PTAB

IPR2021-00260

TomoFun LLC v. DoggyPhone LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System for Remote Pet Communication and Treat Dispensing
  • Brief Description: The ’813 patent discloses a system for communicating with a pet remotely. The system includes a treat dispenser, an audio device, and a delivery module that, in response to a user command, dispenses a treat and plays an audio signal, and in response to input from the pet, transmits audio or video of the pet to a remote client device.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 7-9 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102 by Beccaria.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Beccaria (WO 2009/087451).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Beccaria, which was not considered during prosecution, discloses every element of the challenged claims. Beccaria describes a device for telecommunication and remote care of pets that includes a food dispenser, an acoustic system (loudspeaker), and an electronic control unit. Petitioner argued that Beccaria teaches a user remotely activating the food dispenser via a telephone keypad, satisfying the user-command limitations of claim 7. Critically, Beccaria also allegedly discloses the key limitation of claim 7 by teaching a pet-initiated communication feature, wherein a pet can activate a call to its owner by manipulating an actuator (e.g., a ball or lever), which begins the transmission of audio to the owner’s remote device.
    • Prior Art Mapping (Dependent Claims): Petitioner argued Beccaria anticipates claim 8 by teaching a webcam that captures video of the pet’s food and water bowls, which constitutes "input from the pet" comprising "access to the food tray." Beccaria was also said to anticipate claim 9 by disclosing the pet-activated actuator (the lever/ball) as a "second control" that initiates an outgoing call from the pet to the remote device.

Ground 2: Claims 7-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Carelli in view of Beccaria.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Carelli (Patent 8,588,967) and Beccaria (WO 2009/087451).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued Carelli discloses most elements of claim 7, including an internet-accessible pet treat dispensing apparatus with two-way audio/video communication and a treat dispenser that can be activated by a remote user. However, Petitioner contended that Carelli lacks a clear disclosure of a pet-initiated communication feature. Beccaria was argued to supply this missing element, as it explicitly teaches an actuator (lever/ball) that a pet can use to initiate a call to its owner.
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Carelli and Beccaria to alleviate an owner’s concern about a pet’s well-being during extended absences. A POSITA would integrate Beccaria’s pet-initiated calling feature into Carelli's internet-based system to provide the pet with a means to proactively contact its owner, enhancing the pet-owner bond and addressing the problem of pet loneliness described in both references.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in this combination. The integration involved combining a known mechanical actuator for initiating a call (from Beccaria) with a standard internet-controlled communication and dispensing system (from Carelli), which used conventional electronics and networking principles.

Ground 3: Claims 7-9 are obvious under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Bloksberg in view of Beccaria.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Bloksberg (Application # 2008/0282988) and Beccaria (WO 2009/087451).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Bloksberg, which was cited during prosecution, discloses a comprehensive internet-based pet entertainment and training system. This system includes remote user control over treat dispensing, two-way audio/video, and receiving audio/visual input from the pet. As with the Carelli combination, Petitioner argued Bloksberg lacks the specific feature of a pet physically actuating a control to initiate a call. Beccaria was again relied upon to teach this pet-initiated communication via a physical actuator (lever/ball). For dependent claims 8 and 9, the combination was argued to render the limitations obvious for the same reasons as the Carelli/Beccaria combination.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Bloksberg and Beccaria to increase stimulus and positive interaction for the pet, a goal explicitly stated in Bloksberg. By adding Beccaria’s pet-initiated calling mechanism, a POSITA would enhance Bloksberg’s system, providing the pet with greater agency and further strengthening the remote connection to the owner, thereby increasing the pet’s well-being and the owner’s peace of mind.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSITA would expect success in combining these systems. The argument was that adding a simple electromechanical switch taught by Beccaria to trigger the existing communication capabilities of the sophisticated, internet-based system in Bloksberg would be a straightforward integration of known technologies for their intended purposes.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional challenges, including that claim 7 is anticipated by Alasaarela (FI 122052) and that claim 8 is obvious over Alasaarela in view of the knowledge of a POSITA. These arguments relied on Alasaarela’s disclosure of a remote pet monitoring system that could automatically initiate a Skype call to an owner in response to pet inputs like excessive barking.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 7, 8, and 9 of the ’813 patent as unpatentable.