Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/095,129

Animal Training Collar Device

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Mar 31, 2025
Examiner
SCHMID, BROOK VICTORIA
Art Unit
3642
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
30%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 30% of cases
30%
Career Allow Rate
20 granted / 67 resolved
-22.1% vs TC avg
Strong +61% interview lift
Without
With
+61.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
34 currently pending
Career history
101
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
39.8%
-0.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
§112
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 67 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claim 20) in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/10/2025. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/31/2025 is being considered by the examiner. 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 it uses implied phrases (“an animal training collar device is disclosed”). 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 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “when in range” should read –when in a range-- 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. Claim 20 is 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 20 recites the limitation "the collar" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the collar” will be understood as –a collar--. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the remote control" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the remote control” will be understood as –a remote control--. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the carrying case" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the carrying case” will be understood as –a carrying case--. Claim 20 recites “a built-in receiver/speaker.” This limitation is unclear due to the forward dash. It is unclear whether the applicant is requiring both a receiver and a speaker, a receiver and/or speaker, or a receiver or speaker. Further, it is unclear, with the dash, whether the applicant is requiring that the receiver and speaker be integrated in some manner. Claim 20 recites the step of “delivering voice, beep, vibration, and shock controls via the remote control, as needed.” The phrase, “as needed,” in this limitation makes the scope of the claim unclear. Particularly, it is unclear how “as needed” serves to limit the scope of the claim – does the step of delivering even need to occur? Must there be some condition met before the delivery step? Must the delivering step include a voice, beep, vibration, and shock, or just at least one of the list? 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonge (US 20160021506), in view of Louise (NPL ~ Facebook), hereinafter referred to as Bonge and Louise, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above. Regarding claim 20: Bonge discloses a method of training an animal using vocal commands produced by the collar (¶0086), the method comprising the following steps: providing an animal training collar device comprising a body component configured as a round-shaped animal collar with a built-in receiver/speaker (see animal worn device 1 with round flexible strap 2, Fig 1; transceiver 15, Fig 7; speaker 36, Fig 7); securing the body component around the neck of an animal to be trained (¶0080; Fig 1); delivering voice, beep, vibration, and shock controls via the remote control, as needed (voice and shock discussed in ¶0086; ¶0077 discusses vibration; ¶0076 discusses tone/beep); and tracking the device via a mobile app when in range (see Fig 11; dot 79, Fig 20; ¶0098; ¶0066; ¶0102; ¶0004) Bonge fails to disclose the step of removing the body component and storing the device within the carrying case, when not in use. Louise contemplates storing an e-collar in a carrying case, when not in use (see Post by Lizzy Louise and comment by Julie Cox). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stored the collar of Bonge in a carrying case, when not in use, as in Louise, such a step requiring removal of the collar from its use position about the neck of the dog, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for convenient transport of the collar, or to help prevent damage to or loss of the collar, during times when the collar is not being used to train. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention, particularly, Ehrman (US 20190281794), Ramsay (US 20070204803), Kim (US 20130157628), and Ehrman II (US 20220279760). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish. 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. /B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 31, 2025
Application Filed
Jan 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12588610
Growing Container For Free-Rooted Plants And System And Method Using Same
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12465027
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DELIVERING FLUID DROPLETS ONTO AN OPEN AND STATIONARY TRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12465023
LEASH RELEASE MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 11, 2025
Patent 12457999
POULTRY CRADLE UNLOADING SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Patent 12457944
TRANSFORMABLE GREENHOUSE SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 04, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
30%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+61.2%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 67 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month