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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims and response filed 14 October 2025.
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 9, and 17-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites “a geofenced area”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the geofenced area”.
Claim 9 recites “to smart collar”. This appears to be a typographical error of “to a smart collar”.
Claim 17, line 11 recites “the premises”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a premises”.
Claim 17, line 19 recites “the user device”. This appears to be a typographical error of “a user device”.
Claim(s) 18-20 inherit the deficiencies of claim 17. Therefore, claim(s) 18-20 are objected to.
Claim 20, recites “a geofenced area”. This appears to be a typographical error of “the geofenced area”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1-20 recite a device associated with a pet. This device appears to be a smart collar (see claim 2). However, the specification does not have support for the smart collar performing all the steps required by the independent claims. For example, claim 1 explains that the device is meant to provide data regarding whether to permit the pet to enter a premises. Paragraphs [0044]-[0046] and Figs. 8-9 show a user interface (i.e., a user device) for inputting whether to accept or decline terms and conditions for a premises. This user input into the interface is the data that determines whether to permit a pet to enter a premises, whether the automatic doors will open, and whether a notification is output to a user device instructing him or her to not enter the business, not the smart collar. Similar analysis also applies to the rest of the limitations regarding functions performed by the smart collar or a device distinct from the user device. Therefore, for at least those reasons, the claims are rejected under U.S.C. 112(a) for having new matter. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claim to recite “one or more devices associated with a pet” instead of “a device associated with a pet”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 13; and Claim 17, line 15 recites “transmit[ting] instructions to the device associated with the pet to:”. This is under the indentation of Claim 1, line 10-11, and Claim 17, line 12-13 that recites “output[ting] instructions to the device associated with the pet affecting access to the premises, wherein the instructions comprise at least one of:”. It is unclear how a device can output instructions to transmit instructions to itself. Paragraph [0006] of the instant specification recites outputting instructions. Therefore, the Examiner will interpret claim 1 to recite:
a transceiver configured to communicate with one or more devices
one or more processors in communication with the transceiver; and
a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
receive data from the one or more devices
determine, based at least in part on the data from the one or more devices
output instructions to the one or more devices
prevent automatic doors from opening;
maintain a predetermined distance from other pets or persons;
remain within a geofenced area;
provide an alert to a business operator; and
provide an indication of the instructions to a user device.
Claim 17 is parallel in nature to claim 1. Therefore the Examiner will interpret claim 17 in a similar way to claim 1. Claim(s) 2-16 and 18-20 inherit the deficiencies of claims 1 and 17, respectively. Therefore, claim(s) 2-16 and 18-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-16 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine) and claims 17-20 is/are drawn to a method (i.e., a process). As such, claims 1-20 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Representative Claim 1:
receiving data associated with the pet;
determining, based at least in part on the data associated with the pet, whether to permit the pet to enter a premises; and
output instructions affecting access to the premises, wherein the instructions comprise at least one of:
prevent doors from opening;
maintain a predetermined distance from other pets or persons; or
remain within an area;
provide an alert to a business operator; and
provide an indication of the instructions.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses determining if a pet is permitted to enter a premises. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing a personal behavior of analyzing the requirements to enter a premises, which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s): a transceiver configured to communicate with one or more devices associated with a pet; one or more processors in communication with the transceiver; and a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions; the instruction executed by one or more processors; automatic doors; a geofenced area and a user device. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 9-10 further recite(s) the additional element(s): a smart collar (claims 2-3 and 9-10), a smart phone (claims 4-5), and a quick-response (QR) code (claim 5), an assigned geofenced area (claim 10). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 2-5 and 9-10 is/are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 6-8 and 11-16 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 1. Therefor claim(s) 6-8 and 11-16 are ineligible.
Representative Claim 17: A system comprising:
receiving data associated with a pet;
determining, based at least in part on the data associated with the pet, whether to permit the pet to enter a premises; and
outputting instructions to the device associated with the pet affecting access to the premises, wherein the instructions comprise at least one of:
prevent doors from opening;
maintain a predetermined distance from other pets or persons; or
remain within an area;
provide an alert to a business operator; and
provide an indication of the instructions.
