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 .
Claims 22 and 24-43 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 22, 24-26, 28-29, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hare et al. (US 20110298619 A1), hereafter referred to as “O’Hare”, in view of Sundborger (US 20100116211 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sundborger”.
Regarding claim 22, O’Hare teaches a real-time system (figs. 1-7, abstract, paragraph [0037]) configured to improve health and increase milk yield from dairy animals (paragraphs [0001]-[0003]), the system comprising:
a milking parlor (paragraphs [0008], [0037], [0056]);
a holding area (paragraphs [0008], [0045], [0046], teaching a shed), the holding area being configured to temporarily hold a plurality of the dairy animals prior to milking in the milking parlor (paragraphs [0008], [0045], [0046]);
a controller (paragraphs [0046], [0057], [0060]-[0061]);
a plurality of tags (18; paragraphs [0014] and [0044]), each attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of dairy animals (paragraph [0044]), each given one of the plurality of tags configured to emit signals to uniquely identify the given tag (paragraphs [0014] and [0044]); and
at least three transceivers (paragraph [0045]) arranged within the holding area and configured to detect the signals emitted by the plurality of tags (paragraph [0045]), the at least three transceivers further configured to communicate with the controller (paragraph [0046]);
wherein the controller is configured to:
identify which among the plurality of tags and associated dairy animals is present in the holding area via the signals emitted by the plurality of tags (paragraph [0046]),
determine, in real time, a location and movement of each of the plurality of tags and associated dairy animals that is present in the holding area via the signals emitted by the plurality of tags (paragraphs [0046] and [0054]), and
monitor, in real time while one or more of the plurality of dairy animals remains in the holding area (paragraphs [0046] and [0054]), the movements of each of the one or more of the plurality of dairy animals present in the holding area in at least two directions by performing triangulation using the signals emitted by the tags and received by the at least three transceivers (paragraphs [0011], [0042], and [0045]-[0046]),
wherein the system is configured so that if the controller detects that a given one of the plurality of dairy animals present in the holding area has remained in the holding area for more than a predetermined or configurable reference time limit (paragraphs [0046] and [0069]-[0072], teaching that the tags are continuously monitored within the shed and that time data including timestamp differentials are compared against norms), a measure or action is triggered (paragraphs [0060], [0061], [0070], [0074], and [0086], teaching that based on the comparison, action is taken to assist the animal).
As shown above, O’Hare teaches the real-time system including the milk parlor and holding area, but does not explicitly teach a specific layout in which the holding area is adjacent the milking parlor, and the holding area and the milking parlor being arranged so that the plurality of the dairy animals enter the milking parlor directly from the holding area. Additionally, O’Hare does not explicitly teach that the measure or action is triggered in order to cause the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move from the holding area to the milking parlor.
Sundborger teaches a real-time location system (figs. 1-5 and abstract’ 50, 53, 56, 13, 15) including a holding area (51, 52; fig. 5) that is adjacent to a milking parlor (11; fig. 5), in which the holding area and the milking parlor are arranged so that a plurality of dairy animals enter the milking parlor directly from the holding area (fig. 5), and a controller (15), where the system is configured so that if the controller determines collected tracking data of a given one of the plurality of dairy animals present in the holding area exceeds a predetermined or configurable reference time limit (paragraphs [0064]-[0067]), a measure or action is triggered in order to cause the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move from the holding area to the milking parlor (paragraphs [0033], [0065], [0067] and claim 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare to adopt a layout such that the holding area is adjacent the milking parlor, and the holding area and the milking parlor being arranged so that the plurality of the dairy animals enter the milking parlor directly from the holding area, as taught by Sundborger, as it is well known in the art to facilitate efficient movement between the milking parlor and the holding area and enable ranking or prioritization systems (paragraphs [0031]-[0033]).
Both O’Hare and Sundborger are directed to monitoring the well-being of dairy cows, seeking to provide efficient methods in processing milk from cows. O’Hare seeks to provide a system that determines and acts upon detection abnormal behavior within the holding area (paragraphs [0007], [0010], [0038]-[0041]), by, e.g., controlling access to areas via gates (paragraph [0074]). Sundborger similarly seeks to provide an efficient milking process by monitoring behaviors and stressors of its animals (e.g., waiting time, injury, mastitis, hierarchy and aggression of animals; see paragraphs [0033], [0080], and [0082]-[0092]) and acting in the event of a critical animal, e.g., by allowing a critical animal to enter the gate between the holding area and milking parlor and restriction other animals from entering. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare, such that the measure or action is triggered in order to cause the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move from the holding area to the milking parlor, as further taught by Sundborger, in order to further facilitate efficient processing of cows through the milking parlor and prioritize cows with abnormal behaviors.
Regarding claim 24, O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the real-time location system according to claim 22, and Sundborger further teaches that the action also comprises disabling passage from the holding area to the milking parlor for the animals other than the given one of the plurality of animals (paragraphs [0033], [0065], [0067] and claim 22).
Regarding claim 25, O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the real-time location system according to claim 22, and O’Hare further teaches that the action also includes generating a notification to a farmer (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 28, the combined teachings of O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the real-time location system of claim 22, and further teach that the controller is further configured to determine whether the given one of the plurality of dairy animals requires being alone in the holding area before passing through the holding area exit to the milking parlor (paragraphs [0060], [0061], [0070], [0074], and [0086] of O’Hare and [0033], [0080], and [0082]-[0092] of Sundborger) and, if the given one of the plurality of dairy animals requires being alone, preventing entry of any of the plurality of dairy animals that is not already in the holding area from entering the holding area (paragraphs [0033], [0065], [0067] & claim 22 of Sundborger).
Regarding claim 29, the combined teachings of O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the real-time location system of claim 28, and further teaches that the controller continues to prevent entry of any of the plurality of dairy animals that is not already in the holding area from entering the holding area until the given one of the plurality of animals has passed through the holding area exit to the milking parlor, then allowing at least one of the plurality of dairy animals that is not already in the holding area to enter the holding area (paragraphs [0033], [0065], [0067] & claim 22 of Sundborger).
Regarding claim 31, O’Hare teaches a method to improve health and increase milk yield from dairy animals present in a facility (figs. 1-7, abstract, paragraph [0037]) that comprises:
a milking parlor (paragraphs [0008], [0037], [0056]);
a holding area (paragraphs [0008], [0045], [0046], teaching a shed), the holding area being configured to temporarily hold a plurality of the dairy animals prior to milking in the milking parlor (paragraphs [0008], [0045], [0046]);
a controller (paragraphs [0046], [0057], [0060]-[0061]);
a plurality of tags (18; paragraphs [0014] and [0044]), each attached to a corresponding one of the plurality of dairy animals (paragraph [0044]), each given one of the plurality of tags configured to emit signals to uniquely identify the given tag (paragraphs [0014] and [0044]); and
at least three transceivers (paragraph [0045]) arranged within the holding area and configured to detect the signals emitted by the plurality of tags (paragraph [0045]), the at least three transceivers further configured to communicate with the controller (paragraph [0046]);
the method comprising:
identifying which among the plurality of tags and associated dairy animals is present in the holding area via the signals emitted by the plurality of tags (paragraph [0046]),
determining, in real time, a location and movement of each of the plurality of tags and associated dairy animals that is present in the holding area via the signals emitted by the plurality of tags (paragraphs [0046] and [0054]),
monitoring, in real time while one or more of the plurality of dairy animals remains in the holding area (paragraphs [0046] and [0054]), the movements of each of the one or more of the plurality of dairy animals present in the holding area in at least two directions by performing triangulation using the signals emitted by the tags and received by the at least three transceivers (paragraphs [0011], [0042], and [0045]-[0046]), and
if the controller detects that a given one of the plurality of dairy animals present in the holding area has remained in the holding area for more than a predetermined or configurable reference time limit (paragraphs [0046] and [0069]-[0072], teaching that the tags are continuously monitored within the shed and that time data including timestamp differentials are compared against norms), taking a measure or action (paragraphs [0060], [0061], [0070], [0074], and [0086], teaching that based on the comparison, action is taken to assist the animal).
As shown above, O’Hare teaches the method including the milk parlor and holding area, but does not explicitly teach a specific layout in which the holding area is adjacent the milking parlor, and the holding area and the milking parlor being arranged so that the plurality of the dairy animals enter the milking parlor directly from the holding area. Additionally, O’Hare does not explicitly teach that the step of taking a measure or action is in order to cause the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move from the holding area to the milking parlor.
Sundborger teaches a method (figs. 1-5 and abstract’ 50, 53, 56, 13, 15) including a holding area (51, 52; fig. 5) that is adjacent to a milking parlor (11; fig. 5), in which the holding area and the milking parlor are arranged so that a plurality of dairy animals enter the milking parlor directly from the holding area (fig. 5), and a controller (15), where the system is configured so that if the controller determines collected tracking data of a given one of the plurality of dairy animals present in the holding area exceeds a predetermined or configurable reference time limit (paragraphs [0064]-[0067]), taking a measure or action is triggered in order to cause the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move from the holding area to the milking parlor (paragraphs [0033], [0065], [0067] and claim 22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of O’Hare to adopt a layout such that the holding area is adjacent the milking parlor, and the holding area and the milking parlor being arranged so that the plurality of the dairy animals enter the milking parlor directly from the holding area, as taught by Sundborger, as it is well known in the art to facilitate efficient movement between the milking parlor and the holding area and enable ranking or prioritization systems (paragraphs [0031]-[0033]).
Both O’Hare and Sundborger are directed to monitoring the well-being of dairy cows, seeking to provide efficient methods in processing milk from cows. O’Hare seeks to provide a system that determines and acts upon detection abnormal behavior within the holding area (paragraphs [0007], [0010], [0038]-[0041]), by, e.g., controlling access to areas via gates (paragraph [0074]). Sundborger similarly seeks to provide an efficient milking process by monitoring behaviors and stressors of its animals (e.g., waiting time, injury, mastitis, hierarchy and aggression of animals; see paragraphs [0033], [0080], and [0082]-[0092]) and acting in the event of a critical animal, e.g., by allowing a critical animal to enter the gate between the holding area and milking parlor and restriction other animals from entering. It would also have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare, such that the step of taking the measure or action is triggered in order to cause the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move from the holding area to the milking parlor, as further taught by Sundborger, in order to further facilitate efficient processing of cows through the milking parlor and prioritize cows with abnormal behaviors.
Regarding claim 32, O’Hare in view of Sundborger the method according to claim 31, and Sundborger further teaches that the action also includes disabling passage from the holding area to the milking parlor for the animals other than the given one of the plurality of animals (paragraphs [0033], [0065], [0067] and claim 22).
Regarding claim 33, O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the method according to claim 31, and O’Hare further teaches that the action also includes generating a notification to a farmer (paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 34, O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the method according to claim 33, and O’Hare further teaches that said generating the notification to the farmer includes transmitting an alert message to a communication device of the farmer, via a transceiver (paragraph [0010])/.
Regarding claim 37, the combined teachings of O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the method of claim 31, and further teaches comprising:
determining whether the given one of the plurality of dairy animals requires being alone in the holding area before passing through the holding area exit to the milking parlor (paragraphs [0060], [0061], [0070], [0074], and [0086] of O’Hare and [0033], [0080], and [0082]-[0092] of Sundborger) and, if the given one of the plurality of dairy animals requires being alone, preventing entry of any of the plurality of dairy animals that is not already in the holding area from entering the holding area (paragraphs [0033], [0065], [0067] & claim 22 of Sundborger).
