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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/5/26 has been entered.
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 if the minimum width is a minimum value of the width measurement or a minimum of the peak. ¶12 seems to recite that it could be a minimum of width as a function of time or an absolute value so it is not clear which is used.
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 for each image taken,
to recognize an animal in an image of the taken images ([¶75]),
to determine a parameter value from first pixels of a torso of the animal in said taken images as a time-dependent parametric function, wherein said parameter value includes at least a width value of the torso representing the width of a torso determined from 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 automatically detect contractions ([¶7,20] the device is used to automatically determine calving) when said parameter value including the width value meets a predetermined contraction criterion, the criterion being that the parameter value including the width exhibits at least two peaks in said predetermined time duration which have at least a predetermined minimum width ([¶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 is further configured to generate 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 circuitry 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, see pgs. 7-12, filed 6/24/26, with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 102/103 rejections, Examiner respectfully disagrees. De Groot specifically discloses in ¶1,7 that the purpose of the device is to automatically detect calving. Similarly, De Groot automatically in that it is monitoring the width from the image. If there are specifics as to the use of the detection or a difference in the determinations that is not clear from the claim language. It is also noted that automating a process that is normally performed manually and accomplishes the same result does not necessarily distinguish over the prior art. De Groot also discloses peaks of a predetermined minimum width over a period of time as the pin length is measured which is a width measurement and an increase in that over the period of a day is indicative of contractions and calving, see ¶20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Song US 2022/0217950.
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 CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights