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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-20 are 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear what applicant considers “type of activity from one activity to another activity”, especially in view of applicant’s Remarks and disclosure. Applicant argues, on pages 3-5 of the Remarks, that Rajkondawar does not teach that the switch counts indicate a type of one activity to another activity, stating that the described “turn count 158” of “sign change count 160” corresponds to a “switch between walking and walking.” However, applicant’s claim 9 and disclosure at page 2, lines 1-19 of the specification recites that “wherein the at least two potential indications for a type of activity include one or more of an indication of activity of the mammal taken from the group consisting of… lying on its left side, lying on its right side… and changing lying position from left to right or vice versa”, which explicitly recognizes that changing sides are considered separate activities despite both involving the same behavior. Applicant further states, in the Remarks submitted on 01/02/2026, that the listed example of an animal lying on its left side vs. lying on its right side is considered a switch count because the animal must either stand up or roll on its back to lie down on either side. However, the same can be said in the example of changing directions while walking, as the animal will necessarily reorient their body in a different direction (i.e., spinning its body to change direction).
Independent claims 15 and 16 are also indefinite for the same reasons. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter in view of applicant’s disclosure.
In view of the rejections above under 35 USC § 112, the claims referred to in any and all rejections below are rejected as best understood. Claims 2-14 and 17-20, depending rejected claim 1, are rejected the same.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 8-11, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rajkondawar et al. (US 20120238912 A1), hereafter referred to as “Rajkondawar.”
Regarding claim 1, Rajkondawar discloses a method for estrus detection of a mammal (abstract), the method comprising:
obtaining activity data indicative for a type of activity as a function of time for an activity of the mammal, wherein an indicated type of activity is selected from at least two potential indications for a type of activity (e.g., paragraph [0032] disclosing 130, which corresponds to whether or not an animal makes a turn and paragraph [0036], disclosing 160, which corresponds to an animal changing direction when walking; see also paragraph [0090]);
determining one or more activity switch counts indicative for a number of switches in indicated type of activity from one activity to another activity during an evaluation time interval of a predetermined duration (paragraphs [0032] and [0036]);
computing respective relative activity switch scores for the activity switch counts (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]); and
determining whether the mammal is in estrus based on the respective relative activity switch scores (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Rajkondawar discloses the method according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the mammal is a mammal type taken from the group consisting of: cattle and buffalo (paragraph [0011]).
Regarding claim 8, Rajkondawar discloses the method according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least two potential indications for a type of activity include an indication of the absence of an activity and an indication of a presence of an activity. (i.e., indication of a turn and indication that a turn has not been made, paragraph [0032] or indication of a change in direction and indication that a change in direction has not been made, paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 9, Rajkondawar discloses the method according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the at least two potential indications for a type of activity include one or more of an indication of activity of the mammal taken from the group consisting of: eating, drinking, grooming, panting, perching, licking, grazing, sleeping, resting, ruminating, being inactive, lying on its left side, lying on its right side, standing, walking, standing up, lying down, and changing lying position from left to right or vice versa (paragraph [0090], teaching eating, drinking, standing, walking, and lying down).
Regarding claim 10, Rajkondawar discloses the method according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein activity data is obtained using one or more motion detectors carried by the mammal (paragraphs [0011] and [0015] and claims 2-3 disclosing tags carried by each animal).
Regarding claim 11, Rajkondawar discloses the method according to claim 10, and further discloses wherein the one or more motion detectors (paragraphs [0011] and [0015]) are incorporated in one or more structures carried by the mammal taken from the group consisting of: an ear tag (paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claim 15, Rajkondawar discloses a system for estrus detection of a mammal (abstract and figs. 1-3), the system comprising:
first system elements (paragraphs [0011] and [0015] including elements 114 and tags associated with each animal) configured to obtain activity data indicative for a type of activity as a function of time for an activity of the mammal (paragraphs [0032], [0036], and [0090]), wherein an indicated type of activity is selected from at least two potential indications for a type of activity (e.g., paragraph [0032] disclosing 130, which corresponds to whether or not an animal makes a turn and paragraph [0036], disclosing 160, which corresponds to an animal changing direction when walking; see also paragraph [0090]);
second system elements (including element 122) configured to determine one or more activity switch counts indicative for a number of switches in indicated type of said activity from one activity to another activity during an evaluation time interval of a predetermined duration (paragraphs [0018] and [0032]);
third system elements (including element 124) configured to compute respective relative activity switch scores for the activity switch counts (paragraphs [0018] and [0059]-[0060]); and
fourth system elements (including element 124) configured to determine whether the mammal is in estrus based on the respective activity switch scores (paragraphs [0018] and [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 16, Rajkondawar discloses a non-volatile computer-readable medium (120; paragraph [0017]) comprising a computer program including instructions that cause a general purpose computer to perform a method for estrus detection of a mammal, the method including the following operations (paragraph [0018]):
obtaining activity data indicative for a type of activity as a function of time for an activity of the mammal, wherein an indicated type of activity is selected from at least two potential indications for a type of activity (e.g., paragraph [0032] disclosing 130, which corresponds to whether or not an animal makes a turn and paragraph [0036], disclosing 160, which corresponds to an animal changing direction when walking; see also paragraph [0090]);
determining one or more activity switch counts indicative for a number of switches in indicated type of activity from one activity to another activity during an evaluation time interval of a predetermined duration (paragraphs [0032] and [0036]);
computing respective relative activity switch scores for the activity switch counts (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]); and
determining whether the mammal is in estrus based on the respective relative activity switch scores (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
Regarding claim 17, Rajkondawar discloses the method according to claim 1, and further discloses wherein the respective relative activity switch score of an activity switch count indicates how the activity switch count relates to at least one estimated overall distribution of the activity switch counts (paragraphs [0059]-[0060]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajkondawar as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Chang (KR 102106265 B1), hereafter referred to as “Chang.”
Regarding claim 2, Rajkondawar teaches the method according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the respective relative activity switch score of the activity switch count is a percentage of the active switch count relative to a predefined value (paragraph [0060]), but does not explicitly teach that the respective relative activity switch score of an activity switch count is a percentage of the active switch count relative to a total count of switches.
Chang teaches a method (see attached machine translation, paragraph [0001]) where a respective relative activity score of an activity count is a percentage of the active count relative to a total activity count (machine translation, paragraphs [0019]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rajkondawar such that the respective relative activity switch score of the activity switch count is a percentage of the active switch count relative to a total count of switches, as taught by Chang, in order to provide a score that accounts for the holistic behavior of an animal rather than a single behavior of the animal.
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of Rajkondawar as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 2, further teaches wherein the respective relative activity switch score of an activity switch count indicates how the percentage of the active switch count relative to a total count of switches (see analysis of claim 2 above) relates to at least one estimated overall distribution of the percentage (machine translation of Chang at paragraphs [0019]-[0020] teaching using estimated percentile values as boundary values).
Regarding claim 5, Rajkondawar as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 3, Chang further teaches wherein the at least one estimated overall distribution comprises a first distribution obtained for respective mutually non-overlapping time intervals of the predetermined duration in a first period of time (machine translation, paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, Rajkondawar as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 5, and further teaches wherein the second period of time starts not more than 30 days before the predetermined time interval (the combination of Rajkondawar and Chang teaches each and every element of claim 5, as Chang teaches a first distribution obtained for respective mutually non-overlapping time intervals of the predetermined duration in a first period of time (machine translation, paragraph [0052]). Claims 5-7 do not actually require the second distribution with the second period of time).
Regarding claim 7, Rajkondawar as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 5, and further teaches wherein a length of the second period of time is at least five times shorter than a length of the first period of time (the combination of Rajkondawar and Chang teaches each and every element of claim 5, as Chang teaches a first distribution obtained for respective mutually non-overlapping time intervals of the predetermined duration in a first period of time (machine translation, paragraph [0052]). Claims 5-7 do not actually require the second distribution with the second period of time).
Regarding claim 18, Rajkondawar teaches the method according to claim 17, but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one estimated overall distribution comprises one or more of the group consisting of:
a first distribution obtained for respective mutually non-overlapping time intervals of the predetermined duration in a first period of time, and
a second distribution of activity switch scores obtained for respective mutually non- overlapping time intervals of the predetermined duration in a second period of time which is shorter than the first period of time.
Chang teaches a method (see attached machine translation, paragraph [0001]) where the at least one estimated overall distribution comprises a first distribution obtained for respective mutually non-overlapping time intervals of the predetermined duration in a first period of time (machine translation, paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rajkondawar such that the at least one estimated overall distribution includes a first distribution obtained for respective mutually non-overlapping time intervals of the predetermined duration in a first period of time, as taught by Chang, in order to provide an improved ability to monitor deviations in the tracked animal behaviors to better determine if the fluctuations are indicative of the animal in a state of estrus.
Regarding claim 19, Rajkondawar as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 18, but does not explicitly teach wherein the second period of time starts not more than 30 days before the predetermined time interval.
It is well settled, however, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the
prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
(MPEP 2144, citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)). In this
case, applicant has not shown patentable significance of the second period of time starting not more than 30 days before the predetermined time interval (see, e.g., pg. 4 of applicant’s specification). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rajkondawar as modified by Chang such that the second period of time starts not more than 30 days before the predetermined time interval, in order to provide a more accurate model by providing more recent data.
Regarding claim 20, Rajkondawar as modified by Chang teaches the method according to claim 19, and further teaches wherein a length of the second period of time is at least five times shorter than a length of the first period of time (the combination of Rajkondawar and Chang teaches each and every element of claim 5, as Chang teaches a first distribution obtained for respective mutually non-overlapping time intervals of the predetermined duration in a first period of time (machine translation, paragraph [0052]). Claims 5-7 do not actually require the second distribution with the second period of time).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajkondawar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kang (KR 102117092 B1), hereafter referred to as “Kang.”
Regarding claim 12, Rajkondawar teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the determining that the mammal is in estrus on the basis of the activity switch scores is performed using a trained machine learning model.
Kang teaches a method (see attached machine translation, paragraph [0002]) where the determining that the mammal is in estrus on the basis of the activity switch scores is performed using a trained machine learning model (machine translation, paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rajkondawar such that determining that the mammal is in estrus on the basis of the activity switch scores is performed using a trained machine learning model, as taught by Kang, in order to further improve the accuracy of detecting the estrus period of cattle (Kang, machine translation at paragraph [0047]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajkondawar in view of Kang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mottram (US 20190082659 A1), hereafter referred to as “Mottram.”
Regarding claim 13, Rajkondawar as modified by Kang teaches the method according to claim 12, and Kang further teaches training the trained machine learning model using a plurality of sample data pairs obtained for mutually different sample time intervals (machine translation, paragraphs [0052], [0060]-[0066]), wherein each sample data pair for a sample time interval includes:
a respective set of activity switch scores obtained for the sample time interval (machine translation, paragraph [0060]-[0066]), but does not explicitly teach:
a hormone concentration value obtained by measurement of a concentration of a hormone associated with an estrus state of the mammal in milk or blood delivered by the mammal during
Mottram teaches a method for estrus detection of a mammal (abstract, paragraph [0006]) including a hormone concentration value obtained by measurement of a concentration of a hormone associated with an estrus state of the mammal in milk or blood delivered by the mammal during the sample time interval (claim 13, paragraphs [0002]-[0003], [0005], [0020]-[0021], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rajkondawar as modified by Kang to include a hormone concentration value obtained by measurement of a concentration of a hormone associated with an estrus state of the mammal in milk or blood delivered by the mammal during.
Claim 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajkondawar in view of Kang as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Giovanini et al. (WO 2018109725 A1), hereafter referred to as “Giovanini” (copy provided by applicant on 7/12/2023).
Regarding claim 14, Rajkondawar as modified by Kang teaches the method according to claim 12, but does not explicitly teach wherein the machine learning model comprises a model type taken from the group consisting of: an XGBoost classifier, a Gradient Boost classifier, a naive Bayes classifier, a support vector machine, and a decision tree classifier.
Giovanini teaches a method for estrus detection of a mammal (abstract) including a machine learning model with a model type of either a support vector machine or a decision tree classifier (page 20, last paragraph, to page 21, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Rajkondawar as modified by Kang such that the machine learning model has a model type of a support vector machine or a decision tree classifier, as taught by Giovanini, in order to better distinguish changes of behavior and decrease the number of false alarms (Giovanini, page 20, last paragraph, to page 21, paragraph 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rajkondawar does not disclose “one or more activity switch counts indicative for a number of switches in indicated type of activity from one activity to another activity during an evaluation time interval of a predetermined duration”. Specifically, applicant argues that Rajkondawar does not teach that the switch counts indicate a type of one activity to another activity, stating that the described “turn count 158” of “sign change count 160” corresponds to a “switch between walking and walking.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s claim 9 recites that “wherein the at least two potential indications for a type of activity include one or more of an indication of activity of the mammal taken from the group consisting of… lying on its left side, lying on its right side… and changing lying position from left to right or vice versa” (see also disclosure at page 2, lines 1-19 of the specification). Since the disclosure explicitly recognizes lying on different sides or changing sides as separate activities despite both involving the same behavior, the same reasoning would apply to walking.
Rajkondawar monitors various activities (paragraph [0090]) including monitoring turn counts and switch counts (paragraphs [0032] and [0036]), which include at least two potential indications for the type of activity as a function of time (e.g., movement in one direction, movement in a different direction, or a lack of movement at discrete times) that determines at least one switch count indicative for a number of switches of the given activity (in this example, the switch is counted when the direction of movement is changed; paragraphs [0032] and [0036]).
Applicant argues that:
“Applicant’s disclosure (and current claims) is directed to observing a frequency of activity type switches, i.e. the number times an animal switches from one type of activity to another type of activity in a given observation period.”
“Thus, in contrast to Applicant’s claimed invention, now clarified as being directed to observing/counting switches in a type of activity as a function of time, Rajkondawar unequivocally describes counting instances of an observable activity (changes in direction).”
Applicant appears to state that there is a distinction between “observing a frequency of activity type switches” and “observable activity”. However, it is unclear to the examiner how “observing a frequency of activity type switches” (e.g., observing when an animal moves from lying on one side to the other) distinguishes from Rajkondawar’s teaching of an “observable activity” (i.e., observing when an animal switches from walking in one direction to another). Applicant states that Rajkondawar’s teachings unequivocally describes counting instances of an observable activity, but the same can be said about observing a frequency of counting instances of changed lying positions. Applicant, in response to the examiner’s Response to Arguments, states that claim 1 does not actually recite “observable activity.” This is true. However, this statement was to highlight that the instant invention also relies on observable activity, which contradicts the distinction made.
Applicant argues throughout the Remarks that Rajkondawar would not be capable of detecting “silent estrus”.
The examiner notes that the preambles are directed to a method and system for estrus detection of a mammal, and does not recite “silent estrus” anywhere in the entire claim set. It is also noted that Rajkondawar clearly teaches a method for detecting silent estrus.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Byun whose telephone number is (571) 272-3212. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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. Agendas may be sent to HaeRie.Byun@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached on (571) 272-6891. 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.
/H.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/MARISA V CONLON/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights