Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention II in the reply filed on 1/6/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 12-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
The phrase “the materials storage container” in claim 1 lacks antecedent basis.
The metes and bounds of the term “favorable” in claim 15 are unclear.
The phrase “the current time” in claim 15 lacks antecedent basis.
The metes and bounds of “evaluation of environmental conditions” in claim 16 are unclear.
Claims 17-18 recite antecedent basis issues.
The phrase “the information supplied by an operator” in claim 19 lacks antecedent basis
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaags US20030070622 in view of Pellerin US5505160.
Regarding claim 12, Vaags teaches a method of distributing materials to animals comprising the steps of:
a cable mounted transport mechanism (figure 14 with a tensioned cable described in paragraph 0085),
accessing information about at least one position from which materials should be dispensed (figures 10 and 12), sensing and monitoring the amount of materials in the materials storage container attached to the cable mounted transport mechanism (figures 10-13),
moving the cable mounted transport mechanism to such at least one position prescribed by the information accessed (figures 10-13), and
dispensing materials from the materials storage container at such at least one position based upon the information regarding the location of such at least one position for dispensing, and the amount of materials then in the materials storage container (figures 10-13);
but does not specify the cable mounted transport mechanism receiving information regarding the timing for dispensing.
Pellerin; however, does teach timing/timer operations in an controller (column 4 lines 49-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a timer/timing operation, in order to meet specific timing requirements.
Regarding claim 13, the references teach the method of claim 12 wherein Vaags further teaches the dispensing of the materials in the dispensing position is a 360-degree spread area under the cable mounted transport mechanism (120 of figure 14) and wherein the movement of the cable mounted transport mechanism, controlled in part by information provided by sensors, is along at least one cable suspended over at least one dispensing position and the cable mounted transport mechanism moves over to and from such at least one dispensing position so that materials can be dispensed (as described in the claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 14, the references teach the method of claim 13 wherein when the dispensing is completed in a specific dispensing position, with the method further comprising a step of moving the cable mounted transport mechanism to the next dispensing position and then repeating the dispensing process and further comprising the steps of returning the cable mounted transport mechanism to a launch point for system storage and refilling, thus removing the need to bring materials distinctly to such at least one dispensing position (figures 1A-1B and 10-13).
Regarding claim 15, the references teach the method of claim of 12 but do not specify wherein preferred dispensing times are used as part of receiving step, the current time is tracked against desired dispensing times and conditions and, when dispensing time has arrived, and if weather conditions are favorable, dispensing cycle is commenced.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, for an operator to only operate the system during favorable weather conditions, in order to avoid wasting materials.
Regarding claim 16, the references teach the method of claim of 12 wherein the amount of materials to be dispensed is determined by a check of the amount required to for the dispensing cycle (see previous rejections), but do not specify as well as an evaluation of environmental conditions which could have an adverse effect on the material to be dispensed.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, for an operator to evaluate environmental conditions, in order to avoid wasting materials.
Regarding claim 17, the references teach the method of claim of 12 wherein information supplied about the dispensing location establishes the desired position for a material dispenser within the travel area of a cable mounted transport mechanism (see previous rejections); but do not specify using GPS positioning, with the desired position being relative to the geometry of the dispensing and surrounding area.
However, GPS systems are generally well known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize a GPS system, in order to meet design preferences; since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 18, the references teach the method of claim of 12 wherein the dispenser is movable to at least one desired location for dispensing (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 19, the references teach the method of claim of 12 wherein dispensing of the applicable material begins according to the information supplied by an operator (Vaags’ paragraph 0049), with the material capable of being spread until such time as target conditions for stopping the operation are met (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 20, the references teach the method of claim 12 wherein Vaags further teaches the materials are food and the animals are fish (paragraph 0084).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644