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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/27/2025 has been entered.
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.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 18 recites “a human worker”, thus requiring a human which is prohibited under 35 U.S.C 101.
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.
The term “stops below the cow’s abdomen” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “below the cow’s abdomen” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the limitation unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as each cow would be a different size, and thus rendering the dimensions of the housing unclear.
The term “below the lowest part of the cow’s abdomen” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “below the lowest part of the cow’s abdomen” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the limitation unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as each cow would be a different size, and thus rendering the dimensions of the housing unclear.
The term “below the lowest part of the cow’s abdomen” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “below the lowest part of the cow’s abdomen” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the limitation unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as each cow would be a different size, and thus rendering the dimensions of the housing unclear.
The term “a height of 5 mm - 100 mm below the cows’ abdomen” in claim 30 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a height of 5 mm – 100 mm below the cow’s abdomen” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This would render the limitation unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as each cow would be a different size, and thus rendering the dimensions of the housing unclear.
Claims 6, 8-14, 18-19, 31, 34-35 are similarly rejected due to dependency on a rejected claim above.
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 1,4-6, 8-9,11-12, 18-20, 30-36, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birk (US 20130239897 A1) in view of Krone (US 20140060436 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Birk discloses a milking platform suitable for use in milking cows (Fig. 1); the platform comprising a deck divided into a series of bales (3), each bale having side and end barriers (2, 6 act as barriers) having only one cow therein, each bale (3) having a housing (14) which a) is associated with a set of teat cups (9) and one or more retractable platform (8), b) which stops below the cow’s abdomen, c) extends between the forelegs of the cow (Fig. 2); and d) starts in front of the forelegs and extends towards, but stops before, the udder and the hind legs of the cow such that there is sufficient space to fit the teat cups to teats of the cow (Fig. 2); and wherein for each housing (14) the one or more retractable platform (8) is adapted to extend from a stowed position where it is entirely within the housing to carry the set of teat cups (9) to a pre-engagement position beneath the udder of a respective one of the cows (right of Fig. 1) and, after that cow is milked, to retract the teat cups such that both the one or more platform and the teat cups are stowed in entirety within the housing (Left of Fig. 1, para 27).
Birk discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the housing extends upwards from a deck to a height of 300 mm – 500mm, and is 150-300 mm wide. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the sizing of the housing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Such change in height and width would be conducted in order to be used for a broader range of cow sizes/age.
Birk fails to teach one or more retractable arm.
However, Krone teaches a housing (2) which is associated with a set of teat cups (3) and one or more retractable arm (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 provided the platform as disclosed by Birk with the hoses as taught by Krone with a reasonable expectation of success because providing hoses would benefit the worker using the system as it would allow for easier manipulation of the teat cups, allowing for more freedom of movement and accommodating various sized animals.
Regarding claim 4: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein for each cow the housing (Birk 14) extends to a height of 5 mm -150 mm below the lowest part of the cow's abdomen (excluding the cow's teats) (Functional limitation which can be met due to age/size of cow).
Regarding claim 5: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein for each cow the housing (Birk 14) extends to a height below the lowest part of the cow's abdomen (excluding the cow's teats) by 5 mm-100 mm (Functional limitation which can be met due to age/size of cow).
Regarding claim 6: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein for each cow the housing extends to a height sufficient to prevent the cow from turning around when in the bale (Birk Fig. 2, housing would prevent animal from turning). ).
Regarding claim 8: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Modified Birk discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the housing extends to a length of 500 mm – 1700 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the length of the housing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Such length would be chosen in order to the milking platform to accommodate for various sizes of cows
Regarding claim 9: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, Modified Birk discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the housing extends to a length of 600 mm – 1600 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the length of the housing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Such length would be chosen in order to the milking platform to accommodate for various sizes of cows
Regarding claim 11: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Modified Birk teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the housing tapers so that it is higher at one end than the other.
Krone further teaches wherein the housing (2) tapers so that it is higher at one end than the other (Fig. 3)
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to taper the height of the housing since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Tapering the height of the housing would allow for the cow to easily enter the bale of the platform, but also have the lowest section of the cow contact the highest end of the housing so that the cow is not able to proceed further than desired.
