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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 and 11-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 2-9 state “A system” and this should read “The system”. Claims 11-18 state “A method” and should read “The method”. 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.
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) is/are: “a processing arrangement” in claim 1.
“A processing arrangement” is seen as “may be one or more processors comprising digital circuits” from page 14 of the specification.
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 1-18 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. The claims state “process the captured one or more signals to determine a behaviour of the pet based on a set of behavioural symptoms identified from the captured one or more signals, and diagnose, from the determined behaviour of the pet, a deviation from a routine behaviour of the pet” where the set of behavioural symptoms identified as per the specification and claims 6 and 15 are those of barking, whining, pacing, posture, panting, scratching self or objects in vicinity, harming self or objects in vicinity, relative positioning of body parts, body secretions and where deviations are seen as from the specification and claims 5 and 14 wherein the deviation from the routine behaviour of the pet comprises at least one of: boredom, loneliness, anxiety, health problem, fear. However, there is no linkage or explanation in the specification as to how the different behavioural symptoms are evaluated to come up with the deviations. There it is seen that original claim lacks written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The specification as originally filed hints at using open source codes but does not link the recorded information to the behavioral symptoms to the deviation for the result of treatment as well as stating the different types of behavioural symptoms are described in an embodiment that does not appear related to the embodiment with the deviations described. Further, it is unclear how one would know what fear, anxiety, loneliness or boredom in a pet would result as based on the current specification. Therefore, the claims are seen as lacking written description.
PNG
media_image1.png
898
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 7-9 and 16-18 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.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, claim 7 states that information about the pet is sent to a user and it can be “sound based, motion based alerts or frequency thereof”. However, it is unclear if the information being sent is being that of sound motion or frequency of information or information based on sound, motion, frequency. The sentence structure is confusing and is not clear what is being claimed. Claims 8-9 inherit this issue due to their dependency on claim 7. Claims 16-18 are rejected similarly to above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujiwara, JP 2018064495, herein referred to as “Fujiwara”.
Regarding claim 1, Fujiwara teaches: A system for ensuring well-being of a pet (abstract), the system comprising: one or more sensors configured to capture one or more signals of the pet (first sensor part 40 for detecting physiological response of the animal abstract and under (First sensor part 40) the second sensor); - one or more beacons positioned in a vicinity of the pet, wherein the one or more beacons are configured to execute one or more sensory stimulations (abstract; actuator 50 for changing the environment in the basket to help a stressed animal); and - a processing arrangement, communicably coupled to the one or more sensors and the one or more beacons (abstract; control part 60 for controlling the actuator based on information detected form sensor part 40), configured to: - process the captured one or more signals to determine a behaviour of the pet based on a set of behavioural symptoms identified from the captured one or more signals, and diagnose, from the determined behaviour of the pet, a deviation from a routine behaviour of the pet (under heading (Control unit 60); control unit detects a stress state and drives the actuator according to the stress state and changs in health condition to be monitored); - monitor the deviation from the routine behaviour of the pet over a period of time to determine a severity of the diagnosis (under heading (Detection of stress in paw animals) Fig. 4 and the stress state of the pay is detected by the difference in physiological response which is seen as monitoring between a normal and stressed state as well as detecting high vs low state for stress and similarly monitoring a second sensor state with sound shows monitoring sound over time); - select a suitable sensory stimulation, from amongst the one or more sensory stimulations, corresponding to the determined severity of the diagnosis (under relieving stress in paw and on shows selecting a type of stress relief based on stressor); and - activate the one or more beacons to execute the selected suitable sensory stimulation for correcting the deviation from the routine behaviour of the pet (under relieving stress in paw; creating a sensory type environment to help relieve stress in animal).
Regaridng claim 2, Fujiwara teaches: wherein the one or more sensory stimulations comprises at least one of: a plurality of sounds (Relieving stress by voice which is seen as a plurality of sounds), and a plurality of coloured lights.
