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 of the following informality:
¶ 0022, line 1, “there is a shown a dog” should read “there is shown a dog.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 21, 24, 25, 27-29, 32, 33, 35-37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20210307292 A1) in view of Benjamin (US 20190045748 A1) and Davison, III et al. (US 20140261230 A1, previously disclosed by Examiner 05/22/2025), hereinafter Davision.
Regarding claim 21, Holt discloses an anti-pulling animal collar, comprising:
a base collar including a flexible strap (first strap 12; Fig. 1; ¶ 0029, lines 2-4, “Collar 10 includes a first strap 12 which is preferably formed of one continuous piece of material, such as nylon, leather, or the like”), the base collar being configurable in a closed loop configuration, wherein the base collar forms a continuous loop (first strap 12; Fig. 1 shows the first strap 12 in a continuous loop and with collar in a closed configuration; ¶ 0029, lines 2-4); and
a plurality of resilient prongs coupled to the base collar (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of prong elements 60 are attached to a base collar and facing inwards; ¶ 0001, lines 2-4, “more particularly the present invention relates to a prong animal training collar wherein the prongs are made from plastic”), each prong of the plurality of prongs being repositionable along the base collar, and each prong being disconnected from all remaining prongs within the plurality of prongs such that each prong is movable relative to the base collar and the remaining prongs (¶ 0035, lines 13-16, furthermore, due to the ability for the prong elements 60 to be easily placed and removed onto first strap 12, the number of prong element 60 carried on first strap 12 can be varied);
wherein at least one prong of the plurality of prongs includes a base with a strap channel therethrough configured to receive the base collar (¶ 0032, lines 6-8, “prong element 60 also includes a strap channel 68 located along a bottom portion 70 of prong element 60”).
Although Holt discloses removable prongs, Holt fails to specifically disclose rectangular, pyramid-shaped prongs, and a slit extending from a bottom surface to the strap channel such that the at least one prong is removable from the base collar when the base collar is in the closed loop configuration by forcing the base collar through the slit of the at least one prong.
Benjamin is in the field of animal collars and teaches rectangular pyramid shaped prongs (¶ 0056, lines 1-6, describes a pyramid with a square base, which constitutes a rectangular pyramid since all squares are rectangles that have equal sides).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal collars before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Holt with the pyramidal shaped prongs of Benjamin. This would improve the effectiveness of the device through the use of a protrusion shape suitable for use with animals. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Davison is in the field of animal collars and teaches a slit extending from a bottom surface to the strap channel such that the at least one prong is removable from the base collar when the base collar is in the closed loop configuration by forcing the base collar through the slit of the at least one prong (¶ 0008, lines 3-8, “An attachment can be provided on or near the rear surface of the housing to allow the housing to attach to an existing animal collar of the type worn around the animal's neck. The attachment may, for example, be a narrow slit, clip, or any other type of attachment that allows the housing to be attached to the collar”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal collars before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the removable prongs of Holt in view of Benjamin to incorporate a slit extending from a bottom surface to the strap channel such that the at least one prong is removable from the base collar when the base collar is in the closed loop configuration by forcing the base collar through the slit of the at least one prong, as taught by the attachment slit of Davison. This would allow for attachment to a collar while in a closed loop configuration, improving the overall function of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 21.
Holt discloses wherein: each prong of the plurality of prongs extends in a prong direction from the base to a pointed top surface; and the strap channel of each prong extends perpendicular to the prong direction (Fig. 3A shows strap channel 68 of prong element 60 extends perpendicular to the direction of the prong to a point).
Regarding claim 25, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 24.
Holt discloses each prong being independently repositionable between an inward-facing direction and an outward-facing direction while the base collar is in the closed loop configuration, wherein: when in the inward-facing direction, the pointed top surface is oriented toward a center of the closed loop configuration, and when in the outward-facing direction, the pointed top surface is oriented away from the center of the closed loop configuration (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of prong elements 60 are attached to a base collar and facing inwards; Fig. 3A shows strap channel 68 of prong element 60 allows for prongs to be repositionable between an inward-facing direction and an outward-facing direction; ¶ 0035, lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 27, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 21, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches each prong (Holt; Fig. 1 shows a plurality of prong elements 60 are attached to a base collar and facing inwards; ¶ 0001, lines 2-4) is configured to be coupled to and decoupled from the base collar while the base collar is configured in the closed loop configuration (Davison; ¶ 0008, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 28, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 21.
Holt discloses wherein each prong of the plurality of prongs includes a top surface forming a rounded point (Fig. 3A shows top surface of prong element 60 forms rounded points).
Regarding claim 29, Holt discloses an anti-pulling animal collar, comprising:
a flexible strap (first strap 12; Fig. 1; ¶ 0029, lines 2-4), the flexible strap being configurable in a closed loop configuration, wherein the flexible strap forms a continuous loop (first strap 12; Fig. 1 shows the first strap 12 in a continuous loop and with collar in a closed configuration; ¶ 0029, lines 2-4); and
a plurality of resilient prongs couplable to the flexible strap (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of prong elements 60 are attached to a base collar and facing inwards; ¶ 0001, lines 2-4), each prong of the plurality of prongs configured to be coupled to the flexible strap independent of all other prongs within the plurality of prongs such that each prong is translatable along the flexible strap independent of the other prongs (¶ 0035, lines 13-16);
wherein at least one prong of the plurality of prongs includes a base with a strap channel therethrough configured to receive the flexible strap (¶ 0032, lines 6-8, “prong element 60 also includes a strap channel 68 located along a bottom portion 70 of prong element 60”).
Although Holt discloses removable prongs, Holt fails to specifically disclose rectangular, pyramid-shaped prongs, and a slit extending from a bottom surface to the strap channel such that the at least one prong is removable from the flexible strap when the flexible strap is in the closed loop configuration by forcing the flexible strap through the slit of the at least one prong.
Benjamin teaches rectangular pyramid shaped prongs (¶ 0056, lines 1-6, describes a pyramid with a square base, which constitutes a rectangular pyramid since all squares are rectangles that have equal sides).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal collars before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Holt with the pyramidal shaped prongs of Benjamin. This would improve the effectiveness of the device through the use of a protrusion shape suitable for use with animals. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Davison teaches a slit extending from a bottom surface to the strap channel such that the at least one prong is removable from the flexible strap when the flexible strap is in the closed loop configuration by forcing the flexible strap through the slit of the at least one prong (¶ 0008, lines 3-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal collars before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the removable prongs of Holt in view of Benjamin to incorporate a slit extending from a bottom surface to the strap channel such that the at least one prong is removable from the flexible strap when the flexible strap is in the closed loop configuration by forcing the flexible strap through the slit of the at least one prong, as taught by the attachment slit of Davison. This would allow for attachment to a collar while in a closed loop configuration, improving the overall function of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 32, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 29.
Holt discloses wherein: each prong of the plurality of prongs extends in a prong direction from the base to a pointed top surface; and the strap channel of each prong extends perpendicular to the prong direction (Fig. 3A shows strap channel 68 of prong element 60 extends perpendicular to the direction of the prong to a point).
Regarding claim 33, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 32.
Holt discloses each prong being independently repositionable between an inward-facing direction and an outward-facing direction while the flexible strap is in the closed loop configuration, wherein: when in the inward-facing direction, the pointed top surface is oriented toward a center of the closed loop configuration, and when in the outward-facing direction, the pointed top surface is oriented away from the center of the closed loop configuration (Fig. 1 shows a plurality of prong elements 60 are attached to a base collar and facing inwards; Fig. 3A shows strap channel 68 of prong element 60 allows for prongs to be repositionable between an inward-facing direction and an outward-facing direction; ¶ 0035, lines 13-16).
Regarding claim 35, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 29, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches each prong (Holt; Fig. 1 shows a plurality of prong elements 60 are attached to a base collar and facing inwards; ¶ 0001, lines 2-4) is configured to be coupled to and decoupled from the base collar while the base collar is configured in the closed loop configuration (Davison; ¶ 0008, lines 3-8).
Regarding claim 36, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 29.
Holt discloses wherein each prong of the plurality of prongs includes a top surface forming a rounded point (Fig. 3A shows top surface of prong element 60 forms rounded points).
Regarding claim 37, Holt discloses a prong for an anti-pulling animal collar (prong elements 60; Fig. 1), the prong comprising: a resilient rectangular base (Fig. 3A shows prong element 60 with rectangular base; ¶ 0001, lines 2-4); a resilient portion extending away from the base in a prong direction (Fig. 1; ¶ 0001, lines 2-4); a strap channel defined through the base and extending perpendicular to the prong direction, the strap channel configured to receive an animal collar therethrough (Fig. 3A shows strap channel 68 of prong element 60 extends perpendicular to the direction of the prong to a point and configured to receive an animal collar).
Although Holt discloses removable prongs, Holt fails to specifically disclose rectangular, pyramid-shaped prongs, a slit extending from a bottom surface of the base to the strap channel wherein the animal collar may be forced through the slit.
Benjamin teaches rectangular pyramid shaped prongs (¶ 0056, lines 1-6, describes a pyramid with a square base, which constitutes a rectangular pyramid since all squares are rectangles that have equal sides).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal collars before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Holt with the pyramidal shaped prongs of Benjamin. This would improve the effectiveness of the device through the use of a protrusion shape suitable for use with animals. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Additionally, it has been held that there is no invention in merely changing the shape or form of an article without changing its function except in a design patent. Eskimo Pie Corp. v. Levous et al., 3 USPQ 23.
Davison teaches a slit extending from a bottom surface of the base to the strap channel wherein the animal collar may be forced through the slit (¶ 0008, lines 3-8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal collars before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the removable prongs of Holt in view of Benjamin to incorporate a slit extending from a bottom surface of the base to the strap channel wherein the animal collar may be forced through the slit, as taught by the attachment slit of Davison. This would allow for attachment to a collar while in a closed loop configuration, improving the overall function of the device. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 40, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 37.
Holt discloses wherein each prong of the plurality of prongs includes a top surface forming a rounded point (Fig. 3A shows top surface of prong element 60 forms rounded points).
Claims 26, 34, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 20210307292 A1), Benjamin (US 20190045748 A1), and Davison (US 20140261230 A1), as applied to claims 21, 29, and 39, and further in view of Sullivan (US 8356579 B2).
Regarding claim 26, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 21, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein a bottom surface of at least one prong includes a textured surface.
Sullivan is in the field of animal collars and teaches wherein a bottom surface of at least one prong includes a textured surface (Col 5, lines 24-27, “with reference to FIG. 3, a single link 22 from a top view includes a concave dimple 92, which provides a finger grip in the top of the link and by orientation and duplicity a decorative enhancement to the collar”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal collars before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison such that a bottom surface of at least one prong includes a textured surface, as taught by the textured surface of Sullivan, in order to allow for the trachea portion to be easily gripped and adjusted by the user. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 34, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 29, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein a bottom surface of at least one prong includes a textured surface.
Sullivan teaches wherein a bottom surface of at least one prong includes a textured surface (Col 5, lines 24-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal collars before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison such that a bottom surface of at least one prong includes a textured surface, as taught by the textured surface of Sullivan, in order to allow for the trachea portion to be easily gripped and adjusted by the user. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 39, Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison discloses the device of claim 37, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein a bottom surface of at least one prong includes a textured surface.
Sullivan teaches wherein a bottom surface of at least one prong includes a textured surface (Col 5, lines 24-27).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of animal collars before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Holt in view of Benjamin and Davison such that a bottom surface of at least one prong includes a textured surface, as taught by the textured surface of Sullivan, in order to allow for the trachea portion to be easily gripped and adjusted by the user. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/22/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Mella, Jr., US 10531642 B2, discusses an integrated training collar and method of use.
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 SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642