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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana (US Pat No. 9,693,536) and Andreae et al. (US Pub No. 2018/0260905).
Regarding claim 1, Dana teaches a collar (See abstract) comprising:
a strap configured to be worn by an animal (See abstract, Fig. 1, and Col. 2 lines 63-67);
a power source (See Col. 18, lines 9-20);
memory storing instructions and one or more processors in communication with the memory (See Col. 9 lines 10-16 & 26-31, Col. lines ); and
a geolocation sensor configured to output location data indicative of a location of the
collar (See Col. 2 lines 15-19, Col. 9 lines 26-36, and Col. 4 lines 60-65),
wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to
cause the collar to:
receive the location data indicative of the location of the collar from the geolocation sensor (See Col. 9 lines 10-22);
receive geo-fence data indicative of a boundary defining a predetermined geographical area in which it is permissible for the collar to be located (See Col. 2 lines 46-62);
determine whether the location of the collar is within the predetermined geographical area (See Col. 4 lines 13-18 and Col. 6 lines 3-10); and
in response to determining that the collar is not within the predetermined geographical area:
output a notification for delivery to a user device, the notification being indicative of the animal not being within the predetermined geographical area (See Col. 12 lines 1-11).
Dana does not teach output location data for delivery to the user device, the location data being indicative of a current position of the collar.
Andreae teaches output location data for delivery to the user device, the location data being indicative of a current position of the collar (See [0071]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Dana’s device to include Andreae’s teachings “to facilitate a community effort in finding the pet” (Andreae, [0071]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana and Andreae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (US pub No. 2017/0289754).
Regarding claim 2, Dana teaches output the notification for delivery to the user device in response to determining that the location of the collar is not within the predetermined geographical area (See Col. 12 lines 1-11) but does not explicitly teach after a predetermined period of time after first determining that the collar is not within the predetermined geographical area, determine whether the location of the collar is within the predetermined geographical area.
Anderson teaches after a predetermined period of time after first determining that a mobile device is not within the predetermined geographical area, determine whether the location of the mobile device is within the predetermined geographical area (See [0026]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Dana’s device to include Anderson’s teachings for more accurate tracking. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 3-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana and Andreae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ehrman et al. (US pub No. 2019/0281794).
Regarding claim 3, Dana does not explicitly teach a magnetometer.
Ehrman teaches a magnetometer configured to determine a direction in which the collar is oriented, the direction in which the collar is oriented being indicative of a direction in which the animal wearing the collar is facing (See [0061]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Dana’s device to include Ehrman’s teachings for more accurate tracking. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 4, Dana does not explicitly teach a magnetometer.
Ehrman teaches one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to not output a corrective action responsive to determining that the animal wearing the collar is located outside the predetermined geographical area and is facing toward the predetermined geographical area (See [0020], “The current orientation can correspond to a direction in which the collar is facing and can be based at least in part on data received from the magnetometer. The collar can be configured to determine a return path to the first predetermined geographical area and instruct, via one or more corrective actions, the animal wearing the collar to orient itself in a direction to follow the return path.”).
Regarding claim 5, Dana does not explicitly teach a magnetometer.
Ehrman teaches when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to output a corrective action responsive to determining that the animal wearing the collar is located outside the predetermined geographical area and is facing away from the predetermined geographical area (See [0020], “The current orientation can correspond to a direction in which the collar is facing and can be based at least in part on data received from the magnetometer. The collar can be configured to determine a return path to the first predetermined geographical area and instruct, via one or more corrective actions, the animal wearing the collar to orient itself in a direction to follow the return path.”).
Regarding claim 6, Dana does not explicitly teach a magnetometer.
Ehrman teaches the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to: determine whether the collar is in the predetermined geographical area and moving toward the boundary; and in response to determining that the collar is in the predetermined geographical area and moving toward the boundary, output a corrective action (See [0020], “The current orientation can correspond to a direction in which the collar is facing and can be based at least in part on data received from the magnetometer. The collar can be configured to determine a return path to the first predetermined geographical area and instruct, via one or more corrective actions, the animal wearing the collar to orient itself in a direction to follow the return path.”).
Regarding claim 11, Dana does not explicitly teach when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to: receive movement data from a movement sensor disposed on the collar; determine whether the collar is in the predetermined geographical area and within a predetermined distance of the boundary; and in response to determining that the collar is within the predetermined distance of the boundary and based at least in part on the movement data, cause the collar to output a corrective action to deter the collar from approaching the boundary.
Ehrman teaches when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to: receive movement data from a movement sensor disposed on the collar; determine whether the collar is in the predetermined geographical area and within a predetermined distance of the boundary; and in response to determining that the collar is within the predetermined distance of the boundary and based at least in part on the movement data, cause the collar to output a corrective action to deter the collar from approaching the boundary (See abstract, [0046], and [0061]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana and Andreae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shapiro et al. (US Pub No. 2019/0208363).
Regarding claim 12, Dana does not explicitly teach using a machine learning algorithm.
Shapiro teaches using a machine learning algorithm tracking (See [0193]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Dana’s device to include Shapiro’s teachings for more rapid and accurate tracking. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana and Andreae as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderton et al. (US Pub No. 2017/0265432)
Regarding claim 7, Dana does not explicitly teach when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to: output instructions for the collar to output a first corrective action having a first correction magnitude; receive sensor data from a sensor in communication with the collar; determine a second correction magnitude based at least in part on the sensor data; and output instructions for the collar to output a second corrective action having the second correction magnitude.
Anderton teaches when executed by the one or more processors, are further configured to cause the collar to: output instructions for the collar to output a first corrective action having a first correction magnitude; receive sensor data from a sensor in communication with the collar; determine a second correction magnitude based at least in part on the sensor data; and output instructions for the collar to output a second corrective action having the second correction magnitude (See [0030] and [0035]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Dana’s device to include Anderton’s teachings effective training ([0034]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 8, Dana does not explicitly teach the sensor data comprises motion data of the collar following the first corrective action.
Andreae teaches the sensor data comprises motion data of the collar following the first corrective action (See [0015]).
Regarding claim 9, Dana does not explicitly teach wherein at least some of the sensor data is received from a geolocation sensor of the collar.
Andreae teaches wherein at least some of the sensor data is received from a geolocation sensor of the collar (See [0015]).
Regarding claim 10, Dana does not explicitly teach at least some of the sensor data is received from an accelerometer of the collar.
Andreae teaches at least some of the sensor data is received from an accelerometer of the collar (See [0015]).
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderton et al. (US Pub No. 2017/0265432) and Jesurum et al. (US Pub No. 2015/0020750).
Regarding claim 15, Anderton teaches a non-transitory, computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a system to: output instructions for a collar to output a first corrective action having a first correction magnitude; receive sensor data from a sensor in communication with the collar; determine a second correction magnitude based at least in part on the sensor data; and output instructions for the collar to output a second corrective action having the second correction action (See abstract, [0030], and [0035]).
Anderton does not explicitly teach a second correction magnitude.
Jesurum teaches a second correction magnitude (See [0077]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been motivated to modify Anderton’s device to include Jesurum’s teachings to lower “the possibility that the pet will roam” ([0005]). Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Regarding claim 16, Anderton teaches the first correction magnitude is a lowest correction magnitude of the collar (See abstract, [0030], and [0035]).
Regarding claim 17, Anderton teaches the first correction magnitude comprises a first correction duration and the second correction magnitude comprises a second correction duration that is greater than the first correction duration (See abstract, [0030], and [0035] which teach an increasing intensity of the shock for a predetermined. It would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art from Anderton’s increasing intensity teachings to increase the correct duration as a way to increase the intensity of the subsequent corrective actions.).
Regarding claim 18, Anderton teaches the sensor data comprises motion data of the collar following the first corrective action (See abstract, [0004], and [0035] which teach additional information for the collar from an accelerometer).
Regarding claim 19, Anderton teaches at least some of the sensor data is measured by a geolocation sensor of the collar (See abstract, [0030], and [0035]).
Regarding claim 20, Anderton teaches at least some of the sensor data is received from an accelerometer of the collar (See abstract, [0004] and [0035]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS S MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)272-0841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
/THOMAS S MCCORMACK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686