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 .
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group 1, claims 1-2, drawn to a light therapy animal blanket, as recited in claim 1.
Group 2, claims 3-5, drawn to a light therapy animal blanket, as recited in claim 3.
Group 3, claims 6-7, drawn to a light therapy animal blanket, as recited in claim 6.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups 1, 2 and 3 lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a light therapy animal blanket including “an inner surface comprising a plurality of openings and an outer surface; said outer surface comprises and interior and exterior side and wherein a plurality of LED diodes are dispersed on said interior side of said outer surface and protrude through said inner surface through said plurality of openings”, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 2005/0177093 to Barry et al., as detailed in the written opinion in PCT/US23/27941 (submitted on 11/19/24 in the current application) or as explained in the 103 rejection below.
During a telephone conversation with Lauren Rucinski on 5/29/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1, claims 1-2. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 3-7 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
Plurality of openings
Torso edge
Rump edge
First side edge
Second side edge
Interior and exterior side of the outer surface
Plurality of LED diodes that are dispersed on the interior side and protrude through the plurality of openings
Flap side and body side of the strap
Connector, specifically the outer surface comprising a connector
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: See features cited in the drawing objections (above); all of which should be recited in the specification with an element/reference number that matches the element/reference number shown in the drawings.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term “LED diodes” should be written as “light emitting diodes (LED)”; the “diodes” is redundant/repetitive as LED already includes the word diode should be indented as a separate. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-2 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] The limitation “said outer surface comprises and interior and exterior side” is indefinite. Specifically, it’s unclear if/how this “interior side” of the outer surface is different from the previously claimed “inner surface”. While it’s clear that the blanket has an inner surface (side against the animal; denoted with “a” in the spec/drawings) and outer surface (side facing away from the animal; denoted with “b” in the spec/drawings), but it’s unclear what is meant by interior side of the outer surface. Is the interior side the same as the inner surface, or is this attempting to claim that the outer surface has multiple layers, i.e. outer and inner sides, which are distinct from the inner surface? It is emphasized that the specification/drawings provides no clarity on the matter, as the outer and inner sides of the outer surface are not shown/described in any detail to make it clear what the distinction is between these two elements (inner surface vs interior side).
The limitation “a flap that extends from said first side edge the midline of said first side edge” is indefinite. Specifically, the limitation is grammatically confusing and redundant. Does the flap extend from the first side edge or does it extend from the midline of the first side edge? Seemingly it’s one or the other, but the currently recited limitation is unclear. For examination purposes, the examiner is interpreting this limitation as “a flap that extends from the midline of said first side edge” (with “the midline” having inherent antecedent basis, i.e. everything inherently has a midline/center).
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 US 2005/0177093 to Barry et al. in view of US 2016/0015498 to Dabney and further in view of US 2021/0084865 to Cochran et al.
[Claim 1] Barry discloses a light therapy animal blanket (Abstract; Pars 0046, 0048 and 0065 discuss an “animal subject”; Figs. 3-7) comprising:
An inner surface (bottom layer; Figs. 5-7) comprising a plurality of openings (holes 28) and an outer surface (including top layer 24 and neoprene 22; Fig. 5); said outer surface comprises and interior (element 22 in Fig. 5) and exterior side (element 24 in Fig. 5) and wherein a plurality of LED diodes (42, 44, 46 and 48; Par 0152) are dispersed on said interior side (22) of said outer surface and protrude through said inner surface through said plurality of openings (“a bottom layer 26 which has disposed therein holes 28 through which the light of the light emitting diodes will pass” Par 0147; see also Pars 0150 and Figs. 5-7)
at least one strap (tabs 14; Figs. 3-4) and said at least one strap consists of a flap side (top portion, i.e. facing away from body/animal) and a body side (bottom portion, i.e. facing towards the body/animal, i.e. the portion of 14 shown in Fig. 3 lifted up to see/view holes 28), and wherein said outer surface comprises a connector (Velcro) that accepts said body side of said at least one strap so that said at least one strap can be removably attached to said body side (at least Par 0147; inherently how Velcro functions)
Barry is discussed above, but fails to teach a torso edge and a rump edge wherein said blanket extends laterally from said torso edge to said rump edge such that the blanket comprises a first side edge and a second side edge. It is emphasized that Barry explicitly teaches a wearable phototherapy blanket/garment for an animal, but is silent to what animal or the length of this wearable phototherapy covering. However, in the same field of endeavor, specifically veterinarian light therapy devices, Dabney discloses a similar light therapy device for an animal, specifically a horse, that includes a torso edge (neck portion 14) and a rump edge (portion of cover 12 near the back of the horse, i.e. near the tail) wherein said blanket extends laterally from said torso edge to said rump edge such that the blanket comprises a first side edge and a second side edge (16, Fig. 1; although only one side edge 16 is shown in Fig. 1, there inherently exists a first side edge and a second side edge on each side of the horse). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the light therapy animal blanket/garment taught by Barry to include a torso edge, rump edge and first/second side edges, as taught by Dabney, as this is a known configuration/design for a similar light therapy animal blanket/covering/garment, specifically one designed specifically for horses. Specifically, when a POSITA considers designing a light therapy blanket/garment/covering for specific animals, as Barry explicitly teaches the treatment of animals, it would be obvious to consider known designs for existing light therapy blankets/garments for specific animals, e.g. a horse.
While Dabney discloses straps (18) for attaching the blanket/garment to the animal, the reference fails to teach the claimed flap extending from the midline of the first side edge. Therefore, the combination of Barry and Dabney fail to teach the claimed flap. However, in the same field of endeavor, specifically animal/horse coverings/garments, Cochran discloses a similar animal/horse covering/garment (Figure 1, Panel B and Figure 4, Panel A) with a flap (rectangular portion that straps 41 are attached to in Fig. 1 or element 28 in Fig. 4) that extends from the midline (center) of said first side edge (bottom portion of covering 12), said flap having a longitudinal length that is less than the longitudinal length of said first side edge and said flap comprising at least one strap (as seen in the figures the flap, i.e. rectangle/28, has a longitudinal length less than the side edges, i.e. length 19) and includes straps (41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace/rearrange the straps/securement of Dabney (18; that attach around the chest/front of the horse) for the flap/strap system taught by Cochran (that attach underneath the horse), as this is a known configuration to secure/attach a garment to an animal, specifically a horse. This amounts to a simple substitution of one known type of securement/attachment arrangement for another to obtain predictable results. Additionally, this is considered a rearrangement of parts, specifically changing the location/position of where the securement/attachment occurs.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barry, Dabney and Cochran as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2006/0101792 to Chang.
Barry, Dabney and Cochran are discussed above, but fail to disclose a face portion of the light therapy animal blanket. However, Chang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a covering/garment for an animal’s/horse’s face (310, Fig. 3A; Pars 0028 and 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the light therapy animal blanket taught by Barry, Dabney and Cochran to include a face covering, as taught by Chang, as a known configuration/design for horse covers, specifically to treat any inflammation/injury in the horse’s face, head or neck area, as taught by Barry (Par 0005).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Similar therapeutic systems for animals/horses are known in the art:
US 2020/0330208 to Chrysotom (Fig 1)
US 2015/0127076 to Johnson et al. (Fig. 1; Par 0010)
US 4,646,743 to Parris (“More recently, research has been done on the application of radiation therapy in the infrared region for use in treating animals, more particularly, horses”; Figs. 2-3)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights