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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the objection to Claims 1, 11, and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to Claims 1, 11, and 12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the rejection of Claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claims 1 and 3-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been withdrawn. However, a new rejection of Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been made.
The Examiner notes the interpretation of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) for the term “discriminator” has been withdrawn, as Claim 8 is modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 3-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the applicant has argued “the claims require at least a camera unit comprising an image sensor, a measurement unit, a determination unit, and communication unit. And the accumulated scores are determined continuously over a period of three days or more. Accordingly, the claims recites more than an abstract idea because the measuring sow posture states and determining estrus of a sow continuously over a period of three days or more could not be performed mentally”. However, the camera unit and communication unit amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering unit, and the determination unit amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Furthermore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language still encompasses the situation wherein a human manually/mentally determines whether estrus of the sow is present based on the three days of data after the data has been collected—i.e., in a shorter time frame than three days.
The applicant has also argued “Applicants submit that all claims are integrated into a practical application. For example, integrating into a practical application can include an improvement to a technology or technical field. Here the claimed systems and methods can be used, for example, to "accurately determine estrus of a sow without relying on experience or intuition of an observer." Specification, [0006] and [0010]. As described in the specification, "the conventional technology cannot detect a specified state such as estrus." Id at [0005]. Additional improvements include, for example, allowing for multiple sows "in the group to be simultaneously observed." Id at [0014]. The claimed systems and methods achieve these and other benefits over existing technology, which helps with "increasing the number of piglets born per year." See id at [0005].” However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. In other words, the improvement in technology cannot come from improvement in the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Here, the alleged improvement in accurately determining estrus in multiple sows simultaneously amount to an improvement in the abstract idea itself.
The applicant has also argued “Thus, these claims are directed towards an unconventional technical solution that allows a camera unit comprising an image sensor, a measurement unit, and a determination unit to more effectively and "accurately determine estrus of the sow without relying on experience or intuition of the skilled worker," allowing simultaneous observation of multiple sows and an increase in the number of piglets born per year. Specification, [0005], [0010], and [0025].” However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. In other words, the improvement in technology cannot come from improvement in the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Here, the alleged improvement in accurately determining estrus in multiple sows simultaneously amount to an improvement in the abstract idea itself.
For these reasons, the rejection of Claims 1 and 3-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1, 4-7, 11-12, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, the applicant has argued “Signorini discloses a method for determining whether a sow is in heat by distinguishing two different states 1a and 1b of the sow. Signorini, [003 l]-[0032]. State 1a allegedly corresponds to a standing state, and state 1b allegedly corresponds to a lying down state. Office Action, 26. However, Signorini does not determine a sitting state of the sow, nor does Signorini assign a score for each of a decubitus state, a sitting state, or a standing state to be cumulatively added for representing a frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow”. The Examiner agrees Signorini does not disclose determining a sitting state of the sow. However, the claim limitation “assigning a score to a state of the sow, wherein the state comprises at least one of a decubitus state, a sitting state, and a standing state of the sow” lists all three states in the alternative, meaning only one of the states (i.e., at least one of the states) must be disclosed in order for the entire claim limitation to be anticipated and although the or has been replaced by an and in line 15 of the claim, the states refer back to the states previously mentioned which is that “at least one of” list where only one of the states needs to be disclosed.
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: “measurement unit”, “determination unit” , and “communication unit” in Claims 1 and 11-12.
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 1 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “measurement unit” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“measurement unit” is linked with the transitional phrase “configured to” and modified by the functional language “determine, per unit time, an accumulated score representing a frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow based on the image data…”
“measurement unit” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on Fig. 2 and [0018] as a CPU and equivalents thereof configured to perform the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above functional language.
Claims 11-12 are also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as they recite an identical nonce term with matching transitional phrases and functional language in the form of a method claim and a system claim, respectively.
Claim 1 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “determination unit” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“determination unit” is linked with the transitional phrase “configured to” and modified by the functional language “determine whether estrus of the sow is present on the basis of a plurality of accumulated scores continuously determined by the measurement unit over a preset given period of three days or more”
“determination unit” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on Fig. 2 and [0018] as a CPU and equivalents thereof configured to perform the broadest reasonable interpretation of the above functional language.
Claims 11-12 are also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as they recite an identical nonce term with matching transitional phrases and functional language in the form of a method claim and a system claim, respectively.
Claim 1 is also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as it:
Uses the nonce term “communication unit” for the apparatus performing the specified function
“communication unit” is linked with the transitional phrase “configured to” and modified by the functional language “transmit the image data from the camera unit to the measurement unit” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
“communication unit” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
This claim will be interpreted in accordance with the disclosure of the applicant on Fig. 2 and [0021] as a wired LAN unit and equivalents thereof.
Claims 11-12 are also being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as they recite an identical nonce term with matching transitional phrases and functional language in the form of a method claim and a system claim, respectively.
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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein the scores set in advance comprises a first score, a second score, and a third score". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation in the amended claims of scores “set in advance”. For the purposes of substantive examination, the examiner is construing this claim limitation as "wherein the scores at least one of a first score, a second score, and a third score".
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, 3-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites an estrus determination device for a sow. Thus, the claim is directed to an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth a judicial exception:
assigning a score to a state of the sow, wherein the state comprises at least one of a decubitus state, a sitting state, and a standing state of the sow
determining, based on the image data, the state of the sow
determining, based on the determining the state of the sow, the accumulated score representing the frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow by cumulatively adding the scores respectively assigned to the decubitus state, the sitting state, and the standing state
determine whether estrus of the sow is present on the basis of a plurality of accumulated scores continuously determined by the measurement unit over a preset given period of three days or more
These limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process as the skilled artisan is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggest that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner also notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps.
For example:
A human is capable of manually/mentally assigning a score to a state of the sow, wherein the state comprises at least one of a decubitus state, a sitting state, and a standing state of the sow, e.g. by thinking or with pen and paper.
A human is capable of manually/mentally determining, based on the image data, the state of the sow, e.g. by thinking or with pen and paper.
Determining, based on the determining the state of the sow, the accumulated score representing the frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow by cumulatively adding the scores respectively assigned to the decubitus state, the sitting state, and the standing state is a mathematical calculation that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time
Determining whether estrus of the sow is present on the basis of a plurality of accumulated scores continuously determined by the measurement unit over a preset given period of three days or more is a mental process that can be performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two).
The following limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g. mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
a camera unit comprising an image sensor configured to periodically image the whole body of a sow raised in a stall and generate image data
a communication unit configured to transmit the image data from the camera unit to the measurement unit
The following limitations amount to a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and/or nothing more than mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
a measurement unit configured to determine, per unit time, an accumulated score representing a frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow based on the image data by…
a determination unit configured to…
Therefore, these additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B):
The following limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially similar reasons applied in Step 2A, Prong Two.
a camera unit comprising an image sensor configured to periodically image the whole body of a sow raised in a stall and generate image data
a communication unit configured to transmit the image data from the camera unit to the measurement unit
a measurement unit configured to determine, per unit time, an accumulated score representing a frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow based on the image data by…
a determination unit configured to…
The following limitations is/are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC).
The camera unit is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 03/04/2022 (“A camera unit 110 includes an imaging sensor capable of overlooking and imaging the whole body of the sow 101 to be observed, converts an image resulting from the imaging by the imaging sensor to image data, and transmits the image data to a server 210 via an Internet 900”, [0014]; camera units with these capabilities are commercially available products).
The measurement unit, the determination unit, and the communication unit are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional based on a statement from the applicant's specification filed 03/04/2022 and the interpretation of these terms under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) above (the Examiner notes that CPUs and wired LAN units are commercially available products).
Independent Claims 11-12 are also not patent eligible for substantially similar reasons.
Dependent Claims 3-10, 13-18, and 22 also fail to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 13 and 19-20 also fail to add subject qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as they recite limitations that do not integrate the claims into a practical application for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Dependent Claims 13 and 19-20 also fail to add subject matter integrating the judicial exception or qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as they do not recite significantly more than the identified abstract idea for substantially similar reasons as set forth above.
Therefore, Claims 1, 3-20, and 22 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 11-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Signorini et al (EP 1839621 A1, hereinafter Signorini).
