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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 10: “the sensor” should read –the at least one sensor—for clarity.
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 1-16, 18-19, 22-39, and 42 are 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.
Claims 1, 26, 36, and 42, as amended, recite a sensor configured to remain in contact with the animal when the tag is rotated or inclined relative the animal. This limitation appears to constitute new matter. The disclosure provides support for the sensor remaining in contact as it is rotated (Pg 16, line 7), but the specification does not appear to support, through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure, that the claim that the sensor is configured to remain in contact with the animal as the tag is inclined relative the animal (see MPEP 2163.04-2163.05).
Support for the amended limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported (MPEP 714.02; MPEP 2163.04).
The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of dependence on claims 1, 26, 36, and 42.
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 18-19, 26-39, and 42 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.
Claim 18 recites “the connector is a male pin type connector adapted to resiliently pass through the connection feature during assembly and inhibit the male pin type connector from being pulled back through.” It is unclear how the male pin type connector could inhibit itself from being pulled back through the center orifice. Perhaps the applicant meant to say that the connection feature is configured to inhibit the male pin type connector from being pulled back through?
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the sensor is configured to facilitate contact of the at least one sensor with the animal” in lines 12-13. This limitation is unclear, particularly in regard to antecedent basis. Previously, claim 26 introduces “each of the plurality of tags having a sensor” (line 2- this sensor defining the raised generally circular disc shape); “each of the plurality of tags having a set of sensors” (line 11 – presumably could include the sensor singular recited in line 2); and “the set of sensors having at least one sensor” (line 12). When the applicant then recites that “the sensor is configured to facilitate contact of the at least one sensor with the animal” it is therefore unclear what sensor is being referred to when the applicant recites “the sensor.” Further, more generally, it is unclear how the sensor, whichever one it is, is further limited by the recitation that it is configured to facilitate contact of the at least one sensor with the animal; it would seem as though any sensor would be configured to facilitate contact of itself with the animal inherently, and would therefore fulfill the limitation. This lack of clarity is also present in claim 36.
Claim 42 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16, 18-19, 22-39, and 42 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record is Brandao (US 2019/0090754, as cited on previous 892) which teaches a tag with a sensor positioned proximate a female (center orifice) connection feature, and what may be considered a circular contact area surrounding the connection feature. However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of the applicant' s claimed invention. Specifically, although Brandao discloses a general disc-shaped area on the back of the tag which could be said to facilitate contact of the sensor with the animal’s ear, the disc-shaped area is a portion of the back panel of the housing, is not raised, and could not reasonably be considered a structural and functional component of the sensor itself under plain meaning, given there is no indication that, outside of at a single, non-disc shaped/connector-surrounding point (radiused projection 420, Fig 26B), the disc-shaped area facilitates sensing function. Generally, although there is art, as Brandao, with sensors having a sensing point adjacent to the tag connector, and there is art with non-sensing, raised, disc-shaped elements around the tag connector (e.g. Decaluwe - US 9038293 – as cited on previous 892), the examiner has failed to uncover a tag with a sensor having a raised generally circular disc-shape that extends outward from a back surface of the tag and which has a center orifice through which a male pin-type connector passes in securing the tag, the sensor thereby surrounding the connector, in combination with the other claimed limitations.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowability or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowability are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all pending claims 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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 on 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.
/B.V.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights