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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered.
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 31-32, 34, 40-43, 48-49, and 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNab Kerr et al. (US 8960996) in view of Conard et al. (US 8152358).
Regarding claim 31, McNab Kerr et al. discloses a system (1) for preparing a feed mixture for collectively feeding a group of animals in an animal habitat with the feed mixture (col. 1, lines 10-14), the system comprising: a mixing unit (5) configured for receiving feed components from at least two containers via a corresponding dispensing unit of each of the at least two containers (ingredients are loaded into the mixing apparatus, col. 11, lines 39-40); a controller ((2)(4)(15)) configured to receive input data indicative of said group of animals in the animal habitat (col. 15, lines 8-21, including size/physical state), wherein said input data comprises at least an average weight of the animals in said group of animals (col. 15, lines 8-21, col. 17, lines 4-20), determine, based on said input data, a collective mixing plan of desired proportions of the different feed components to thereby obtain the feed mixture (col. 5, lines 7-41, col. 17, lines 4-20, col. 22, lines 8-17, a collective mixing plan is determined based off of the input data received by the controller), the collective mixing plan being the same for the entirety of the group of animals (col. 17, lines 4-20), and dispense into the mixing unit each of the ingredients based on the collective mixing plan (col. 17, lines 4-22), to thereby dispense corresponding amounts of each of the different feed components for obtaining the desired feed mixture (col. 17, lines 4-22).
McNab Kerr et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixing unit is configured to be coupled to at least two storage containers; the controller configured to operate the dispensing unit of each of the at least two containers based on the collective mixing plan; and wherein the mixing unit is configured to be coupled to a feeding line for conveying the feed mixture thereto, to thereby enable the feed mixture to be provided to the group of animals.
Conard et al., like McNab Kerr et al., teaches a system preparing a feed mixture for collectively feeding a group of animals in an animal habitat, and further teaches the mixing unit ((237), mixing section within (125)) is configured to be coupled to at least two storage containers (col. 6, line 63 – col. 7, line 10 notes each bin provides a separate microingredient and can be combined in any combination of the containers); the controller configured to operate the dispensing unit of each of the at least two containers based on the collective mixing plan (col. 11, lines 10-25); and wherein the mixing unit is configured to be coupled to a feeding line for conveying the feed mixture thereto (col. 8, lines 11-25), to thereby enable the feed mixture to be provided to the group of animals (col. 8, lines 11-25).
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 of McNab Kerr et al. to include an automation of the storing/receiving of ingredients and the dispensing of the feed mixture to the group of animals as taught by Conard et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide automation of the process to increase the speed of the process. Further, it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 32, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31, and teaches (references to Conard et al.) the system further comprising the at least two storage containers ((215),(220)).
Regarding claim 34, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31, and teaches (references to Conard et al.) wherein the feeding line coupled to the mixing unit is configured to convey the feed mixture to feeding ports of the animal habitat to thereby enable the entirety of the group of animals to be provided with said feed mixture (col. 8, lines 11-25, directly to feed pens).
Regarding claim 40, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31, and teaches (references to McNab Kerr et al.) wherein the controller is configured to select from one predetermined mixing plan, out of a plurality of mixing plans, according to the input data and operate the dispensing units based on the selected mixing plan (Tables providing various factors that help determine the overall mixing plan to select, for example).
Regarding claim 41, McNab Kerr et al. discloses a system (1) for preparing a feed mixture for collectively feeding a group of animals in an animal habitat with the feed mixture (col. 1, lines 10-14), the system comprising: a mixing unit (5) receives the feed components from at least two containers via a corresponding dispensing unit of each of the at least two containers (ingredients are loaded into the mixing apparatus, col. 11, lines 39-40); a controller ((2)(4)(15)) configured to: receive input data indicative of said group of animals in the animal habitat (col. 15, lines 8-21, including size/physical state), wherein said input data comprises at least an average weight of the animals in said group of animals (col. 15, lines 8-21, col. 17, lines 4-20), determine, based on said input data, a collective mixing plan of desired proportions of the different feed components to thereby obtain the feed mixture (col. 5, lines 7-41, col. 17, lines 4-20, col. 22, lines 8-17, a collective mixing plan is determined based off of the input data received by the controller), the collective mixing plan being the same for the entirety of the group of animals (col. 17, lines 4-20), and dispense into the mixing unit each of the ingredients based on the collective mixing plan (col. 17, lines 4-22), to thereby dispense corresponding amounts of each of the different feed components for obtaining the desired proportions of feed components in the feed mixture (col. 17, lines 4-22).
McNab Kerr et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixing unit is configured to be coupled to at least two storage containers; the controller configured to operate the dispensing unit of each of the at least two containers based on the collective mixing plan, a feeding line coupled to the mixing unit for conveying the feed mixture thereto, to thereby provide the same feed mixture to the entirety of the group of animals.
Conard et al., like McNab Kerr et al., teaches a system preparing a feed mixture for collectively feeding a group of animals in an animal habitat, and further teaches the mixing unit ((237), mixing section within (125)) is configured to be coupled to at least two storage containers (col. 6, line 63 – col. 7, line 10 notes each bin provides a separate microingredient and can be combined in any combination of the containers); the controller configured to operate the dispensing unit of each of the at least two containers based on the collective mixing plan (col. 11, lines 10-25); and wherein the mixing unit is configured to be coupled to a feeding line for conveying the feed mixture thereto (col. 8, lines 11-25), to thereby enable the feed mixture to be provided to the group of animals (col. 8, lines 11-25).
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 of McNab Kerr et al. to include an automation of the storing/receiving of ingredients and the dispensing of the feed mixture to the group of animals as taught by Conard et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide automation of the process to increase the speed of the process. Further, it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 42, McNab Kerr et al. discloses a method for preparing a feed mixture for collectively feeding a group of animals in an animal habitat with the feed mixture (col. 1, lines 10-14), the method comprising: receiving input data indicative said group of animals in the animal habitat (col. 15, lines 8-21, including size/physical state), wherein said input data comprises at least an average weight of the animals in said group of animals (col. 15, lines 8-21, col. 17, lines 4-20); selecting a mixing plan based on the input data (col. 5, lines 7-41, col. 17, lines 4-20, col. 22, lines 8-17, a collective mixing plan is determined based off of the input data received by the controller); and mixing desired proportions of each of at least two feed components based on the selected mixing plan to obtain homogenous feed mixture (col. 17, lines 4-22), wherein each of the at least two feed components is separately stored, to thereby enable the same said feed mixture to be provided to the entirety of the group of animals (col. 8, lines 11-25).
McNab Kerr et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the at least two feed components is separately stored, to thereby enable the same said feed mixture to be provided to the entirety of the group of animals.
Conard et al., like McNab Kerr et al., teaches a method for preparing a feed mixture for collectively feeding a group of animals in an animal habitat in which the at least two storage containers are separately stored (col. 6, line 63 – col. 7, line 10 notes each bin provides a separate microingredient and can be combined in any combination of the containers). 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 method of McNab Kerr et al. to include separate storage containers for the ingredients as taught by Conard et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a feed mixture that is appropriate for the group of animals overall as a desired value for input with the feed ingredients staying fresh and stored in separate containers.
Regarding claim 43, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the method of claim 42, and teaches (references to Conard et al.) the method further comprising conveying the feed mixture to animal feeding ports and thereby providing said feed mixture to the group of animals (col. 8, lines 11-25, directly to feed pens).
Regarding claim 48, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the method of claim 42 and teaches (references to McNab Kerr et al.) wherein the controller is configured to select from one predetermined mixing plan, out of a plurality of mixing plans, according to the input data and operate the dispensing units based on the selected mixing plan (Tables providing various factors that help determine the overall mixing plan to select, for example).
Regarding claim 49, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the method of claim 42. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the method is carried out automatically
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 method to be automatically carried out, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide automation of the process to increase the speed of the process. Further, it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Regarding claim 52, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches a method for collectively feeding a group of animals in an animal habitat with a feed mixture, the method comprising: preparing the feed mixture using a system for preparing a feed mixture as defined in claim 31 (see rejection of claim 31 above for details); feeding the group of animals with said feed mixture (Conard et al.: (col. 8, lines 11-25) as described in claim 31 rejection above feeding the group of animals).
Regarding claim 53, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31, and teaches (references to Conard et al. unless otherwise noted) wherein the controller comprises an input module (col. 5, line 64 – col. 6, line 11, notes various input modules that can be used in the system) and an operation module (505), wherein: the input module is configured to receive said input data indicative of the state of said group of animals in the animal habitat (McNab Kerr et al.: col. 15, lines 8-21, including size/physical state), wherein said input data comprises at least said average weight of the animals in said group of animals (McNab Kerr et al.: col. 15, lines 8-21, col. 17, lines 4-20); and the operation module is configured to: determine, based on said input data, the collective mixing plan of desired amounts of each of the different feed components to thereby obtain the feed mixture (McNab Kerr et al.: col. 5, lines 7-41, col. 17, lines 4-20, col. 22, lines 8-17, a collective mixing plan is determined based off of the input data received by the controller), the collective mixing plan being the same for the entirety of the group of animals (McNab Kerr et al.: col. 17, lines 4-20); and operate the dispensing unit of each of the at least two containers based on the collective mixing plan (McNab Kerr et al.: col. 17, lines 4-22), to thereby dispense said desired amounts of each of the different feed components for obtaining the feed mixture (McNab Kerr et al.: col. 17, lines 4-22).
Regarding claim 54, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31, and teaches (references to Conard et al.) the system comprising a user interface configured for enabling the input data to be thereby received into the controller by a user (col. 5, line 47 – col. 6, line 11, notes various user interfaces that can be used in the system).
Regarding claim 55, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31, and teaches (references to Conard et al.) wherein the controller is in data communication with an external system, and the controller receives at least a part of the input data from the external system (col. 12, lines 34-39).
Claims 33 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNab Kerr et al. (US 8960996) in view of Conard et al. (US 8152358) as applied above in claims 32 and 42 respectively above, and further in view of Yves (FR 2929075).
Regarding claim 33, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 32. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the dispensing units are directly coupled to the mixing unit.
Yves teaches a system for preparing a feed mixture, wherein the dispensing units are directly coupled to the mixing unit (Figs. 1 and 4 show direct coupling). 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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to include direct coupling of the dispensing units and mixing unit as taught by Yves, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce time and space between the dispensing and mixing, for a reduction in waste or lost feed.
Regarding claim 44, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the method of claim 42. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein each of the at least two feed components comprises a mixture of feed ingredients.
Yves teaches wherein each of the at least two feed components comprises a mixture of feed ingredients (Fulani food product and cereals are discussed in lines 62 and 515 of machine translation). 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 method of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to include a mixture of ingredients in each of the at least two feed components as taught by Yves, with a reasonable expectation of success, because combination of ingredients are used commonly, and may be more efficient to include multiple ingredients in each feed components if smaller amounts are required of one of the ingredients.
Claims 35-37, 45-46, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNab Kerr et al. (US 8960996) in view of Conard et al. (US 8152358) as applied above in claims 31 and 42 respectively above, and further in view of Voogd et al. (US 2003/0061998).
Regarding claim 35, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the state of the group of animals further comprises at least one of the following parameters: average age of the animals, feed consumption, water consumption, or level of stress of the animals.
Voogd et al. teaches a system wherein the state of the group of animals comprises at least one of the following parameters: average age of the animals, feed consumption, water consumption, or level of stress of the animals (paragraphs [0022]-[0023], feed consumption).
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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to include a parameter such as consumption of the feed as taught by Voogd et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce overall waste and to properly provide the right amount of feed for the group of animals.
Regarding claim 36, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the input data further comprises data indicative of environmental conditions within or in the surrounding of the animal habitat.
Voogd et al. teaches the input data further comprises data indicative of environmental conditions within or in the surrounding of the animal habitat (paragraphs [0057]-[0058]).
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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to include environmental conditions as data as taught by Voogd et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide adjustments based on the needs of the animals determined by the environment they are situated within.
Regarding claim 37, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the mixing unit is configured to be coupled to an auxiliary silo having an auxiliary dispensing unit for receiving at least one of the following auxiliary components: feed supplements, medical treatment additives, pharmaceutical substances, or nutritious substances, wherein the controller is configured to operate the auxiliary dispensing unit to dispense a desired amount of an auxiliary component based on the input data.
Voogd et al. teaches wherein the mixing unit is configured to be coupled to an auxiliary silo having an auxiliary dispensing unit for receiving at least one of the following auxiliary components: feed supplements, medical treatment additives, pharmaceutical substances, or nutritious substances, wherein the controller is configured to operate the auxiliary dispensing unit to dispense a desired amount of an auxiliary component based on the input data (paragraph [0061] teaches adding medicine into the mixture).
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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to include an auxiliary dispensing unit for medical treatment additives as taught by Voogd et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to prevent sickness in the animals and to boost health.
Regarding claim 45, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the method of claim 42. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the state of the group of animals further comprises at least one of the following parameters: average age of the animals, feed consumption, water consumption, or level of stress of the animals.
Voogd et al. teaches a method wherein the state of the animals comprises at least one of the following parameters: average age of the animals, feed consumption, water consumption, level of stress of the animals, or level of stress of the animal (paragraphs [0022]-[0023], feed consumption). 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 method of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to include a parameter such as consumption of the feed as taught by Voogd et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce overall waste and to properly provide the right amount of feed for the animals for healthy growth.
Regarding claim 46, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the method of claim 42. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the input data further comprises data indicative of environmental conditions within or in the surrounding of the animal habitat.
Voogd et al. teaches the input data further comprises data indicative of environmental conditions within or in the surrounding of the animal habitat (paragraphs [0057]-[0058]). 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 method of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to include environmental conditions as data as taught by Voogd et al. in order to provide adjustments based on the needs of the animals determined by the environment they are situated within for healthy growth.
Regarding claim 50, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the method of claim 42. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach the method further comprising mixing desired amounts of an auxiliary component, separately stored from the at least two feed components, based on the selected mixing plan, wherein the auxiliary component is selected from at least one of the following: feed supplements, medical treatment additives, pharmaceutical substances, or nutritious substances.
Voogd et al. teaches mixing desired amounts of an auxiliary component, separately stored from the at least two feed components, based on the selected mixing plan, wherein the auxiliary component is selected from at least one of the following: feed supplements, medical treatment additives, pharmaceutical substances, or nutritious substances (paragraph [0061] teaches adding medicine into the mixture which is separate from the two feed components). 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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to include an auxiliary dispensing unit for medical treatment additives as taught by Voogd et al. in order to prevent sickness in the animals and to boost health.
Claims 38 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNab Kerr et al. (US 8960996) in view of Conard et al. (US 8152358) as applied above in claims 31 and 42 respectively above, and further in view of Pomar Goma et al. (WO 2009/090250).
Regarding claim 38, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to dispense a desired amount of at least one of the feed components proportionally or reverse-proportionally to at least one of the following: average age of the animals or said average weight of the animals.
Pomar Goma et al. teaches wherein the controller is configured to dispense a desired amount of at least one of the feed components proportionally or reverse-proportionally to at least one of the following: average age of the animals or said average weight of the animals (see page 10, lines 15-22). 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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to control the dispensing proportionally to the average weight of the animals as taught by Pomar Goma et al. in order to properly provide the appropriate amount of food for the animals to increase the health of the animals.
Regarding claim 47, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the method of claim 42. However, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the desired amount of at least one feed component is proportionally or reverse-proportionally to at least one of the following: average age of the animals or said average weight of the animals.
Pomar Goma et al. teaches wherein the desired amount of at least one feed component is proportionally or reverse-proportionally to at least one of the following: average age of the animals or said average weight of the animals (see page 10, lines 15-22). 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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to control the dispensing proportionally to the average weight of the animals as taught by Pomar Goma et al. in order to properly provide the appropriate amount of food for the animals to increase the health of the animals.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNab Kerr et al. (US 8960996) in view of Conard et al. (US 8152358) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Dubinsky (WO 2015/015491).
Regarding claim 39, McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. teaches the system of claim 31, and teaches (references to Conard et al.) the system is for livestock (col. 4, lines 14-23), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the animal habitat is a commercial poultry house.
Dubinsky teaches livestock and in particular poultry, wherein the animal habitat is a commercial poultry house ((60), Figs. 1-7). 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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to have the animal habitat be a commercial poultry house as taught by Dubinsky since poultry is a livestock which can use the system for preparing a feed mixture.
Claim 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNab Kerr et al. (US 8960996) in view of Conard et al. (US 8152358), Yves (FR 2929075), Voogd et al. (US 2003/0061998), and Rowe et al. (WO 2005101273).
