DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17 and 27 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 enablement requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In claim 17, and similarly in claim 27, applicant claims “wherein the at least one sensor monitoring the at least one monitored physical quantity of the second animal comprises or is a Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS), comprising at least one of.an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a magnetometer, a microphone, or a pressure sensor.” Applicant thoroughly explains the motion of the animal being able to determine whether the second animal is hunting a bird or a rodent, using the acceleration data of the device. However, applicant does not provide information on how this can be done using a magnetometer, a microphone, or a pressure sensor. Applicant fails to include any graphs, specific numbers, specific use, or examples of the use of a magnetometer, microphone, or pressure sensor when determining the movement and behaviors of the animal. For example, how would the sounds captured by the microphone differ when a cat is hunting vs when it is just walking around? Or how would they differ when hunting a bird vs hunting a rodent? The same applies to the use of a magnetometer or pressure sensor.
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.
Claim 24 is 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 24 states “The method of claim 9, wherein the behavior of the second animal is not modulated.” It is unclear how the Applicant can guarantee the reaction of an animal, thus rendering the claim indefinite. Applicant appears to specifically be claiming the actions of an animal, which are often unpredictable. There is no guarantee that an animal will react a specific way, and therefore it is unclear exactly what is required of this step of the method. The Office recommends amending this limitation to “wherein the behavior of the second animal is configured to be not modulated”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 22 states “The device of claim 12, wherein the signal generator comprises or is a piezoelectric transducer.” However, claim 12 already claims “a signal generator comprising a piezoelectric transducer.” Claim 22 does not further limit claim 12.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 12-16, 21, 23, and 25-26 are allowed.
Claims 17, 24, and 27 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of applicant's claimed invention. The closest prior art of record fails to specifically teach wherein i) the first set type of behavior of the second animal is a hunting behavior, comprising a behavior of hunting a bird,
ii) the warning signal is not generated based on a determined second set type of behavior of the second animal, wherein the second set type of behavior of the second animal is hunting a rodent, or both (i) and (ii). Previously, the closest prior art was Anderton (US 12219933) as discussed in the Final Rejection mailed 10/28/25. While the use of accelerometers and motion data of pets in the animal devices areas are well known, determining what animal is hunting based on the monitoring of the physical motions and generating alarms based on the determinations as claimed is not disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that claims 2-5 (now equivalent to claims 23-26) each add additional features to the method. The Office has withdrawn the 112(b) rejection of claims 23 and 25-6. However, claim 24, is has no direct connection to the technological environment, and also only claims the action of an animal. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what is required still of this claim, as the actions of animals can be unpredictable and not guaranteed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642