As noted by the claim limitations above, the independent claimed invention discusses determining if a pet is permitted to enter a premises. This is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing a personal behavior of analyzing the requirements to enter a premises, which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
See MPEP 2106.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 17 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 17 recites the following additional element(s): a system including one or more processors, one or more devices associated with the pet, automatic doors, a geofenced area, and a user device. This/these additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application because they merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional element(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: Claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, which does not render a claim as being significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 17 is ineligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claim 17 is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Dependent claim(s) 18 merely further limit the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements beyond those already recited in claim 17. Therefore claim(s) 18 are ineligible.
Dependent claim(s) 19 and 20 further recite(s) the additional element(s): a smart collar (claims 19 and 20). This/these additional element(s) alone or in ordered combination does no more than merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate the claim(s) into a practical application nor does it render a claim as being significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are ineligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Altiner (US 20210324672 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Altiner teaches a system comprising:
a transceiver configured to communicate with one or more devices associated with a pet; (Paragraph [0049] “The controller 104 may be in communication with the communication circuitry 114. […] The controller 104 may communicate with […] pet collar device 200,”; el. 114 of Fig. 4)
one or more processors in communication with the transceiver; (Paragraph [0049] “The controller 104 may be in communication with the communication circuitry 114.”; Paragraph [0048] “controller 104 that includes a processor 110”; Fig. 4) and
a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions (Paragraph [0048] “The memory 112 is a non-transitory computer readable media that may store programs, instructions”; el. 112 of Fig. 4) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
receive data from the one or more devices associated with the pet; (Paragraph [0044] “receiving an identification or signature of the pet collar device 200, allowing the pet to pass through the door 102”)
determine, based at least in part on the data from the one or more devices associated with the pet, whether to permit the pet to enter a premises; (Paragraph [0044] “the pet door 102 may be opened by detecting or receiving an identification or signature of the pet collar device 200, allowing the pet to pass through the door 102”) and
output instructions to the one or more devices associated with the pet affecting access to the premises, (Paragraph [0048] “The memory 112 is a non-transitory computer readable media that may store programs, instructions, and information to operate functionality and features of the pet access apparatus 10.”) wherein the instructions comprise at least one of:
prevent automatic doors from opening; (Paragraph [0046] “The controller 104 may change the state of the pet door 102 in response to a determination that the pet is adjacent the door 100. The states of the pet door 102 may include […] closed, closing”)
maintain a predetermined distance from other pets or persons;
remain within a geofenced area;
provide an alert to a business operator; and
provide an indication of the instructions to a user device.
Regarding claim 2, Altiner teaches the system of claim 1. Altiner further teaches:
wherein the one or more devices associated with the pet comprises a smart collar. (Paragraph [0044] “receiving an identification or signature of the pet collar device 200, allowing the pet to pass through the door 102”)
Regarding claim 4, Altiner teaches the system of claim 1. Altiner does not teach:
wherein the data is received from a smart phone. (Paragraph [0052] “The homeowner may select to open the pet door 102 on the user device 100, e.g., via a smartphone application.”)
Regarding claim 16, Altiner teaches the system of claim 1. Altiner 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, (Paragraph [0047] “The user may, for example, request the pet door 102 be opened via the application 302.”; Paragraph [0056] “when a condition is determined to be present, the controller 104 may cause a message or notification to be sent to the user device 300 prompting the user to decide whether or not to open the pet door 102.”) and
determine whether to permit the pet to enter based at least in part on the preference of the one or more patrons. (Paragraph [0056] “when a condition is determined to be present, the controller 104 may cause a message or notification to be sent to the user device 300 prompting the user to decide whether or not to open the pet door 102.”)
Regarding claim 17, Altiner teaches a system comprising:
receiving by a system including one or more processors, data associated with a pet from one or more devices associated with the pet; (Paragraph [0044] “receiving an identification or signature of the pet collar device 200, allowing the pet to pass through the door 102”)
determining, based at least in part on the data associated with the pet, whether to permit the pet to enter a premises; (Paragraph [0044] “the pet door 102 may be opened by detecting or receiving an identification or signature of the pet collar device 200, allowing the pet to pass through the door 102”) and
outputting instructions to the one or more devices associated with the pet affecting access to the premises, (Paragraph [0048] “The memory 112 is a non-transitory computer readable media that may store programs, instructions, and information to operate functionality and features of the pet access apparatus 10.”) wherein the instructions comprise at least one of:
preventing automatic doors from opening; (Paragraph [0046] “The controller 104 may change the state of the pet door 102 in response to a determination that the pet is adjacent the door 100. The states of the pet door 102 may include […] closed, closing”)
maintaining a predetermined distance from other pets or persons;
remaining within a geofenced area;
providing an alert to a business operator; and
providing an indication of the instructions to a user device.
Regarding claim 19, Altiner teaches the system of claim 17. Altiner further teaches:
wherein the device comprises a smart collar. (Paragraph [0044] “receiving an identification or signature of the pet collar device 200, allowing the pet to pass through the door 102”)
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(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner (US 20210324672 A1) in view of Gibbs (US 20190340346 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Altiner teaches the system of claim 2. Altiner does not teach:
wherein the smart collar automatically transmits the data to the transceiver when the smart collar enters the geofenced area.
However, Gibbs teaches the know technique of:
wherein the wearable device automatically transmits the data to the transceiver when the wearable device enters the geofenced area. (Paragraph [0039] “the user's registration status […] can be verified by the system 200 […] This verification can take place, […] by the users entering into a limited geofence location while carrying the wearable devices 210 […] where the device has been configured to broadcast an authorization signal.” of Gibbs)
This operation of Gibbs is applicable to the system of Altiner as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using wearable devices that utilize location data. For example, Altiner uses a smart collar to communication location information of the pet (see Paragraph [0092] of Altiner) and Gibbs uses a wearable device to send data when the user arrives at a specific location (see Paragraph [0045] of Gibbs).Therefore, 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 wearable device of Altiner to be utilized in a geofence environment as taught by Gibbs. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Altiner in order to track a location of a wearer of the device (see paragraph [0019] of Gibbs).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner (US 20210324672 A1) in view of Robbins (US 20210081983 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Altiner teaches the system of claim 4. Altiner does not teach:
wherein the smart phone is configured to transmit the data 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 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 Altiner as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using a smart phone device to transmit data. Altiner uses a smartphone application (see Paragraph [0052] of Altiner) 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 Altiner 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 Altiner 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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner (US 20210324672 A1) in view of Alderucci (US 11738258 B2).
Regarding claim 6, Altiner teaches the system of claim 1. Altiner further teaches:
(Paragraph [0102] “As shown in FIG. 22A, the user may select to receive notifications when their pets go out of the house, for example, via a virtual toggle switch 334 […] The user may further set a time period during which the pets may freely enter and exit the home. For example, the user can setup a curfew mode to lock the pet door 102 or to not open during certain times, e.g., during the night.”)
Altiner 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, initiate a control action permitting access and providing an indication of determination to the user device.
However, Alderucci teaches:
determine whether the data (Col. 16, ll. 14-38 “the signal produced by 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.”) and
in response to determining that the rating is above the predetermined threshold, initiate a control action permitting access and providing an indication of determination (Col. 15, ll. 65 - Col. 16, ll. 38 “Apparatus 920 may therefore be capable of producing a signal that is detectable by a gaming communication device such that access to the gaming device is provided when the signal is detected. […] 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 Altiner 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 Altiner and Alderucci make this determination using data from wearable devices. Altiner uses a smart collar (see Paragraph [0044] of Altiner) 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 Altiner, 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 Altiner 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, Altiner in view of Alderucci teaches the system of claim 6. Altiner 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. (Paragraph [0096] “The pet collar device 200 may also be able to track the location of the pet over time.”)
Regarding claim 11, Altiner teaches the system of claim 1. Altiner further teaches wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to:
(Paragraph [0056] “The controller 104 may also be configured to open the door only when certain weather conditions are present. For example, if the controller 104 determines it is raining outside, […] the controller 104 may cause a message or notification to be sent to the user device 300”; Examiner notes when the controller does not allow automatic door opening because of the weather, the user is notified)
Altiner 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, initiate a control action denying access and providing an indication of determination to the user device.
However, Alderucci teaches:
determine whether the data (Col. 16, ll. 14-38 “the signal produced by 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, initiate a control action denying access and providing an indication of determination (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 Altiner 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 Altiner and Alderucci make this determination using data from wearable devices. Altiner uses a smart collar (see Paragraph [0044] of Altiner) 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 Altiner, 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 Altiner 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner (US 20210324672 A1) in view of Alderucci (US 11738258 B2) in further view of Heiferman (US 20130212494 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Altiner teaches the system of claim 7. Altiner in view of Alderucci does not teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to generate a seating assignment based at least in part on the data associated with the pet.
However, Heiferman teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to generate a seating assignment based at least in part on the data associated with the user. (Paragraph [0274] “the connections facility may […] create seating arrangements that optimize for new connections based on information the meeting facility has stored about the existing connections among the members at the meeting,”)
This operation of Heiferman is applicable to the system of Altiner as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing spaces for pets (see Paragraph [0141] of Heiferman). Therefore, 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 data corresponding to the pet of Altiner to be used in generating a seating arrangement based on the data as taught by Heiferman. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Altiner in order to facilitate an in-person gathering at a venue (i.e. premises) (see paragraph [0037] of Heiferman).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner (US 20210324672 A1) in view of Alderucci (US 11738258 B2) in further view of Dannenberg (US 20220192158 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Altiner teaches the system of claim 7. Altiner in view of Alderucci does not teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to output instructions to a smart collar worn by the pet to maintain a predetermined distance away from another pet or patron on the premises.
However, Dannenberg teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to output instructions to a smart collar worn by the pet to maintain a predetermined distance away from another pet or patron on the premises. (Paragraph [0046] “The control unit can be used to take motion of an animal into account when determining whether to deliver an aversive stimulus. For example, it may be the case that a first animal is standing still when another aggressive animal begins to approach, crossing a threshold distance when an aversive stimulus would be provided. In this case it may be desirable to only have the collar of the approaching animal deliver an aversive stimulus” of Dannenberg)
This operation of Dannenberg is applicable to the system of Altiner as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to collar that tracks the location of an animal. Therefore, 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 system of Altiner to incorporate outputting instructions to the smart collar to keep the pet a predetermined distance away from another pet as taught by Dannenberg. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Altiner in order to keep the stop aggression-related fighting between animals and prevent injury to the animals (see paragraph [0002] of Dannenberg).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner (US 20210324672 A1) in view of Alderucci (US 11738258 B2) in further view of Bland (US 20220201977 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Altiner teaches the system of claim 7. Altiner in view of Alderucci does not teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to output instructions to a smart collar worn by the pet to remain within an assigned geofenced area within the premises.
However, Bland teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to output instructions to a smart collar worn by the pet to remain within an assigned geofenced area within the premises. (Paragraph [0030] “One of the important features of the voice command dog collar 100 of the present invention is that it has a built-in GPS chip 116 in the electronic circuit 120 that can be used to set a perimeter or geofence around a specific location, such as the owner's property line, to set a limit or boundary for the dog wearing the dog collar 100. Once the dog or other pet approaches or crosses the geofence/perimeter, an alert or vibration of higher intensity is provided by the voice command dog collar 100 to the dog or pet.”)
This operation of Bland is applicable to the system of Altiner as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to tracking the location of a pet using a smart collar. Therefore, 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 system of Altiner to incorporate outputting instructions to a smart collar to keep a pet within a geofence as taught by Bland. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Altiner in order to ensure that the pet or other animal wearing the collar remains inside the established perimeter (see paragraph [0002] of Bland).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner (US 20210324672 A1) in view of Day (US 11645706 B1).
Regarding claim 12, Altiner teaches the system of claim 1. Altiner 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 (Paragraph [0056] “If the controller 104 determines it is raining outside, […] when a condition is determined to be present, the controller 104 may cause a message or notification to be sent to the user device 300 prompting the user to decide whether or not to open the pet door 102.”)
Day does not teach:
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, and restrict access until a response is received.
However, Day 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. (Col. 50, ll.51-65 “In the step 566, the servers 102a-102n may communicate the signal RAGREE [rental agreement] to the user devices 52a-52b (e.g., to both the renter and the property owner). […] the servers 102a-102n may not allow the renter to negotiate the terms 370a-370n (e.g., the property owner may indicate that the terms are non-negotiable).”; step 566 of Fig. 11)
This operation of Day is applicable to the system of Altiner as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing pets on a premises. Therefore, 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 system of Altiner to incorporate outputting predetermined guidelines to a user as taught by Day. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Altiner in order to ensure unauthorized pets are not on the property (see Col. 3, ll. 58- Col. 4, ll. 6 of Day).