Regarding claim 51, McNab Kerr et al. discloses a system for preparing a feed mixture for a group of animals in an animal habitat (col. 1, lines 10-14), the system comprising: a mixing unit (5) for receiving feed components from each said dispensing unit (ingredients are loaded into the mixing apparatus, col. 11, lines 39-40); a controller ((2)(4)(15)) configured to receive input data indicative of a state of said group of animals in the habitat (col. 15, lines 8-21, including size/physical state), wherein said different feed components are suitable for a different state of said group of animals (col. 5, lines 7-41, col. 17, lines 4-20, col. 22, lines 8-17, a collective mixing plan is determined based off of the input data received by the controller), said input comprises at least an average weight of the animals in said group of animals (col. 15, lines 8-21, col. 17, lines 4-20), and dispense into the mixing unit each of the ingredients based on the input data (col. 17, lines 4-22), to dispense desired proportions of each said feed component for obtaining the feed mixture (col. 17, lines 4-22); and wherein the controller is configured to receive continuously updated input data to provide a continuously adapting feed mixture to said group of animals (col. 18, lines 48-58).
McNab Kerr et al. does not explicitly disclose at least two storage containers, each comprising a different feed component and a corresponding dispensing unit; an auxiliary storage container having an auxiliary dispensing unit; the mixing unit directly linked to said corresponding dispensing units of said at least two storage containers and said auxiliary dispensing unit, wherein the auxiliary component is at least one of feed supplements, medical treatment additives, pharmaceutical substances and nutritious substances; wherein said input data comprises at least a level of stress of the animals in said group of animals, and wherein the input data further comprises data indicative of environmental conditions within or in the surrounding of the animal habitat, and the mixing unit is configured to be coupled to a feeding line for conveying the mixture thereto (col. 8, lines 11-25).
Conard et al., like McNab Kerr et al., teaches a system for preparing a feed mixture for a group of animals in an animal habitat, and further teaches at least two storage containers ((215),(220)), each comprising a different feed component (col. 6, line 63 – col. 7, line 10 notes each bin provides a separate microingredient and can be combined in any combination of the containers) and a corresponding dispensing unit (225); and wherein the mixing unit is configured to be coupled to a feeding line for conveying the feed mixture thereto (col. 8, lines 11-25), to thereby enable the feed mixture to be provided to the group of animals (col. 8, lines 11-25).
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 of McNab Kerr et al. to include an automation of the storing/receiving of ingredients and the dispensing of the feed mixture to the group of animals as taught by Conard et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide automation of the process to increase the speed of the process. Further, it has been held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958).
Yves teaches a system for preparing a feed mixture, wherein the dispensing units are directly linked to the mixing unit (Figs. 1 and 4 show direct coupling).
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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. to include direct linking of the dispensing units and mixing unit as taught by Yves, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce time and space between the dispensing and mixing, for a reduction in waste or lost feed.
Voogd et al. teaches wherein the mixing unit is configured to be coupled to an auxiliary storage container having an auxiliary dispensing unit for receiving at least one of the following auxiliary components: feed supplements, medical treatment additives, pharmaceutical substances, or nutritious, wherein the controller is configured to operate the auxiliary dispensing unit to dispense a desired amount of an auxiliary component based on the input data (paragraph [0061] teaches adding medicine into the mixture); and the input data further comprises data indicative of environmental conditions within or in the surrounding of the animal habitat (paragraphs [0057]-[0058]).
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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al. and Yves to include an auxiliary dispensing unit for medical treatment additives and to include environmental conditions with continuously updated input data as taught by Voogd et al. in order to prevent sickness in the animals and to boost health and to provide adjustments based on the needs of the animals determined by the environment they are situated within.
Rowe et al. teaches a controller configured to receive input data indicative of a state of said group of animals, wherein said input data comprises at least a level of stress of the animals in said group of animals (p. 15, lines 6-11, 22-29 note level of stress can be determined by the input data), and wherein the controller is configured to receive continuously updated input data to provide a continuously adapting feed mixture (paragraph [0062] notes the data used can be continuously updating).
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 of McNab Kerr et al. as modified by Conard et al., Yves, and Voogd et al. to include input data including at least level of stress in said group of animals as taught by Rowe et al. in order to provide a feed mixture that is appropriate for the group of animals overall as a desired value for input.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 31, 41, and 42 have been considered but 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights