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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 10/31/2025 is acknowledged.. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16-22 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 states “The method according to claim 5, characterized in that one or more measurements are performed selected from the group comprising” which should read “The method according to claim 5, characterized in that one or more measurements are performed selected from the group comprising: “
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.
Claim 7 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 7 is rejected for lack of written description for the limitation “possible incorrect measurements associated with the atmospheric conditions surrounding the animal, such as rain or fog.” While it seems logical that the threshold value would provide differentiation between moisture from fog or mist versus water from a watering trough, it is unclear how the threshold value would be able to differentiate between being soaked with water from heavy rain versus being soaked with water from the watering trough. The specification does not provide any further details on the calculation of the threshold value. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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 7, 10-11, and 13 are 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 claim 7, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 7 states “said threshold value is defined so as to eliminate measurements linked to the natural physiological state of the animal, such as the natural moisture of the end of the muzzle of the animal and/or possible incorrect measurements associated with the atmospheric conditions surrounding the animal, such as rain or fog.” It is unclear if the natural moisture is the only natural physiological measurement eliminated or just one example, and if rain and fog are the only atmospheric conditions taken into account. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
Claims 10-11 and 13 recite the limitation "said radar sensor and/or said at least one water detection sensor." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 10-11 and 13 are dependent only on claim 1, which only discusses “at least one sensor,” not specifically a radar sensor or a water detection sensor. Clarification and correction are required but no new matter may be added.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-11937572-B2) in view of Wernimont (US-20200205381-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Watanabe discloses a method for monitoring the feeding and water consumption of a bovine such as a cow, characterized in that at least one sensor (moisture sensor on nose ring, see fig 1) transported by said bovine is used to detect the presence of water and/or food in an area located in the region of the muzzle of said animal and outside the body of said animal (moisture sensor, see col 4, lines 1-5, nose ring see fig 1).
Watanabe fails to explicitly disclose the sensor detection in order to identify intake of food or water by said bovine.
Wernimont teaches sensors detecting food and water in order to identify intake of food or water by said bovine (sensors for measuring the water in the water bowl and animal proximity to the food and water bowls, see para 0052 and 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified with the sensor for identifying food or water intake as taught by Wernimont with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide detail on the animal’s regular activities which can then be monitored for irregularities indicating illness to allow for prompt response.
Regarding claim 8, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses characterized in that the location of the animal in the vicinity of a drinking trough and/or a feeding trough is also detected (see col 4, lines 1-5, nose ring see fig 1).
Regarding claim 9, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach characterized in that a movement of the head of the animal is detected.
Wernimont teaches characterized in that a movement of the head of the animal is detected (head movement para 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the head movement detection as taught by Wernimont with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the device is able to determine when the animal is eating or drinking and therefore provide correct activity data.
Regarding claim 10, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 8.
The modified reference fails to teach characterized in that the information associated with the presence of the animal in the vicinity of a drinking trough and/or a feeding trough, and a lowering of the head of the animal, are combined in order to trigger the measurement or measurements using said radar sensor and/or said at least one water detection sensor.
Wernimont teaches characterized in that the information associated with the presence of the animal in the vicinity of a drinking trough and/or a feeding trough (proximity sensors, see para 0052, 0055), and a lowering of the head of the animal (head movement, see para 0070), are combined in order to trigger the measurement or measurements using said radar sensor and/or said at least one water detection sensor (sensors for measuring the water in the water bowl and animal proximity to the food and water bowls, see para 0052 and 0055).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the location and head movement data triggering water sensing as taught by Wernimont with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide redundancy and ensure feeding and watering are accurately recorded.
Regarding claim 12, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach characterized in that the movements of the muzzle of the animal are detected in order to identify chewing of food by said animal.
Wernimont teaches characterized in that the movements of the muzzle of the animal are detected in order to identify chewing of food by said animal (chewing motions sensed, see para 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the detection of chewing motions as taught by Wernimont with a reasonable expectation of success as this will ensure the device is able to determine when the animal is eating or drinking and therefore provide correct activity data.
Regarding claim 13, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach characterized in that the measurements provided by said radar sensor and/or said at least one water detection sensor are acquired over time, in order to determine a duration of water consumption or feeding of said animal.
Wernimont teaches characterized in that the measurements provided by said radar sensor and/or said at least one water detection sensor are acquired over time, in order to determine a duration of water consumption or feeding of said animal (see para 0054-0056).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified with the sensor for identifying food or water intake over time as taught by Wernimont with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide detail on the animal’s regular activities which can then be monitored for irregularities indicating illness to allow for prompt response.