Regarding claim 13, Altiner in view of Day teaches the system of claim 12. Altiner does not teach:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to receive a response from the user device, the response indicative of a user having agreed to the guidelines.
However, Day teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to receive a response from the user device, the response indicative of a user having agreed to the guidelines. (Col. 50, ll. 66- Col. 51, ll. 12 “In the decision step 570, the servers 102a-102n may determine whether the users have agreed to the rental agreement 122. […] the renter may submit an acceptance using the rental agreement interface 502 and the user device 52b may communicate the signal CONFR.”; step 570 of Fig. 11)
The motivation for making this modification to the teachings of Altiner is the same as that set forth above, in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Altiner in view of Day teaches the system of claim 13. Altiner further teaches:
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the system to output a notification to initiate a control action permitting access and provide a confirmation of the determination to the user device. (Paragraph [0056] “the controller 104 may cause a message or notification to be sent to the user device 300 prompting the user to decide whether or not to open the pet door 102.”; Paragraph [0102] “As shown in FIG. 22A, the user may select to receive notifications when their pets go out of the house, for example, via a virtual toggle switch 334”)
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner (US 20210324672 A1) in view of Nguyen (US 20050209914 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Altiner teaches the system of claim 1. Altiner does not teach 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, initiate a control action denying entry and providing an indication of the determination to the user device.
However, Nguyen teaches:
determine whether a predetermined capacity of people (Paragraph [0036] “The event may have a maximum capacity.”; Paragraph [0287] “When a registrant attempts to register for a filled activity…” of Nguyen) and
in response to determining that the predetermined capacity has been met, initiate a control action denying entry and providing an indication of the determination to the user device. (Paragraph [0287] “When a registrant attempts to register for a filled activity, the registrant can be notified that the activity is full, and they can be placed on a waitlist.” of Nguyen)
This operation of Nguyen is applicable to the system of Altiner as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to managing the entities in a place. Therefore, 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 system of Altiner to incorporate notifying a user based on the determination that the capacity on the premises is met as taught by Nguyen. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Altiner in order for the user to be able to take corrective actions when the capacity is reached. (see paragraph [0110] of Nguyen).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner (US 20210324672 A1) in view of Muttz with Mannerz (see attached NPL)
Regarding claim 18, Altiner in view of Muttz with Mannerz teaches the system of claim 17. Altiner does not teach:
wherein determining whether to permit the pet to enter comprises determining whether a predetermined capacity of pets of a particular type has been met.
However, Thomas 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. (Page 2 “Advanced notice will help to ensure your dog’s reservation in the event that our daycare facility is at capacity (10 small dogs and 10 large dogs).” of Muttz with Mannerz)
This operation of Muttz with Manner is applicable to the system of Altiner as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to permitting a dog to enter a premises. Therefore, 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 system of Altiner to incorporate wherein determining whether to permit the pet to enter comprises determining whether a predetermined capacity of pets of a particular type has been met as taught by Muttz with Mannerz. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Altiner in order to ensure there is space for a dog at the facility at a given time (see Page 2 “reservations” of Muttz with Mannerz).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altiner (US 20210324672 A1) in view of Muttz with Mannerz (see attached NPL) in further view of Gibbs (US 20190340346 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Altiner in view of Muttz with Mannerz teaches the method of claim 19. Altiner in view of Muttz with Mannerz does not teach:
wherein the smart collar automatically transmits the data to the system when the smart collar enters the geofenced area.
