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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1, 12, 18, 23, 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoelund (WO 0075610 A1) in view of Song (US 20150019167 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Sjoelund discloses a system for monitoring at least one operating pressure in a milking installation having a plurality of milking points (Fig. 1) the system comprising: a plurality of sensors (sensing means 133), a respective component (9), and a plurality of processing nodes (function supervision means 13, it is clear each teatcup has a similar vacuum means thus multiple supervision means would be present in the system), wherein the sensor (133) is arranged in a dry space of the component (control chamber 119 Fig 3A), said dry space is in direct fluid connection with the at least one conduit (vacuum line 14) in which said at least one operating pressure exists, wherein the dry space connects to a wet space that is a liquid- containing space of the component (wet product chamber 123), via a diaphragm (diaphragm 9a), so as to effect milk extraction via a conduit (milk pipe) connected to an animal milked in the milking installation the conduit, being connected to the wet space of the component (page 11, “Product chamber 123 has an inlet 127 connected to line 7 and an outlet 129 connected to the vacuum source 18 via the milk meter and milk pipe”).
Sjoelund fails to teach pressure sensors, each of the pressure sensors being configured to measure values of a pressure level in a respective component of a one of the milking points of the milking installation, each of the processing nodes communicatively connected to a respective one pf the pressure sensors, each of the processing nodes being configured to generate monitoring data representing a series of measured values of the pressure level received from the respective pressure sensor comprising temporal indicators designating a respective timestamp indicative of a point in time of the when a value of the pressure level of the component was measured, and the temporal indicators serving as a basis for triggering at least one alarm.
However, Song teaches pressure sensors (510a,510b), each of the pressure sensors being configured to measure values of a pressure level in a respective component (40) of a one of the milking points of the milking installation, each of the processing nodes (50) communicatively connected to a respective one of the pressure sensors, each of the processing nodes being configured to generate monitoring data representing a series of measured values of the pressure level received from the respective pressure sensor (Fig. 4 discusses pressures obtained from sensors, paras 95-97), the monitoring data (data chart Fig. 4) comprising temporal indicators (time of X-axis) designating a respective timestamp indicative of a point in time of the when a value of the pressure level of the component was measured, and the temporal indicators serving as a basis for triggering (para 118, discussion of error code sent when value of pulsator is out of the desired operation range) at least one alarm (triggers para 118).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the milking system as disclosed by Sjoelund with the pressure sensor and error codes as taught by Song with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a pressure sensor would assist the flow regulator with control and actuation of the diaphragm, and the capabilities of sending a warning or alarm to the user would achieve the predictable result of achieving less downtime as malfunctions are found and resolved in a quicker manner.
Regarding claim 12: Sjoelund teaches a computer-implemented method of monitoring at least one operating pressure in a milking installation having a plurality of milking points (Fig. 1), the method comprising: receiving from a plurality of sensors (sensing means 133 and strain gauge), and measuring the values of the pressure level in a dry space of the component (control chamber 119, Fig. 3A), which dry space is in direct fluid connection with at least one conduit (vacuum line 14) in which said at least operating pressure exists, wherein the dry space connects to a wet space that is a liquid-containing space for the component (wet product chamber 123) via a diaphragm (diaphragm 9a), so as to effect milk extraction via a conduit (milk pipe) connected to an animal milked in the milking installation, the conduit being connected to the wet space of the component (page 11, “Product chamber 123 has an inlet 127 connected to line 7 and an outlet 129 connected to the vacuum source 18 via the milk meter and milk pipe”).
Sjoelund fails to teach receiving from a plurality of pressure sensors measured values of a pressure level in a respective component of one of the milking points of the milking installation, said pressure level being indicative of said at least one operating pressure; and processing the measured values of the pressure level and generating monitoring data representing a series of measured values of the pressure level, the monitoring data comprising temporal indicators designating a respective timestamp indicative of a point in time when a value of the component was measured, and the temporal indicators serving as a basis for triggering at least one alarm.
However, Song teaches receiving from a plurality of pressure sensors (510a,510b) measured values of a pressure level in a respective component (40) of one of the milking points of the milking installation, said pressure level being indicative of said at least one operating pressure; and processing the measured values of the pressure level and generating monitoring data representing a series of measured values of the pressure level (Fig. 4), the monitoring data comprising temporal indicators designating a respective timestamp indicative of a point in time when a value of the component was measured, and the temporal indicators serving as a basis for triggering at least one alarm (para 118, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the milking system as disclosed by Sjoelund with the pressure sensor and error codes as taught by Song with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a pressure sensor would assist the flow regulator with control and actuation of the diaphragm, and the capabilities of sending a warning or alarm to the user would achieve the predictable result of achieving less downtime as malfunctions are found and resolved in a quicker manner.
Regarding claim 18: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above.
Sjoelund fails to teach wherein said dry space is in direct fluid connection with plural conduits in which a respect one of said at least one operating pressure exists.
However, Song teaches plural conduits (30a,30b) in which a respective one of said at least one operating pressure exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control chamber as disclosed by modified Sjoelund with the multiple pressure conduits as taught by Song with a reasonable expectation of success because providing multiple conduits would allow for the control chamber to be subjected to different operating pressures, which would achieve the predictable result in actuating the position of the diaphragm to reach a desired level.
Regarding claim 23: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, and further teaches a non-transitory data medium having recorded thereon a computer program that, upon execution by a processor of a computer, executes the method according to claim 12 (Sjoelund page 5 discusses use of software).
Regarding claim 26: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Sjoelund fails to teach wherein said dry space is in direct fluid connection with plural conduits in which a respect one of said at least one operating pressure exists.
However, Song teaches plural conduits (30a,30b) in which a respective one of said at least one operating pressure exists.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control chamber as disclosed by modified Sjoelund with the multiple pressure conduits as taught by Song with a reasonable expectation of success because providing multiple conduits would allow for the control chamber to be subjected to different operating pressures, which would achieve the predictable result in actuating the position of the diaphragm to reach a desired level.
Claims 3-7, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoelund and Song as applied to claims 1, 12 above, and further in view of Cattaneo (EP 2939532 A1).
Regarding claim 3: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Sjoelund as modified fails to teach a central node each of the processing nodes being configured to forward the monitoring data to the central node, and the central node being configured to trigger at least one central alarm based on the temporal indicators, at least one of the at least one central alarm being triggered when one of said timestamps indicates that the pressure level was measured to a value outside of an acceptable range of values at the point in time indicated by said timestamp.
However, Cattaneo teaches a central node (master controller 12) each of the processing nodes (slave controller 14) being configured to forward the monitoring data to the central node (para 39), and the central node (master controller 12) being configured to trigger at least one central alarm (para 39, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the milking system as disclosed by Sjoelund with the remote alarm configuration as taught by Cattaneo with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a remote alarm would allow for a worker who is not locally present monitor and maintain the milking system, which would achieve the predictable result of having a worker monitor a larger sample of milking systems.
The combined art would then teach the remaining limitations of at least one of the at least one central alarm (Cattaneo para 39, claim 1) being triggered when one of said timestamps indicates that the pressure level was measured to a value outside of an acceptable range of values at the point in time indicated by said timestamp (Song Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 3 as shown above, and further teaches a storage resource communicatively connected to the central node (Cattaneo 12), said storage resource configured to store the monitoring data and at least one of the at least one central alarm (Cattaneo para 39, inherently disclosed as the prior art describes the storing of data within master controller 12)
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 3 as shown above, and further teaches wherein each of the processing nodes (Cattaneo 14) is configured to initiate forwarding of the monitoring data to the central node (Cattaneo 12) in response to a start signal indicating a beginning of a milking session to be carried out by the milking installation (Cattaneo, paras 23,31).
Regarding claim 6: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 5 as shown above, and further teaches wherein each of the processing nodes (Cattaneo 14) is configured to continue forwarding the monitoring data to the central node (Cattaneo 12) until an abort signal is received, said abort signal indicating an end of said milking session (Cattaneo Fig. 1, paras 23,31).
Regarding claim 7: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 6 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the central node (Cattaneo 12) is configured to trigger at least one of the at least one central alarm when the monitoring data indicates that one of the at least one operating pressure delivered by the system to the one of the milking points has been applied during a total extension of a high-pressure part of a milking time, said high-pressure part exceeding a threshold measure (para 118, Fig. 4 of Song).
Regarding claim 14: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above.
Sjoelund fails to teach a central node.
However, Cattaneo teaches a central node. (Cattaneo master controller 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the milking system as disclosed by Sjoelund with the master controller and alarm as taught by Cattaneo with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a master controller which signals a remote alarm would allow for a worker who is not locally present monitor and maintain the milking system, which would achieve the predictable result of having a worker monitor a larger sample of milking systems.
The combined art would then teach the remaining limitations of forwarding the monitoring data to a central node (Cattaneo controller 12); determining that a timestamp of one of said timestamps (Song Fig. 4) indicates that the pressure level was measured to a value outside of an acceptable range of values at the point in time indicated by said timestamp; and determining that said timestamp indicates that the pressure level was measured to the value outside of the acceptable range of values at the point in time indicated by said timestamp, and subsequently triggering in the central node a central alarm (Song para 118 discusses an error code).
Regarding claim 15: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 14 as shown above, and further teaches determining receipt of a start signal indicating a beginning of a milking session to be carried out by the milking installation, and subsequently initiating the forwarding of the monitoring data to the central node (Cattaneo Fig. 1, paras 23, 31 describe a signal indicating starting of the milking session).
Regarding claim 16: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 15 as shown above, and further teaches determining receipt of an abort signal, said abort signal indicating an end of said milking session, and subsequently stopping the forwarding of the monitoring data to the central node (Cattaneo Fig. 1, paras 23, 31 indicating shutdown of milking system).
Regarding claim 17: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 16 as shown above, and further teaches determining that the monitoring data indicates that one of the at least one operating pressure delivered by the system to the one of the milking points has been applied during a total extension of a high-pressure part of a milking time, said high-pressure part exceeding a threshold measure; and determining that the monitoring data indicates that the one of the at least one operating pressure has been applied during the total extension of a high-pressure part of the milking time, and subsequently triggering in the central node another central alarm (para 118, Fig. 4, Song).
Claims 10-11, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sjoelund and Song as applied to claims 1, 12 above, and further in view of White (US 9702246 B2).
Regarding claim 10: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above
Sjoelund fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the pressure sensors is configured to measure the values of the pressure level at a first frequency, and to transmit representative data reflecting the measured values of the pressure level to the processing node at a second frequency being lower than the first frequency.
However, White teaches wherein each of the pressure sensors (101) is configured to measure the values of the pressure level at a first frequency (105), and to transmit representative data reflecting the measured values of the pressure level to the processing node (141) at a second frequency (151) being lower than the first frequency (Col 4 lines 37-51, claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the pressure sensors as disclosed by modified Sjoelund with the signal modulation as taught by White with a reasonable expectation of success because modifying the signals to be transmitted would achieve the predictable result of transmitting the information as high-quality as possible while still reducing the amount of energy and load required to receive the information from the sensors.
Regarding claim 11: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Sjoelund as modified fails to teach wherein the representative data comprises at least one of: a rolling average of the measured values of the pressure level since a previous transmission, a maximum of the measured values of the pressure level since a previous transmission, and a minimum of the measured values of the pressure level since a previous transmission.
However, Song teaches wherein the representative data comprises at least one of: a rolling average of the measured values of the pressure level since a previous transmission, a maximum of the measured values of the pressure level since a previous transmission, and a minimum of the measured values of the pressure level since a previous transmission (paras 13, 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the pressure sensors as disclosed by modified Sjoelund with the average, minimum, or maximum measurements as taught by Song with a reasonable expectation of success because having the system record the average, maximum, or minimum pressure values would allow for appropriate alarm systems to be established when the results obtained by the readings fall outside of the expected values.
Regarding claim 20: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above.
Sjoelund as modified fails to teach measuring, in each of the pressure sensors, the values of the pressure level at a first frequency; and transmitting representative data reflecting the measured values of the pressure the pressure sensors at a second frequency lower than the first frequency.
However, White teaches measuring, in each of the pressure sensors (101), the values of the pressure level at a first frequency (105); and transmitting representative data reflecting the measured values of the pressure the pressure sensors (101) at a second frequency (151) lower than the first frequency (Col 4 lines 37-51, claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the pressure sensors as disclosed by modified Sjoelund with the signal modulation as taught by White with a reasonable expectation of success because modifying the signals to be transmitted would achieve the predictable result of transmitting the information as high-quality as possible while still reducing the amount of energy and load required to receive the information from the sensors.
Regarding claim 21: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 20 as shown above.
Song further teaches wherein the representative data comprises at least one of: a rolling average of the measured values of the pressure level from a given one of the sensors since a previous transmission, a maximum of the measured values of the pressure level from a given one of the sensors since a previous transmission, and a minimum of the measured values of the pressure level from a given one of the sensors since a previous transmission (paras 13, 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the pressure sensors as disclosed by modified Cattaneo with the average, minimum, or maximum measurements as taught by Song with a reasonable expectation of success because having the system record the average, maximum, or minimum pressure values would allow for appropriate alarm systems to be established when the results obtained by the readings fall outside of the expected values.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2,13 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the limitations of “wherein the acceptable range of values includes: a first range corresponding to a stimulation vacuum level for instigating milking an initial milking period, a second range corresponding to a standard vacuum level for increased milk flow period subsequent to the initial milking period, and a third range corresponding to a boost vacuum level for a further increased, top-flow milking period subsequent to the increased milk flow period, and the point in time indicated by said timestamp is any one of the initial milking period to indicate that the measured pressure level is outside the first range, the increased milk flow period to indicate that the measured pressure level is outside the second range, and the further increased, top-flow milking period so as to indicate that the measured pressure level is outside the third range; and determining that said timestamp indicates that the pressure level was measured to a value outside of an acceptable range of values at the point in time indicated by said timestamp and subsequently triggering local alarm.” in combination with further independent claim limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 11-18, 21,23,26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Cattaneo has been replaced by the prior art of Sjoelund as the primary art of reference. The prior art of Cattaneo has instead been used as a secondary reference to teach the use of a central alarm.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the component being a shut-off valve is not commensurate with the scope of the claims nor the original specifications. The present invention’s original specifications detail that the component is “for instance a shut-off valve”. This is reiterated when the specification goes on to detail “the component may be a milk conduit, a claw of a milking device, a teat cup, a shut-off valve or any other”. While the second embodiment of the invention is directed toward a shut-off valve component, the claims themselves are generic toward what the milking component actually is, and as such the claims have not been interpreted to read that the component is exclusively a shut-off valve.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, 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.
/EDGAR REYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights