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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 1 of claim 12, delete “system”, and insert --method--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 as amended in the response filed on the 20 November 2025 includes limitations to measure “a milk component comprising a milk protein / milk fat ration of milk produced by the evaluation subject ruminant during milking.” While the specification discloses using a milk production record which indicates a milk component that may include a milk protein / milk fat ratio, which is routinely measured (Specification par. 22). However the specification does not disclose that this measurement is made during milking. Claims 2-5 and 7-11 depend on claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason. Independent claim 12 includes similar limitations, and is rejected for the same reason.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 depends from claim 1 which recites “a milk component comprising a milk protein / milk fat ration of milk produced by the evaluation subject ruminant during milking”. Claim 10 include limitations that the milk component includes at least one of multiple measurements including milk protein/milk fat ratio, and does not require that the ratio is measured during milking. Since this limitations specifying what is included in a milk component replaces what is required as a milk component in claim 1, it does not constitute a further limitation. Claim 11 depends from claim 10 and is rejected for the same reason. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (MPEP 2106, subsection III), Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is an apparatus; and claim 12 is directed to a method which is a process. Both claims 1 and 12 fall within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per Step 2A, Prong 1, claims 1 and 12 recite estimating a status of rumen fermentation in the evaluation subject ruminant based on a milk production record indicating the milk yield and the milk component obtained by the measurement device, wherein the evaluation device computes a milk-total-protein value (MTP) based on the milk yield and the milk protein proportion, substitutes the MTR into a first regression equation stored in a storage unit to calculate a theoretical turnover rate (TTOR) indicative of the status of rumen fermentation, substitutes the TTOR and the milk protein/milk fat ratio into a second regression equation stored in the storage unit to calculate a rumen pH, substitutes the TTOR into a third regression equation stored in the storage unit to calculate a dry matter intake (DMI). The estimation steps are disclosed as a calculation which falls into the mathematical processes grouping. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Claim 1 and similarly claim 12 recite additional elements including a measurement device that automatically measures a milk yield and a milk component comprising a milk protein / milk fat ratio of milk produced by the evaluation ruminant during milking; determining and displaying on a display unit at least one of a feeding amount, feeding frequency, feeding time, or type of feed for the evaluation subject ruminant by referring to at least one of the TTOR, the rumen pH, and the DMI; and an evaluation device that has an estimation unit, which is disclosed as a computer (par. 53-55).
Per Step 2A, Prong 1, the judicial exception in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The recitation of a measurement device and its function is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Displaying the result of the abstract idea is also insignificant extra solution activity. The recitation of an evaluation device amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). When considered in combination, these additional elements do not provide anything further.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. Further, the courts have recognized that collecting data in various manners is well-understood, routine and conventional (See MPEP 2106.05(d), Subsection II). Further, Applicant’s specification discloses that the measurement of milk components is accomplished with conventionally known methods (Specification, par. 23). Further, displaying the result of analysis is also well-understood, routine and conventional (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0141959 to Ingham, pars. 74, 147; US Patent Application Publication 2017/0013802 to Zimmerman et al., pars. 37, 38, 44, 54; US Patent Application Publication 2015/0230727 to Mallinson et al., pars. 133, 149).
Claims 2-5 and 7-11 depend from claim 1, and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-5 and 7-11 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-11 are rejected for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that as amended, claims 1 and 12 are directed to a specific livestock-management system that uses a non-generic physical data source, applies domain-specific physiological regression relationships, and produces operational feeding-management determinations tied to rumen physiology. The measurement device collects daily milk yield along with specific milk-component values such as milk-protein proportion and the protein-to-fat ratio during milking, and the specification identifies these as biological indicators that correlate with rumen fermentation rather than routine data-gathering metrics. However, as discussed above, the additional elements in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The recitation of a measurement device and its function is mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea and is insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recitation of an evaluation device amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The recitation of a display is further insignificant extra-solution activity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights