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 Objections
Claims 18, 20, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 18 “a plurality of pouch housing” should read “a plurality of pouch housings” for clarification purposes.
In claim 20 “the harness include the pouch housing” should read “the harness including the pouch housings” for clarification purposes.
In claim 21 “the printed circuit boards are each be encased in a housing.” should read “each of the printed circuit boards are
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 19, 20, and 24-26 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 19 states “wherein the pouch housing includes a hook and loop fastener disposed on a top edge of the harness to each hold the shock module and the vibration module.” It is unclear exactly where the hook and loop fastener is and what all it is attached to, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, is the hook and loop fastener on the pouch housing, on the top edge of the harness, attached to the shock module and vibration module, or all of the above.
Claim 20 states “wherein the harness include the pouch housing and the shock module and the vibration module that is large enough to allow the shock module and the vibration module to move within the pouch housing to accommodate dogs with different sized anatomical structure.” It is unclear exactly what is structurally required of the limitation, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, what “is large enough?” the pouch or the harness? Additionally, what is required by either the pouch or the harness being large enough to accommodate dogs of different sizes? How does a pouch that is one specific size large enough accommodate different dogs, and what size is considered “large enough.”
Claim 24 states “wherein the picatinny rails are disposed on one of a pair of corresponding female fasteners.” It is unclear what the corresponding female fasteners are corresponding to, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example, the limitation currently reads as if there are two female fasteners corresponding to one another, however, that would not mechanically work with most if not all fasteners. However, there does not appear to be any other listed structural piece that the female fastener could correspond to.
Claim 25 states “wherein the one of a pair of corresponding female fasteners include a pair of the picatinny rails disposed on top of the one of a pair of corresponding female fasteners.” It is unclear what is structurally required of this claim, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For example does “one of a pair of female fasteners” mean that there is one single female fastener of are there multiple pairs of female fasteners and one pair is being selected. Additionally, is there one pair of picatinny rails on a single female fastener? Or is the pair of picatinny rails associate with a pair of female fasteners, mean one picatinny rail per female fastener?
Claim 26 is rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 is identical to claim 17 , both of which are dependent on claim 16. Therefore, claim 23 fails to further limit the subject matter.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12426575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the child claim is broader than the parent claim.
Regarding Claim 1, Patent ‘575 discloses an obedience training pet leash and harness system (claim 1 line 1), comprising:
a housing (claim 1 line 2);
a primary leash disposed within the housing (claim 1 line 3);
wherein the primary leash extends from an opening in the housing (claim 1 line 4);
a primary lead disposed on a distal end of the primary leash, the primary lead disposed is outside of the housing (claim 1 line 5);
a handle disposed on the housing (claim 1 line 6);
a clutch trigger disposed on the housing, the clutch trigger is in operable connection with the leash (claim 1 line 7);
wherein the clutch trigger is configured to restrain the primary leash (claim 1 line 8);
a control center disposed on the handle (claim 1 line 9);
a harness configured to be worn by a pet (claim 1 line 10);
wherein the harness includes one or more obedience training modules (claim 1 line 11); and
wherein the one or more obedience training modules is controllable by the control center (claim 1 line 12).
Regarding Claim 12, Patent ‘575 discloses the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1, further comprising a perimeter mode, wherein one or more of the obedience training modules is actuated when a distance between the obedience training pet leash and the harness exceeds a specified amount (claim 1 lines 19-21).
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.
Claims 1 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So (US 2013/0247837) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/30/24) in view of Galvez (US 2022/0322638) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/30/24).
Regarding Claim 1, So discloses an obedience training pet leash and harness system, comprising:
a housing (body 100);
a primary leash disposed within the housing (shown in edited Figure 1 below);
wherein the primary leash extends from an opening in the housing (shown in edited Figure 1 below);
a primary lead disposed on a distal end of the primary leash, the primary lead disposed is outside of the housing (connection to collar Figure 1; Paragraph [0022]);
a handle disposed on the housing (shown in annotated Figure 1 below);
a trigger disposed on the housing, the clutch trigger is in operable connection with the leash (leash length adjusting key 124; Figure 2);
wherein the trigger is configured to restrain the primary leash (“The leash length adjusting key 124 includes a lever for fixing the leash length. When the leash length adjusting key 124 is moved forwardly, an adjustment of the leash length is impossible. When the leash length adjusting key 124 is moved backwardly, the adjustment of the leash length is possible.” Paragraph [0027]);
a control center disposed on the handle (controller 110; Figure 2);
a collar configured to be worn by a pet (collar 200);
wherein the collar includes one or more obedience training modules (vibration generator 250 and electrical stimulation generator 240); and
wherein the one or more obedience training modules is controllable by the control center (Figures 1 and 2; Paragraph [0026]).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
So fails to disclose a harness configured to be worn by a pet; the harness comprising one or more obedience training modules.
However, Galvez teaches a harness configured to be worn by a pet (“the dog tracking device 120 may be attached to a harness and/or a collar worn by the dog 104.” Paragraph [0026]); the harness comprising one or more obedience training modules (“the dog tracking device 120 may provide audio, visual, and/or haptic feedback to the user 102 and/or the dog 104” Paragraph [0017]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collar of So with the harness of Galvez, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to have greater control over the pet during walks, while maintaining the pet’s comfort
Regarding Claim 9, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1. So as modified above by Galvez further teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the harness comprises a shock module (electrical stimulation generator 240) and the control center having a shock module actuator configured to engage the shock module (electrical stimulation generating key 122).
Regarding Claim 10, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1. So as modified above by Galvez further teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the harness comprises a vibration module (vibration generator 250) and the control center includes a vibration module actuator configured to engage the vibration module (vibration generating key 121).
Regarding Claim 11, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system wherein the harness includes an audio module and the control center includes an audio module actuator configured to engage the audio module.
However, Galvez teaches a pet obedience training pet, wherein the harness includes an audio module and the control center includes an audio module actuator configured to engage the audio module (“the dog tracking device 120 may provide audio, visual, and/or haptic feedback to the user 102 and/or the dog 104” Paragraph [0017]; “the feedback components 230 may send a confirmation message to the user, such as a feedback signal unique to the confirmation message and send the feedback signal to the dog responsive to receiving approval from the user.” Paragraph [0034]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the obedience training modules of So, with the audio component as taught by Galvez, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to help the animal and user differentiate feedback signals with different meanings (Galvez Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 12, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, further comprising a perimeter mode, wherein one or more of the obedience training modules is actuated when a distance between the obedience training pet leash and the harness exceeds a specified amount.
However, Galvez teaches a pet obedience training system, further comprising a perimeter mode, wherein one or more of the obedience training modules is actuated when a distance between the obedience training pet leash and the harness exceeds a specified amount (“a particular feedback component 230 may provide visual feedback that lights up in response to the distance between a particular dog and a particular user exceeding a threshold distance.” Paragraph [0032]; “the dog tracking device 120 may provide audio, visual, and/or haptic feedback to the user 102 and/or the dog 104” Paragraph [0017]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the obedience training modules of So, with the perimeter mode as taught by Galvez, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent the animal from wandering too far from the user (Galvez Paragraph [0018]).
Regarding Claim 13, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the control center is in operable connection with and controllable via a mobile phone application.
However, Galvez teaches a pet obedience training system, wherein the control center is in operable connection with and controllable via a mobile phone application (“the user tracking device 110 may be included as a software application on a smartphone carried by the user 102.” Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the obedience training modules of So, with the mobile phone app as taught by Galvez, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily modify the training commands (Galvez Paragraph [0019]).
Regarding Claim 14, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 13.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the mobile phone application is configured to measure distances and times associated with the pet leash and harness system.
However, Galvez teaches a pet obedience training system, wherein the mobile phone application is configured to measure distances and times associated with the pet leash and harness system (“At block 310, data associated with a user and/or a dog may be obtained. The data may describe physical parameters associated with the user and/or the dog such as the location, orientation, and/or movement of the user and/or the dog at a given point in time and/or over a given time period” Paragraph [0038]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the obedience training modules of So, with the mobile phone app configured to measure distances and times as taught by Galvez, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily track the animal’s health and wellness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Galvez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tarantino (US 2020/0260692) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/30/24).
Regarding Claim 2, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1. So further discloses the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the control center includes a plurality of buttons (Figure 1).
So fails to disclose wherein the control center includes a display screen.
However, Tarantino teaches a pet obedience system wherein the control center includes a display screen (display 230; Figures 1 and 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control center of So, with the display screen taught by Tarantino, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily access and see the unit controls (Tarantino Paragraph [0047]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Galvez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bianchi (US 2014/0283759) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/30/24).
Regarding Claim 3, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the primary lead includes a carabiner.
However, Bianchi teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the primary lead includes a carabiner (“In alternative embodiments, the endpoint connector does not incorporate a swivel snap hook but instead has any effective means for coupling the endpoint connector to an animal or object, such as a carabiner or a quick link.” Paragraph [0013]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the primary lead of So, with the carabiner of Bianchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to secure the animal to the lead quickly and effectively (Bianchi Paragraph [0013]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Galvez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VanDommelen (US 8955465) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/30/24).
Regarding Claim 4, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the primary leash is detachable from the housing.
However, VanDommelen teaches a training pet leash and harness system, wherein the primary leash is detachable from the housing (leashes 38; “Can easily attach or remove a leash” Col. 16 line 5; Figure 6A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the primary leash of So, to be detachable as taught by VanDommelen, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily untangle multiple leashes during use (VanDommelen Col. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 5, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, further comprising a secondary leash with a secondary lead disposed on an opposing end of the housing from the primary lead.
However, VanDommelen teaches a training pet leash and harness system, further comprising a secondary leash (leash 38R) with a secondary lead disposed on an opposing end of the housing from the primary lead (38R is opposite 38L; Figure 6A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the primary leash and housing of So, with the secondary lead as taught by VanDommelen, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to safely manage multiple pets simultaneously (VanDommelen Col. 15-16).
Regarding Claim 6, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 5.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the secondary leash is detachable from the housing.
However, VanDommelen teaches a training pet leash and harness system, wherein the secondary leash is detachable from the housing (leashes 38; “Can easily attach or remove a leash” Col. 16 line 5; Figure 6A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the leash system of So, to have detachable leashes as taught by VanDommelen, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily untangle multiple leashes during use (VanDommelen Col. 15-16)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Galvez and VanDommelen as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bianchi (US 2014/0283759) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/30/24).
Regarding Claim 7, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 6.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the secondary lead includes a carabiner.
However, Bianchi teaches a training pet leash and harness system, wherein the secondary lead includes a carabiner (“In alternative embodiments, the endpoint connector does not incorporate a swivel snap hook but instead has any effective means for coupling the endpoint connector to an animal or object, such as a carabiner or a quick link.” Paragraph [0013]; Figure 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the leash system of So, with the carabiner of Bianchi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to secure the animal to the lead quickly and effectively (Bianchi Paragraph [0013]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Galvez as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Price (US 2019/0141958) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 9/30/24).
Regarding Claim 8, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 1.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the handle is ergonomic.
However, Price teaches a training pet leash and harness system, wherein the handle is ergonomic (“The inner edge 48 is generally arcuate to form an ergonomic handle” Paragraph [0019]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handle of So, to be ergonomic as taught by Price, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to achieve the desirable result of improving user comfort.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Galvez as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Bonge (US 2016/0021506).
Regarding Claim 15, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 14.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the mobile phone application is configured to receive a set of input information in the form of the breed and weight of a pet utilizing the obedience training pet leash and harness system and to make recommendations based off the set of input information.
However, Bonge teaches a pet obedience training system, wherein the mobile phone application is configured to receive a set of input information in the form of the breed and weight of a pet utilizing the obedience training pet leash and harness system and to make recommendations based off the set of input information (“wireless mobile device 4 that may load when the “Fitness” application” Paragraph [0109]; Breed input field 91, weight input field 93; Figure 24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control system of So, with the ability to input specific information as taught by Bonge, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow to user to easily track the pet’s health and make changes when needed (Bonge Paragraph [0109]).
Claims 16-17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Galvez and Bonge as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Aguilar (US 2020/0106960).
Regarding Claim 16, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 15.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the harness includes a plurality of picatinny rails.
However, Aguilar teaches a harness wherein the harness (k9 vest 2001) includes a picatinny rails (picatinny rail 2004; Figures 6 and 7C; Paragraph [0071]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the harness of modified So, with the picatinny rail of Aguilar, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to easily attach and dismantle accessories to the harness for easy transportation.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the picatinny rail of Aguilar, to have multiple rails, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the amount of accessories the pet can hold, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 17, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 16.
So fails to disclose wherein the picatinny rails are disposed on each side of the harness.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the picatinny rail of Aguilar, to be disposed on each side of the harness, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the amount of accessories the pet can hold while maintaining the comfort and stability of the pet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claim 23, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 16.
So fails to disclose wherein the picatinny rails are disposed on each side of the harness.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the picatinny rail of Aguilar, to be disposed on each side of the harness, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to increase the amount of accessories the pet can hold while maintaining the comfort and stability of the pet, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Galvez, Bonge, and Aguilar as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Dunnigan (US 9071387).
Regarding Claim 18, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 17.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the harness includes a plurality of pouch housing and a plurality of printed circuit boards.
However, Dunnigan teaches a pet harness wherein the harness includes a plurality of pouch housing (pockets 208, 209, 210, 211) and a plurality of printed circuit boards (“Electrical components, including printed circuit boards, antennas, power sources, batteries, and so forth, may be disposed within these pockets 208,209,210,211” Col. 7 lines 10-12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collar of So, to be a harness with pockets with printed circuit boards as taught by Dunnigan, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure any electronics provided on the harness are kept safe from any outside environmental factors such as rain.
Claims 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over So in view of Galvez, Bonge, Aguilar, and Dunnigan as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Talley et al. (US 2021/0274754).
Regarding Claim 19, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 18.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the pouch housing includes a hook and loop fastener disposed on a top edge of the harness to each hold the shock module and the vibration module.
However, Talley teaches a pet system, wherein the pouch housing includes a hook and loop fastener disposed on a top edge of the harness to each hold the shock module and the vibration module (“Closing device may be configured to close the opening (e.g., pocket) and/or to secure the electronic device 1608 within the opening. Closing device may include a hinge, for example, that hinges upon the first layer 1630 or the second layer 1632 to close the collar 1600, although other examples of closing device may include hook and loop fastener,” Paragraph [0097]; see 112b above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collar of So, to be a harness with pockets with hook and loop fasteners as taught by Talley, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure any electronics remain in place during use and while the pet is moving.
Regarding Claim 20, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 19.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the harness include the pouch housing and the shock module and the vibration module that is large enough to allow the shock module and the vibration module to move within the pouch housing to accommodate dogs with different sized anatomical structure.
However, Dunnigan teaches a pet harness, wherein the harness include the pouch housing and the electronics that is large enough to allow the electronics to move within the pouch housing to accommodate dogs with different sized anatomical structure (“Electrical components, including printed circuit boards, antennas, power sources, batteries, and so forth, may be disposed within these pockets 208,209,210,211” Col. 7 lines 10-12; Figures 2 and 3; see 112b above).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collar of So, to be a harness with pockets with electronics as taught by Dunnigan, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure any electronics provided on the harness are kept safe from any outside environmental factors such as rain, while maintaining the comfort of the pet.
Regarding Claim 21, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 18.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the printed circuit boards are each be encased in a housing.
However, Dunnigan teaches a pet harness, wherein the printed circuit boards are each be encased in a housing (Figures 2 and 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the collar of So, to be a harness with pockets with printed circuit boards enclosed as taught by Dunnigan, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure any electronics provided on the harness are kept safe from any outside environmental factors such as rain.
Regarding Claim 22, So as modified teaches the obedience training pet leash and harness system of claim 21.
So fails to disclose the obedience training pet leash and harness system, wherein the housing is made of metal or plastic.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified pockets of Dunnigan, to be made of plastic or metal, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure any electronics provided on the harness are kept safe from any outside environmental factors such as rain, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Myton et al. (US 2022/0386568), Delle Donne (US 2022/0312743), Eckert (US 11076579), and Vilardi et al. (US 2019/0110439) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar pet training systems,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642