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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claims 12-13 are canceled.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 national stage entry of PCT/JP2020/022801 filed on 6/10/2020, and claims the benefit of priority to Application No. JP2019-169738 filed on 9/18/2019. Thus, the effective filing date of the claims is 9/18/2019.
The applicant is reminded that amendments to the claims and specification must comply with 35 U.S.C. § 120 and 37 C.F.R. § 1.121 to maintain priority to an earlier-filed application. Claim amendments may impact the effective filing date if new subject matter is introduced that lacks support in the originally filed disclosure. If an amendment adds limitations that were not adequately described in the parent application, the claim may no longer be entitled to the priority date of the earlier filing.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 3/31/2022 has been entered and considered. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1 and 2 recite “an identification information readout section arranged to read cow identification information out of a recording medium with the cow identification information recorded therein”, and “a somatic cell concentration measuring section arranged to measure the somatic cell concentration of milk obtained from a cow; and a measurement result recording section arranged to record the somatic cell concentration and the cow identification information in association with each other” (and for claim 2 “an electrical conductivity measuring section arranged to measure the electrical conductivity of milk obtained from a cow; and a measurement result recording section arranged to record the electrical conductivity and the cow identification information in association with each other”). Here the generic placeholder which is used instead of means is “section”. It is noted that in the specification of the instant application in para.0029, 31, and 32, there are additional descriptions of these components mostly with respect to figure 3 of the drawings, however there is no functional language on how the reading, measuring, and recording are achieved. Therefore, to further prosecution these limitations are interpreted similar to claims 14 and 15, as being performed by a “non-transitory computer-readable medium including a program of instructions for execution by a computer to perform an identification information readout process”.
Claims 3 and 16, recite “a measurement result output section arranged to output a recorded content within the measurement result recording section”. Similar to claims 1 and 2, the generic placeholder which is used instead of means is “section”. It is noted that in the specification of the instant application in para.0035 there are additional descriptions of these components mostly with respect to figure 4 of the drawings, however there is no functional language on how the displaying of the output is achieved. Therefore, to further prosecution these limitations are interpreted similar to claims 14 and 15, as being performed by a “non-transitory computer-readable medium including a program of instructions for execution by a computer to perform an identification information readout process” using a computer display.
Claims 9 and 22 recite “an external recording apparatus arranged to record an output content from the measurement result output section”. Here the generic placeholder which is used instead of means is “apparatus”. It is noted that in the specification of the instant application in para.0035 there are additional descriptions of how this external recording may be achieved: “The capability of the measurement result output section 1e to output to the external recording apparatus may be implemented in, for example, a mobile communications terminal (e.g. smartphone)”. Therefore, to further prosecution these limitations are interpreted similar to claims 14 and 15, as being performed by a “non-transitory computer-readable medium including a program of instructions for execution by a computer to perform an identification information readout process”, and further transmitting the recorded measurements to an external database using a mobile communications terminal such as a smartphone.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 16-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, these claims use the clause “arranged to,” to describe how the “identification information readout section”, “somatic cell concentration measuring section” (and for claim 2 the "electrical conductivity measuring section"), and “measurement result recording section” function. As claimed, the language “arranged to” does not indicate a static structure or device part, and is unclear in the claim language. The instant claims are drawn towards an apparatus (a recording medium), and not a method. It is unclear how or if, sections, “arranged to read cow identification information out of a recording medium”, “arranged to measure the somatic cell concentration of milk obtained from a cow” (and for claim 2 "arranged to measure the electrical conductivity of milk obtained from a cow"), and “arranged to record the somatic cell concentration and the cow identification information in association with each other" (and for claim 2 "arranged to record the electrical conductivity and the cow identification information in association with each other") further structurally limit the claim or not. Is applicant trying to claim that there are processor or computers involved here and that the processors are “programmed to,” perform the claimed functions? If so, this is not claimed. To further prosecution, it is interpreted that anything following the “arranged to” clauses is functional language/intended use of the claimed device. This also applies to the “arranged to” limitations in Claims 3, 9, 16, and 22. See MPEP 2111.04 — Contingent Clauses.
Regarding claims 3-9 and 16-22, these claims are rendered indefinite due to dependency on claims 1 and 2, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 and 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a mental process, a mathematical concept, organizing human activity, or a law of nature or natural phenomenon without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, claims found to recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES) are then analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1). In the instant application, the claims recite the following limitations that equate to an abstract idea:
Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 14-15: “reading cow identification information out of a recording medium with the cow identification information recorded therein” provides an observation (reading information from a readout) that may be performed in the human mind and is therefore considered a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind or are mathematical relationships. Therefore, these limitations fall under the “Mental process” and “Mathematical concepts” groupings of abstract ideas. Additionally, while claims 14-15 recite performing some aspects of the analysis on “A non-transitory computer-readable medium including a program of instructions for execution by a computer to perform an identification information readout process”, there are no additional limitations that indicate that this requires anything other than carrying out the recited mental processes or mathematical concepts in a generic computer environment. Merely reciting that a mental process is being performed in a generic computer environment does not preclude the steps from being performed practically in the human mind or with pen and paper as claimed. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exceptions listed above are not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite an additional element or elements that reflects an improvement to technology. Specifically, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1, 10, and 14: “measuring the somatic cell concentration of milk obtained from a cow; and recording the somatic cell concentration and the cow identification information in association with each other” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (measuring and recording data are pre-solution activities involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claims 2, 11, and 15: “measuring the electrical conductivity of milk obtained from a cow; and recording the electrical conductivity and the cow identification information in association with each other” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (measuring and recording data are pre-solution activities involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Claim 9: “record an output content from the measurement result output section” provides insignificant extra-solution activities (recording data are pre-solution activities involving data gathering steps) that do not serve to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
The steps for measuring and recording data are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application because they are pre- and post-solution activities involving data gathering, data manipulation, and sample manipulation steps (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)). Furthermore, the limitations regarding implementing program instructions do not indicate that they require anything other than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea in a generic way or in a generic computing environment. As such, this limitation equates to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that the courts have stated does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984. Therefore, claims 1-11 and 14-22 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application, or equate to mere instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way or in a generic computing environment.
As discussed above, there are no additional elements to indicate that the claimed “non-transitory computer-readable medium including a program of instructions for execution by a computer to perform an identification information readout process” requires anything other than generic computer components in order to carry out the recited abstract idea in the claims. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. MPEP 2106.05(f) discloses that mere instructions to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept to the claims. Additionally, the limitations for measuring and recording data are insignificant extra-solution activities that do not serve to integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. Furthermore, no inventive concept is claimed by these limitations as they are demonstrated to be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The additional elements do not comprise an inventive concept when considered individually or as an ordered combination that transforms the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No). As such, claims 1-11 and 14-22 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-20, and 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Chen et al., "Design of information system for milking dairy cattle and detection of mastitis." Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2014.1 (2014): 759019) in view of Kimura et al. (Kimura et al., "Diagnostic device for cow mastitis based on the detection of superoxide secreted from neutrophils." 2011 16th International Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems Conference. IEEE, 2011) and Sharma et al. (Sharma et al., "Cattle health monitoring system using wireless sensor network: a survey from innovation perspective." IET Wireless Sensor Systems 8.4 (2018): 143-151).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 14, Chen teaches reading cow identification information out of a recording medium with the cow identification information recorded therein (Page 2 col 2 paragraph 3 "To identify automatically the cows that come to the parlor, radio frequency identification (RFID) technology is popularly used [6]. The RFID tag is attached to the cow in a position of strong induction allowing an RFID reader to receive the identification (ID) number from the tag.").
Chen also teaches recording the somatic cell concentration and the cow identification information in association with each other (Page 3 col 2 paragraph 2 "The IDB [information display board] obtains information about the health of the cow by checking the RFID through the Zigbee WSN." implies the ID of the cow is known and will be associated with the EC recording.
Chen does not explicitly teach measuring the somatic cell concentration of milk obtained from a cow (in the instant app para.0035 "The neutrophil cell concentration is obtained by, for example, using a biosensor with superoxide dismutase (SOD)") nor the recording medium is attached to the cow.
However, Kimura teaches measuring the somatic cell (neutrophil) concentration of milk obtained from a cow (Abstract "To develop an early diagnostic device for mastitis, we focused our attention to the increase in the number of neutrophils in raw milk of mastitic cows. Since neutrophils secrete superoxide anion (O2-), it can be a good indicator to estimate the number of neutrophils. Neutrophils were separated from fat globules using the difference in specific gravity and specific adhesion of neutrophils to P-selectin. Neutrophils trapped in a microchannel were subsequently concentrated in an array of micropillars of a working electrode modified with P-selectin and superoxide dismutase (SOD). The O2- secreted from the trapped neutrophils was electrochemically detected. A distinct difference was observed between milk samples containing neutrophils and normal milk samples.").
However, Sharma teaches the recording medium is attached to the cow (Page 4 col 2 paragraph 3 "In experiments, the mote in the rumen conveyed the data to the mote fastened to the front leg of the cattle to the base station [56]. The evaluation of cattle welfare has been carried out by wireless monitoring.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Chen as taught by Kimura in order to detect mastitis (Chen, Page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 "Accordingly, tests for detecting mastitis include the California mastitis test (CMT), the alcohol test, the somatic cell test, and the milk conductivity test [3]. The somatic cell count(SCC) test is an effective method for detecting mastitis."). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both methods utilize cow milk testing for dairy cow health monitoring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Chen as taught by Kimura in order to detect mastitis (Chen, Page 2 col 1 paragraph 2 "Accordingly, tests for detecting mastitis include the California mastitis test (CMT), the alcohol test, the somatic cell test, and the milk conductivity test [3]. The somatic cell count (SCC) test is an effective method for detecting mastitis."). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because the approaches of Chen and Kimura both utilize cow milk testing for dairy cow health monitoring.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Chen and Kimura as taught by Sharma in order for the dairyman to make production decisions based on real-time data (Page 4 col 2 paragraph 3 "This enabled the producer to make accurate decisions based on real-time management"). One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because the approaches of Chen and Sharma both involve monitoring dairy cows with wireless sensors communicating with remote servers.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 15, Chen also teaches an electrical conductivity measuring section arranged to measure the electrical conductivity of milk obtained from a cow (Page 3 col 2 paragraph 2 "The detection [device] begins to perform the measurement of electrical conductivity (EC) using a particular volume of milk from the cow.").
Chen also teaches a measurement result recording section arranged to record the electrical conductivity and the cow identification information in association with each other (Page 3 col 2 paragraph 2 "The IDB [information display board] obtains information about the health of the cow by checking the RFID through the Zigbee WSN." implied the ID of the cow is known and will be associated with the EC recording.).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Chen also teaches a measurement result output section arranged to output a recorded content within the measurement result recording section (Page 5 figure 6 "Information display board" displays measured outputs, and page 5 col 2 paragraph 2 "When the detection device finishes the detection processes, the measured data, including temperature and EC values, are transmitted to the information display and presented at the position of the corresponding udder").
Regarding claims 4-5 and 17-18, Chen also teaches the recording medium is an RF tag (Page 1 col 1 paragraph 2 "a radio frequency identification device is utilized") and, as evidenced by Stankovski (Stankovski et al., "Dairy cow monitoring by RFID." Scientia Agricola 69 (2012): 75-80), the recording medium is a bar code (RFID typically combines barcodes with RFID tags, as evidenced by Stankovski (Abstract "Dairy cows identification and monitoring on small cattle farms are usually based on the utilization of barcode technology" and page 2 col 1 last paragraph "RFID is one of the most fundamental technologies that enable wireless data transmission (Dowla, 2004). It consists of RFID tags, RFID readers/writers, RFID barcode scanners, RFID smart sensors and RFID controllers (Lahiri, 2007)").
Regarding claims 6-7 and 19-20, Sharma also teaches the recording medium is attached to an ear and/or leg of the cow (Page 3 Section 3 paragraph 3 "Nowadays, inexpensive ear-tags are widely used instead of active leg-tags/active collars. Passive tags are generally used to identify cattle for tracking and tracing instead of sensing.").
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Chen also teaches an external recording apparatus arranged to record an output content from the measurement result output section (Page 3 col 2 paragraph 1 "The information that is measured using the detection device can also be transmitted to the information database by the DTB [data transfer board].").
Claims 8 and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (Chen et al., "Design of information system for milking dairy cattle and detection of mastitis." Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2014.1 (2014): 759019) in view of Kimura et al. (Kimura et al., "Diagnostic device for cow mastitis based on the detection of superoxide secreted from neutrophils." 2011 16th International Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems Conference. IEEE, 2011) and Sharma et al. (Sharma et al., "Cattle health monitoring system using wireless sensor network: a survey from innovation perspective." IET Wireless Sensor Systems 8.4 (2018): 143-151) as applied to claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-20, and 22 above, and further in view of Suzuki et al. (JP-2011033599).
Chen et al. in view of Kimura et al. and Sharma et al. are applied to claims 1-7, 9-11, 14-20, and 22.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Chen in view of Kimura and Sharma teach the method of Claims 1 and 2 on which these claims depend, respectively. Chen also teaches a housing having a flat surface and an intersection surface intersecting the flat surface (Page 4 Figure 4 shows the measuring/detecting device and Page 5 Figure 6 shows the information display board (IDB), which are integrated into a single unit comprising a milk container and a readout section - page 3 col 2 last paragraph "The device is wired with the IDB and transmits the measured results via the IDB that is connected with the DTB [data transfer board].").
Chen, Kimura, nor Sharma explicitly teaches a milk container provided on the flat surface.
However, Suzuki teaches a container for holding raw milk for testing (Page 1 Claims "A raw milk inspection device used for inspection of raw milk, A container for holding the raw milk" and Abstract "The container is also provided with a counter electrode to which voltage is applied between the working electrode.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the methods of Chen, Kimura, and Sharma as taught by Suzuki in order to diagnose injuries, inflammation, and infectious diseases in cattle utilizing somatic cell counts (page 1 last paragraph "The need is particularly high for infectious diseases. Analyzing raw milk of livestock is an important and effective means for diagnosing the symptoms of mammals, especially cattle, sheep, goats and other dairy livestock." and page 2 paragraph 3 "Injuries, inflammation, and infectious diseases often involve an increase in somatic cells in raw milk, such as neutrophils, a type of white blood cell."). It would be obvious to include a container for holding the raw milk to be analyzed by the device of Chen. One skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because both Chen and Suzuki involve dairy cow monitoring utilizing somatic cell counting in raw milk.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A. Player whose telephone number is 571-272-6350. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached at 571-270-3062. 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.
/R.A.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/LARRY D RIGGS II/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1686