of a first thermometer configured to measure a temperature of the animal (“e.g. accelerometer, …thermometer, biometric sensor,” [0032]), an accelerometer (“e.g. accelerometer, …thermometer, biometric sensor,” [0032]), a heart rate sensor (“gather heart-rate, temperature, perspiration, or other biometric indicators of the animal,” [0053]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the collar of the tracking system of Greenberg with one or more biometric sensors as taught by Kelly, in order to give the owner peace of mind while away from their companion animal, (see discussion found in [0002-3, Kelly]).
Regarding claim 3: The combination of Greenberg and Lee disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach further comprising at least one interaction component coupled to the processor and the battery; and wherein the at least one interaction component is configured to interact with the animal based upon user input.
In analogous art regarding animal monitoring, Kelly teaches a companion animal tracking and reporting system (title, disclosure) further comprising interacting with the animal based upon user input [0071] with at least one interaction component in the animal collar device (as noted in [0060-61], the feedback modules include “feedback to a dog (e.g., sounds, vibration, etc.) to encourage or discourage behavior” which are instigated by the user input through the transceivers 320-330).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the tracking system of Greenberg with the feedback modules and capability of more instantaneous and personalized conditional training as taught by Kelly, which results in a more consistent training for the animal, offering better results.
Regarding claim 4: The combination of Greenberg, Lee and Kelly disclose the animal collar device of claim 3, wherein the at least one interaction component is configured to interact with the animal in response to the data about the animal. (Kelly: the system could request user input based on a triggering event, discussed in [0074-75] and [0042-43] for non-limiting disclosures).
Regarding claim 5: The combination of Greenberg, Lee and Kelly disclose the animal collar device of claim 3, wherein the at least one interaction component includes at least one of a speaker, a vibrational motor, a light, and a laser (Kelly: 410, [0061]), a vibrational motor (“vibrators,” [0061]), a light (415, [0061]), or a laser).
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Greenberg, Lee and Kelly disclose the animal collar device of claim 3, wherein the at least one interaction component is configured to interact with the animal based upon the location of the animal relative to the base station. (Kelly: note the discussion of triggering events, including a “designated distance” [0042-43], reading on “location of the animal relative to the base station,” since the proximity of the animal to the forbidden area is also in proximity to the home base station).
Regarding claim 12: The combination of Greenberg and Lee disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to generate threshold ranges for the data about the animal based upon values of the data about the animal over time.
In analogous art regarding animal monitoring, Kelly teaches a companion animal tracking and reporting system (title, disclosure) further comprising operating the processor to generate threshold ranges for the data about the animal based upon values of the data about the animal over time (as noted in the example of [0075], “a wearable device determines that an animal has been motionless for a threshold time period, a report may be generated and transmitted to a mobile device,”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the tracking system of Greenberg and Lee with the feedback modules and capability of more instantaneous and personalized conditional training as taught by Kelly, which results in a more consistent training for the animal, offering better results.
Regarding claim 13: Greenberg disclose an animal collar device in an animal collar system for monitoring an animal, the animal collar device comprising:
at least one monitoring component configured to collect data about the animal (in the same manner as the instant invention, at least the location of the animal/trackee 600, discussed throughout the disclosure, but specifically in [0093]) ;
a plurality of communication components configured to communicate the data about the animal to at least one of a base station and a user device (as discussed in [0026] and [0101]);
the plurality of communication components comprising (RF transmission ([0026]), a second cellular network transceiver ([0093]: SMS communication), an a geological transceiver ([0093]: GPS)
At least one interaction component (Fig. 4 item 400)
a battery coupled to the at least one monitoring component, the plurality of communication components, the at least one interaction component (Fig. 3, item 310);
a processor coupled to the at least one monitoring component, the plurality of communication components, the at least one interaction component, and the battery (Fig. 4, GSM 301 and/or microprocessor 304), the processor configured to
determine whether the at least one communication component is connected to at least one of the base station (as discussed in [0026], the connection of the animal collar 400,600) and the user device to provide a location of the animal relative to the base station and the user device (the location within or outside of the virtual fence is comparative with the base station, [0005 & 0038]; the confirmation with the owner via call/message provides a location relative to the user, [0007 & 0039]),
based upon the location of the animal, cause the animal collar device to enter one of a plurality of communication states, the plurality of communication states comprising
an away alone state (“lost pet recovery mode”) when not connected to the base station and the user device (as indicated above, the wireless connection of the virtual fence, and either the physical or communicative connection between the owner/user and the pet), and
a home alone state when connected to the base station and not connected to the user device (when the animal is within the virtual fence), and
when in the away alone state, selectively enable the GPS and the cellular transceiver to transmit the data about the animal via an external network [0013, 0030, & 0068-0072, 0093].
Greenberg does not explicitly disclose the plurality of communication component include Bluetooth and Wi-fi transceiver. However it does disclose RF transmission and Bluetooth and Wi-fi transceiver are well known option for RF transmission. Therefore, before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the first local transceiver comprises at least one of a Bluetooth and a Wi-fi transceiver since having a limited universe of potential options (RF transmission), the selection of any particular option (Bluetooth or a Wi-fi transceiver .) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of (communication between animal tracker and owner), either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Greenberg does not explicitly disclose selectively enable Bluetooth transceiver to initially determine whether the Bluetooth transceiver is directly connected to the user device and subsequently whether the Bluetooth transceiver is directly connected to the base station.
In analogous art regarding pet monitoring, Lee disclose selectively enable Bluetooth transceiver to initially determine whether the Bluetooth transceiver is directly connected to the user device and subsequently whether the Bluetooth transceiver is directly connected to the base station.([0065])
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of selectively enable Bluetooth transceiver to initially determine whether the Bluetooth transceiver is directly connected to the user device and subsequently whether the Bluetooth transceiver is directly connected to the base station as disclose by Lee to the system of Greenberg. The motivation is to ensure proper connection to the user in order to improve the reliability of the communication
Greenberg does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one monitoring component includes at least one of a first thermometer configured to measure a temperature of the animal, an accelerometer, and a heart rate sensor.
In analogous art regarding animal monitoring, Kelly teaches a companion animal tracking and reporting system (title, disclosure) further comprising at least one monitoring component includes at least one of a first thermometer configured to measure a temperature of the animal (“e.g. accelerometer, …thermometer, biometric sensor,” [0032]), an accelerometer (“e.g. accelerometer, …thermometer, biometric sensor,” [0032]), a heart rate sensor (“gather heart-rate, temperature, perspiration, or other biometric indicators of the animal,” [0053]).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the collar of the tracking system of Greenberg with one or more biometric sensors as taught by Kelly, in order to give the owner peace of mind while away from their companion animal, (see discussion found in [0002-3, Kelly]).
Greenberg does not explicitly teach further comprising at least one interaction component coupled to the processor and the battery; and wherein the at least one interaction component is configured to interact with the animal based upon user input wherein the at least one interaction component is configured to interact with the animal in response to the data about the animal.
In analogous art regarding animal monitoring, Kelly teaches a companion animal tracking and reporting system (title, disclosure) further comprising interacting with the animal based upon user input [0071] with at least one interaction component in the animal collar device (as noted in [0060-61], the feedback modules include “feedback to a dog (e.g., sounds, vibration, etc.) to encourage or discourage behavior” which are instigated by the user input through the transceivers 320-330) wherein the at least one interaction component is configured to interact with the animal in response to the data about the animal. (Kelly: the system could request user input based on a triggering event, discussed in [0074-75] and [0042-43] for non-limiting disclosures).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to modify the tracking system of Greenberg with the feedback modules and capability of more instantaneous and personalized conditional training as taught by Kelly, which results in a more consistent training for the animal, offering better results.
Regarding claim 14: The combination of Greenberg, Lee and Kelly disclose the animal collar device of claim 13, wherein the at least one interaction component is configured to interact with the animal in response to the data about the animal. (Kelly: the system could request user input based on a triggering event, discussed in [0074-75] and [0042-43] for non-limiting disclosures).
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Greenberg, Lee and Kelly disclose the animal collar device of claim 13, wherein the at least one interaction component includes at least one of a speaker, a vibrational motor, a light, and a laser (Kelly: 410, [0061]), a vibrational motor (“vibrators,” [0061]), a light (415, [0061]), or a laser).
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Greenberg, Lee and Kelly disclose the animal collar device of claim 13, wherein the at least one interaction component is configured to interact with the animal based upon the location of the animal relative to the base station. (Kelly: note the discussion of triggering events, including a “designated distance” [0042-43], reading on “location of the animal relative to the base station,” since the proximity of the animal to the forbidden area is also in proximity to the home base station).
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Greenberg, Lee and Kelly disclose the animal collar device of claim 13, wherein the processor is configured to selectively enable and disable the at least one monitoring component based upon the location of the animal relative to the base station (Greenberg: [0057]).
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Greenberg, Lee and Kelly disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to selectively enable and disable the plurality of communication components based upon the location of the animal relative to the base station. (Greenberg: the microprocessor goes into standby or sleep mode when the system determines that tracking is not needed at that moment, due to “safe” indicator, or communication with the user, see [0051-57] for non-limiting disclosure).
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Greenberg, Lee and Kelly disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to process at least one of the data about the animal (Greenberg: the location of the animal as determined by GSM) and the location of the animal relative to the base station (Greenberg: base station 900) based upon a predefined threshold (Greenberg: the threshold being the virtual fence perimeter, see the radius discussion found in [0099], for example) and a logic combination (Greenberg: the logic determining whether the animal has left the virtual fence, [0008-10].
Regarding claim 20 The combination of Greenberg, Lee and Kelly disclose the animal collar device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to notify a user of an event correlated with the predefined threshold and the logic combination. (Greenberg: upon the determination that the animal has breached the virtual fence, communication is sent to the service center, which is then relayed to the user, thus notifying the user, [0090-91]) and wherein the processor is configured to generate threshold ranges for the data about the animal based upon values of the data about the animal over time (Kelly: as noted in the example of [0075], “a wearable device determines that an animal has been motionless for a threshold time period, a report may be generated and transmitted to a mobile device,”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 (Obviousness Double Patenting) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 (Obviousness Double Patenting) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102/103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689