Regarding claim 14, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach characterized in that said measurements are processed by a central unit such as a microprocessor, worn by the animal, or are sent, via a wireless communication protocol, to a remote central unit.
Wernimont teaches characterized in that said measurements are processed by a central unit such as a microprocessor, worn by the animal, or are sent, via a wireless communication protocol, to a remote central unit (processors for collar/animal data, see paras 0032-0034).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the wearable microprocessor of Wernimont with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide efficient data analysis and monitoring of the animals condition.
Regarding claim 15, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses characterized in that active compounds such as medication, vitamins, etc., are also delivered using said nose ring (see col 5, lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-11937572-B2) in view of Wernimont (US-20200205381-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ceolato (US-11709087-B2).
Regarding claim 2, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach characterized in that, said at least one sensor comprising a radar sensor, the following steps are performed: - transmitting a radar signal at least in said area, - receiving at least one reflection of the radar signal originating from an object located in said area in order to obtain data of said at least one object, and - processing said data in order to determine the presence of water or food in said area.
Ceolato teaches said at least one sensor comprising a radar sensor (see col 1, lines 50-62), the following steps are performed: - transmitting a radar signal at least in said area (signal from radar system, see col 1, lines 50-62), - receiving at least one reflection of the radar signal originating from an object located in said area in order to obtain data of said at least one object (reflection on the surface of the water, see col 1, lines 50-62), and - processing said data in order to determine the presence of water or food in said area (determine water levels in area, see col 1, lines 50-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the sensor to be a radar sensor for detecting water as taught by Ceolato with a reasonable expectation of success as this will provide a more precise measurement of the water in the area.
Claim(s) 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-11937572-B2) in view of Wernimont (US-20200205381-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peacock (US-9903944-B2).
Regarding claim 3, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach characterized in that a transmission antenna configured to transmit an ultra-wideband radar signal transmits a radar signal into said area.
Peacock teaches characterized in that a transmission antenna configured to transmit an ultra-wideband radar signal transmits a radar signal into said area (antenna 71, wideband radar pulses, see fig 7, see col 4, lines 4-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with a wideband radar signal as taught by Peacock with a reasonable expectation of success as wideband radar has high accuracy and precision.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-11937572-B2) in view of Wernimont (US-20200205381-A1) and Ceolato (US-11709087-B2) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Peacock (US-9903944-B2).
Regarding claim 4, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 2 and Ceolato further teaches characterized in that said radar signal is transmitted in the form of pulses (radar pulses, see col 1, lines 50-62).
The modified reference fails to teach coherent pulses.
Peacock teaches characterized in that said radar signal is transmitted in the form of coherent pulses (coherent pulses, see col 4, lines 4-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the coherent pulses of Peacock with a reasonable expectation of success as coherent pulses have an improved signal to noise ratio, allowing for improved signal analysis.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US-11937572-B2) in view of Wernimont (US-20200205381-A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leigh-Lancaster (US-20190373857-A1).
Regarding claim 11, the modified reference teaches the method according to claim 1.
The modified reference fails to teach characterized in that, said radar sensor and/or said at least one water detection sensor having a sleep mode of low energy consumption, each sensor is placed in said mode when it appears that the animal is resting or is not located in the vicinity of a drinking trough and/or a feeding trough, or indeed that the head of said animal is not lowered towards the ground.
Leigh-Lancaster teaches characterized in that, said radar sensor and/or said at least one water detection sensor having a sleep mode of low energy consumption (sensors 40-46 sleep mode during rest, see para 0075), each sensor is placed in said mode when it appears that the animal is resting (sensors 40-46 sleep mode during rest, see para 0075) or is not located in the vicinity of a drinking trough and/or a feeding trough, or indeed that the head of said animal is not lowered towards the ground.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of
the claimed invention to have modified the system with the lower power sleep mode as taught by Leigh-Lancaster with a reasonable expectation of success as this will improve battery life and allow for sensing only when the animal is near the feeding or watering areas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 6 is similarly objected to by virtue of its dependency on claim 5.
Claims 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as they are dependent on objected to claim 5.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The art noted in the References Cited document is relevant as it pertains to similar animal monitoring systems. Specifically, Ehrman teaches a low power resting mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE ANNE KLOECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-5103. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00 -5:30 MST, F: 8:00 - 12:00 MST.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached at (571) 270-5301. 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.
/K.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642