Regarding claim 38, the combined teachings of O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the method of claim 37, and further teaches that the controller continues to prevent entry of any of the plurality of dairy animals that is not already in the holding area from entering the holding area until the given one of the plurality of animals has passed through the holding area exit to the milking parlor, then allowing at least one of the plurality of dairy animals that is not already in the holding area to enter the holding area (paragraphs [0033], [0065], [0067] & claim 22 of Sundborger).
Regarding claim 40, the combined teachings of O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the real-time system of claim 22, and further teaches that the holding area (paragraphs [0008], [0045], [0046] of O’Hare and 51 and 52 as relied on Sundborger) further comprises a holding area entrance (54a; fig. 5 as relied on Sundborger) that allows the dairy animals to enter the holding area from outside the holding area (fig. 5 of Sundborger), and wherein the controller is further configured to control opening and closing of the holding area entrance and the entrance (51b, 52b; fig. 5 of Sundborger) between the holding area and the milking parlor to selectively cause individual ones of the plurality of dairy animals to pass into the holding area through the holding area entrance, and to selectively cause individual ones of the plurality of dairy animals to pass from the holding area to the milking parlor through the entrance between the holding area and the milking parlor (paragraphs [0059]-[0061] of Sundborger).
Regarding claim 41, the combined teachings of O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the method of claim 31, and further teaches that the holding area (paragraphs [0008], [0045], [0046] of O’Hare and 51 and 52 as relied on Sundborger) further comprises a holding area entrance (54a; fig. 5 as relied on Sundborger) that allows the dairy animals to enter the holding area from outside the holding area (fig. 5 of Sundborger), and wherein the method further comprises controlling an opening and closing of the holding area entrance and the entrance between the holding area and the milking parlor to selectively cause individual ones of the plurality of dairy animals to pass into the holding area through the holding area entrance (paragraphs [0059]-[0061] of Sundborger), and to selectively cause individual ones of the plurality of dairy animals to pass from the holding area to the milking parlor through the entrance (51b, 52b; fig. 5 of Sundborger) between the holding area and the milking parlor (paragraphs [0059]-[0061] of Sundborger).
Regarding claim 42, O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the real-time system of claim 22, but does not explicitly teach that the milking parlor further comprises at least one milking robot, and wherein the milking parlor and the at least one milking robot are configured so that each of a plurality of the dairy animals is able to enter a respective one of the at least one milking robot directly from the holding area.
Sundborger further teaches that the milking parlor (11) further comprises at least one milking robot (paragraph [0024]), and wherein the milking parlor and the at least one milking robot are configured so that each of a plurality of the dairy animals is able to enter a respective one of the at least one milking robot directly from the holding area (51, 52; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare in view of Sundborger, such that the milking parlor includes at least one milking robot, and wherein the milking parlor and the at least one milking robot are configured so that each of a plurality of the dairy animals is able to enter a respective one of the at least one milking robot directly from the holding area, as further taught by Sundborger, in order to further improve the efficiency of the milking process through automation (paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 43, O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the method of claim 31, but does not explicitly teach that the milking parlor further comprises at least one milking robot, and wherein the milking parlor and the at least one milking robot are configured so that each of a plurality of the dairy animals is able to enter a respective one of the at least one milking robot directly from the holding area.
Sundborger further teaches that the milking parlor (11) further comprises at least one milking robot (paragraph [0024]), and wherein the milking parlor and the at least one milking robot are configured so that each of a plurality of the dairy animals is able to enter a respective one of the at least one milking robot directly from the holding area (51, 52; fig. 3 and paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare in view of Sundborger, such that the milking parlor includes at least one milking robot, and wherein the milking parlor and the at least one milking robot are configured so that each of a plurality of the dairy animals is able to enter a respective one of the at least one milking robot directly from the holding area, as further taught by Sundborger, in order to further improve the efficiency of the milking process through automation (paragraph [0024]).
Claims 26 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hare in view of Sundborger as applied to claims 22 and 31 above, and further in view of Sundborger et al. (US 20090301396 A1), hereafter referred to as “Sundborger 396”.
Regarding claim 26, O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the real-time location system according to claim 22, and O’Hare further teaches that the controller is further configured to: determine an arrival time of the given animal to the holding area, determine a departure time when the animal leaves the holding area for the milking parlor through the holding area exit (paragraphs [0046] and [0069]-[0072] teaching that the RLTS inherently enables detection of entry and exit events), but does not explicitly teach that it calculates a time difference between the determined arrival time and the determined departure time, and ranks the animal, based on the calculated time difference.
Sundborger 396 teaches a system (figs. 1-5) including a controller configured to
determine an arrival time of the given animal to the holding area, determine a departure time when the animal leaves the holding area for the milking parlor through the holding area exit (paragraphs [0012] and [0041]),
calculate a time difference between the determined arrival time and the determined departure time (paragraphs [0012] and [0041]), and
rank the animal, based on the calculated time difference (paragraphs [0012] and [0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare in view of Sundborger, such that the controller is configured to calculate a time difference between the determined arrival time and the determined departure time, and rank the animal, based on the calculated time difference, as taught by Sundborger 396, in order to provide a dominance ranking that allows the system to prioritize and control access to the milking parlor, reducing competition and stress while improving milking efficiency (paragraphs [0071]-[0072] of Sundborger 396).
Regarding claim 35, O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the method according to claim 31, and O’Hare further teaches:
determining an arrival time of the given animal to the holding area (paragraphs [0046] and [0069]-[0072] teaching that the RLTS inherently enables detection of entry and exit events);
determining a departure time when the animal leaves the holding area for the milking parlor through the holding area exit (paragraphs [0046] and [0069]-[0072] teaching that the RLTS inherently enables detection of entry and exit events), but does not explicitly teach calculating a time difference between the determined arrival time and the determined departure time, and ranking the animal, based on the calculated time difference.
Sundborger 396 teaches a method (figs. 1-5, abstract) including determining an arrival time of the given animal to the holding area, determining a departure time when the animal leaves the holding area for the milking parlor through the holding area exit (paragraphs [0012] and [0041]), calculating a time difference between the determined arrival time and the determined departure time (paragraphs [0012] and [0041]), and ranking the animal, based on the calculated time difference (paragraphs [0012] and [0041]-[0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare in view of Sundborger, to include calculating a time difference between the determined arrival time and the determined departure time, and ranking the animal, based on the calculated time difference, as taught by Sundborger 396, in order to provide a dominance ranking that allows the system to prioritize and control access to the milking parlor, reducing competition and stress while improving milking efficiency (paragraphs [0071]-[0072] of Sundborger 396).
Claims 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hare in view of Sundborger as applied to claims 22 and 31 above, and further in view of Siddell (US 20110308465 A1), hereafter referred to as “Siddell”.
Regarding claim 27, O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the real-time location system of claim 22, and O’Hare further teaches utilization of gates in monitored areas (paragraph [0037]), but does not explicitly teach that a boundary of the holding area is defined in part by a movable crowd gate that is movable:
toward the holding area exit to decrease a size of the holding area; and
away from the holding area exit to increase the size of the holding area, the movable crowd gate being controlled by the controller to reduce the size of the holding area to encourage movement of the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move through the holding area exit to the milking parlor.
Siddell teaches a holding area (figs. 1-2) including a boundary of the holding area is defined in part by a movable crowd gate (12; fig. 1A) that is movable (paragraph [0012]):
toward the holding area exit to decrease a size of the holding area (fig. 1A and paragraphs [0012]-[0013]); and
away from the holding area exit to increase the size of the holding area (fig. 1A and paragraphs [0012]-[0013]), the movable crowd gate being controlled by a controller (20) to reduce the size of the holding area to encourage movement of the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move through the holding area exit to the milking parlor (fig. 1A and paragraphs [0012]-[0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare in view of Sundborger, such that a boundary of the holding area is defined in part by a movable crowd gate that is movable: toward the holding area exit to decrease a size of the holding area; and away from the holding area exit to increase the size of the holding area, the movable crowd gate being controlled by the controller to reduce the size of the holding area to encourage movement of the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move through the holding area exit to the milking parlor, as taught by Siddell, in order to facilitate an efficient milking operation (paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 36, O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the method of claim 31, and O’Hare further teaches utilization of gates in monitored areas (paragraph [0037]), but does not explicitly teach that a boundary of the holding area is defined in part by a movable crowd gate that is movable, under control of the controller:
toward the holding area exit to decrease a size of the holding area; and
away from the holding area exit to increase the size of the holding area, the method further comprising selectively moving the movable crowd gate to reduce the size of the holding area to encourage movement of the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move through the holding area exit to the milking parlor.
Siddell teaches a holding area (figs. 1-2) including a boundary of the holding area is defined in part by a movable crowd gate (12; fig. 1A) that is movable (paragraph [0012]):
toward the holding area exit to decrease a size of the holding area (fig. 1A and paragraphs [0012]-[0013]); and
away from the holding area exit to increase the size of the holding area (fig. 1A and paragraphs [0012]-[0013]), the movable crowd gate being controlled by a controller (20) to reduce the size of the holding area to encourage movement of the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move through the holding area exit to the milking parlor (fig. 1A and paragraphs [0012]-[0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare in view of Sundborger, such that a boundary of the holding area is defined in part by a movable crowd gate that is movable: toward the holding area exit to decrease a size of the holding area; and away from the holding area exit to increase the size of the holding area, the movable crowd gate being controlled by the controller to reduce the size of the holding area to encourage movement of the given one of the plurality of dairy animals to move through the holding area exit to the milking parlor, as taught by Siddell, in order to facilitate an efficient milking operation (paragraph [0003]).
Claims 30 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hare in view of Sundborger and Sundborger 396, as applied to claims 26 and 35 above, and further in view of Hartman (EP 2368426 A2), hereafter referred to as “Hartman”.
Regarding claim 30, the combined teachings of O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the real-time location system of claim 26, and further teaches the milking parlor (11 as relied on Sundborger) further comprises an exit (11c as relied on Sundborger) and a sorting gate (paragraph [0074] of O’Hare) that selectively opens to a low-ranked animal area (paragraph [0074] of O’Hare), but does not explicitly teach the milking parlor leading to the sorting gate that selectively opens to a low-ranked animal area, the controller being configured to identify the rank of a just-milked one of the plurality of dairy animals that has just exited the milking parlor and if the rank is at least a predetermined value, operate the sorting gate to permit the just-milked animal to return to a herd, and if the rank is below the predetermined threshold, operate the sorting gate to direct the just-milked animal to a separate area designated for a low-ranked animal group.
Hartmann teaches a system (figs. 1-6) including a milking parlor (8, 9; fig. 3) leading to a sorting gate (22, 23; fig. 3) that selectively opens to a low-ranked animal area (see attached machine translation, paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0055]), a controller being configured to identify the rank of a just-milked one of the plurality of dairy animals that has just exited the milking parlor and if the rank is at least a predetermined value (machine translation, paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0055]), operate the sorting gate to permit the just-milked animal to return to a herd, and if the rank is below the predetermined threshold (machine translation, paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0055]), operate the sorting gate to direct the just-milked animal to a separate area designated for a low-ranked animal group (machine translation, paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare in view of Sundborger, such that the milking parlor leading to the sorting gate that selectively opens to a low-ranked animal area, the controller being configured to identify the rank of a just-milked one of the plurality of dairy animals that has just exited the milking parlor and if the rank is at least a predetermined value, operate the sorting gate to permit the just-milked animal to return to a herd, and if the rank is below the predetermined threshold, operate the sorting gate to direct the just-milked animal to a separate area designated for a low-ranked animal group, as taught by Hartmann, in order to further provide an efficient, automated system that protects the well-being of the animals by sorting them based on their behavior and monitoring (machine translation, paragraph [0044] of Hartmann).
Regarding claim 39, the combined teachings of O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches the method of claim 35, and further teaches the milking parlor (11 as relied on Sundborger) further comprises an exit (11c as relied on Sundborger) and a sorting gate (paragraph [0074] of O’Hare) that selectively opens to a low-ranked animal area (paragraph [0074] of O’Hare), but does not explicitly teach the milking parlor leading to a sorting gate that selectively opens to a low-ranked animal area, the controller being configured to identify the rank of a just-milked one of the plurality of dairy animals that has just exited the milking parlor, the method further comprising:
if the rank is at least a predetermined value, operating the sorting gate to permit the just-milked animal to return to a herd, and if the rank is below the predetermined threshold, operating the sorting gate to direct the just-milked animal to a separate area designated for a low-ranked animal group.
Hartmann teaches a method (machine translation, paragraph [0002] and figs. 1-6) including a milking parlor (8, 9; fig. 3) leading to a sorting gate (22, 23; fig. 3) that selectively opens to a low-ranked animal area (see attached machine translation, paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0055]), a controller being configured to identify the rank of a just-milked one of the plurality of dairy animals that has just exited the milking parlor (machine translation, paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0055]), the method further comprising:
if the rank is at least a predetermined value, operating the sorting gate to permit the just-milked animal to return to a herd (machine translation, paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0055]), and if the rank is below the predetermined threshold, operating the sorting gate to direct the just-milked animal to a separate area designated for a low-ranked animal group (machine translation, paragraphs [0026], [0044], [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of O’Hare in view of Sundborger, such that the milking parlor leading to a sorting gate that selectively opens to a low-ranked animal area, the controller being configured to identify the rank of a just-milked one of the plurality of dairy animals that has just exited the milking parlor, the method further comprising: if the rank is at least a predetermined value, operating the sorting gate to permit the just-milked animal to return to a herd, and if the rank is below the predetermined threshold, operating the sorting gate to direct the just-milked animal to a separate area designated for a low-ranked animal group, as taught by Harmann, in order to further provide an efficient, automated system that protects the well-being of the animals by sorting them based on their behavior and monitoring (machine translation, paragraph [0044] of Hartmann).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. As shown above, independent claims 22 and 31 are now rejected under O’Hare in view of Sundborger.
Applicant, on page 3 of the Remarks, argues that the combination of Sundborger in view of O’Hare fails to teach detecting that an animal has exceeded a specific time limit within the holding area and then triggering an action to cause it to move forward into the milking parlor.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. O’Hare is directed to continuous monitoring of animals in milking and holding areas (paragraphs [0008], [0045], [0046]). Specifically, O’Hare seeks to monitor behavior of the animals and compare the behaviors with respect to time variables (i.e., normal time differentials in a monitored region) and predetermined criteria to determine, for example, if an animal is in estrus, diseased, injured, or stressed. If such behavior is determined, O’Hare teaches providing an action, including accessing or controlling gates (paragraph [0074]). O’Hare does not explicitly teach a specific layout of the milking parlor and holding area, and Sundborger is relied upon to teach those limitations. Sundborger also seeks to monitor behavior of animals within the holding area (paragraph [0033], [0080], and [0082]-[0092]) and upon detection of a critical animal, causes the critical animal to move from the holding area to the milking parlor while disabling passage for other animals (paragraphs [0033], [0065], [0067] and claim 22 of Sundborger), which is similar to the instant invention at step 510 (page 14 of the instant specification). O’Hare in view of Sundborger teaches each and every limitation of independent claims 22 and 31.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (571) 272-6891. 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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643