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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/591,087 filed on October 17, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) is submitted on 11/1/2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. According, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means”, “step” or “module” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Wi-Fi module in claims 1 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verisure (WO 2024149462 A1), in view of Biffert et al. (US 20220200519 A1 and Biffert hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Verisure teaches a pet tracking device to be worn by a pet (Figure 1 and Page 7; an autonomously powered wearable pet tracking device 104 which may be integrated into, or carried on, a collar 106 or harness), comprising:
a Bluetooth scanner (Page 12; the device includes transceiver arrangement 214 that includes additional transceivers to support other communications protocols such as Bluetooth), monitor a status of a presence or an absence of Bluetooth beacons within a predefined area (Page 15; The tracking device 104 may be set up to transmit an alert, as distinct from merely a location and presence report, such an alert may be transmitted in the event that the device determines that it is outside a predefined zone set up by the user. That is, an alert may be transmitted on the detection of such a movement away from a safe place, rather than merely tracking information (location and presence) being transmitted).
a Wi-Fi module to connect to a wireless network to communicate the status (Pages 7 and 8; the wearable pet tracking device 104 may be configured to transmit its reports using Wi-Fi, provided that a Wi-Fi network with a known SSID and sufficient signal strength (e.g. better than -67 dBm) is available) with a cloud-based server (Page 8; the reports from the tracking device 104 are preferably directed towards a networked storage arrangement (e.g. one or more servers in the cloud) 116 which functions as a tracking system backend from where they are optionally pushed to a device, such as a smart phone 118, of the pet’s owner(s)),
a cellular modem to communicate the status with the cloud-based server (Page 8; the reports from the tracking device 104 are preferably directed towards a networked storage arrangement (e.g. one or more servers in the cloud) 116) when the device is outside a range of the wireless network (Pages 7 and 8; when both Bluetooth communication and Wi-Fi communication is not available, tracking device 104 may be configured to use a cellular network (e.g. a PLMN using LTE, 3GPP 3G, 4G or 5G, CDMA, optionally falling back to 2G/GPRS/Edge if necessary) via local wireless base stations 114 to transmit the reports), and
a GPS receiver to obtain location data of a pet wearing the device (Page 9; the device 104 determine its location maybe one or more first locations based on the position of the device with respect to one or more geofences. The geo fences may be established based on data from a satellite navigation (GNSS) function such as GPS embodied in the device 104, and/or using received signal strengths from one or more wireless networks) and communicate the location data (Page 6; pet tracking device may be configured to provide location and presence reports periodically, and the periodicity of the reports may be varied depending upon the location of the pet. Page 7; tracking device 104 is configured to determine its own location, for example using a GNSS receiver to determine location based on transmissions received from satellites 108) with the cloud-based server (Page 8; the reports from the tracking device 104 are preferably directed towards a networked storage arrangement (e.g. one or more servers in the cloud) 116).
Verisure does not explicitly teach a Bluetooth scanner to monitor a status of a presence or an absence of Bluetooth beacons within a predefined area. In an analogous art, Biffert teaches a Bluetooth scanner to monitor a status of a presence or an absence of Bluetooth beacons within a predefined area (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0040; a plurality of local sensors and transceivers 34 located in an area under management. Figure 6 and Paragraph 0110; the tags 20 attached to individual livestock C5, C6, and C7 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of each other and a second local sensor 34. It will be appreciated that as used in this description, “Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range” refers to the range within which the Bluetooth or LPWAN signal strength is sufficient to establish and maintain reliable communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches LED indicators to illuminate to signal a state or event (Page 14; device 104 may preferably include one or more visual indicators 226, for example one or more LED indicators to indicate status (e.g. off/on), battery condition, and optionally to act as a beacon useful in locating a lost pet. For example, the device may include a single RGB LED to indicate status in the event that the pet is lost (the device having received a command to illuminate the beacon)).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches the LED indicators to illuminate when the pet wearing the device is lost (Page 14; device 104 may preferably include one or more visual indicators 226, for example one or more LED indicators to indicate status (e.g. off/on), battery condition, and optionally to act as a beacon useful in locating a lost pet. For example, the device may include a single RGB LED to indicate status in the event that the pet is lost).
