DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 are pending for examination in this Office action.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (Johnson; US Patent No. 9,298,756) in view of Chao Cheng et al. (Chao; US 2009/0256711) and further in view of Massin et al. (Massin; US 2009/0206996).
As per claim 1, Johnson teaches a computer tagging system for programming a programmable component configured to be embedded in an animal, with user specified information relating to identification of the animal (implanting a programmable device and programming the implanted device with one or more data related to identification of the animal, see e.g. abstract and col. 13, lines 1-4), wherein the programmable component includes a permanent Identification Number regulated by IS) 11784 and/or 11785 standard such that the programmable component has a first memory portion that is not programmable which includes the permanent Identification Number (one or more memory portions of the programmable components, wherein some of the components are read only; see e.g. FIG. 4 and col. 11, lines 39-57 based on ISO 11784/11785 [see e.g. col. 5, lines 11-22]), and a second memory portion that is programmable to include the user specified information (other components are Read/Write enabled, see e.g. FIG. 4, which can be programmed with one or more data; see e.g. col. 13, lines 1-4) the second memory portion comprising one or more memory blocks of the programmable component that, in a default state, are not read by an ISO 11784 and/or ISO 11785 scanner (it would have been obvious that there would be no stored data prior to the programming and an ISO 11784/11785 scanner cannot read data in a default state which is a state prior to the programming or storing), comprising:
a console component (console component is depicted as any external component of a handheld device, plastic casing or housing for example, see e.g. FIG. 3 of instant application) communicatively coupled to a user interface (user buttons, see e.g. FIG. 6) and an RFID programming emitter (antenna, see e.g. FIG. 6) (or all the components can be implements into a single handheld device or PDA; see e.g. col. 5, lines 51-58), the console component including one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors (the handheld device comprises one or more memories, see e.g. para. col. 8, lines 45-58), cause the one or more processors to:
receive user entered information prescribing the user specified information relating to identification of the animal (allowing a PDA or handheld device to communicate with the RFID chip to store data; see e.g. col. 5, lines 64-67—col. 6, lines 1-8);
cause a signal, including the user specified information relating to identification of the animal, to be transmitted from the RFID programming emitter to the programmable component located in proximity the RFID programming emitter (one or more signals between tagged or RFID device and the mobile device to read/write information, see e.g. FIG. 3, wherein the information is related to identification of the animal as discussed earlier and the reader/writer and RFID tag are located in proximity of each other) whereby, responsive to receiving the transmitted signal from the RFID programming emitter the one or more memory blocks are opened for programming upon receiving a signal, the user specified information is caused to be stored in the second memory portion of the programmable component (as discussed earlier, the disclosed memory comprises a R/O memory sanction or component and Read/Write memory component or section, wherein communicated data from the reader/writer is stored on the Read/Write memory, see e.g. col. 11, lines 53-57, wherein one or more memory blocks are opened for programming when the RFID device is activated by a veterinarian; see e.g. col. 6, lines 56-67—col. 7, lines 1-11), wherein user specified information includes at least a phone number (see e.g. col. 12 lines 56-67—col. 13, lines 1-4), while the permanent identification number is retained in the first memory portion, such that the phone number is thereafter readable, together with the permanent identification number, by an ISO 11785-compliant reader (Johnson further teaches storing serial or identification number into a first memory block and user data or updatable data into a second memory block can include a phone number, see e.g. FIG. 4 and col. 12, lines 56-67—col. 13, lines 1-4).
Johnson, however, does not explicitly teach enabling the console component, via the user interface.
Chao, however, teaches enabling a console via user interface (inputting one or more information related to initiate communication between a tagged device and a reader console; see e.g. para. [0031-32]). Johnson and Chao are in the same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving user control or to save battery by turning on/off or changing communication parameters.
Johnson and Chao do not explicitly teach to enable pet recovery without requiring registration with a national database.
Massin, however, teaches enabling pet recovery without requiring a registration with a national database (see e.g. para. [0022-23]). Johnson, Chao and Massin are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of eliminating database registration which may reduce hassle for users and/or shelter as suggested by Massin (see e.g. para. [0030]).
As per claim 5, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 1 as taught by Johnson, Chao and Massin, wherein the console component is configured as either a handheld or fixedly mounted device (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 3, Johnson teachers a separate device for RFID operation, see e.g. col. 9, lines 62-67, similarly it would have been obvious to have any component integrated or separable since it has been held by courts that making one or more known components portable is obvious).
As per claim 10, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 1 as taught by Johnson, Chao and Massin, wherein the user specified information consists of a phone number (the user specified information is a phone number; see e.g. col. 13, lines 1-4 of Johnson).
As per claim 11, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 10 as taught by Johnson, Chao and Massin, wherein the user specified information further consists of one or more of: pet name; owner name; an address; website address; vaccination status; preexisting ailments; insurance information; health/medical history; allergies and other known aliments (owner name and/or address information can be included as well; see e.g. col. 13, lines 1-4 on Johnson).
As per claim 12, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 1 as taught by Johnson, Chao and Massin, wherein the programmable component is configured and operative such that the second memory portion is periodically programmed to be updated with differing user specified information (the periodic update is by a user having a device capable of programming the microchip in the event the pet is transferred as defined by the disclosure, which is in line with user writing/overwriting in the read/write enabled memory as discussed earlier, see e.g. FIG. 4 of Johnson).
Claims 2-4, 13-15, 19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Chao, Massin and further in view of Cai (Cai; US Patent No. 10,058,771).
As per claim 2, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 1 as taught by Johnson, Chao and Massin, further including a RFID scanning device operatively associated with a display component (a display which can show one or more data; see e.g. col. 8, lines 59-67 of Johnson), but fails to teach to scan the programmable component with a transmitted RFID signal to identify, via a returned RFID signal emitted from the programmable component, the user specified information stored in at least the second memory portion of the programmable, via the display component.
Cai, however, teaches scan the programmable component with a transmitted RFID signal to identify, via a returned RFID signal emitted from the programmable component, the user specified information stored in at least the second memory portion of the programmable, via the display component (an RFID chip operative for identifying an identity information of the toy spinning top and for storing scoring data; and a cell phone having an NFC function, wherein the cell phone includes spinning top scoring software, operative for reading and displaying the identity information stored in the RFID chip, writing a new identity information into the RFID chip, and for reading and displaying the scoring data stored in the RFID chip and outputting or inputting the scoring data to the RFID chip; see e.g. claim 13). Similarly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to program and check a stored data to make sure the data is stored accurately.
Johnson, Chao, Massin and Cai are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving reliability of stored data.
As per claim 3, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 2 as taught by Johnson, Chao, Massin and Cai, wherein the RFID scanning device is a separate portable device relative to the console component (Johnson teachers a separate device for RFID operation, see e.g. col. 9, lines 62-67, similarly it would have been obvious to have any component integrated or separable).
As per claim 4, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 2 as taught by Johnson, Chao, Massin and Cai, wherein the RFID scanning device is integrated as a unitary device with the console component (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 3, Johnson teaches a separate device for RFID operation, see e.g. col. 9, lines 62-67, similarly it would have been obvious to have any component integrated or separable since it has been held by courts that making one or more known components integrated or sparable is obvious).
As per claim 13, it is interpreted and rejected as claim 2.
As per claims 14 and 15, see analysis of merits of claims 3 and 4.
As per claim 19, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 13 as taught by Johnson, Chao, Massin and Cai, wherein the user specified information further consists of one or more of: pet name; owner name; an address; website address; vaccination status; preexisting ailments; insurance information; health/medical history; allergies and other known aliments (owner name and/or address information can be included as well; see e.g. col. 13, lines 1-4).
As per claim 21, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 13 as taught by Johnson, Chao, Massin and Cai, further comprising a mobile application system configured to receive input relating to a found animal, to identify the animal (reading a pet tag by an ISO 11784/85 reader or scanner to identify an animal; see e.g. para. [0032] of Massin, wherein the reader can be a mobile handheld device or PDA running a software or application, see e.g. col. 6, lines 34-38), and to transmit an alert that includes the phone number to a pet finder via at least one of a user device, email, and telephony (outputting by the reader a phone number to the pet tag reader, see e.g. para. [0020], wherein outputting or notifying using an email or a phone is also obvious for redundancy or a quick response), and to transmit a notification regarding the found animal to a pet owner (transmitting a notification regarding the found animal by directly contacting the pet owner; see e.g. para. [0021]).
Claims 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Chao, Massin and further in view of Roper (Roper; GB 2584816).
As per claim 6, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 1 as taught by Johnson, Chao and Massin, wherein the programmable component is configured to be embedded under a skin portion of the animal as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1 but fails to teach is configured as capsule device.
Roper, however, teaches programmable component is configured as capsule device embedded under skin (see e.g. abstract). Johnson, Chao, Massin and Roper are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of avoiding lost identification tag.
As per claim 7, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 6 as taught by Johnson, Chao, Massin and Roper, wherein the programmable component is embedded under a skin portion of the animal when the second memory portion of the programmable component is programmed with the user specified information (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, the tag can be reprogrammed after it is embedded in skin, wherein it would have been obvious to program it before the injection).
As per claim 8, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 6 as taught by Johnson, Chao, Massin and Roper, wherein the programmable component is located external from the animal when the second memory portion of the programmable component is programmed with the user specified information (an external programmed to read last person who altered data, see e.g. col. 6, lines 56-67 of Johnson, which is after the device is injected and read from outside).
Claims 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Chao, Massin and further in view of Lefevre et al. (Lefevre; US 20170181401).
As per claim 9, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 1 as taught by Johnson, Chao and Massin, except the claimed wherein the programmable component further includes a temperature sensing device for determining a temperature of an animal.
Lefevre, however, teaches programmable component further includes a temperature sensing device for determining a temperature of an animal (tagged device can measure temperature, see e.g. para. [0065], which means temperature sensor is implemented with or close proximity to the tag device).
Johnson, Chao, Massin and Lefevre are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving animal awareness for one or more desired users.
As per claim 18, The computer tagging system as recited in claim 1 as taught by Johnson, Chao and Massin, except the claimed wherein the programmable component further includes a temperature sensing device for determining a temperature of an animal whereby the RFID scanning is further operative and configured to detect a temperature signal included in the returned RFID signal emitted from the programmable component.
Lefevre, however, teaches programmable component further includes a temperature sensing device for determining a temperature of an animal whereby the RFID scanning is further operative and configured to detect a temperature signal included in the returned RFID signal emitted from the programmable component (tagged device can measure temperature and response signal including a temperature measurement, see e.g. para. [0065], which means temperature sensor is implemented with or close proximity to the tag device).
Johnson, Chao, Massin and Lefevre are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of improving animal awareness for one or more desired users.
Claims 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Chao, Massin Cai and further in view of Roper.
As per claim 15, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 13 as taught by Johnson, Chao, Massin and Cai, wherein the programmable component is configured to be embedded under a skin portion of the animal as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1 but fails to teach is configured as capsule device.
Roper, however, teaches programmable component is configured as capsule device embedded under skin (see e.g. abstract). Johnson, Chao, Massin, Cai and Roper are in a same or similar field of endeavor, therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine their teachings for the purpose of avoiding lost identification tag.
As per claim 16, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 15 as taught by Johnson, Chao, Massin, Cai and Roper, wherein the programmable component is embedded under a skin portion of the animal when the second memory portion of the programmable component is programmed with the user specified information (as discussed in analysis of merits of claim 1, the tag can be reprogrammed after it is embedded in skin, wherein it would have been obvious to program it before the injection).
As per claim 17, the computer tagging system as recited in claim 15 as taught by Johnson, Chao, Massin, Cai and Roper, wherein the programmable component is located external from the animal when the second memory portion of the programmable component is programmed with the user specified information (an external programmed to read last person who altered data, see e.g. col. 6, lines 56-67 of Johnson, which is after the device is injected and read from outside).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUHAMMAD ADNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3705. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 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, Steven Lim can be reached on 571-270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUHAMMAD ADNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights