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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 14 of the claim comprises the word “waring” instead of “warning”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “measurement unit”, “specification unit”, “calculation unit”, “determination unit”, and “thermoregulation unit” in claims 9/16, and 10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 9 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. This analysis in view of 35 U.S.C. § 101 is based on MPEP § 2106, please see this section of the MPEP for additional information. First, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim as a whole is established: Claims 9 and 1 6 are directed to a system / apparatus for managing health of a calf, by measuring physiological data and acceleration, calculating parameters from the measured data, including defining rest periods and satisfying threshold conditions, issuing a warning only if conditions are met, and raising or lowering the body temperature of a calf. Claim 10 adds a thermoregulation unit. Claims 11-14 include additional algorithmic processes for combining signals and deriving additional parameters. Claim 15 comprises a garment. Step 1 of the analysis is the question: “Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” and the answer is determined to be yes, as the claims as a whole are directed to a manufacture and a method. For Step 2, the preliminary question is whether the eligibility of the claim is self- evident. The answer is determined to be no, as the claim is not immediately self-evident as statutory. Step 2A Prong One : Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? A claim is directed to a judicial exception when a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea is recited (i.e., set forth or described) in the claim. While the terms “set forth” and “describe” are thus both equated with “recite”, their different language is intended to indicate that there are different ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr set forth a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, the claims in Mayo set forth laws of nature in the wherein clause, meaning that the claims in those cases contained discrete claim language that was identifiable as a judicial exception. The claims in Alice Corp., however, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words “intermediated” or “settlement.” Claim 1 (and equivalently in claim 9) recite s the following limitations: “ specification unit that specifies a first resting period in which the acceleration is a constant M or less, and specifies a second resting period that is a period having a starting point at a time point after an end point of the first resting period and in which the acceleration is the constant M or less ” “ calculation unit that calculates at least one of an average value of beat intervals, a variation in beat intervals, a beat number, HF, or LF/HF in the first resting period, and calculates at least one of an average value of beat intervals, a variation in beat intervals, a beat number, HF, or LF/HF in the second resting period” “determination unit that generates a warning signal when a magnitude relationship of at least one of formulae (1) to (5) below is satisfied (for brevity, elements (1) to (5) are not replicated here, but they are further identified as comprising the identified abstract idea. The above identified elements comprise an explicit claim recitation of an abstract idea . T herefore, rather than merely involve a judicial exception, the claims are directed to the identified judicial exception. This claim language is identified as an abstract idea, because in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) III B. this language is similar to concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or are analogous to human mental work. For example, Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Synopsys, the patentee claimed methods of logic circuit design, comprising converting a functional description of a level sensitive latch into a hardware component description of the latch. 839 F.3d at 1140; 120 USPQ2d at 1475. Although the patentee argued that the claims were intended to be used in conjunction with computer-based design tools, the claims did not include any limitations requiring computer implementation of the methods and thus do not involve the use of a computer in any way. 839 F.3d at 1145; 120 USPQ2d at 1478-79. The court therefore concluded that the claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper,” and were directed to a mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit.” 839 F.3d at 1149-50; 120 USPQ2d at 1482-83. In the instant case, the identified abstract idea is similar to Synopsys because the language reads on an individual performing the calf monitoring mentally or with a pencil and paper. They do not require any computer implementation and therefore are directed to a mental process of determining a calf’s health condition through observation of sensor signal and analytical decision-making. Yes. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two : Do es the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? First, the additional elements are identifie d. In claim s 9 , 16 : measurement unit, warning unit for notifying Claim 10 : thermoregulation unit Claim 15: garment The garment device and measurement unit are only nominally tied to the abstract idea and the data acquisition is all performed as pre-solution activity to the abstract idea claimed. Therefore the claimed sensors amount to mere data gathering and considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. The warning unit appear s to be an addition of a general purpose computer post-hoc to an abstract idea and is therefore not considered to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Further, notification of a user is considered equivalent to mere output or display, considered post-solution activity. The thermoregulation unit and the garment are both recited at a high level of generality. The thermoregulation in claim 10, in contrast to claims 1-2, is not positively recited as required to be applied to the calf and therefore only generally links the abstract idea to a technical field. Likewise, the garment, as it is any possible wearable garment only nominally ties the abstract idea to a technical field. The remaining features in the claims are directed to further specifying the intended use but do not impose further limits to the recited system because they are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? The additional elements were identified in the above section under Step 2A Prong Two. The garment device and measurement unit are only nominally tied to the abstract idea and the data acquisition is all performed as pre-solution activity to the abstract idea claimed. Therefore the claimed sensors amount to mere data gathering and considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. The warning unit appears to be an addition of a general purpose computer post-hoc to an abstract idea and is therefore not considered to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. Further, notification of a user is considered equivalent to mere output or display, considered post-solution activity. The thermoregulation unit and the garment are both recited at a high level of generality. The thermoregulation in claim 10, in contrast to claims 1-2, is not positively recited as required to be applied to the calf and therefore only generally links the abstract idea to a technical field. Likewise, the garment, as it is any possible wearable garment only nominally ties the abstract idea to a technical field. The remaining features in the claims are directed to further specifying the intended use but do not impose further limits to the recited system because they are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular field of use or technological environment. 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. 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. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schab et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0223931) hereinafter referred to as Schab ; in view of Hanks et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0333244) hereinafter referred to as Hanks ; in view of Jimenez-Acquarone (U.S. Patent Application publication No. 2010/0198092) hereinafter referred to as Jimenez ; in view of Bruce (U.S. Patent No. 5,140,947) hereinafter referred to as Bruce. Regarding claim 1, Schab teaches a method for managing a health condition of a calf (¶[0068] cattle ) , comprising: measuring beat intervals (¶[0086] heart rate ) and acceleration associated with movement (¶[0069] 3-axis accelerometer) ; specifying a first resting period (¶[0093], resting normal derived from training period prior to use , Fig. 17C, the resting normal, and other normalcy baseline parameters are derived over time ) ; specifying a second resting period that is a period having a starting point at a time point after an end point of the first resting period (¶[0092] while at rest) ; calculating at least one of a value of beat intervals in the first resting period (¶[0093] resting normal heart rate) ; calculating at least one of a value of beat intervals in the second resting period (¶[0093] instant heart rate exceeding the resting normal , ¶[0092] while at rest ) ; issuing a warning for notifying abnormality of a body temperature of the calf when a magnitude relationship of at least one of formulae (1) to (5) below is satisfied (Fig. 4A-4C) ; the value of beat intervals in the first resting period > the average value of beat intervals in the second resting period (¶[0093] heart rate above resting normal heart rate). the beat number in the first resting period < the beat number in the second resting period the variation in beat intervals in the first resting period > the variation in beat intervals in the second resting period the HF in the first resting period > the HF in the second resting period the LF/HF in the first resting period < the LF/HF in the second resting period provided that, each LF is a value obtained by performing definite integration of a power spectrum from frequencies Lf 1 to Lf2, the power spectrum being obtained by including a step of performing frequency spectrum conversion on beat intervals, and each HF is a value obtained by performing definite integration of the power spectrum from frequencies Hf 1 to Hf2, where Hfl > Lfl and Hf2 > Lf2 are satisfied. Note: elements (2)-(5) and the “provided that…” clause which follow, appear to be optional as only one element is required by the claim, and the “provided that…” clause appears to further define features in elements (2)-(5). Schab does not teach resting periods defined by acceleration is a constant M or less , or calculating at least one of average value of beat intervals, a variation in beat intervals, a beat number, HF, or LF/HF , and raising or lowering the body temperature of the calf . Attention is brought to the Hanks reference, which teaches a method for monitoring calves (cows of any age ¶[0045], ¶[0292]), including measuring biometric parameters during resting periods defined by acceleration is a constant M or less (¶¶[0380-0381] threshold acceleration exceeded, the stillness determination is negative, when the threshold acceleration is not exceeded, the stillness determination is affirmative) , and calculating at least one of a variation in beat intervals (¶[0238] heart rate variability). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the monitoring method of Schab to include defined resting periods for biometric information capture, as taught by Hanks, because Hanks teaches that global livestock populations must be carefully managed (Hanks ¶[0002]) and improved monitoring methods of Hanks reduce costs (Hanks ¶¶[0014-0015]). Schab as modified does not teach calculating at least one of average value of beat intervals, a beat number, HF, or LF/HF, and raising or lowering the body temperature of the calf. Attention is brought to the Jimenez reference, which teaches calculating at least one of average value of beat intervals (¶[0158], ¶¶[0173-0174]) , a beat number (¶[0073]) , HF (¶[0125]) , or LF/HF (¶¶[0092-0093]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the monitoring method of Schab as modified to include additional beat interval analysis, as taught by Jimenez, because it is “advantageous to have numerical values of temperament in animal welfare, as this allows stress to be quantified and closely monitored,” (Jimenez ¶[0177]). Schab as modified does not teach raising or lowering the body temperature of the calf . Attention is brought to the Bruce reference, which teaches raising the body temperature of a calf (col. 3, lines 55-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the monitoring method of Schab as modified to include warming the calf, as taught by Bruce, to provide a “warm comfortable environment for a newborn calf…in order to give the animal time to recover from hypothermia or exposure incurred in the moments after birth,” (Bruce col. 3, lines 36-46). Regarding claim 2, Schab as modified teaches t he method for managing a health condition of a calf according to claim 1 . Bruce further teaches wherein the body temperature of the calf is raised by using heating equipment (col. 3, lines 55-62) . Regarding claim 3, Schab as modified teaches t he method for managing a health condition of a calf according to claim 1 . Bruce further teaches wherein the calf is cattle under nine months of age (col. 3, lines 36-46 newborn) . Regarding claim 4, Schab as modified teaches t he method for managing a health condition of a calf according to claim 1. Jimenez further teaches wherein each of the average values of beat intervals is an average value of RRIs each of which is an interval between an R wave and an R wave in an electrocardiographic signal (¶[0158]) . Regarding claim 5, Schab as modified teaches t he method for managing a health condition of a calf according to claim 1. Schab further teaches wherein the beat number in the first resting period and the beat number in the second resting period are each a heart rate or a pulse rate (¶[0086]) . Regarding claim 6, Schab as modified teaches t he method for managing a health condition of a calf according to claim 1. Jimenez further teaches wherein each of the variations in beat intervals is at least one of SDNN (¶[0073]) , RMSSD (¶[0074]) , CVRR, NN50, or pNN50 (¶[0074]) , provided that, the SDNN is a standard deviation of an RRI that is an interval between an R wave and an R wave in an electrocardiographic signal (¶[0073]) , the RMSSD is a square root of an average value of squares of differences between consecutive adjacent RRIs, the CVRR is a value obtained by dividing a value of the SDNN by an average value of RRIs and multiplying the obtained value by 100, the NN50 is a value indicating a total number of times in which differences between the consecutive adjacent RRIs exceed 50 ms, and the pNN50 is a value indicating a ratio of heartbeats in which the differences between the consecutive adjacent RRIs exceed 50 ms. Regarding claim 8, Schab as modified teaches t he method for managing a health condition of a calf according to claim 1. Schab further teaches wherein the beat intervals are measured using a biological information measuring garment (¶[0138]) . Regarding claims 9- 13 and 15/16, the claims are directed to a system and apparatus comprising substantially the same subject matter as claims 1- 5 and 7- 8/1 and are rejected under substantially the same sections of Schab, Hanks, Jimenez, and Bruce . Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schab, Hanks, Jimenez, and Bruce as applied to claim s 1 and 9 above, and further in view of van Hees et al. ( van Hees VT, Gorzelniak L, Dean León EC, Eder M, Pias M, et al. (2013) Separating Movement and Gravity Components in an Acceleration Signal and Implications for the Assessment of Human Daily Physical Activity. PLOS ONE 8(4): e61691 ) hereinafter referred to as Hees. Regarding claim s 6 and 14 , Schab as modified teaches t he method /system for managing a health condition of a calf according to claim 1 /9 . Schab as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the acceleration is expressed by the formula: Acceleration A= x 2 + y 2 + z 2 -1 wherein x, y, and z are X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis acceleration obtained from an accelerometer attached to a body of the calf. Attention is brought to the Hees reference, which teaches wherein body acceleration is expressed by the formula: Acceleration A= x 2 + y 2 + z 2 -1 wherein x, y, and z are X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis acceleration obtained from an accelerometer attached to a body of the calf (this equation is referred to as ENMO throughout Hees, see p. 4, col. 1, under Metrics (i) “the Euclidean norm (vector magnitude) of the three raw signals minus 1, referred to as ENMO; the three raw signals are acceleration components in x, y, and z). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the monitoring method of Schab as modified to include an ENMO activity parameter, as taught by Hees, because Hees teaches that ENMO has higher sensitivity to vertical accelerations and outperforms several other metrics in categorizing activity (Hees, p. 8, col. 2-p. 9, col. 1 discussing results). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0004539 to Ross teaches frequency analysis of HRV in animals to assess autonomic function . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AMANDA L STEINBERG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4783 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 8-4 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT James Kish can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5554 . 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. /AMANDA L STEINBERG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792