Further, Biffert teaches the pet wearing the device is out of range of the Bluetooth beacons (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0110; the tags 20 attached to individual livestock C5, C6, and C7 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of each other and a second local sensor 34. However, none of the tags 20 attached to C1, C2, C3, and C4 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of any of the tags 20 attached to C5, C6, or C7. It will be appreciated that as used in this description, “Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range” refers to the range within which the Bluetooth or LPWAN signal strength is sufficient to establish and maintain reliable communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 2, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches the LED indicators to illuminate (Page 14; device 104 may preferably include one or more visual indicators 226, for example one or more LED indicators to indicate status (e.g. off/on), battery condition, and optionally to act as a beacon useful in locating a lost pet).
In addition, Biffert teaches the LED indicators to illuminate in specific patterns or colors to signal different states or events (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0186; tag 20 can receive data, parameters, or other information related to an action commanded by an alarm or alert, cause the LED 64 to blink on and off in a particular pattern, or to cause the tone generator to play a particular tone or sound sample). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches the device to activate an alert mode when pet wearing the device is lost (Page 15; The tracking device 104 may be set up to transmit an alert, as distinct from merely a location and presence report, such an alert may be transmitted in the event that the device determines that it is outside a predefined zone set up by the user. That is, an alert may be transmitted on the detection of such a movement away from a safe place, rather than merely tracking information (location and presence) being transmitted).
In addition, Biffert teaches when the device detects a drop in received signal strength from the Bluetooth beacons below a threshold or the device no longer detects the Bluetooth beacons (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0110; the tags 20 attached to individual livestock C5, C6, and C7 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of each other and a second local sensor 34. However, none of the tags 20 attached to C1, C2, C3, and C4 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of any of the tags 20 attached to C5, C6, or C7. It will be appreciated that as used in this description, “Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range” refers to the range within which the Bluetooth or LPWAN signal strength is sufficient to establish and maintain reliable communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches the alert mode (Page 15; The tracking device 104 may be set up to transmit an alert, as distinct from merely a location and presence report, such an alert may be transmitted in the event that the device determines that it is outside a predefined zone set up by the user. That is, an alert may be transmitted on the detection of such a movement away from a safe place, rather than merely tracking information (location and presence) being transmitted).
In addition, Biffert teaches the alert mode to trigger activation of an LED indicator of the device (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0186; tag 20 can receive data, parameters, or other information related to an action commanded by an alarm or alert, cause the LED 64 to blink on and off in a particular pattern, or to cause the tone generator to play a particular tone or sound sample). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 5, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches the alert mode to trigger transmission of a text message alert to a predefined recipient, the message to provide the location data of the pet wearing the device (Page 5; if a tracked pet is detected to have left a safe location or area (e.g., a safe geofenced area) push notifications may appear on the owner’s smart device showing the location and identity (e.g. name) of the pet, along with any route information. Page 8; the reports from the tracking device 104 are preferably directed towards a networked storage arrangement (e.g. one or more servers in the cloud) 116 which functions as a tracking system backend from where they are optionally pushed to a device, such as a smart phone 118, of the pet’s owner(s)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches a rechargeable battery (Page 12; the device 104 is powered by an autonomous power supply, here shown in the form of a battery 220, preferably rechargeable battery).
In addition, Biffert teaches the device to monitor a charge level of the battery and provide notification when recharging is needed (Figure 6 and Paragraphs 0052 and 0114; each tag 20 can be adapted and configured to receive all or a subset of the livestock-related and/or other data, e.g., operational data, of each other tag 20 in a dynamic local mesh network and to transmit all or a subset of its own livestock-related and/or other data to every other tag 20 in the network. Operational data can include for example, but is not limited to, signal strength, stored power level (e.g., battery level or voltage level), and operating condition data). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches the device to regularly send a status update to the cloud-based server (Page 8; the reports from the tracking device 104 are preferably directed towards a networked storage arrangement (e.g. one or more servers in the cloud) 116 which functions as a tracking system backend from where they are optionally pushed to a device, such as a smart phone 118, of the pet’s owner(s)) when the pet wearing the device moves out of safe area (Page 5; if a tracked pet is detected to have left a safe location or area (e.g., a safe geofenced area) push notifications may appear on the owner’s smart device showing the location and identity (e.g. name) of the pet, along with any route information. Page 6; pet tracking device may be configured to provide location and presence reports periodically, and the periodicity of the reports may be varied depending upon the location of the pet. Page 15; The tracking device 104 may be set up to transmit an alert, as distinct from merely a location and presence report, such an alert may be transmitted in the event that the device determines that it is outside a predefined zone set up by the user. That is, an alert may be transmitted on the detection of such a movement away from a safe place, rather than merely tracking information (location and presence) being transmitted).
In addition, Biffert teaches status about the presence or the absence of the Bluetooth beacons (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0110; the tags 20 attached to individual livestock C5, C6, and C7 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of each other and a second local sensor 34. However, none of the tags 20 attached to C1, C2, C3, and C4 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of any of the tags 20 attached to C5, C6, or C7. It will be appreciated that as used in this description, “Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range” refers to the range within which the Bluetooth or LPWAN signal strength is sufficient to establish and maintain reliable communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches a power switch to enable manual activation and deactivation of the device (Page 14; the device 104 may further include one or more input devices 232, for example in the form of a switch, such as a mechanical switch the responds to mechanical force applied by user for use in activating the device, selecting operating modes, and the like).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites similar features as claim 1, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Verisure teaches a pet locating system (Figure 1), comprising:
a pet tracking device to be worn by a pet (Figure 1 and Page 7; an autonomously powered wearable pet tracking device 104 which may be integrated into, or carried on, a collar 106 or harness).
Verisure does not explicitly teach a plurality of Bluetooth beacons within a predefined area. In an analogous art, Biffert teaches a plurality of Bluetooth beacons within a predefined area (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0040; a plurality of local sensors and transceivers 34 located in an area under management). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as described above. Claim 12 recites similar features as claim 5, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, as described above. Claim 13 recites similar features as claim 6, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 6.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 12, as described above. Claim 14 recites similar features as claim 7, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 7.
Regarding claim 15, Verisure teaches a method of tracking a pet with a wearable device (Figure 1), comprising:
monitoring, with the device, the presence of pet wearing the device within a predefined area (Page 15; The tracking device 104 may be set up to transmit an alert, as distinct from merely a location and presence report, such an alert may be transmitted in the event that the device determines that it is outside a predefined zone set up by the user. That is, an alert may be transmitted on the detection of such a movement away from a safe place, rather than merely tracking information (location and presence) being transmitted);
communicating, from the device, a status of the monitoring (Page 5; if a tracked pet is detected to have left a safe location or area (e.g., a safe geofenced area) push notifications may appear on the owner’s smart device showing the location and identity (e.g. name) of the pet, along with any route information. Page 6; pet tracking device may be configured to provide location and presence reports periodically, and the periodicity of the reports may be varied depending upon the location of the pet. Page 15; The tracking device 104 may be set up to transmit an alert, as distinct from merely a location and presence report, such an alert may be transmitted in the event that the device determines that it is outside a predefined zone set up by the user. That is, an alert may be transmitted on the detection of such a movement away from a safe place, rather than merely tracking information (location and presence) being transmitted) to a cloud server Page 8; the reports from the tracking device 104 are preferably directed towards a networked storage arrangement (e.g. one or more servers in the cloud) 116 which functions as a tracking system backend from where they are optionally pushed to a device, such as a smart phone 118, of the pet’s owner(s);
activating, with the cloud server based on the status of the monitoring, an alert mode when a pet wearing the device is out of range of a safe area (Page 15; The tracking device 104 may be set up to transmit an alert, as distinct from merely a location and presence report, such an alert may be transmitted in the event that the device determines that it is outside a predefined zone set up by the user. That is, an alert may be transmitted on the detection of such a movement away from a safe place, rather than merely tracking information (location and presence) being transmitted); and
providing, from the device via the cloud server, GPS location data of the pet wearing the device (Page 9; the device 104 determine its location maybe one or more first locations based on the position of the device with respect to one or more geofences. The geo fences may be established based on data from a satellite navigation (GNSS) function such as GPS embodied in the device 104, and/or using received signal strengths from one or more wireless networks) to a predefined recipient (Page 8; the reports from the tracking device 104 are preferably directed towards a networked storage arrangement (e.g. one or more servers in the cloud) 116 which functions as a tracking system backend from where they are optionally pushed to a device, such as a smart phone 118, of the pet’s owner(s)).
Verisure does not explicitly teach monitoring the presence of Bluetooth beacons; and the device is out of range of the Bluetooth beacons. In an analogous art, Biffert teaches monitoring the presence of Bluetooth beacons (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0040; a plurality of local sensors and transceivers 34 located in an area under management); and the device is out of range of the Bluetooth beacons (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0110; the tags 20 attached to individual livestock C5, C6, and C7 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of each other and a second local sensor 34. However, none of the tags 20 attached to C1, C2, C3, and C4 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of any of the tags 20 attached to C5, C6, or C7. It will be appreciated that as used in this description, “Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range” refers to the range within which the Bluetooth or LPWAN signal strength is sufficient to establish and maintain reliable communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as described above. Further, Biffert teaches monitoring the presence of the Bluetooth beacons with a Bluetooth scanner of the device (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0110; the tags 20 attached to individual livestock C5, C6, and C7 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of each other and a second local sensor 34. However, none of the tags 20 attached to C1, C2, C3, and C4 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of any of the tags 20 attached to C5, C6, or C7. It will be appreciated that as used in this description, “Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range” refers to the range within which the Bluetooth or LPWAN signal strength is sufficient to establish and maintain reliable communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches communicating the status of the monitoring to the cloud server (Page 8; the reports from the tracking device 104 are preferably directed towards a networked storage arrangement (e.g. one or more servers in the cloud) 116 which functions as a tracking system backend from where they are optionally pushed to a device, such as a smart phone 118, of the pet’s owner(s)) via a Wi-Fi module of the device, the Wi-Fi module to connect to a wireless network (Pages 7 and 8; the wearable pet tracking device 104 may be configured to transmit its reports using Wi-Fi, provided that a Wi-Fi network with a known SSID and sufficient signal strength (e.g. better than -67 dBm) is available).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 17, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches when the device is outside a range of the wireless network, communicating the status of the monitoring to the cloud server (Page 8; the reports from the tracking device 104 are preferably directed towards a networked storage arrangement (e.g. one or more servers in the cloud) 116 which functions as a tracking system backend from where they are optionally pushed to a device, such as a smart phone 118, of the pet’s owner(s)) via a cellular modem of the device (Pages 7 and 8; when both Bluetooth communication and Wi-Fi communication is not available, tracking device 104 may be configured to use a cellular network (e.g. a PLMN using LTE, 3GPP 3G, 4G or 5G, CDMA, optionally falling back to 2G/GPRS/Edge if necessary) via local wireless base stations 114 to transmit the reports)).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as described above. Claim 19 recites similar features as claim 3, therefore is rejected for at least the same reason as discussed above regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Verisure and Biffert teaches all of the limitations of claim 15, as described above. Further, Verisure teaches sending an alert notification to the predefined recipient when the pet wearing the device is out of range of the safe zone (Page 15; The tracking device 104 may be set up to transmit an alert, as distinct from merely a location and presence report, such an alert may be transmitted in the event that the device determines that it is outside a predefined zone set up by the user. That is, an alert may be transmitted on the detection of such a movement away from a safe place, rather than merely tracking information (location and presence) being transmitted), the alert notification including the GPS location data of the pet wearing the device (Page 5; if a tracked pet is detected to have left a safe location or area (e.g., a safe geofenced area) push notifications may appear on the owner’s smart device showing the location and identity (e.g. name) of the pet, along with any route information. Page 8; the reports from the tracking device 104 are preferably directed towards a networked storage arrangement (e.g. one or more servers in the cloud) 116 which functions as a tracking system backend from where they are optionally pushed to a device, such as a smart phone 118, of the pet’s owner(s)).
In addition, Biffert teaches out of range of the Bluetooth beacons (Figure 6 and Paragraph 0110; the tags 20 attached to individual livestock C5, C6, and C7 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of each other and a second local sensor 34. However, none of the tags 20 attached to C1, C2, C3, and C4 are within Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range of any of the tags 20 attached to C5, C6, or C7. It will be appreciated that as used in this description, “Bluetooth or LPWAN signal range” refers to the range within which the Bluetooth or LPWAN signal strength is sufficient to establish and maintain reliable communication). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Verisure and Biffert because it would assist detecting, tracking, and responding to livestock location and activity, and for determining livestock behavior and physical conditions correlated thereto (Biffert, Paragraph 0003).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Daoura et al. (US 20240362994 A1) discloses tracking devices for finding lost pets, and for activating one or more alerts activated.
Ehrman et al. (US 20210045353 A1) discloses pet collars configured to determine its geolocational position and evaluate that position with respect to the geo-fence of a predetermined, geo-fenced, and if outside the geo-fence, alert the owner and provide warning corrections to the pet.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jing Gao whose telephone number is (571)270-7226. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am - 6pm M-F.
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 Alison Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jing Gao/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights