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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there are no reference characters shown in the drawings or discussed in the specification. The drawings do not specifically show where the various elements are located on the vest.
The drawings are objected to for excessive shading, see MPEP 1.84(m). New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because some of the drawings are shaded in black and grey, which reduces legibility. According to MPEP CFR 1.84(m), shading is only acceptable if it does not reduce legibility. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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(s) 1 and 4-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20190081598 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Davino (US-20170223928-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a system for taking care of dog, comprising:
a smart vest, configured to be worn by a dog (wearable device 10, see fig 4);
a user device (user terminal 20), configured to be used by an owner of the dog for remote interaction with the smart vest (see page 2); and
a server, communicating with the smart vest and the user device respectively to implement the remote interaction (management server 40 and dog care device 30, see page 2);
wherein the smart vest comprises one or more physiological information sensors (bio-signal sensor 11), wherein the dog's physiological information monitored by the one or more physiological information sensors is sent by the smart vest to the server for analyzing the dog's emotional status (measures biometric signals & transmits them to user, different colors for display unit based on normal vs abnormal heart rate, see pages 4-5).
Lee fails to disclose wherein the vest comprises multiple vibrators, and the remote interaction is configured to include that the owner sends an instruction to the smart vest through the user device for activating one or more of the vibrators to simulate a hug of the owner, in view of the dog's emotional status received by the user device from the server.
Davino teaches vibrators (vibration generator 425), and the remote interaction is configured to include that the owner sends an instruction to the smart vest through the user device for activating one or more of the vibrators to simulate a hug of the owner, in view of the dog's emotional status received by the user device from the server (sends user heartbeat to animals via vibration generator 425, see para 0055 and 0071).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the smart vest with the vibrator and vibrations of Davino with a reasonable expectation of success as this will help soothe the animal while the owner is away (comfort mode, see para 0071).
The modified reference teaches the claimed invention except there being multiple vibrators. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system with multiple vibration generators with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide greater comfort to the animal, and since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St, Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Lee further discloses wherein the one or more physiological information sensors comprise a heartbeat sensor, and the dog's physiological information comprises the dog's heartbeat information (sensor/bio-signal detecting unit 11, can detect heart rate, see page 6), and the dog's emotional status comprises the dog's anxiety level (emotional states such as fear and anxiety, see page 3).
Regarding claim 5, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Davino further teaches wherein the smart vest comprises a heartbeat simulator (vibration generator 425), and the user device is configured to receive the owner's heartbeat information from another device (input from user external device, see para 0034), wherein the user device is configured to send the owner's heartbeat information to the smart vest via the server (sends user heartbeat to animals bed, see para 0055 and 0071), in order for the smart vest to simulate the owner's heartbeat through one of the vibrators or the heartbeat simulator while simulating the hug of the owner (sends user heartbeat to animals bed, see para 0055, see also para 0071, heartbeat presented by the vibration generator).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the smart vest comprises a speaker (speaker 342), and the remote interaction includes that speaker is configured to be remotely operated by the owner through the user device to talk to the dog (see page 9).
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the smart vest comprises a location tracker (GPS tracker 124, location management unit 121, see page 12), and the remote interaction includes that the smart vest is configured to send the dog's location information recorded by the location tracker to the user device via the server (step S208 transmits the detected position of the wearable 10 to the user terminal 20, see page 12).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20190081598 A) in view of Davino (US-20170223928-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kapoustin (US-10993416-B2).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, and Lee further discloses wherein the server can analyze the dog's emotional status based on the dog's physiological information (sensor/bio-signal detecting unit 11, can detect heart rate, see page 6, determine emotional states such as fear and anxiety, see page 3).
The modified reference fails to teach an AI module for determining the dogs emotional status.
Kapoustin teaches wherein the server comprises an AI module to analyze the dog's emotional status based on the dog's physiological information (AI analyzes the emotional state and body biometrics of the support animals, see abstract and col 3, lines 50-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the AI module for data analysis as taught by Kapoustin with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for the AI learning algorithm to learn the animals usual biometrics to more quickly and accurately identify when the animal feeling off.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20190081598 A) in view of Davino (US-20170223928-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neskin (US-10085423-B2).
Regarding claim 7, the modified reference teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the smart vest comprises a camera (photographing unit 37).
The modified reference fails to teach wherein the smart vest comprises a laser pointer, and the remote interaction includes that the laser pointer and the camera are configured to be remotely operated by the owner through the user device to play the laser point with the dog.
Neskin teaches wherein a remote laser pointer (laser beam 110), and the remote interaction includes that the laser pointer and the camera are configured to be remotely operated by the owner through the user device to play the laser point with the dog (see col 5, lines 12-48 and figs 2 and 6-7b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the smart vest with the laser pointer and remote control of Neskin with a reasonable expectation of success as this will allow for the owner to remotely entertain the dog and ensure it receives play and exercise when they are not home.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that 103 rejection fails to disclose the limitations of now amended claim 1. The Office respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that the “simulating a hug” is the crux of the invention, and simulating a hug requires a vest that wraps around the body of the animal and therefore the Davino reference does not teach simulating a hug. The Office respectfully disagrees. The rejection of amended claim 1 is a combination of Lee, which is a smart vest that wraps around the body of the dog, with the vibration motors found in Davino. Therefore, the combination of Lee and Davino does teach a vest with vibration motors that is therefore able to simulate a hug. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues that “simulating a hug” requires “coordinated actuation of multiple vibrators across the vest to replicate the encompassing physical pressure of an embrace.” However, the claim merely requires “the remote interaction is configured to include that the owner sends an instruction to the smart vest through the user device for activating one or more of the vibrators to simulate a hug of the owner.” Further, the specification does not mention this requirement of “coordinated actuation of multiple vibrators across the vest to replicate the encompassing physical pressure of an embrace.” The specification discusses details of the simulation of the hug in the following paragraphs: paragraph 0028 which states “An array of vibrator motors on the vest simulates the sensation of petting or hugging the dog” and paragraph 0036 which states “Additionally, owners can send a "hug" to their dogs e.g., by pressing a button on the app. This command may be sent to the server, which then instructs the microprocessor to activate the vibrator(s) on the vest, simulating a hug for the dog. During this process, the owner's heartbeat may be also transmitted to the vest (thus to the dog), providing a natural and comforting hug experience for the dog.” Therefore, neither the claims nor the specification require further structure for simulating a hug than vibration motors on a vest, which, as explained above, is satisfied by the combination of Lee and Davino.
In regards to Applicant’s comments on the drawings objections, as mentioned in the Non-Final Office action dated 04/17/2026, the objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, Northrop (US-20170099807-A1) which discloses a wearable pet vest with a calming device that can transmit vibrations to the pet.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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 at (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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights