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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant's amendment filed on 1/24/26. Claims 11-14 are new. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps recognizing an animal image, determining a parameter value relating to first pixels of a torso of the animal in said taken images as a time-dependent parametric function, wherein said parameter value comprises a width value of the torso, detecting contractions when said parameter value meets a predetermined contraction criterion and generating calving information which comprises an indicator of the contractions detected.
The limitation of recognizing an animal image, determining a parameter from the pixel of said image, detecting contractions and generating calving information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a camera device”; “a control unit”; and an alert device (all of which include or involve generic computer components), the claims are direct to concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or analogous to human mental work and nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the control unit. “determine” “detect”, “generate” and “recognize” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assessing an image and making some calculations or mental determinations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the camera for obtaining images. The camera involves mere data gathering and amount to insignificant extra-solutional activity, specifically pre-solutional activity. Additionally, the control unit and alert device are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-14 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. It is unclear in claim 1 if the width and the height are the parameter values meeting the predetermined criteria as only the width is claimed as being measured. Is it width and height of the signal or peaks or is it the width and height of the measured torso?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Groot et al. US 2018/0228587.
Regarding claim 1, De Groot discloses a calving monitoring system for monitoring an animal at an end of an expected gestation period ([FIG1]), comprising:
a camera device for repeatedly taking images of the animal over a predetermined time duration, said images being composed of pixels ([¶52] camera system 2),
a controller for the calving monitoring system, connected to the camera device, which is configured to generate calving information from the images taken ([¶52] processing device 3), and
alert circuitry for sending an alert message according to the calving information generated ([¶88] a warning is sent to the farmer),
wherein the control unit is configured so as, in each image taken,
to recognize an animal image ([¶75]),
to determine a parameter value relating to first pixels of a torso of the animal in said taken images as a time-dependent parametric function, wherein said parameter value comprises a width value of the torso related to the width of a torso measured between two of the first pixels ([¶27] the parameter is tracked over time. [¶11,13,17,18] contractions and the width can be measured), and
to detect contractions when said parameter value meets a predetermined contraction criterion, the criterion being that the parameter value exhibits at least two peaks in said predetermined time duration which have at least a predetermined minimum width and/or a predetermined minimum height ([¶68-72] the frequency of the width and volume changes indicate contractions and labor and one of ordinary skill in the art would monitor for peak changes closer together in time),
wherein the control unit generates calving information which comprises an indicator of the contractions detected ([¶31] calving determinations are made and the warning signals or message are sent).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, De Groot discloses said first pixels are all in a part of the torso located at a rearmost end of the animal image ([FIG2,3] the images are of the pelvis area).
Regarding claim 3, De Groot discloses the control unit is configured to determine a longitudinal direction of the torso, and to determine the width value as equal, or proportional, to a width measured transverse to the longitudinal direction ([¶71] the width parameter is transverse to the length or longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 6, De Groot discloses the alert device is configured to send a calving phase warning if a frequency of the contractions detected and/or a total cumulative time duration of the contractions detected, in each case over at least an immediately preceding, predetermined observation period, reaches or exceeds a predetermined frequency threshold or first time threshold, respectively ([¶68-72] the frequency of the width and volume changes indicate contractions and labor so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look for peak changes closer together in time).
Regarding claim 7, De Groot discloses the alert device is configured to send a calving difficulty warning if the time duration over which the control unit detects contractions reaches a predetermined threshold calving duration ([¶33]).
Regarding claim 11, De Groot discloses the controller is configured to cause the alert device to send the alert message via, an SMS, push, email message, or a sound signal ([¶34] alert can be audible, a light or a message to mobile device).
Regarding claim 12, De Groot discloses the controller comprises an image processor ([¶56]).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Groot in view of Hayes-Gill et al. US 2012/0150010.
Regarding claim 4 and 9, De Groot does not specifically disclose the width value is a normalized width value. Normalizing is a common practice in signal processing. Additionally, Hayes-Gill teaches a labor tracking device that also normalizes its signal ([¶108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of De Groot with the teachings of Hayes-Gill as normalizing is well known technique that provides the predictable result of scaling the data ([¶108]).
Regarding claim 5 and 10, De Groot does not disclose fitting a periodic function. Hayes-Gill teaches a similar device that carry out an analysis of said parametric function, comprising fitting a periodic function with a period p to said parametric function, determine at least one fit parameter value of a fit parameter and the correlation between the fitted function and the parametric function, and to correct the number of contractions detected according to said at least one fit parameter value ([¶108] the fitting is used to correct the signal in that it ensures a better correlation and range for comparison to standards). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of De Groot with the teachings of Hayes-Gill in order to have a better signal for comparison to population standards ([¶108]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Groot in view of Lee US 2014/0029808.
Regarding claim 13, De Groot discloses using an ASUS Xtion Pro live camera ([¶53]) which takes 2D images with an infrared depth measurement but does not specifically disclose the camera device is a 2D camera. Lee teaches a similar animal monitoring device that can use 3D or 2D cameras ([¶37]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of De Groot with the 2D camera of Lee as it is no more than the simple substitution of one known element for another to arrive at the predictable result of collecting image data. Similarly, Lee teaches the interchangeability of 3D cameras and 2D cameras like CMOS and CCD sensors ([¶37]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Groot.
Regarding claim 14, De Groot discloses the animal is a dairy animal ([¶abstract]) and monitoring the frequency of contractions ([¶69,71]) but does not specifically disclose the predetermined time duration between peaks/contractions is from 10 to 20 seconds. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify De Groot to include the specific interval since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of determining the width of the torso and determine peaks in the width or height can be performed by the human mind. The only part that cannot be practically performed in the mind is the imaging and the determination of the pixels. A person could easily determine the width that is shown in the image. If the width is a measure of actual pixels between the first pixels then this merely data gathering and the determination of the of changes and calving information can be determined mentally. Similarly, determining the longitudinal direction can be determined by visually assessing the image.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 102/103 rejections, Examiner respectfully disagrees. De Groot discloses measuring the distances from the center point to the image pixels on the outer portion of the body. The distance being equivalent to a radius but De Groot also sums the distances to determine a change in volume. De Groot does not specifically state a width but determining width based either on the radius or volume is basic arithmetic. Similarly, the claim language only recites a width value is determined which is not necessarily the same as the width. The claim specifically recites “a width value of the torso related to a width of the torso measured between two of the first pixels” which under a broadest reasonable interpretation is not the actual width but some parameter related to the width and De Groot discloses this feature. Additionally, as Applicant has noted, De Groot in ¶72 specifically discloses using any other variable related to the distance of the pixels which would include width or diameter measurements. A proper reading of a prior art reference must “Take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that De Groot is determining the distance of many pixels as opposed to the current application which uses a simpler calculation, Examiner respectfully disagrees. This argument is not pertinent to whether De Groot teaches the recited claim language. While the current device may provide an improvement by using less computing power this is not discernable from the claim language as it is now.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Song US 2022/0217950.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Claim 10 does not have art applied. The closest prior art does not specifically disclose that the fit parameter is the difference between the fitted function and the parametric function.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791