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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l) since the lines, numbers, and letters are not sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined as to give the drawings satisfactory reproduction characteristics. For example see figure 1 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
1372
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “[d]isclosed is” on line 1 can be easily implied and therefore should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because “a right-angled sector shape” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. Is the applicant attempting to set forth a right angled portion of the sector or is the applicant merely referring to the shape of a right-angled sector? Additionally, it is unclear what two elements of the invention define the right angle to which the applicant is referring.
Claim 4 is objected to because “waist-like shape” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What is a “waist” shape? Additionally, how much like a waist shape must an element be before it can be referred to as “like” a waist shape?
Claim 8 is objected to because “the front locking piece . . . on a rear side of the tab” on lines 4-5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear when the front locking piece is positioned on the first side of the tab and the rear locking piece is positioned on the rear side of the tab. Note that when the tab is in a displaced position, the front locking piece is not positioned on the first side of the tab and the rear locking piece is not positioned on the rear side of the tab depending upon the direction in which the door plate is opened.
Claim 11 is objected to because “the identity information” on lines 4 and 5 brings the clarity of the claim into question because they lack antecedent basis.
Claim 12 is objected to because “identification distance” on lines 5 and 6 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what comprises the identification distance. What distance determines the identification distance? What two elements of the invention define the identification distance?
Claim 15 is objected to because “far away” on line 2 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what the applicant is attempting to set forth. What distance is a “far away” distance?
Claim 15 is objected to because “that” on line 3 brings the clarity of the claim into question because it is unclear what part or characteristic of the mounting frame “that” is referring to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaccari et al. (US 2005/0091925) in view of Brooks et al. (US 2007/0089684) and GB 2 561 158. Vaccari et al. discloses a pet door, comprising: a door frame 17, 18, a door plate 22 and a door lock 36, wherein the door plate 22 is hinged to an upper frame of the door frame 17, 18 as shown in figure 2, and the door lock 36 is mounted on a lower frame of the door frame 36 as shown in figure 2;
wherein the door lock 36 is in one of following four states;
when the door lock 36 is in a first state, the door plate 22 is blocked from being rotated and opened as set forth in paragraph 24;
when the door lock 36 is in a second state, the door plate 22 is able to be rotated and opened bidirectionally as set forth in paragraph 23;
when the door lock 36 is in a third state, the door plate 22 is able to be opened inward only as set forth in paragraph 21; and
when the door lock 36 is in a fourth state, the door plate 22 is able to be opened outward only as set forth in paragraph 22.
Vaccari et al. is silent concerning a motor, a front locking piece, a rear locking piece, a circuit main board and a power supply.
However, Brooks et al. discloses a smart pet door comprising a door lock 6, wherein the door lock 6 comprises a motor 11, a circuit main board 8 (fig. 1) and a power supply 7 (fig. 1), wherein the door lock 6 is in transmission connection with the motor 11, the motor 11 is electrically connected to the circuit main board 8, and the circuit main board 8 is electrically connected to the power supply 7; the motor 11 drives the door lock 6 to operate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Vaccari et al. with an automated system, as taught by Brooks et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to enable the pet door to automatically control the ingress and the egress of a pet through the pet door.
Additionally, GB 2 561 158 discloses a door lock 15 comprising a front locking piece 14, a rear locking piece 16, wherein the front locking piece 14 and the rear locking piece 16 are coaxially arranged as shown in figure 3 and are in transmission connection with one another; the front locking piece 14 is positioned on a front side of a lower edge of a door plate 10, the rear locking piece 16 is positioned on a rear side of the lower edge of the door plate 10,
when the door lock 15 is in a first state, the front locking piece 14 and the rear locking piece 16 both block the door plate 10 from being rotated and opened;
when the door lock 15 is in a second state, the front locking piece 14 and the rear locking piece 16 both avoid the door plate 10, and the door plate is able to be rotated and opened bidirectionally;
when the door lock 15 is in a third state, the front locking piece 14 blocks the door plate 10, the rear locking piece 16 avoids the door plate, and the door plate 10 is able to be opened inward only.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Vaccari et al. with front and rear locking pieces, as taught by GB 2 561 158, with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a compact means for preventing the door plate from moving in the desired direction.
With respect to claim 2, Vaccari et al., as modified above discloses that the front locking piece 14 and the rear locking piece 16 are able to abut against the door plate 10 separately, or abut against the door plate 10 simultaneously, or disengage from the door plate 10 simultaneously.
With respect to claim 3, Vaccari et al., as modified above discloses that the front locking piece 14 and the rear locking piece 16 are parallel to each other, as shown in figure 3, and are arranged at intervals, and a distance between the front locking piece 14 and the rear locking piece 16 is adapted to a thickness of the lower edge of the door plate 10.
With respect to claim 4, Vaccari et al., as modified above discloses that the front locking piece 14 is in a right-angled sector shape at 46, the rear locking piece 16 is in a waist-like shape (labeled below), and one right-angled edge 44 of the front locking piece 14 is parallel to two straight edges (labeled below) of the rear locking piece 16.
With respect to claim 5, Vaccari et al., as modified above discloses that a distance from an axis (labeled below) of the front locking piece 14 to an arc-shaped edge thereof (labeled below) is greater than a height from the axis of the front locking piece 14 to the lower edge of the door plate 10, and a distance from the axis of the front locking piece to any right-angle edge 44 or 46 thereof is less than the height from the axis of the front locking piece 14 to the lower edge of the door plate 10.
With respect to claim 6, Vaccari et al., as modified above discloses that a distance from an axis of the rear locking piece 16 to any arc-shaped edge thereof (labeled below) is greater than a height from the axis of the rear locking piece 16 to the lower edge of the door plate 10, and a distance from the axis of the rear locking piece to any straight edge thereof (not shown, but corresponding to the straight edges 44, 46 of the front locking piece 14) is less than the height from the axis of the rear locking piece 16 to the lower edge of the door plate 10.
With respect to claim 7, Vaccari et al., as modified above discloses that a distance from the axis of the rear locking piece 16 to any arc-shaped edge thereof (labeled below) is equal to the distance from the axis of the front locking piece 14 to any arc-shaped edge thereof (labeled below), and the distance from the axis of the rear locking piece 16 to any straight edge thereof is equal to the distance from the axis of the front locking piece 14 to any right-angle edge thereof.
With respect to claim 9, Vaccari et al., as modified above discloses that the front locking piece 14 and the rear locking piece 16 are circumferentially and evenly divided into four regions, and wherein the door lock 15 is in the first state when a first region is aligned with the lower edge of the door plate 10, the door lock 15 is in the second state when a second region is aligned with the lower edge of the door plate 10, the door lock 15 is in the third state when a third region is aligned with the lower edge of the door plate 10, and the door lock 15 is in the fourth state when a fourth region is aligned with the lower edge of the door plate 10.
With respect to claim 10, Vaccari et al., as modified above discloses that a front side of the front locking piece 14 is provided with a manual knob 36 (see figure 1 of Vaccari et al.) exposed out of the door frame 17, 18, and the manual knob 36 is configured to manually control the rotation of the door lock 36 to change a state of the door lock 36.
With respect to claim 14, Vaccari et al., as modified above discloses that a back side of the door frame 17, 18 is provided with a mounting frame 18, and the mounting frame 18 is configured to clamp to a door opening.
With respect to claim 15, Vaccari et al., as modified above discloses that one side of the mounting frame 18 far away from the door frame 17 is detachably assembled with a rear frame (labeled below), an outer frame of the rear frame is larger than that of the mounting frame 18 since the outer frame of the rear frame is at least thicker than the mounting frame 18, and after the door frame 17, 18 and the mounting frame 18 are clamped to the door opening, and the rear frame is assembled with the mounting frame 18 to secure the smart pet door.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaccari et al. in view of Brooks et al. and GB 2 561 158 as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 10, 14 and 15 above, and further in view of Brush et al. (US 2024/0044175). Brush et al. discloses a smart pet door comprising a tab (labeled below) protruding from a lower side of a door plate 16 is provided on the lower edge of the door plate 16, the tab has a thinner thickness than that of the door plate 16.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Vaccari et al., as modified above, with a tab, as taught by Brush et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce the size of the door lock while still enabling the door lock to the lock the door plate. It should be noted that the front locking piece 14 of Vaccari et al., as modified above, would be positioned on a front side of the tab, and the rear locking piece 16 of Vaccari et al., as modified above, would be positioned on a rear side of the tab.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaccari et al. in view of Brooks et al. and GB 2 561 158 as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 10, 14 and 15 above.
Brooks et al. further discloses an identity identification module (not numbered, but set forth in paragraph 77) electrically connected to the circuit main board 8 is provided on the door frame 3, the identity identification module is configured to verify an identity of a pet and send the identity information of the pet to the circuit main board 8 after confirming the identity information of the pet, and the circuit main board 8 controls the motor 11 to change a state of the door lock 6 (claim 11);
wherein an upper frame of the doorframe 3 is provided with a battery compartment (not numbered, but shown in figure 1 housing the batteries 7), and the power supply 7 is provided within the battery compartment (claim 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Vaccari et al., as modified above, with an identity identification module and a battery compartment, as taught by Brooks et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to ensure that only authorized pets are able to pass through the pet door and to provide a convenient storage space for the power supply, i.e., the batteries.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaccari et al. in view of Brooks et al. and GB 2 561 158 as applied to claims 11 and 13 above. Vaccari et al., as modified above, discloses that the door frame 3 is provided with a sensing module 47 (fig. 8) electrically connected to the circuit main board 8, and the sensing module 47 wakes up the circuit main board 8 when sensing the approach of a pet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide Vaccari et al., as modified above, with a sensing module, as taught by Brooks et al., with a reasonable expectation of success to conserve power by only operating the circuit main board when necessary.
Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with parameters so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Accordingly, it would have been no more than an obvious matter of engineering design choice as determined through routine experimentation and optimization before the effective filing date of the invention, for one of ordinary skill to provide Vaccari et al., as modified above, with a 10-30 cm identification distance of the identity identification module and a 80-220 cm identification distance of the sensing module, with a reasonable expectation of success, to ensure that the pet is properly identified before waking up the circuit main board. It should be noted that distances of the identification module and the sensing module have not been adequately defined in the claims. Thus, the sensing module distance can merely be the distance from the reed switch 47 to the tail of the pet.
PNG
media_image2.png
1640
1098
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1646
1114
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
1646
1116
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY J STRIMBU whose telephone number is (571)272-6836. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 Monday-Friday.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/GREGORY J STRIMBU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634