However, Gibbs teaches:
wherein the smart collar automatically transmits the data to the system when the smart collar enters the geofenced area. (Paragraph [0039] “the user's registration status as having consented to the collection of biometric data can be verified by the system 200 […] This verification can take place, […] by the users entering into a limited geofence location while carrying the wearable devices 210 […] where the device has been configured to broadcast an authorization signal.” of Gibbs)
This operation of Gibbs is applicable to the system of Altiner as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using wearable devices that utilize location data. For example, Altiner uses a smart collar to communication location information of the pet (see Paragraph [0092] of Altiner) and Gibbs uses a wearable device to send data when the user arrives at a specific location (see Paragraph [0045] of Gibbs). Therefore, 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 wearable device of Altiner to be utilized in a geofence environment as taught by Gibbs. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Altiner in order to track a location of a wearer of the device (see paragraph [0019] of Gibbs).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 7-13, filed 14 October 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues 1) the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, 2) the claims are integrated into a practical application, and 3) the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding argument 1, the Applicant argues the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the claims also control physical access. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0001] of the instant specification recites “The present invention relates generally to a pet and business rating system that assists with managing the animals within a particular business according to the particular business's guidelines.” Managing the animals within a particular business according to the particular business’s guidelines is considered to be an abstract idea because it is managing a personal behavior of analyzing the requirements to enter a premises, which falls within the category of “certain methods of organizing human activity” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II). The physical prevention of the automatic doors from opening is described at a extremely high level by the claims, and is not always required by the claim. The claims recites outputting instructions, wherein the instructions are at least one of preventing automatic doors from opening. As claimed, the instructions only need to be output, and the instructions output do not need to be related to the movement of the door. The instructions can be for an alert or indication. The claims are directed to the abstract idea of managing the animals within a business not the mechanics behind automatic doors. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The rest of the additional elements listed in the above 101 rejection are analyzed individually and as a whole under step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B.
Regarding argument 2, the Applicant argues the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims reflect an improvement to premises access control technology. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The improvements made by the additional elements are inherent to the functioning of a computer. Therefore, the improvement is not to the technology, but to the abstract idea of managing access to a premises.
The additional elements of a transceiver configured to communicate with one or more devices associated with a pet; one or more processors in communication with the transceiver; and a memory in communication with the one or more processors and storing instructions; the instruction executed by one or more processors; automatic doors; a geofenced area and a user device are all described at a high level by the claims and the instant specification. MPEP 2106.05(f) recites:
Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The device(s) used in the system are simply transmitting and receiving data which is a computer being used in its ordinary capacity. For example, outputting instructions is transmitting data. There is no active step to prevent the door from opening. Using a computer in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Furthermore, claiming the improvements of immediate determinations and direct control of access mechanisms without human intervention is claiming the improved speed and efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a generic computer. Using a generic computer to transmit and receiving information would cause an inherent efficiency. Since the transmitting and receiving of information does not go beyond the identified judicial exception, the improvement is not considered to be technical in nature. Therefore the invention is an improvement to the abstract idea and not to a specific technical problem (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding argument 3, that the additional elements provide significantly more than any alleged abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did not argue that the additional elements are well understood, routine and conventional, but instead argues the additional elements are merely using a computer in its ordinary capacity (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As explained in argument 2, a computer being used in its ordinary capacity to complete economic or other tasks does not provide significantly more.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 13-17, filed 14 October 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 102 and 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Altiner does not teach the amended elements of claim 1. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant argues Altiner does not teach preventing automatic doors from opening. The Applicant further argues that Alitner’s system teaches an opening action but not a preventive action. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph [0046] of Altiner recites:
The controller 104 may change the state of the pet door 102 in response to a determination that the pet is adjacent the door 100. The states of the pet door 102 may include, for example, open, opening, closed, closing, one-way exit, one-way entrance, locked and/or unlocked. The controller 104 may wait to change the state of the pet door 102 until the pet has been proximal to the door 100 for a certain period of time, e.g., 10 seconds. The controller 104 may also employ additional data or output from a sensor or sensors of the pet access apparatus 10 (e.g. interior camera 106 and exterior camera 108) as well as a sensor or sensors of the pet collar device 200 (e.g. gyroscope, accelerometer, positioning device, etc.) to monitor the pet's motion or behavior and determine whether the pet seeks to pass through the pet door 102. The controller 104 may communicate via the network 402. The controller 104 may communicate with and/or send notifications to a user device 300. The user device 300 may run the application 302 associated with door 100 through which a user device 300 displays messages and/or notifications regarding the door 100 (as well as objects and/or areas proximate to the door 100) to the user. The notification may, for example, indicate that the pet is proximal the door 100 and wants to be let out. The controller 104 may communicate with a camera of the door 100, e.g., the interior camera 106 or exterior camera 108. The controller 104 may send control signals to one or both of the cameras 106, 108 to capture an image or video. The controller 104 may communicate with the cameras 106, 108 via the network 402 or directly, e.g., via a wired/wireless connection. The interior and exterior cameras 106, 108 may communicate the captured image data to the controller 104, to the user device 300, and/or the remote computer 400 via network 402.
Paragraph [0046] of Altiner shows that the system is able to prevent the door from opening by putting it in a closed or locked state. Paragraph [0056] of Altiner recites:
The controller 104 may receive other data indicative of whether to open the pet door 102. As one example, the controller 104 may be configured to first identify the pet via the pet tag 200 and/or by processing the image data captured by the cameras 106, 108. As another example, the user may set a schedule for when the pet door 102 may be opened by the pets. The user may set such a schedule for each individual pet, thus requiring an identification of all pets proximate the pet door 102 before opening. The controller 104 may also be configured to open the door only when certain weather conditions are present. For example, if the controller 104 determines it is raining outside, such as by receiving weather data from a weather service via the network 402 or determined via the image data of the exterior camera 108. In some embodiments, when a condition is determined to be present, the controller 104 may cause a message or notification to be sent to the user device 300 prompting the user to decide whether or not to open the pet door 102.
Paragraph [0056] of Altiner shows that the system would want to restrict the door from opening when the weather outside is bad or if the schedule says to not open the door even if the smart collar/pet is detected. Therefore, Altiner teaches preventing the automatic doors from opening.
The Applicant further argues that Altiner does not teach “transmitting instructions to the device associated with the pet to maintain a predetermined distance from other pets or persons or remain within a geofenced area”. As written the claim only requires the instructions to include at least one of preventing automatic doors from opening or maintaining a predetermined distance from other pets or persons. The Examiner has explained that Altiner teaches preventing automatic doors from opening, so the claim limitation has been taught.
Finally, the Applicant argues Altiner does not teach the active control actions recited in claim 1. It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an active control action) 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). The claims recite “output instructions to the device associated with the pet affecting access to the premises”, but does not claim the devices actively performing those steps. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a control action” is any action, and would not indicate an active prevention of the doors from opening or an active step of maintaining a predetermined distance. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Altiner teaches the amended elements of claim 1.
With regards to claim 17 the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their similarities to claim 1. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claims 1. Therefore, claim 17 remains rejected. With regards to claims 2-16 and 18-20 the applicant argues these claims are allowable due to their dependence on claims 1 and 17, respectively. As stated in the arguments above, the Examiner is maintaining the rejections for claims 1 and 17. Therefore, claims 2-16 and 18-20 remain rejected.
Applicant's arguments, see Page(s) 14-15, filed 14 October 2025, with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior action did not provide a reason why one or the ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Altiner’s pet door system which is designed for home use to add a geofence-triggered transmission as taught by Gibbs for user verification purposes. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner recited the following motivation statement:
This operation of Gibbs is applicable to the system of Altiner as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to using wearable devices that utilize location data. For example, Altiner uses a smart collar to communication location information of the pet (see Paragraph [0092] of Altiner) and Gibbs uses a wearable device to send data when the user arrives at a specific location (see Paragraph [0045] of Gibbs).Therefore, 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 wearable device of Altiner to be utilized in a geofence environment as taught by Gibbs. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Altiner in order to track a location of a wearer of the device (see paragraph [0019] of Gibbs).
The Examiner had used KSR rationale C to show that the combination of Altiner and Gibbs use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. MPEP 2143(I)(C) recites:
To reject a claim based on this rationale, Office personnel must resolve the Graham factual inquiries. Then, Office personnel must articulate the following:
(1) a finding that the prior art contained a "base" device (method, or product) upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement;"
(2) a finding that the prior art contained a "comparable" device (method, or product that is not the same as the base device) that has been improved in the same way as the claimed invention;
(3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(4) whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries may be necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
The Examiner showed that Altiner has a base device (i.e. wearable device that utilizes location data) and Gibbs has a comparable device (i.e. wearable device that utilizes location). Then the Examiner showed that Altiner’s wearable device could have been improved by the geofence environment applied to Gibbs’s wearable device in order to allow for further tracking of the wearer of the device, because both devices have foundational location tracking abilities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of the ordinary skill in the art to have applied Gibbs’s geofence environment to Altiner’s wearable device to teach the Applicant’s invention. Therefore, the Examiner maintains Altiner in view of Gibbs teaches the system of claim 3.
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 DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Mo-Th 10am-6pm.
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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
/DANIELLE ELIZABETH ZEVITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /GEORGE CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628