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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/31/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2, 9, 10, 13, and 19 have been cancelled, Claims 21-25 have been added as new; therefore, Claims 1, 3-8, 11-12, 14-18, and 20-25 are currently pending in application 18/458,260.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 12, 14-18, 20-23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Slavin (US 10,782,681 B1)
Regarding Independent Claims 1 and 17, Slavin teaches a system (method) comprising:
a transceiver configured to communicate with a smart collar associated with a pet (See at least Fig.1.; C6);
an interface configured to communicate with an automatic door at a premises (See at least C2L4-10, Dog Door; C10L30-67, Pet Gate);
one or more processors in communication with the transceiver and the interface (See at least C14L29-C15L42); and
a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions (See at least C28L54-C29L22) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
receive location data from the smart collar associated with the pet (See at least C2L10-19);
determine, based at least in part on the location data from the smart collar associated with the pet, whether to permit the pet to enter the premises (See at least C2L37-67); and
in response to determining to permit the pet to enter the premises:
transmit, via the interface, a first control signal to the automatic door to permit the automatic door to open (See at least C2L37-67);
transmit, via the transceiver, positioning instructions to the smart collar, wherein the positioning instructions cause the smart collar to output a stimulus to the pet (See at least C2L37-67) to perform at least one of:
remaining within an assigned geofenced area within the premises (See at least C2L37-67);
provide an alert to a business operator (equivalent users taught by Slavin) indicative of the pet entering the premises; and output a notification to a user device indicative of the pet being permitted to enter the premises (See at least C10L30-67; C13L60-C14L9); and
in response determining not to permit the pet to enter the premises:
transmit, via the interface, a second control signal to the automatic door to prevent the automatic door from opening (See at least C10L30-C12L6); and
output a notification to the user device indicative of the pet not being permitted to enter the premises (See at least C10L30-67).
Regarding claim 3, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches: wherein the smart collar automatically transmits the location data to the transceiver when the smart collar enters the geofenced area (See at least C17L7-C18L7).
Regarding claim 4, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches: wherein the system further comprises a smartphone interface, and the system is further configured to receive data from a smart phone associated with a pet (See at least C14).
Regarding claim 12, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to output one or more guidelines corresponding to predetermined requirements of the premises to the user device, and wherein determining whether to permit the pet to enter the premises is further based on receiving a response from the user device indicative of a user having agreed to the guidelines (See at least C3L1-4).
Regarding claim 14, Slavin teaches the system of claim 12. Slavin further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to output a notification indicative of the pet being permitted to enter the premises to the user device (See at least C3L37-C4L14).
Regarding claim 15, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: determine whether a predetermined capacity of pets on the premises has been met; and in response to determining that the predetermined capacity has been met, not permit the pet to enter the premises (See at least C3L37-C4L14).
Regarding claim 16, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to receive data corresponding to one or more patrons present on the premises, the data comprising preference of one or more patrons (See at least C20L20-35, “For example, at property 302a, the monitoring system 300 may determine that the beacon 342a corresponding to the pet 340a is located outside on the premises of the property 302a, and may also determine that a user 355a is outside on the premises of the property 302a. The monitoring system 300 may receive this information over the network 305 from one or more sensors or other components associated with the property 302a, such as a beacon detector similar to the beacon detector 245 of FIG. 2, a camera sensor configured to detect the presence of people or pets in images, or based on other sensory data. The monitoring system 300 determines based on the received data indicating the locations of the beacon 342a and user 355a, and optionally based on other information such as a schedule or settings for the pet 340a or for the property 302a, to open the fence 380a.”; C20L50-57, “The monitoring system 300 may also access other information relating to the property 302b, such as information indicating that the pet 340b has a tendency to run away, or that a user associated with the property 302b has configured settings for the monitoring system such that the fence 380b should be closed unless a user of the property 302b is outside on the premises of the property 302b.”; See also C10 L55-67, and C21).
Regarding claim 18, Slavin teaches the system of claim 17. Slavin further teaches: wherein determining whether to permit the pet to enter comprises determining whether a predetermined capacity of pets of a particular type has been met (See at least C3L37-C4L14).
Regarding claim 20, Slavin teaches the system of claim 17 Slavin further teaches: wherein the smart collar automatically transmits the location data to the system when the smart collar enters the geofenced area (See at least C17L7-C18L7).
Regarding new claim 21, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: receive, from a business operator device, an override command; and in response to receiving the override command, permit the pet to enter the premises notwithstanding a prior determination not to permit the pet to enter (See at least C14L57-C15L15, Direct commend from user device).
Regarding new claim 22, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: track positions of a plurality of pets within the premises; and dynamically adjust the positioning instructions transmitted to the smart collar based on the track positions of the plurality of pets (See at least C3L1-4, “In a multiple pet (e.g., dog) system, the dog door would only allow the passage of the dog(s) with their approved ID/tracking collars, and only if the rules that are specific to those dogs are satisfied.”; C11L1-C12L6; See also C17).
Regarding new claim 23, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches: wherein determining whether to permit the pet to enter the premises comprises generating one of: an okay alert indicating the pet is cleared to enter the premises; a caution alert indicating the pet may enter the premises subject to one or more restrictions; and a warning alert indicating the pet is not permitted to enter the premises (See at least C11L1-C12L6, Equivalent Pet identification categories used for gate/door control).
Regarding new claim 25, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: receive interaction data indicative of which pets should be kept apart from one another; track positions of a plurality of pets within the premises; and generate a seating assignment (Yard assignment) for the pet and an owner of the pet based at least in part on the interaction data and the tracked positions of the plurality of pets within the premises (See at least C17L7-47).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin in view of Robbins (US 20210081983 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Slavin teaches the system of claim 4. Slavin does not teach: wherein the smart phone is configured to transmit data from the smart phone associated with the pet to the transceiver in response to scanning a quick-response (QR) code.
However, Robbins teaches the known technique of: wherein the smart phone is configured to transmit the data from the smart phone associated with the user to the transceiver in response to scanning a quick-response (QR) code. (Paragraph [0009] “the act of scanning the unique QR Code 30 by the affiliate acts as acceptance of the corresponding coupon agreement. The affiliate's mobile computing device then uploads the unique QR Code 30 which was scanned to application 22 on server 12 to record the acceptance of the terms of the agreement.”)
This operation of Robbins is applicable to the system of Slavin as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using a smart phone device to transmit data from a user’s smart phone. Slavin uses a smartphone application and Robbins uses a mobile computing device (see Paragraph [0009] of Robbins.) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the transmission of data of Slavin to be in response to a smart phone scanning a quick-response (QR) code as taught by Robbins. Furthermore, the transmission of data would have been the same regardless of if it was corresponding to the pet or the agreement because the QR code would be scanned in the same way by the smart phone regardless of the contents of the data. Therefore, applying the QR code scanning to the system of Slavin would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would efficiently transmit data from a smart phone to a transceiver.
Claims 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slavin in view of Alderucci (US 11738258 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches: permit the pet to enter the premises (See at least C2L37-67).
Slavin does not teach: determine whether the data associated with the pet is indicative of the pet having a rating above a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that the rating is above the predetermined threshold, permit the pet to enter the premises.
However, Alderucci teaches: determine whether the data
This operation of Alderucci is applicable to the system of Slavin as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to determining whether or not a user is eligible to enter a premises. Both Slavin and Alderucci make this determination using data from wearable devices. Slavin uses a smart collar and Alderucci uses an apparatus 920 which can be a bracelet (see Col. 17, ll. 4-8 of Alderucci). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known technique of allowing a user to enter a premise based on a predetermined threshold as taught by Alderucci with the system of Slavin, since both inventions utilize a wearable device. Furthermore, the use of a wearable device measuring volume on a dog would operate in the same manner as on a human since the measurement of volume can determine an emotional state on both a dog and human. Therefore, applying the user data of volume to the system of Slavin would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would utilize behavioral data of the dog in order to determine if it would be safe for the dog or others to leave/enter a premise.
Regarding claim 7, Slavin in view of Alderucci teaches the system of claim 6. Slavin further teaches: wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to track a position of the pet within the premises (See at least C19L65-C20L19; See also C1L59-C2L23).
Regarding claim 8, Slavin teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to generate a seating assignment (yard assignment) based at least in part on the data associated with the pet (See at least C17L7-47).
Regarding claim 11, Slavin teaches the system of claim 1. Slavin further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to: not permit the pet to enter the premises (See at least C10L30-67) .
Slavin does not teach: determine whether the data associated with the pet is indicative of the pet having a rating above a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that the rating is below the predetermined threshold, not permit the pet to enter the premises.
However, Alderucci teaches: determine whether the data apparatus 920 may additionally or alternatively communicate characteristics associated with the authorized user. These characteristics may include the average volume wagered by the user, whether the user is a high-volume, medium-volume or low-volume wagerer, the user's wagering performance, […] the user may subsequently be denied access to device 910 if the updated information does not fall within a predetermined range of acceptable characteristics or does not substantially match ongoing wagering requirements within a predetermined degree of tolerance.” of Alderucci) and in response to determining that the rating is below the predetermined threshold, not permit the user to enter the premises (Col. 16, ll. 14-38 “the user may subsequently be denied access to device 910 if the updated information does not fall within a predetermined range of acceptable characteristics or does not substantially match ongoing wagering requirements within a predetermined degree of tolerance.” of Alderucci)
This operation of Alderucci is applicable to the system of Slavin as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to determining whether or not a user is eligible to enter a premises. Both Slavin and Alderucci make this determination using data from wearable devices. Slavin uses a smart collar and Alderucci uses an apparatus 920 which can be a bracelet (see Col. 17, ll. 4-8 of Alderucci). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have utilized the known technique of allowing a user to enter a premise based on a predetermined threshold as taught by Alderucci with the system of Slavin, since both inventions utilize a wearable device. Furthermore, the use of a wearable device measuring volume on a dog would operate in the same manner as on a human since the measurement of volume can determine an emotional state on both a dog and human. Therefore, applying the user data of volume to the system of Slavin would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would utilize behavioral data of the dog in order to determine if it would be safe for the dog or others to leave/enter a premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 3/31/2025, with respect to Claims 1, 3-8, 11-12, 14-18, 20-23, and 25, have been considered but are moot, based on the new grounds of rejection. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
July 23, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights