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
Claims 1-6, 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 05/14/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (Claims 7-17) in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 11, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “where in the processor is further to” which should be revised to read -wherein the processor is further configured to-.
Claim 13 was understood to be directed toward the embodiment of Figure 2, in which a correction collar is wirelessly connected to the smart pet collar, and the correction collar provides the feedback desired. However as currently written, it reads as if the smart pet collar is providing the feedback. Claim 13 may benefit further by clarifying that the feedback mechanism is present in the training collar.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter (US 20240334906 A1) in view of Respass (US 20180295812 A1).
Regarding claim 7: Porter discloses an inferential smart pet collar (102, para 75) comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) to provide pet orientation data (para 76 discusses IMU, para 129 discusses detecting orientation of animal using data from IMU);
a locating unit to provide pet position data (paras 128-130 discuss GPS and position data); and
a machine-learning (ML) enabled pet behavior engine using a set of past pet behaviors, the pet orientation data, and the pet position data (para 129, discusses using a ML model to track changes to an animal’s pose over a determined period of time using training data).
Porter fails to teach inferring further pet behaviors.
However, Respass teaches inferring future pet behaviors (paras 34-36 discuss predicting the likelihood a behavior occurs based on logged behavior, biological, and positional data, paras 39-41 further discuss mitigating undesired events).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the smart collar as disclosed by Porter with the behavior prediction as taught by Respass with a reasonable expectation of success because predicting future behavior would achieve the result of mitigating undesired events from occurring before they happen, allowing for training to occur at a faster pace and also potentially minimizing any damage that could occur from unwanted behaviors. Furthermore Respass (para 47) discusses another potential benefit in that mitigating predicted undesired behaviors could prevent consequences that harm the animal.
Regarding claim 8: Porter as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and further teaches a wireless communications link to connect the inferential smart pet collar to one or more of another inferential smart pet collar, a wide area network (WAN), and a local area network (LAN) (Porter: paras 82,87 discuss a system including a wearable device 126 connecting to one or more wearable devices 102, wearable device 126 being similarly constructed as wearable device 102. Para 83 discusses connection with a cloud computing device. Para 83 also discusses local devices such as computers and mobile devices).
Regarding claim 9: Porter as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and further teaches data storage to provide local storage of one or more outputs from the IMU and the locating unit, the set of past pet behaviors, and a set of pet behavior rules (Porter: para 75 discusses wearable device 102 containing a processor, memory, and storage device. Para 10 discusses processor obtaining data from smart wearable device).
Regarding claim 10: Porter as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9 as shown above, and further teaches a processor to execute the ML-enabled pet behavior engine to infer the future pet behaviors (Porter: para 10 discusses a processor releasing a reinforcer based on an output from a machine learning model, and as modified by Respass paras 34-36 above to infer future pet behaviors).
Regarding claim 11: Porter as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to identify inferred pet behaviors that meet conditions of one of the pet behavior rules (Respass para 34 discusses deducing probability an undesired behavior occurs, at which increasing physical stimuli or other actions in an attempt to mitigate undesired behavior).
Regarding claim 12: Porter as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 as shown above, and further teaches a feedback mechanism to provide one or both of positive reinforcement (Porter para 9, discusses a treat or praise for positive reinforcement) and negative reinforcement (Porter para 45 discusses audible correction) of an inferred pet behavior (Respass para 34), wherein the processor is further to trigger the feedback mechanism in response to the inferred pet behavior meeting the conditions of one of the pet behavior rules (Respass para 34 “For instance, a greater than 80% risk of an identified behavior occurring triggers the animal device to adapt the virtual fence, such as by reducing the size or changing the shape of the fence boundary, or adapt the containment plan, such as by increasing physical stimuli or where stimuli begin being applied.”).
Regarding claim 14: Porter as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the negative reinforcement includes one or more of a sound, vibration, electric shock, and puff of air (Porter para 45 discusses audible correction, Respass para 34 discusses electric shock).
Regarding claim 15: Porter as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the positive reinforcement includes remotely activating an automatic treat feeder or pinging a user to provide a treat or play time to the pet (Porter para 9 discusses a treat for positive reinforcing behavior).
Regarding claim 16: Porter as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and further teaches one or more external input devices to provide additional data sourced external to the inferential smart pet collar (Porter para 95 discusses receiving external data from smart home system), the additional data also used to infer the future pet behaviors (Respass paras 33-34 discuss predicting behavior on external data received such as weather).
Regarding claim 17: Porter as modified teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and further teaches an external hub to control features of the inferential smart pet collar (Porter para 83, discusses retrieving or obtaining a training program from a USB, Google Cloud, computer, mobile device, and other external devices).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter and Respass as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Thalmann (US 20130327280 A1).
Regarding claim 13: Porter as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12 as seen above.
Porter as modified fails to teach a training collar to connect to the inferential smart pet collar to provide the feedback mechanism.
However, Thalmann teaches a training collar (150) to connect to the inferential smart pet collar (170) to provide the feedback mechanism (para 22, independent correction collar 150 contains means for stimulating the animal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the smart collar as disclosed by modified Porter with the independent correction collar as taught by Thalmann with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an independent correction collar would allow the user to selectively remove the correction collar when it is deemed no longer necessary, which could be beneficial as this connection would allow for behavioral data of the animal to be continuously collected. Furthermore Thalmann (para 9) discusses another benefit in that “Having a stimulation device independent from the walking collar or harness allows the more natural practice of pacing and casually walking a dog and a more reliable energy transfer device to the dog's body”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art of Torres (US 20250351802 A1) not relied upon discloses various known aspects in the art with relation to artificial intelligence in it’s relation to pet management.
The cited art of Smith (US 8186310 B1) not relied upon denotes another benefit of having a separate training collar, as discussed in applicant’s claim 13, in which a second collar with feedback mechanisms are provided. Smith discusses using this configuration to provide feedback in the form of a shock to a hostile animal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
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.
/EDGAR REYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights