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 Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 7: “increasing increased” should read –increasing—
Claim 10, line 6: “when animal” should read –when the animal--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s), alongside their corresponding structure described in the specification is/are:
“a positioning module” in claim 1
¶0018: at least a global navigation satellite system (GNSS)
“a correction module” in claim 1
¶0021: Includes at least a light-emitting diode (LED) (light emission), speaker (sound emission), electric motor (vibration), and an adjustable discharge control system for electric shock.
“a movement monitoring module” in claim 1
¶0023: at least a Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) and acceleration sensor
“an environment monitoring module” in claim 7
¶0024: at least Temperature and humidity sensors
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3 and 5-10 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.
Claim 1 as amended, recites “the main control module is configured to determine a correction operation and a correction intensity of the correction operation based on at least one of the basic data and the physiological data before movement data is received by the main control module”. This limitation appears to constitute new matter, as the disclosure does not adequately describe the determination operation as occurring prior to the receipt of movement data by the main control module. This limitation does not appear to be supported through express, implicit or inherent disclosure (see MPEP 2163.04-2163.05). If anything, the applicant seems to have support for the opposite, that, when the movement data is a determinative factor in the operation/intensity determination, the module is configured to perform the determination after receipt of the movement data (¶0023).
Further, claim 1 as amended recites “wherein the main control module is further configured to determine the correction operation and the correction intensity based on the movement data upon receiving the movement data from the movement monitoring module.” This limitation appears to constitute new matter, as the disclosure does not appear to specify that the processor is so configured such that determination functionality occurs upon receipt of the movement data. Upon, in this context, under plain meaning, makes the claim require that the processor be configured to perform the determination at the time of receipt of the data, or directly thereafter; it implies that receipt of data is a triggering event to determination. This limitation does not appear to be supported through express, implicit or inherent disclosure (see MPEP 2163.04-2163.05). The applicant does have support for determination –after receiving the movement data--, given ¶0023 says the module is configured to determine the operations “based” on the movement data, which would require that the processor have access to the movement data prior to making a determination.
Support for the amended limitations is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported (MPEP 714.02; MPEP 2163.04).
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 1-3, and 5-10 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 recites “the main control module is configured to determine a correction operation and a correction intensity of the correction operation based on at least one of the basic data and the physiological data before movement data is received by the main control module.” Then, later claim 1 recites “wherein the main control module is further configured to determine the correction operation and the correction intensity based on the movement data upon receiving the movement data from the movement monitoring module”. These claim limitations are unclear as they appear to directly contradict one another. The applicant introduces a correction operation and intensity that are determined before receipt of movement data, then goes on to say that the same correction operation and intensity are determined based on the same movement data upon receiving the movement data. It is unclear how an operation/intensity can simultaneously be determined before receipt of movement data and on receipt of movement data. Further, given this contradiction, it is generally unclear whether, when the claims recite “the correction operation” and “the correction intensity” later on, whether they are referring to that based on movement data or not, and if the correction operation/intensity must vary.
Claim 7 remains rejected under 112(b) for reciting that the “control module further configured to generate the correction intensity.” It remains unclear how a control module may generate an intensity. For examination purposes, based on the applicant’s amendments, this limitation will be understood as –control module further configured to determine the correction intensity--.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the same period of time" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is generally unclear how this statement serves to limit the invention, particularly what the time of acceleration change of the animal is being equated to.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tran (US 2020/0267936, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Tran, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 12:
Tran discloses an animal behavior correction method comprising processes of:
Aquiring first location data of an animal and defining second location data of a safe area (GPS receiver that provides location of animal per ¶0343; ¶0350: boundary can be defined by GPS as user walks with the collar in hand);
Acquiring basic data of the animal (¶0096-0098 discusses acquisition of basic data including name, gender, weight, size, and pet type);
Acquiring physiological data of the animal (¶0099 – detecting pet soiling includes the acquisition of physiological data from the odor sensor, the physiological data being the odor released by the animal, corresponding with a physiological event; ¶0352);
determining whether or not the animal is located in the safe area based on the first location data of the animal and the second location data of the safe area, and generating a correction operation and a correction intensity of the correction operation at least based on the basic data and the physiological data when the animal is determined to not be located in the safe area (¶099: correction operation and intensity generated and applied, based on when pet is in safe area – such a determination involving the first and second location data, and the physiological data acquired, that being whether pet is soiling; correction operation and intensity also based on basic data of the animal per ¶0098 which says shock intensity and period based on weight, size, and type); and
correcting behavior of the animal based on the correction operation and the correction intensity, such that the animal at least returns to the safe area (¶0099 details correction; such correction capable of directing animal to return to safe area).
Regarding claim 13:
Tran discloses an animal behavior correction system, comprising:
an animal behavior correction device (collar 15 with electronics module 19, Fig 3A) configured to aquire first location data, basic data, and physiological data of an animal and define second location data of a safe area (GPS receiver that provides location of animal per ¶0343; ¶0350: boundary can be defined by GPS as user walks with the collar in hand; ¶0096-0098 discusses acquisition of basic data including name, gender, weight, size, and pet type; ¶0099 – detecting pet soiling includes the acquisition of physiological data from the odor sensor, the physiological data being the odor released by the animal, corresponding with a physiological event; ¶0352) wherein the animal behavior correction device is configured to:
determine whether or not the animal is located in the safe area based on the first location data of the animal and the second location data of the safe area, and generate a correction operation and a correction intensity of the correction operation at least based on the basic data and the physiological data when the animal is determined to not be located in the safe area (¶099: correction operation and intensity generated and applied, based on when pet is in safe area – such a determination involving the first and second location data, and the physiological data acquired, that being whether pet is soiling; correction operation and intensity also based on basic data of the animal per ¶0098 which says shock intensity and period based on weight, size, and type); and
correct behavior of the animal based on the correction operation and the correction intensity, such that the animal at least returns to the safe area (¶0099 details correction; such correction capable of directing animal to return to safe area);
a server terminal (cloud server 23, Fig 3A, wherein the animal behavior correction device transmits at least the first location data, the basic data, the physiological data, the correction operation, and the correction intensity of the animal to the server terminal through a first communication system (includes cellular transceiver in electronics module 19, per ¶0339, and device 12; capable of transmitting data to the server terminal, as can be seen in Fig 3A, and per ¶0348 and ¶0101-0102), and the server terminal then transmits the first location data, the basic data, the physiological data, the correction operation, and the correction intensity (capable of transmitting data, for example to computing device 24, as is shown in Fig 3A and discussed in ¶0102); and
a user terminal (remote computing device 24, Fig 3A), wherein the user terminal receives the first location data, the basic data, the physiological data, the correction operation, and the correction intensity from the server terminal (capable of receiving such data; see ¶0102).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran, in view of Gopika (IN 202241047822, as cited on previous 892), Van Curen (US 20180228130, as cited on previous 892), and Lee (US 7719430 , as cited on previous 892) hereinafter referred to as Gopika, Van Curen, and Lee respectively, as best understood in light of the 112 issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Tran discloses an animal behavior correction device, configured to be worn on an animal (see Fig 3B: collar 15 with electronics module 19 worn on the animal), the animal behavior correction device comprising:
a positioning module configured to acquire first location data of the animal (GPS receiver that provides location of animal per ¶0343);
a processor configured to acquire basic data of the animal (¶0096-0098 discusses acquisition of pet data, and determination of shock intensity and shock period based on the data, such a determination necessitating a processor);
a physiological data acquisition module including sensors configured to acquire physiological data of the animal (¶0339: electronics module 19 includes electronic components used for monitoring and recording physiological data, such as the dog’s pulse rate or body temperature);
a main control module (consisting of microprocessor in electronics module 19 on collar per ¶0339, and processor in device 12, which is wirelessly connected to the electronics module) configured to determine whether or not the animal is located in a safe area based on the first location data of the animal and second location data of the safe area (¶099: determination of if pet is in non-potty area, thereby outside safe area necessary; ¶0350: boundary can be defined by GPS as user walks with the collar in hand), wherein, when the animal is not located in the safe area, the main control module generates a correction operation and a correction intensity of the correction operation based on at least one of the basic data and the physiological data (¶099: when pet is in non-potty area and soiling, apply shock intensity and period; ¶098: shock intensity and shock period based on weight, size, type – aka basic data) before movement data is received by the main control module (as best understood, the main control module could function without receipt of movement data, only requiring location data to ensure pet is within the non-potty area);