Regarding claim 3, Fujiwara teaches: wherein the one or more sensory stimulations is executed in one of: a distract mode stimulation, an ambient mode stimulation and a calm mode stimulation, wherein the distract mode stimulation comprises one or more first sounds and/or one or more first coloured lights designed to alarm and distract the pet, the ambient mode stimulation comprises one or more second sounds and/or one or more second coloured light designed to change an ambience for the pet, and the calm mode stimulation comprises one or more third sounds and/or one or more third coloured lights designed to calm and relax the pet (The claim only appears to require one of the modes and one stimulation therefore the changing of the modes does not change the operation of the system as claimed and therefore being able to have a voice being projected is a plurality of sounds and therefore would function of different modes and therefore could have an effect on the pet).
Regarding claim 4, Fujiwara teaches: wherein the processing arrangement is further configured to: create an input data set by pairing a plurality of captured one or more signals and a corresponding plurality of selected suitable sensory stimulation (Under control unit 60; the plurality of inputs (responses) used to training the model of AI and controlling the actuator to control the stress relief elements as seen under Actuator 50); and train a machine learning model to automatically select the suitable sensory stimulation based on a given captured one or more signals of the pet (Under control unit 60; AI with function of learning).
Regarding claim 5, Fujiwara teaches: wherein the deviation from the routine behaviour of the pet comprises at least one of: boredom, loneliness, anxiety, health problem, fear (abstract; stress which is seen as anxiety and fear and health problems as health condition of the paws are looked at).
Regarding claim 6, Fujiwara teaches: wherein the set of behavioural symptoms, associated with the deviation from the routine behaviour, comprises at least one of: barking, whining, pacing, posture, panting, scratching self or objects in vicinity, harming self or objects in vicinity, relative positioning of body parts, body secretions (under (control unit 60) looking at body and posture of the animal).
Regarding claim 7, Fujiwara teaches: further comprising a user device communicably coupled to the processing arrangement, wherein the user device comprises an application installed therein and the application is configured to: - receive information about the determined behaviour of the pet; and - notify a user of the received information about the determined behaviour of the pet, wherein the information is notified in form of sound or motion-based alerts and frequency thereof (Under header (Control unit 60); a communication function with the memory that allows for communication to happen between the device and control unit and that of the animals owner or veterinarian where the communication).
Regarding claims 10-16, the claims are seen as similarly rejected to the system of claims 1-7 as described by Fujiwara as the elements of the system perform the steps of the method.
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.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Fujiwara in view of Bonge, Jr. US 20160015004, herein referred to as “Bonge, Jr.”
Regarding claims 8 and 17, While Fujiwara does disclose that they communicate information to user. Fujiwara does not explicitly state that the user has any particular abilities. However, Bonge, Jr. does disclose: wherein the application is further configured to - provide an interface for facilitating the user to select an alternative sensory stimulation from amongst the one or more sensory stimulations, when the selected suitable sensory stimulation fails to correct the deviation from the routine behaviour of the pet; and - transmit information about the alternative sensory stimulation to the processing arrangement for activating the one or more beacons for executing the alternative sensory stimulation thereby ([0089]; specifically user can go into settings and select duration of stimulation or different commands).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of monitoring your pet as described in Fujiwara to include the ability to have user selected settings as seen in Bonge, Jr. The motivation being to allow for a human user to train and monitor their pet (Bonge, Jr.; [0084]).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, While Fujiwara does disclose that they communicate information to user. Fujiwara does not explicitly state that this information is audio or visual. However, Bonge, Jr. does disclose: wherein the application is configured to notify the user of the determined behaviour of the pet by at least one of: playing a live audio-video feed, playing an audio-video recording of the pet when the behaviour of the pet was monitored, and playing an audio of the pet ([0052]; using GSM/telephone network to connect user with animal and allows for audio information to be transmitted).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system/method of monitoring your pet as described in Fujiwara to include the ability to have user connected via their phone as seen in Bonge, Jr. The motivation being to allow for a human user to communicate via a mobile device for an output to the animal (Bonge, Jr.; [0052]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOANNE M RODDEN whose telephone number is (303)297-4276. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM MST.
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, Jonathan Moffat can be reached at 571-272-4390. 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.
/JOANNE M RODDEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794
