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 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 8 of claim 1, delete “indicting”, and insert --indicating--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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 further determines, based on the estimated status of rumen fermentation and using stored data associating the status of rumen fermentation with feeding parameters, at least one of a feeding amount, feeding frequency, feeding time, or type of feed for the evaluation subject ruminant. The estimation is 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 configured to obtain a milk yield and a milk component of milk produced by the evaluation ruminant, the milk component excluding a fatty acid; and an evaluation device that has an estimation unit, which is disclosed as a computer (par. 53-55).
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)). 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).
Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1, and recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2-11 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 2-11 are rejected for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that as amended, Claims 1 and 12 are directed to a specific technological system that integrates physical measurement and automated control, not an abstract idea. 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)).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 13 August 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12 in view of prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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