Regarding claim 12: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Modified Birk discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the housing extends to a length of 700 mm – 1500 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the length of the housing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Such length would be chosen in order to the milking platform to accommodate for various sizes of cows
Regarding claim 13: Modified Birk teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, and further teaches wherein in each case the stowed position is in front of the cow's udder (Birk, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14: Modified Birk teaches the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, and further teaches wherein in each case the pre- engagement position is above and spaced from the platform (Birk, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein for each set of teat cups (Birk 9) the teat cups are adapted to draw milk from the cow, and a human worker is able to move moves the set of teat cups by hand to engage the cow's teats when the set of teat cups is in the pre-engagement position (manipulating teat cups onto the cow’s teats are well known in the art).
Regarding claim 19: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 12 as shown above, and further teaches wherein in each case the set of teat cups (Krone 3) is connected to a milk run-off tube (Krone hoses 9 would act as a run-off tube) that plays out to enable said set of teat cups to reach the pre-engagement position and retracts when the set is in the stowed position (Krone Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 30: Birk discloses a milking platform suitable for use in milking cows (Fig. 1), the platform comprising a deck divided into a series of bales (3), each bale having side and end barriers (2, 6 act as barriers) and having only one cow therein, each bale having a housing (14) which: a) is associated with a set of teat cups (9) and one or more retractable platform (8) extends upwards from the deck to a height 5 mm - 100 mm below the cow's abdomen (excluding the cow's teats) (functional limitation which could be met due to both the age of the cow and size of cow; c) extends between the forelegs of the cow (Fig. 2); and d) starts in front of the forelegs and extends towards, but stops before, the udder and hind legs of the cow such that there is sufficient space to fit the teat cups to teats of the cow (Fig. 2); and wherein for each housing (14) the one or more retractable platform (8) is adapted to extend from a stowed positioned where it is entirely within the housing to carry the set of teat cups (9) to a pre-engagement position beneath the udder of a respective one of the cows (right of Fig. 1) and, after that cow is milked, to retract the teat cups such that both the one or more arm and the teat cups stowed in entirely within the housing (Left of Fig. 1, para 27).
Birk discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the housing extends upwards from a deck to a height of is 150-300 mm wide. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the sizing of the housing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Such change in width would be conducted in order to be used for a broader range of cow sizes/age.
Birk fails to teach one or more retractable arm.
However, Krone teaches a housing (2) which is associated with a set of teat cups (3) and one or more retractable arm (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 provided the platform as disclosed by Birk with the hoses as taught by Krone with a reasonable expectation of success because providing hoses would benefit the worker using the system as it would allow for easier manipulation of the teat cups, allowing for more freedom of movement and accommodating various sized animals.
Regarding claim 31: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 30 as shown above, Modified Birk discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the housing extends to a length of 600 mm – 1600 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the length of the housing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Such length would be chosen in order to the milking platform to accommodate for various sizes of cows
Regarding claim 32: Birk discloses a device (14) formed so as to be suitable for presenting milking teat cups (9) to cows, the device being adapted for installation on a milking platform (1), the device comprising a housing (14) which: a) houses a set of teat cups (9) and one or retractable platform (8); wherein the one or more retractable platform (8) is adapted to extend from a stowed positioned where it is entirely within the housing to carry the set of teat cups (9) to a pre-engagement position beneath the udder of a respective one of the cows (right of Fig. 1) and, after that cow is milked, to retract the teat cups such that both the one or more platform and the teat cups stowed in entirely within the housing (Left of Fig. 1, para 27).
Birk discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the housing is 300-500 mm high, is 150-300 mm wide, and 500-1700m long. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to change the sizing of the housing, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Such change in height, width, and length would be conducted in order to be used for a broader range of cow sizes/age, allowing for milking to occur for cows of all sizes while decreasing the likelihood that the animal is able to maneuver within the bale.
Birk fails to teach one or more retractable arm.
However, Krone teaches a housing (2) which is associated with a set of teat cups (3) and one or more retractable arm (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 provided the platform as disclosed by Birk with the hoses as taught by Krone with a reasonable expectation of success because providing hoses would benefit the worker using the system as it would allow for easier manipulation of the teat cups, allowing for more freedom of movement and accommodating various sized animals.
Regarding claim 33: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 32 as shown above, and further teaches a method of milking cows comprising: a) causing a cow (4) to enter a milking platform bale (Fig. 2) in which a device according claim 32 is installed on a deck of the platform (platform 1, Fig. 2); b) causing the cow to straddle the housing so that:(i) each foreleg of the cow is on a different side of the housing and such that the housing prevents the cow from turning around in the bale (Figs. 1-2, show that the cow would be unable to turn); and(ii) the underside of the cow's abdomen is sufficiently close to the top of the housing to cause the cow to be unable to get its body low enough to maneuver its head to a position where the head can get stuck beneath a front barrier of the bail (as seen in Fig. 2, the abdomen of the cow would be close enough to the housing where movement is preventable); and c) milking the cow with the teat cups (9) fitted to it and while it is standing in the bail straddling the housing as per a) and b) of this claim.
Regarding claim 34: Modified Birk teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the one or more retractable arm (Krone 9) cantilevers from the housing (Krone 2) to hold the teat cups (Krone 3) in the pre-engagement position to support the teat cups above the deck (Krone Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 35: Modified Birk teaches the limitations of claim 30 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the one or more retractable arm (Krone 9) cantilevers from the housing (Krone 2) to hold the teat cups (Krone 3) in the pre-engagement position to support the teat cups above the deck (Krone Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 36: Modified Birk teaches the limitations of claim 32 as shown above, and further teaches wherein the one or more retractable arm (Krone 9) cantilevers from the housing (Krone 2) to hold the teat cups (Krone 3) in the pre-engagement position to support the teat cups above the deck (Krone Fig. 1).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birk in view of Krone as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Notsuki (US, 4010714 A).
Regarding claim 10: Modified Birk discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Birk fails to teach wherein the housing tapers so that it is wider at one end than the other (Fig. 5, one end tapers in the manner of a semi-circle).
Notsuki teaches wherein the housing tapers so that it is wider at one end than the other (Fig. 5, one end tapers in the manner of a semi-circle).
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 housing as disclosed by modified Birk with the tapering as taught by Notsuki with a reasonable expectation of success because having the housing taper would allow for the animal to have an easier time of entering the system, decreasing the likelihood that the animal hurts its legs by stepping on the housing.
Response to Arguments
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 08/11/205 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1, 4-6, 8-14, 18-19, 30-36 based upon Notsuki in view of Birk as set forth in the last Office action because the declaration does not provide sufficient data to support that the claimed invention provided an unexpected result that would not have been arrived at by the combination of art. For example, the remark was made that the invention saves time and that the various trials of different prototypes was performed, however this data was not made available. Applicant should provide further data illustrating the benefits of the claimed invention.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in relation to Notsuki are moot as the new grounds for rejection does not rely on the references found within Notsuki.
Applicant’s argues that the prior art of Birk does not teach an arm in a stored position. The Office respectfully disagrees as Birk teaches a platform-like element (8) which carries the teatcups (9) and acts in a similar manner as that of applicant’s claimed retractable arm. The Office has taken the stance that the two elements of the platform and arm are functional equivalents, however has further relied upon the art of Krone to teach the limitations if this stance is unpersuasive to Applicant.
Applicant argues that the dimension s materially affect the way the invention works and case law could not be applied, per the Declaration of Fraser Haywood. The Office respectfully disagrees as there is no data provided that would prove that an unexpected result would occur from the change in size.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not discuss the dimensions of the tunnel and as such one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to optimize the parameter. The office respectfully disagrees, as the dimensions of the housing would be clearly a result-effective variable to insure that the majority of animals are able to be milked within the system, and as such a skilled artisan would adjust the dimensions as deemed necessary in order to arrive at optimal sizing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of teat cups stowed within housings.
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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642