Regarding Claim 1, Signorini discloses an estrus determination device for a sow (See Fig. 1), the device comprising:
a camera unit comprising an image sensor (Fig. 2, Element 3; “Each of the eight boxes is provided with the sensing device 3, like a sensor, camera or similar”, [0025]; the Examiner notes cameras include imaging sensors) configured to periodically image the whole body of a sow raised in a stall (See Fig. 2 which depicts sensing devices 3 capturing full body images of sows from various positions within 8 stalls; “data regarding the activities of the sow 1 is collected by the host 4 via the sensing device 3, during a plurality of consecutive predetermined time-slices of the current day”, [0030]) and generate image data (“data regarding the activities of the sow 1 is collected by the host 4 via the sensing device 3”, [0030]);
a measurement unit (Element 4, Fig. 1) configured to determine, per unit time, an accumulated score representing a frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow based on the image data (“the following aggregate value (506) is calculated and stored for each cycle or time slice: ∑(TUpc /TDownc)*Tcycle”, [0036]) by:
assigning a score to a state of the sow (See each “Time Stamp” row in Fig. 5, Elements 503-505 which are directed to the states of standing up and lying down), wherein the state comprises at least one of a decubitus state (See element 505, Fig. 5), a sitting state (Examiner’s Note: the phrase “at least one of” implies only one of the recited states must be disclosed in order for the claim limitation to be anticipated), and a standing state of the sow (See Fig. 5, elements 503-504),
determining, based on the image data, the state of the sow (Step 306, Fig. 3; “two different states 1a and 1b (see figures 1 and 2) of the sow 1 are defined which can be measured with the sensing device 3: a first state 1a is the sow 1 standing on its legs and a second state 1b is the sow 1 lying on the ground”, [0031]), and
determining, based on the determining the state of the sow, the accumulated score representing the frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow by cumulatively adding the scores respectively assigned to the decubitus state, the sitting state, and the standing state (“the following aggregate value (506) is calculated and stored for each cycle or time slice: ∑(TUpc /TDownc)*Tcycle”, [0036]); and
a determination unit (Element 4, Fig. 1) configured to determine whether estrus of the sow is present (Step 306, Fig. 3) on the basis of a plurality of accumulated scores continuously determined by the measurement unit over a preset given period (“Then, the aggregate values 506 of the day are compared with the corresponding aggregate values relating to the same sow 1 which were collected in the previous days for analogous consecutive time slices, in order to determine whether the activity of the sow 1 significantly increased or changed”, [0037]) of three days or more (Step 305, Fig. 3; see all of [0039]-[0044]; the variable n is implied to be one of the preceding days and can be at least three days earlier; see Fig. 6, wherein accumulated scores are recorded for a period of more than three days); and
a communication unit configured to transmit the image data from the camera unit to the measurement unit (“Moreover, the host 4 comprises stored and installed therein a communication application for interrogating and collecting data from the sensing devices 3”, [0030]; therefore, a communication device must exist in element 4 and 3 to interrogate and collect data, respectively).
Regarding Claim 3, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1, wherein the measurement unit is configured to multiply each score (See each “Time Stamp” row in Fig. 5, Elements 503-505 which are directed to the states of standing up and lying down) by a time during which the decubitus state, the sitting state, or the standing state (“TUpc”, [0036]) was continued (“the following aggregate value (506) is calculated and stored for each cycle or time slice: ∑(TUpc /TDownc)*Tcycle”, [0036]) .
Regarding Claim 4, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1 according to wherein the given period is a period of three days or longer and seven days or less (Step 305, Fig. 3; see all of [0039]-[0044]; the variable n is implied to be one of the preceding days and can be at least three days earlier and less than seven days earlier; see Fig. 6, wherein accumulated scores are recorded for a period of more than three days), while the unit time is a time of two hours or longer and six hours or less (“c is the time slice number within 24 hours, e.g. c=1, 2, ..., 144 for a time slice of 10 minutes as in figure 5”, [0036]; this range overlaps time slices of two hours or longer and six hours or less).
Regarding Claim 5, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1 according to wherein the unit time is within a period after twelve hours from feeding of the sow and before next feeding of the sow (See Fig. 6 which depicts a measurement window of 18 days including timestamps; the Examiner notes the disclosed device is capable of being used after 12 hours from sow feeding and before next feeding as this falls within the depicted measurement window).
Regarding Claim 6, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1 according to wherein the unit time includes a time block in which an environment in which the stall is placed shifts from a dark state to a bright state (“the above percentage is calculated for each time slice preferably from 3:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m.”, [0040]).
Regarding Claim 7, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1 according to wherein the unit time is within a period during which no person is present in an environment around where the stall is placed (the Examiner notes the disclosed device is capable of being used without a person present in the surrounding environment).
Regarding Claim 11, Signorini discloses a method for determining estrus of a sow, the method comprising:
an imaging step, using a camera unit comprising an image sensor (Fig. 2, Element 3; “Each of the eight boxes is provided with the sensing device 3, like a sensor, camera or similar”, [0025]; the Examiner notes cameras include imaging sensors), of periodically imaging the whole body of a sow raised in a stall (See Fig. 2 which depicts sensing devices 3 capturing full body images of sows from various positions within 8 stalls; “data regarding the activities of the sow 1 is collected by the host 4 via the sensing device 3, during a plurality of consecutive predetermined time-slices of the current day”, [0030]) and generating image data (“data regarding the activities of the sow 1 is collected by the host 4 via the sensing device 3”, [0030]);
a communication step, using a communication unit, of transmitting the image data from the camera unit (“Moreover, the host 4 comprises stored and installed therein a communication application for interrogating and collecting data from the sensing devices 3”, [0030]; therefore, a communication unit must exist in element 4 and 3 to interrogate and collect data, respectively) to a measurement unit (Element 4, Fig. 1);
a measurement step, using the measurement unit, of repetitively continuously measuring, per unit time, an accumulated score representing a frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow (“the following aggregate value (506) is calculated and stored for each cycle or time slice: ∑(TUpc /TDownc)*Tcycle”, [0036]) over a set given period of three days or more based on the image data (Step 305, Fig. 3; see all of [0039]-[0044]; the variable n is implied to be one of the preceding days and can be at least three days earlier; see Fig. 6, wherein accumulated scores are recorded for a period of more than three days) by:
assigning a score to a state of the sow (See each “Time Stamp” row in Fig. 5, Elements 503-505 which are directed to the states of standing up and lying down), wherein the state comprises at least one of a decubitus state (See element 505, Fig. 5), a sitting state (Examiner’s Note: the phrase “at least one of” implies only one of the recited states must be disclosed in order for the claim limitation to be anticipated), and a standing state of the sow (See Fig. 5, elements 503-504),
determining, based on the image data, the state of the sow (Step 306, Fig. 3; “two different states 1a and 1b (see figures 1 and 2) of the sow 1 are defined which can be measured with the sensing device 3: a first state 1a is the sow 1 standing on its legs and a second state 1b is the sow 1 lying on the ground”, [0031]), wherein the state comprises at least one of a decubitus state, a sitting state (Examiner’s Note: the phrase “at least one of” implies only one of the recited states must be disclosed in order for the claim limitation to be anticipated), or a standing state of the sow (Step 306, Fig. 3; “two different states 1a and 1b (see figures 1 and 2) of the sow 1 are defined which can be measured with the sensing device 3: a first state 1a is the sow 1 standing on its legs and a second state 1b is the sow 1 lying on the ground”, [0031]), and
determining, based on the determining the state of the sow, the accumulated score representing the frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow based on a cumulative value obtained by cumulatively adding the scores respectively assigned to the decubitus state, the sitting state, and the standing state (“the following aggregate value (506) is calculated and stored for each cycle or time slice: ∑(TUpc /TDownc)*Tcycle”, [0036]); and
a determination step, using a determination unit (Element 4, Fig. 1), of determining whether estrus of the sow is present (Step 306, Fig. 3) on the basis of a plurality of accumulated scores frequencies repetitively continuously measured in the measurement step (Step 305, Fig. 3; see all of [0039]-[0044]; the variable n is implied to be one of the preceding days and can be at least three days earlier; see Fig. 6, wherein accumulated scores are recorded for a period of more than three days).
Regarding Claim 12, Signorini discloses a system for determining estrus of a sow (See Fig. 1), the system configured to cause a computer (Element 4, Fig. 1) to execute (“The host 4 comprises stored and installed therein the necessary software instructions for performing the method according to the invention”, [0028]):
an imaging step, using a camera unit comprising an image sensor (Fig. 2, Element 3; “Each of the eight boxes is provided with the sensing device 3, like a sensor, camera or similar”, [0025]; the Examiner notes cameras include imaging sensors), of periodically imaging the whole body of a sow raised in a stall (See Fig. 2 which depicts sensing devices 3 capturing full body images of sows from various positions within 8 stalls; “data regarding the activities of the sow 1 is collected by the host 4 via the sensing device 3, during a plurality of consecutive predetermined time-slices of the current day”, [0030]) and generating image data (“data regarding the activities of the sow 1 is collected by the host 4 via the sensing device 3”, [0030]);
a communication step, using a communication unit, of transmitting the image data from the camera unit (“Moreover, the host 4 comprises stored and installed therein a communication application for interrogating and collecting data from the sensing devices 3”, [0030]; therefore, a communication unit must exist in element 4 and 3 to interrogate and collect data, respectively) to a measurement unit (Element 4, Fig. 1);
a measurement step, using the measurement unit (Element 4, Fig. 1), of continuously measuring, per unit time, an accumulated score representing a frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow (“the following aggregate value (506) is calculated and stored for each cycle or time slice: ∑(TUpc /TDownc)*Tcycle”, [0036]) over a set given period of three days or more based on the image data by data (Step 305, Fig. 3; see all of [0039]-[0044]; the variable n is implied to be one of the preceding days and can be at least three days earlier; see Fig. 6, wherein accumulated scores are recorded for a period of more than three days):
assigning a score to a state of the sow (See each “Time Stamp” row in Fig. 5, Elements 503-505 which are directed to the states of standing up and lying down), wherein the state comprises at least one of a decubitus state (See element 505, Fig. 5), a sitting state (Examiner’s Note: the phrase “at least one of” implies only one of the recited states must be disclosed in order for the claim limitation to be anticipated), and a standing state of the sow (See Fig. 5, elements 503-504),
determining, based on the image data, the state of the sow (Step 306, Fig. 3; “two different states 1a and 1b (see figures 1 and 2) of the sow 1 are defined which can be measured with the sensing device 3: a first state 1a is the sow 1 standing on its legs and a second state 1b is the sow 1 lying on the ground”, [0031]), and
determining, based on the determining the state of the sow, the accumulated score representing the frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow by cumulatively adding the scores respectively assigned to the decubitus state, the sitting state, and the standing state (“the following aggregate value (506) is calculated and stored for each cycle or time slice: ∑(TUpc /TDownc)*Tcycle”, [0036]); and
a determination step, using a determination unit (Element 4, Fig. 1), of determining whether estrus of the sow is present on the basis of a plurality of accumulated scores continuously measured in the measurement step (Step 305, Fig. 3; see all of [0039]-[0044]; the variable n is implied to be one of the preceding days and can be at least three days earlier; see Fig. 6, wherein accumulated scores are recorded for a period of more than three days).
Regarding Claim 15, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1, wherein the scores set in advance comprises a first score, a second score, and a third score (See Elements 503-505; the examiner notes this claim is interpreted in light of the 112(b) rejection applied above),
wherein the first score is 0 and corresponds to the decubitus state (See Element 503; the examiner notes that each instance of standing up is tallied while each instance of lying down is not),
wherein the second score is 0.5 and corresponds to the sitting state (The Examiner further notes the current language of Claim 1 does not require a sitting state score), and
wherein the third score is 1 and corresponds to the standing state (See Element 503; the examiner notes that each instance of standing up is tallied while each instance of lying down is not).
Regarding Claim 16, Signorini discloses the method for determining estrus of a sow according to claim 11, wherein the unit time is set every day during the given period (“c is the time slice number within 24 hours, e.g. c=1, 2, ..., 144 for a time slice of 10 minutes as in figure 5”, [0036]; this unit time would occur multiple times every day during the given period).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorini in view of Duan et al (CN 107027650 A, hereinafter Duan).
Regarding Claim 8, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1, wherein the determination unit determines estrus of the sow by using a discriminator to discriminate estrus of the sow by using the plurality of frequencies repetitively measured over the given period (Step 305, Fig. 3; see all of [0039]-[0044]). Signorini discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the discriminator is a learned model learned in advance by a learning device. However, Duan, which also discloses an estrus determination device for a sow (“The estrus behavior of the sow is identified and classified by inputting the feature matrix into a pre-created sow estrus behavior recognition model based on a support vector machine to obtain two outputs: whether the sow is in estrus and the probability of estrus”, [0014]) teaches wherein the determination unit determines estrus of the sow by using a discriminator, wherein the discriminator is a learned model learned in advance by a learning device (“The feature vectors of the training set were normalized, and the optimized classification model of breeding pig activity behavior was obtained through PSO-SVM algorithm training”, [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the learned model of Duan to the estrus determination device of Singorini, because this can improve the accuracy of estrus determination (See [0088] of Duan).
Regarding Claim 9, modified Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 8. Modified Signorini discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the discriminator is a support vector machine. However, Duan teaches wherein the discriminator is a support vector machine (“The estrus behavior of the sow is identified and classified by inputting the feature matrix into a pre-created sow estrus behavior recognition model based on a support vector machine to obtain two outputs: whether the sow is in estrus and the probability of estrus”, [0014] of Duan, which was used in the modification to Claim 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the support vector machine of Duan to the estrus determination device of Singorini, because this can improve the accuracy of estrus determination (See [0088] of Duan).
Claim 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorini in view of the Non-Patent Literature (NPL) to Altmann et al (“Interrelations of the sex cycle and the behavior of the sow”, hereinafter Altmann).
Regarding Claim 10, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1. Signorini discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the determination unit determines that the sow is in estrus when the plurality of frequencies in the given period exhibits a change of a decrease and then an increase again. However, Altmann teaches the determination that the sow is in estrus when the plurality of frequencies in the given period exhibits a change of a decrease and then an increase again (“The activity data showed that each sow had a certain fairly regular amount of activity during non-estrus periods. With the approach of estrus she would in most cases show a marked depression of spontaneous activity and would immediately after that rise to about twice the normal activity”, p. 486). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the determination unit of Signorini such that it determines that the sow is in estrus when the plurality of frequencies in the given period exhibits a change of a decrease and then an increase again, as suggested by Altmann, because this is an additional way to detect estrus.
Regarding Claim 22, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1, wherein when the plurality of accumulated scores shows a pattern (“If each of the mean values Xa,n exceeds the predetermined value, preferably 80%...”, [0044]) within the period of three days or more (see all of [0039]-[0044]; the variable n is implied to be one of the preceding days and can be at least three days earlier; see Fig. 6, wherein accumulated scores are recorded for a period of more than three days)), the determination unit determines that estrus of the sow is present (“If each of the mean values Xa,n exceeds the predetermined value, preferably 80%, the sow is presumably on heat and a pre-alert situation is recognised to be preferably confirmed”, [0044]). Signorini discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing this certain pattern being a change of first decreasing and then increasing. However, Altmann teaches wherein when an activity metric shows a change of first decreasing and then increasing, determining that estrus of the sow is present (“The activity data showed that each sow had a certain fairly regular amount of activity during non-estrus periods. With the approach of estrus she would in most cases show a marked depression of spontaneous activity and would immediately after that rise to about twice the normal activity”, p. 486). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Signorini such that when the plurality of accumulated scores shows a change of first decreasing and then increasing, the determination unit determines that estrus of the sow is present, as suggested by Altmann, because this is an additional way to detect estrus.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorini in view of Lee (US 20140029808 A1, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Claim 13, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1. Signorini discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the device an image processing unit configured to generate a posture determination image by cutting out a region of the sow from the image data. However, Lee teaches an image processing unit (Elements 108-110, Fig. 1) configured to generate a posture determination image (“In some embodiments, the computing device validates a posture of the animal in the image”, [0008]) by cutting out a region of the sow from the image data (The computing device identifies the body region contained in the image, and crops a portion of the image associated with the identified body region from the image”, Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the posture determination image of Lee to the device of Signorini, because if the animal is not in a valid posture, then portions of the animal could be missing from the scan which would lead to an inaccurate or incomplete diagnosis of the animal (See Lee, [0052]).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 13, wherein the measurement unit is configured to determine the frequency of standing up and lying down of the sow (“the following aggregate value (506) is calculated and stored for each cycle or time slice: ∑(TUpc /TDownc)*Tcycle”, [0036]). Signorini discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the measurement unit is configured to determine the frequency at least in part based on the posture determination image. However, Lee teaches the advantage of a posture determination image as a pretext to diagnosis of an animal because if the animal is not in a valid posture, then portions of the animal could be missing from the scan which would lead to an inaccurate or incomplete diagnosis of the animal (See Lee, [0052]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Signorini such that the measurement unit is configured to determine the frequency at least in part based on the posture determination image.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorini in view of Scofield (US 5483441 A, hereinafter Scofield).
Regarding Claim 17, Signorini discloses the method for determining estrus of a sow according to claim 11. Signorini discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing the method further comprising, before the imaging step, determining whether a preset measurement start time is reached. However, Scofield teaches wherein, before the imaging step, determining whether a preset measurement start time is reached (“The invention acquires a first scene evaluation image representation of an image of the first scene at a selected time…”, 2:50-52; to acquire the image at a selected time, it must be determined whether the selected time was reached and the selected time must be determined in advance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the determination of a preset measurement start time to the method of Signorini because doing so would allow for further research into determining animal hormone levels at particular times as described in Scofield (1:43-47).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorini in view of Noritake et al (EP 2599384 A1, in the same patent family as IDS reference WO 2012014419 A1, hereinafter Noritake).
Regarding Claim 18, Signorini discloses the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 1, wherein the device is further configured to automatically transmit a notification that estrus is present in response to the determination unit determining that estrus is present (“If each of the mean values Y a,n exceeds the predetermined value already identified, e.g. 80%, the pre-alert situation is confirmed and a corresponding alarm "SOW ON HEAT" (step 306) is triggered by means of the alarm device -8, to indicate that the sow 1 is on heat and therefore ready for the artificial insemination”, [0047]). Signorini discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the device is further configured to automatically transmit a notification to a remote user. However, Noritake, which also discloses an estrus determination device for livestock ([0001]), teaches wherein the device is further configured to automatically transmit a notification to a remote user (See Fig. 8; “Estrus determination unit 44 transmits the information that the cow is in estrus to first transmission unit 60. First transmission unit 60 transmits a first estrus signal indicating that the cow is in estrus to first reception unit 61 of communication device 82. First reception unit 61 receives the first estrus signal and transmits it to second transmission unit 62 via calculation unit 65. Second transmission unit 62 transmits a second estrus signal to second reception unit 63 of notification device 83, thereby informing that the first estrus signal has been transmitted”, [0051]-[0052]; the examiner notes that as element 44 and element 83 are in different devices, and communication can be wireless ([0054]), the device is configured to transmit a notification to a remote user). It would have been obvious to add the capability of transferring to a remote user of Noritake to the device of Signorini, because this allows the livestock handler to be notified of estrus from any location.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Signorini discloses a system (See Claim 1) comprising:
the estrus determination device for a sow according to claim 18 (See the modifications made to Signorini in the rejection of Claim 18 above).
Signorini discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing a worker terminal of the remote user, wherein the worker terminal is configured to receive the notification. However, Noritake teaches a worker terminal of the remote user (See Fig. 8; “Communication device 82 and notification device 83 may be formed as an integral component…Notification unit 64 may be composed of a warning light or a display”, [0054]), wherein the worker terminal is configured to receive the notification (“Estrus determination unit 44 transmits the information that the cow is in estrus to first transmission unit 60. First transmission unit 60 transmits a first estrus signal indicating that the cow is in estrus to first reception unit 61 of communication device 82. First reception unit 61 receives the first estrus signal and transmits it to second transmission unit 62 via calculation unit 65. Second transmission unit 62 transmits a second estrus signal to second reception unit 63 of notification device 83, thereby informing that the first estrus signal has been transmitted”, [0051]-[0052]). It would have been obvious to add the capability of transferring to a remote user of Noritake to the device of Signorini, because this allows the worker to be notified of estrus from any location.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Signorini discloses the system of claim 19, Signorini discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing wherein the worker terminal comprises a display unit configured to display the notification. However, Noritake teaches wherein the worker terminal comprises a display unit configured to display the notification (See Fig. 8; “Communication device 82 and notification device 83 may be formed as an integral component…Notification unit 64 may be composed of a warning light or a display”, [0054]). It would have been obvious to add the display of Noritake to the device of Signorini, because this allows the worker to be notified of estrus from any location.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See Theelen (NL 1019107 C2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is (571)272-2860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/JONATHAN E. COOPER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791