a correction module (shocking prongs 47, and electrical stimulus application circuitry – electrical stimulus; Display of colored LEDs per ¶0036 – visible stimulus; speaker per ¶0339 – audible stimulus); configured for behavioral correction of the animal based on the correction operation and the correction intensity (¶099: shock applied based on intensity and period), so as to at least return the animal to the safe area (functional language: capable of causing animal to return to safe area); and
a movement monitoring module configured to acquire the movement data of the animal, wherein the movement data includes a movement path and an acceleration of the animal (¶0347; 0326; ¶0330; ¶0342);
Tran fails to specifically disclose that the processor configured to acquire the basic data of the animal has a memory module configured to store basic data of the animal; and that the correction module includes an electric motor.
Further, although Tran contemplates incorporating movement data into determination of a correction operation and intensity (¶0347), as best understood, Tran does not appear to disclose wherein the main control module is further configured to determine the correction operation and the correction intensity based on the movement data, upon receiving the movement data from the movement monitoring module, because the determination of the correction operation and intensity to which this clause refers is previously discussed as occurring “when the animal is not located in the safe area,” and Tran contemplates determining correction operation and intensity based also on movement data, only when the animal is in the safe area (movement data used to determine whether animal is approaching not-safe area, with pre-emptive correction applied prior to entering not-safe area).
Gopika discloses an animal corrective device (claim 1) with a processor configured to acquire basic data of the animal, the processor associated with a memory module configured to acquire the basic data of the animal (¶049: weight/size data uploaded to data management system/DMS 301 for logical processing, then the data is appended to the animal’s record; ¶052: DMS has storage structure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tran to have specifically included storage for acquiring the basic data of the animal, alongside the processor that receives the data, as in Gopika, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide easy access to animal data (animal’s record) for later processing and review, the data located in one spot for ease of access and organization.
Van Curen discloses an animal collar correction device with a correction module including not only sound and shock capabilities, but also vibration, the vibration initiated by an electric motor (¶0069)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added an electric motor to the correction module of Tran, as in Van Curen, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a broader range of corrective operations, and therefore a greater chance of corrective success, and more levels of corrective intensity overall; some animals may respond better to vibration than sound or electrical stimulus.
Lee discloses an animal correction device with a movement monitoring module configured to acquire the movement data of the animal, wherein the movement data includes a movement path and an acceleration of the animal (Col 2), and wherein a main control module is further configured to incorporate movement data into the determination of correction operation and intensity when the animal is outside a preset boundary (Col 7, lines 20-35: stimulus cessation based on animal accelerating while in the not-safe area).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated movement data into correction operation and intensity determination while the animal is not in the safe area, as in Lee, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Lee, continuous movement towards the undesirable area may be a natural shock/fear response by the animal, not intentional bad behavior, whereby further stimulation would not be necessary to teach the animal the desired behavior (Col 7).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran, Gopika, Van Curen, and Lee as applied to claim 1, further in view of Antoniou (GB 2579241), hereinafter referred to as Antoniou, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 2:
Tran as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the basic data includes a type, a gender, an electronic identification, and a weight of the animal (¶0096-0097), and wherein the main control module is further configured to select a correction operation and intensity based on the weight of the animal, and implies that smaller dogs need milder stimulus (¶0098-0099).
Tran as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the basic data includes an age of the animal, and fails to specifically disclose that the main control module is configured to select a mild correction operation and reduce the correction intensity in response to the weight of the animal being less than a first preset value.
Gopika further teaches age as a basic data piece acquired by the processor/memory (¶051).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control module of Tran with the specific functionality of acquiring age and storing it as part of the pet’s profile, for consideration in logic processes, as in Gopika, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification, as age is generally a determinative factor in a pet’s health and behavior, and therefore a useful value for consideration in a monitoring and correction system such as Tran.
Antoniou contemplates the comparison of basic animal data (size) to thresholds (small, medium, large), in order to select correction operation/intensity, wherein, when the animal data is less than a threshold (ex: classified as medium, rather than large), the controller selects a mild, reduced correction intensity (as compared to the correction intensity for large dogs).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the processor of Tran with the specific functionality of comparison of the basic data in question (weight) to thresholds, in the determination of correction intensity/operation, smaller dogs being provided with a milder correction than larger dogs, such an operation contemplated by Antoniou, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as disclosed in Tran, providing lower stimulation to smaller pets, would ensure that the pet is not unduly harmed if it is too small, but that the correction would remain effective for the size of the pet (¶0100). Further, the comparison of data to thresholds as a part of a processor logic process is well within the ordinary skill of the art, particularly when a congruous mental process is contemplated in the prior art; providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran, Gopika, Van Curen, Lee and Antoniou, as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of Yamasaki (JP 2022515837 A, as cited on previous 892) and Watkins (WO 2024/178437 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yamasaki and Watkins, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 3:
Tran as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 above and further discloses wherein the physiological data that the physiological data acquisition module can acquire includes heartbeat frequency of the animal (¶0004: “heart rate”)
Tran as modified fails to disclose wherein the physiological data that the physiological data acquisition module can acquire includes a number of swallows of the animal and wherein the control module is configured to determine the correction operation to include a light emission, a sound emission, a vibration and an electric shock.
Yamasaki discloses an animal monitoring device with sensors configured to acquire a number of swallows of an animal (Pg 12, 2nd to last ¶)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided sensors configured to acquire a number of swallows of the animal as a part of the physiological data acquisition module, as in Yamasaki, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Yamasaki, healthy animals may be expected to swallow a minimum and/or maximum number of times over a period of time, so if an animal performs less or more than the amount defined for a healthy animal, then the animal can be identified as unhealthy (Pg 18, ¶4). This would be useful, in order to inform the user of an illness in their animal, or inform the user if the unwanted potty action, may be due to illness issues, rather than disobedience.
Watkins discloses an electronic animal containment and correction device contemplates applying a light emission, a sound emission, a vibration and an electric shock as a correction operation, the correction operation determined/implemented by a control module when the animal is determined to not be in a safe zone (¶0017).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control module with the functionality to determine a correction operation including a light emission, a sound emission, a vibration, and an electric shock in response to the animal going outside the safe zone, as in Watkins, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide appropriate varying intensities of correction, based on the animal’s behavior, preferably increasing intensity as the animal moves further from the safe zone.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran, Gopika, Van Curen, and Lee as applied to claim 1, further in view of Riley (US 10064391, as cited on previous 892) and Bonge (US 20160021506, as cited on previous 892), hereinafter referred to as Riley, and Bonge, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 7:
Tran as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Tran as modified fails to specifically disclose an environment monitoring module configured to acquire environment data of an environment that the animal is located in, wherein the environment data includes a temperature and a humidity of the environment; wherein the main control module is further configured to generate the correction intensity based on the environment data and reduce the correction intensity when at least one of the temperature and the humidity of the environment is greater than an eighth preset value.
Riley discloses a behavior-deterring collar with an environment monitoring module configured to acquire a temperature of the environment in which the animal is located, and wherein a main control module is configured to generate the correction intensity based on the environment data and reduce the correction intensity when the temperature of the environment is indicative of a fire (Col 4, lines 35-40; when high heat level sensed such as to indicate a fire, behavior deterring stimulus prevented from being applied).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided Tran with a temperature sensor and the control with temperature dependent adjustment of correction intensity, as in Riley, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as discussed in Riley, doing so would allow the animal to escape or react properly in the event of an emergency event, such as a fire, rather than be trapped or quieted due to deterring stimulus.
Bonge discloses a wireless animal training, monitoring and remote control system including an environment monitoring module configured to acquire a humidity of the environment in which the animal is located (¶0070).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated an environment monitoring module with a humidity sensor into the device of Tran, as in Bonge, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Bonge, doing so would allow for improved monitoring of the animal’s health and fitness, and would allow the device to better determine the conductivity of the animal’s environment (¶0070), a factor which may impact the strength of electric stimulus applied.
Regarding claim 8:
Tran as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 above and further discloses a communication module configured to transmit at least the first location data, the basic data, the physiological data, the correction operation, and the correction intensity of the animal to a server terminal through a first communication system (includes cellular transceiver in electronics module 19, per ¶0339, and device 12; capable of transmitting data to a server terminal 23, as can be seen in Fig 3A, and per ¶0348, ¶0034-0036, and ¶0101-0102), wherein the server terminal is configured to transmit the first location data, the basic data, the physiological data, the correction operation, and the correction intensity to a user terminal (transmitting functionality of the server terminal does not hold weight in this claim, given the server terminal is not a positively claimed portion of the applicants invention per Pg 14, ¶1 of the Remarks; the communication module is configured to transmit to any sort of server terminal, including one capable of transmitting information to a user terminal).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tran, Gopika, Van Curen, Lee, Riley and Bonge as applied to claim 8, further in view of Park (KR 20230082119 A), hereinafter referred to as Park, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 9:
Tran as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 above and further discloses wherein the physiological data includes a heartbeat frequency of the animal (¶0004):
Tran as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the main control module is further configured to obtain a first determination result when a change in the acceleration of the animal in the same period of time is greater than a ninth preset value, and the heartbeat frequency of the animal is increased by a magnitude being greater than a tenth preset value; wherein the first determination result indicates that the animal is in a fighting state.
Park discloses an animal corrective device with a control module configured to determine that an animal is in a fighting/aggressive state when acceleration change is severe, and heartrate suddenly rises, then correcting as a result, and transmitting the state information to a user device for notification (Pg 6, ¶9-end).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control module of Tran with the functionality of identifying an aggressive state of the animal, and applying correction as a result, based on heartrate increase and acceleration change, as in Park, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to provide a more robust corrective device, helping prevent the animal from biting a person or other animal, and keeping the user informed of the state of their animal.
Regarding claim 10:
Tran as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 above and further discloses wherein
the basic data includes an electronic identification of the animal (¶0097); wherein the communication module is further configured to transmit the first determination result, and the electronic identification and the first location data to the server terminal through the first communication system when the animal is determined to be in the fighting state (capable of transmitting data to a server terminal 23, as can be seen in Fig 3A, and per ¶0348, ¶0034-0036, and ¶0101-0102, time is not a limiting factor in functional capability; see also discussion of user notification upon fighting state in Park Pg. 6); wherein the server terminal is configured to transmit the first determination result, the electronic identification, and the first location data of the animal to the user terminal (transmitting functionality of the server terminal does not hold weight in this claim, given the server terminal is not a positively claimed portion of the applicants invention per Pg 14, ¶1 of the Remarks; the communication module is configured to transmit to any sort of server terminal, including one capable of transmitting information to a user terminal).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Although structure configured to acquire a number of swallows of an animal is known in the art (see rejection of claim 3 above), the examiner has not been able to find prior art in the time allotted that contemplates incorporating number of swallows data in the robust correction operation determination by the processor contemplated in claims 5-6.
Response to Arguments
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
The examiner traverses the applicant’s assertion that the incorporation of claim 4 serves to make the claim allowable, given the intervening claims were not incorporated, and the claim scope was changed substantially through amendment.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.V.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights