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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 5/6/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Pushbutton 218 mentioned in paragraph 19 of the specification. 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. 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Pushbutton 218, introduced in paragraph 19 of the specification does not appear to be shown in the figures.
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 9 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 9 states “further comprising user-adjustable controls for customizing tension, retraction speed, slow-down distance, and slow-down tension.”, none of these adjustable controls are previously introduced in the claims and it is not clear to the examiner if this claim is meant to introduce each of these adjustable controls as required limitations or if the claim is meant to just say that the adjustable controls can alter the operational parameters of the system in a similar manner to how claim 15 is currently written. The examiner believes that the second interpretation is the desired interpretation of the claim and it will be examined in this manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukami et al. (PGPub #2025/0302006).
Regarding claim 1, Fukami teaches an electronically controlled dog leash, comprising: a housing (1); a leash extendable from and retractable into the housing (The housing and leash as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 29); an electric motor (2) connected to a reel mechanism for controlling the leash (As can be seen in figure 2B the motor is connected to a reel through a gear system which controls the position of the leash, and Paragraph 42); at least one sensor for generating data related to leash movement (Abstract, lines 1-9); a microprocessor (10) for processing the sensor data and controlling the motor (Paragraphs 42-44, and 47); and a power source (6); wherein the microprocessor is configured to automatically adjust motor operation based on the sensor data (Paragraphs 42-44, and 47).
Regarding claim 2, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, wherein the microprocessor is configured to maintain minimal tension on the leash during normal use and to adjust the tension based on changes in relative position between ends of the leash (Paragraphs 29, 31, 32, 58, and 59, this teaches that the system can monitor the tension and position of the leash and adjust the system to lower the tension to an optimal baseline for comfort as the system is extended and retracted).
Regarding claim 8, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a strain gauge for directly measuring leash tension (Paragraph 31).
Regarding claim 9, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, further comprising user-adjustable controls for customizing tension, retraction speed, slow-down distance, and slow-down tension (Paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 12, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, wherein the microprocessor monitors changes in the sensor data and adjusts retraction speed to prevent tangling of the leash (Paragraphs 29, and 30, this teaches that the controller monitors the sensor data to adjust the speed of retraction to ensure that it is retracted in a smooth and controlled manner, and retracting in a smooth and controlled manner will prevent tangling).
Regarding claim 13, Fukami teaches a method of controlling a dog leash, comprising: monitoring data from at least one sensor associated with a motorized leash (Abstract, lines 1-9, and Paragraphs 42-44, and 47); analyzing the sensor data using a microprocessor (Paragraphs 42-44, and 47); determining whether to adjust operation of an electric motor connected to the leash based on the analyzed sensor data (Paragraphs 42-44, and 47); and automatically adjusting operation of the electric motor based on the determination (Paragraphs 42-44, and 47).
Regarding claim 15, Fukami teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising providing user-adjustable controls for customizing operational parameters of the motorized leash (Paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 16, Fukami teaches a dog walking system, comprising: a collar or harness attachable to a dog (Collar as seen in figure 1); an electronic leash controller comprising: a housing (1) with a retractable leash mechanism (The housing and leash as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 29), an electric motor (2) coupled to the retractable leash mechanism (As can be seen in figure 2B the motor is connected to a reel through a gear system which controls the position of the leash, and Paragraph 42), at least one sensor generating data related to leash conditions (Abstract, lines 1-9), and control circuitry (10) configured to process the sensor data (Paragraphs 42-44, and 47); and a user interface allowing customization of one or more leash operation parameters (Paragraph 62); wherein the control circuitry automatically adjusts operation of the electric motor based on the sensor data and the customized parameters (Paragraphs 42-44, 47, and 62).
Regarding claim 17, Fukami teaches the dog walking system of claim 16, wherein the user interface includes controls for adjusting at least one of: baseline tension, maximum tension, slow-down distance, and retraction speed (Paragraph 62).
Regarding claim 18, Fukami teaches the dog walking system of claim 16, wherein the collar or harness includes an attachment point for connecting to the retractable leash (The leash and collar as seen in figure 1).
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.
Claims 3, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami et al. (PGPub #2025/0302006) in view of Duffin (PGPub #2021/0368741).
Regarding claim 3, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, but does not teach an adjustable slow- down feature that gradually increases tension over a user-defined distance as the leash approaches its maximum extension. However, Duffin teaches an adjustable slow- down feature that gradually increases tension over a user-defined distance as the leash approaches its maximum extension (Abstract, and Paragraphs 19, 21, and 52, this teaches that the user can activate the braking system which lets them define the distance that it is activated over). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a user controlled slow down feature that increases tension as the system approaches maximum extension because Fukami and Duffin are both retractable pet leashes. The motivation for having a user controlled slow down feature that increases tension as the system approaches maximum extension is that it helps to prevent the pet from hitting a sudden stop at the maximum extension which could injure the pet.
Regarding claim 14, Fukami teaches the method of claim 13, but does not teach determining whether the leash is approaching a maximum extension; and gradually increasing tension when the leash approaches the maximum extension. However, Duffin does teach determining whether the leash is approaching a maximum extension (Abstract, and Paragraphs 19, 21, and 52, the claim does not require that the determination is completed by a controller based on sensor information and instead the determination can be performed by the user as is taught by Duffin); and gradually increasing tension when the leash approaches the maximum extension (Abstract, and Paragraphs 19, 21, and 52, this teaches that the user can activate the braking system which lets them define the distance that it is activated over). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the leash tension as the leash approaches maximum extension because Fukami and Duffin are both retractable pet leashes. The motivation for having the leash tension as the leash approaches maximum extension is that it helps to prevent the pet from hitting a sudden stop at the maximum extension which could injure the pet.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami et al. (PGPub #2025/0302006) in view of Mugford et al. (US #7,036,459).
Regarding claim 4, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, but does not teach a manual stop/lock mechanism activated by a pushbutton to prevent the leash from extending when engaged. However, Mugford does teach a manual stop/lock mechanism activated by a pushbutton to prevent the leash from extending when engaged (34 as seen in figure 1, and Column 2, lines 13-23). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a manual stop activated by a pushbutton because Fukami and Mugford are both retractable animal leashes. The motivation for having a manual stop activated by a pushbutton is that it allows the user to selectively stop the system when they want to limit the movement of the animal.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami et al. (PGPub #2025/0302006) in view of Sanchez Huipio et al. (PGPub #2017/0021798).
Regarding claim 5, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, wherein the electric motor is a DC motor (Paragraph 40). But Fukami does not teach that the motor is brushless.
However, Sanchez Huipio does teach that the motor is brushless (Paragraph 28). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the motor be a brushless motor because Fukami and Sanchez Huipio are both retractable animal leash systems. The motivation for having the motor be a brushless motor is that brushless motors are more efficient than brushed motors.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami et al. (PGPub #2025/0302006) in view of Solar et al. (PGPub #2024/0359945).
Regarding claim 6, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises a encoder mounted on the reel mechanism for monitoring position and angle of the leash (Paragraphs 30, 33-35, and 42). But Fukami does not teach that the encoder is a magnetic encoder.
However, Solar does teach that the encoder is a magnetic encoder (Paragraph 24). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the encoder be magnetic because Fukami and Solar are both handheld retractable line systems with encoder system mounted on the rotating line holder. The motivation for having the encoder be magnetic is that it helps to improve the reliability of the encoder system even when the system is exposed to the elements.
Claims 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami et al. (PGPub #2025/0302006) in view of Wilson et al. (PGPub #2022/0030826).
Regarding claim 7, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, but does not teach that the at least one sensor comprises a current sensor for monitoring motor current as an indicator of leash tension. However, Wilson does teach that the at least one sensor comprises a current sensor for monitoring motor current as an indicator of leash tension (Paragraph 32, this teaches that the sensor can be used to detect loads placed on the motor and loads are placed on the motor by tension in the leash). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a current sensor to detect loads on the motor because Fukami and Wilson are both motorized retractable pet leashes. The motivation for having a current sensor to detect loads on the motor is that it allows the control system to know when the animal is pulling on the leash and causing extension of the system.
Regarding claim 10, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, but does not teach a charging circuit for recharging the power source. However, Wilson does teach a charging circuit for recharging the power source (Paragraphs 7, and 33). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a charging circuit to recharge the power source because Fukami and Wilson are both motorized retractable pet leashes. The motivation for having a charging circuit to recharge the power source is that it allows the system to operate with rechargeable batteries rather than single use batteries to lower the operating costs of the system.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami et al. (PGPub #2025/0302006) in view of Delgado (PGPub #2023/0172166).
Regarding claim 11, Fukami teaches the electronically controlled dog leash of claim 1, but does not teach an attachment point on the housing for securing the leash to a user's belt, waist, or backpack for hands-free operation. However, Delgado does teach an attachment point on the housing for securing the leash to a user's belt, waist, or backpack for hands-free operation (14, 17, and 18 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 16, the carabiner acts as an attachment point on the housing that is capable of being connected to a belt, waist or backpack). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the housing have an attachment point which allows the system to be used hands free because Fukami and Delgado are both retractable dog leash systems. The motivation for having the housing have an attachment point which allows the system to be used hands free is that it allows the system to be used when the users hands are occupied such as when pushing a stroller or when the user does not wish to have their hands exposed such as when it is cold outside.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647