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 and 2-20 are pending for examination in this Office action.
Priority
The effective filing date of the claimed invention is determined to be 05/17/2021 since none of the grandparent applications (provisional or non-provisional) disclose, describe or suggest a pet restraint, an environment condition sensor for an inside of a vehicle, and a collar…associated with an animal.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, 12-20 objected to because of the following informalities.
Regarding claim 1, the claim subject matter comprises “an environmental condition sensor disposed within a vehicle” and “an animal restraint system associated with the vehicle” (emphasis added); see also para. [0080] of instant application suggesting that the smart belt system [worn by a person] includes a vehicle 1433 that is equipped with a temperature monitor, a temperature controller, a door lock, a door opener, an animal restraint system 1502. However, this does not make sense because the smart belt is worn by a person whereas the sensor and the restraint are part of a vehicle. Therefore, the claims can be interpreted as being indefinite since metes and bounds cannot be clearly established.
Similarly, claims 8-9 comprise “an environmental condition sensor disposed within a vehicle” and “an animal restraint system associated with the vehicle” which cannot be understood to be part of the claimed smart belt system worn by a person.
Claim 12 comprises “the environmental data”, however there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed term.
Claim 13 comprises “the animal restraint system”, however there is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed term.
Similarly, claim 14 (and dependent thereof) comprise “an environmental condition sensor disposed within a vehicle” which cannot be understood to be part of a smart belt worn by a person as discussed earlier.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 7, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glodz et al. (Glodz; US Patent No. 8,035,560) in view of Anderton et al. (Anderton; US 2017/0265432).
As per claim 7, Goldz teaches a smart belt system to be worn by a person, comprising:
an elongated belt (see e.g. FIG. 1);
a microprocessor coupled to the belt (a control module [which was coupled to the belt during manufacture] comprising one or more processors or CPUs; see e.g. col. 9, lines 61-67—col. 10, lines 1-2);
a bus disposed within the elongated belt configured to conduct data to the microprocessor (one or more cables 328 to convey data to the processor; see e.g. FIGS. 11-12);
a power supply coupled to the belt and configured for providing electrical power to the microprocessor (a rechargeable battery 326, FIG. 11 and col. 11, lines 11-17).
Glods does not specifically teach a collar communicatively coupled to the microprocessor and associated with an animal, the collar operable to determine at least one of a vital sign and a location associated with the animal.
Anderton, however teaches a collar communicatively coupled to the microprocessor and associated with an animal (a collar comprising a Bluetooth adapter, see e.g. para. [0064], which can be communicatively coupled to a microprocessor of an electronic device 200; see e.g. FIG. 3), the collar operable to determine at least one of a vital sign and a location associated with the animal (the collar further comprising a temperature sensor to determine pet temperature, see e.g. para. [0064] as well as location determination mechanism including GPS to provide location of pet; see e.g. para. [0030]).
Glods and Anderton 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 improving pet safety.
As per claim 10, the smart belt system of claim 7 as taught by Glods and Anderton, wherein the collar is configured to generate a cue to exert a response in a behavior associated with the animal (outputting an electric shock if pet moves past a boundary; see e.g. para. [0035] of Anderton).
As per claim 11, the smart belt system of claim 10, wherein the cue includes at least one of a sound, an electric shock and a tactile effect (outputting an electric shock if pet moves past a boundary; see e.g. para. [0035] of Anderton).
As per claim 12, the smart belt system of claim 7 as taught by Glods and Anderton, wherein the environmental data includes at least one of temperature (the disclosed temperature sensor of Anderton, see e.g. para. [0064], can determine temperature around its environment), air quality, moisture, fire, humidity, smoke and a presence of a chemical.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glodz in view of Anderton and further in view of Graeve (Graeve; US 2016/0203703).
As per claim 8, the smart belt system of claim 7 as taught by Glods and Anderton, further comprising an environmental condition sensor disposed within a vehicle, the environmental condition sensor being communicatively coupled to the microprocessor (the temperature sensor disposed in the collar as taught by Anderton and discussed earlier, see e.g. para. of [0030] and [0064], when positioned inside a vehicle, see e.g. para. [0071]) except the claimed sensor configured to generate environmental data associated with the vehicle.
Graeve, however, teaches sensor configured to generate environmental data associated with vehicle (a thermometer that measures the temperature inside the vehicle; see e.g. para. [0056]). Glods, Anderton and Graeve 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 improving safety for an unattended pet.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glodz in view of Anderton and further in view of Buttolo et al. (Buttolo; US 2022/0234538).
As per claim 9, the smart belt system of claim 7 as taught by Glods and Anderton, except the claimed subject matter further comprising an animal restraint system associated with the vehicle and communicatively coupled to the microprocessor, the animal restraint system being configured to restrain an animal within the vehicle.
Buttolo, however, teaches an animal restraint system associated with vehicle and communicatively coupled to a microprocessor (pet restraint system associated with a vehicle, see e.g. FIGS. 2-3, and coupled to a controller; see e.g. para. [0055]), the animal restraint system being configured to restrain an animal within the vehicle (a dog being restrained within a vehicle; see e.g. FIG. 2).
Glods, Anderton and Buttalo 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 improving safety for an unattended pet.
As per claim 13, the smart belt system of claim 7 as taught by Glods and Anderton, except the claimed wherein the animal restraint system includes a leash anchor and one or more straps configured to retain the animal in a substantially predetermined position when the animal is disposed within the vehicle.
Buttolo, however, teaches animal restraint system includes a leash anchor and one or more straps configured to retain the animal in a substantially predetermined position when the animal is disposed within a vehicle (see e.g. FIGS. 2-3). Glods, Anderton and Buttalo 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 improving safety for an unattended pet.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glodz in view of Graeve.
As per claim 14, Goldz teaches a smart belt system to be worn by a person, comprising:
an elongated belt (see e.g. FIG. 1);
a microprocessor coupled to the belt (a control module [which was coupled to the belt during manufacture] comprising one or more processors or CPUs; see e.g. col. 9, lines 61-67—col. 10, lines 1-2);
a bus disposed within the elongated belt configured to conduct data to the microprocessor (one or more cables 328 to convey data to the processor; see e.g. FIGS. 11-12).
Glods fails to teach an environmental condition sensor disposed within a vehicle, the environmental condition sensor being communicatively coupled to the microprocessor and configured to generate environmental data associated with the vehicle.
Graeve, however, teaches an environmental sensor disposed in a vehicle and configured to generate environmental data associated with the vehicle (a thermometer that measures the temperature inside the vehicle; see e.g. para. [0056]).
Glods and Graeve 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 improving safety for an unattended pet.
Claim(s) 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glodz in view of Graeve and further in view of Anderton.
As per claim 15, the smart belt system of claim 14 as taught by Glods and Graeve. Glods does not specifically teach a collar communicatively coupled to the microprocessor and associated with an animal, the collar operable to determine at least one of a vital sign and a location associated with the animal.
Anderton, however teaches a collar communicatively coupled to the microprocessor and associated with an animal (a collar comprising a Bluetooth adapter, see e.g. para. [0064], which can be communicatively coupled to a microprocessor of an electronic device 200; see e.g. FIG. 3), the collar operable to determine at least one of a vital sign and a location associated with the animal (the collar further comprising a temperature sensor to determine pet temperature, see e.g. para. [0064] as well as location determination mechanism including GPS to provide location of pet; see e.g. para. [0030]).
Glods, Graeve and Anderton 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 improving pet safety.
As per claim 17, the smart belt system of claim 15 as taught by Glods and Graeve, except the claimed wherein the collar is configured to generate a cue to exert a response in a behavior associated with the animal.
Anderton, however, teaches collar is configured to generate a cue to exert a response in a behavior associated with the animal (outputting an electric shock if pet moves past a boundary; see e.g. para. [0035] of Anderton). Glods, Graeve and Anderton 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 improving pet safety.
As per claim 18, the smart belt system of claim 17 as taught by Glods, Graeve and Anderton, wherein the cue includes at least one of a sound, an electric shock and a tactile effect (outputting an electric shock if pet moves past a boundary; see e.g. para. [0035] of Anderton). Glods, Graeve and Anderton 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 improving pet safety.
As per claim 19, the smart belt system of claim 14 as taught by Glods and Graeve, except the claimed wherein the environmental data includes at least one of temperature, air quality, moisture, fire, humidity, smoke and a presence of a chemical.
Anderton, however, teaches environmental data includes at least one of temperature (the disclosed temperature sensor of Anderton, see e.g. para. [0064], can determine temperature around its environment), air quality, moisture, fire, humidity, smoke and a presence of a chemical. Glods, Graeve and Anderton 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 improving pet safety.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glodz in view of Graeve and further in view of Buttolo.
As per claim 16, the smart belt system of claim 14 as taught by Glods and Graeve, except the claimed subject matter further comprising an animal restraint system associated with the vehicle and communicatively coupled to the microprocessor, the animal restraint system being configured to restrain an animal within the vehicle.
Buttolo, however, teaches an animal restraint system associated with vehicle and communicatively coupled to a microprocessor (pet restraint system associated with a vehicle, see e.g. FIGS. 2-3, and coupled to a controller; see e.g. para. [0055]), the animal restraint system being configured to restrain an animal within the vehicle (a dog being restrained within a vehicle; see e.g. FIG. 2).
Glods, Graeve and Buttalo 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 improving safety for an unattended pet.
As per claim 20, the smart belt system of claim 16 as taught by Glods, Graeve and Buttalo, wherein Buttolo, further, teaches animal restraint system includes a leash anchor and one or more straps configured to retain the animal in a substantially predetermined position when the animal is disposed within a vehicle (see e.g. FIGS. 2-3). Glods, Graeve and Buttalo 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 improving safety for an unattended pet.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6, 11 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,073,701. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant indicates that the claims 7 and 14 (along with dependent claims), with different claim scope are added, include claim elements which are found in the prior art references.
Examiner, however, respectfully disagrees and submits that the claim 7, 14 and dependent thereof remain rejected as discussed in analysis of merits of the claims. In addition, claim 1 and its dependent remain rejected/objected as discussed earlier.
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