Invalidity dossier
US 9883656
House breaking training harness for a canine using body position measurements
Current assignee: Individual
Added 9/23/2026, 9:48:49 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 9,883,656 B1
Title: House breaking training harness for a canine using body position measurements
Patent number: US 9,883,656 B1
Application number: US 14/797,023
Inventor: Phillip Turner
Assignee: Individual (original and current assignee listed as Individual)
Priority date: 2014-07-10
Filing date: 2015-07-10
Publication/grant date: 2018-02-06
Legal status (as listed): Expired – Fee Related; adjusted expiration 2036-02-07 (stated as an assumption, not a legal conclusion)
Purpose: To housebreak a dog without confining it or relying on post-mess cleanup. The system monitors the dog's calibrated body position relative to the ground while indoors and, upon detecting a forbidden position, alerts the owner (smartphone alert plus buzzer) and applies a "surprising rib cage tickle" via a harness-mounted vibrator to inhibit elimination before it occurs.
Plain-language scope: A dog harness supporting a monitor box over the shoulders, with two rib ticklers near the left and right ribcage, and two ground-pointing distance sensors on the belly strap protected by a protruding chest guard. Two back-foot boots with pressure switches detect a lifted, held leg (territory marking). The monitor box contains a microprocessor, battery, buzzer, three position indicator lights, reset pushbutton, guard/yard mode switch, on/off switch, and on light. Wiring is sewn into the harness. A smartphone program calibrates forbidden body positions and receives alerts. Figures depict the crouch/urination, squat/defecation, and leg-lift/marking positions, plus a four-part software flowchart.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9883656/en
What the excerpt does not establish: It contains no claims text, so the precise scope of coverage cannot be determined. The listed prior-art references (Anderson through Ward, and Begun, Hoehn, Johnson, Kates, Panton, Stanton, Thoma) are described only in the background discussion; the excerpt does not establish their citations, dates, or substantive applicability. No claim of validity, enforceability, ownership transfer, or litigation is made or supported here.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:34:00 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 9883656. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.