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 .
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on December 19th, 2025, amended claim 1 and new claim 6 are entered. Claim 3 is canceled. Claims 1-2 and 4-6 are currently under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered. The objection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 4-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “The housing for a livestock sensor according to claim 1,” in line 1, but should read “The housing for the livestock sensor according to claim 1,” or “The housing according to claim 1,”
Claim 4 recites “The housing for a livestock sensor according to claim 1,” in line 1, but should read “The housing for the livestock sensor according to claim 1,” or “The housing according to claim 1,”
Claim 5 recites “the housing for a livestock sensor according to claim 1;” in line 2, but should read “the housing for the livestock sensor according to claim 1;” or “the housing according to claim 1;”
Claim 6 recites “The housing for a livestock sensor according to claim 1,” in line 1, but should read “The housing for the livestock sensor according to claim 1,” or “The housing according to claim 1,”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 6 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 5 recites “A livestock sensor” in line 1. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “a livestock sensor” from Claim 1, or a separate element. Claim 5 further recites “a livestock sensor according to claim 1” in line 2. Although this limitation is clearly referring to the “livestock sensor” of claim 1, it is still unclear as to whether the “A livestock sensor” in line 1 of Claim 5 and the “a livestock sensor” in line 2 of Claim 5 are referring to the same or separate elements. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret these limitations as referring to the same element.
Claim 6 recites “an entire external metal surface” in lines 2-3. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “an external metal surface” from Claim 1, or a separate element. Claim 6 further recites “the external metal surface” in line 3. It is unclear as to whether this limitation is referring to the previously introduced “an entire external metal surface” from lines 2-3 of Claim 6, or “an external metal surface” from Claim 1. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret all three of these limitations to be referring to the same external metal surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Laporte Uribe (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0353710; cited by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 1, Laporte Uribe discloses a housing for a livestock sensor (apparatus for monitoring nutrition; Abstract), the housing comprising: a metal housing (encasement 11) including an external metal surface (First communication unit 4, battery 9, control unit 8 and sensing unit 2 are covered by an encasement 11 made from stainless steel; [0096]) covered with a thermoplastic resin, wherein the thermoplastic resin is a fluororesin (a membrane comprising polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE)…preferably, the membrane is shaped such that the shape of the whole apparatus is smoothed, in particular in the edge regions to allow an easier oral application; [0051]; Measurement chamber 3 and reflecting surface 5 are encased by a PTFE membrane 6; [0095]; Examiner’s Note: Figure 1 shows wherein the stainless steel encasement 11 is covered with the PTFE membrane 6).
Regarding Claim 4, Laporte Uribe discloses wherein the thermoplastic resin includes at least one selected from the group consisting of polytetrafluoroethylene, a tetrafluoroethylene/perfluoro(alkyl vinyl ether) copolymer, a tetrafluoroethylene/hexafluoropropylene copolymer, an ethylene/ tetrafluoroethylene copolymer, polychlorotrifluoroethylene, a tetrafluoroethylene/perfluoroalkyl allyl ether copolymer, and polyvinylidene fluoride (a membrane comprising polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE); [0051]; Measurement chamber 3 and reflecting surface 5 are encased by a PTFE membrane 6; [0095]).
Regarding Claim 5, Laporte Uribe discloses a livestock sensor comprising: the housing for a livestock sensor according to claim 1 (encasement 11; PTFE membrane 6; [0095-0096]; Figure 1); and a detector (sensing unit 2) inside the housing (First communication unit 4, battery 9, control unit 8 and sensing unit 2 are covered by an encasement 11 made from stainless steel to take care of possible corrosion problems; [0096]; Examiner’s Note: Figure 1 shows wherein sensing unit 2 is inside encasement 11).
Regarding Claim 6, Laporte Uribe discloses wherein the thermoplastic resin covers, out of 100% (area %) of an entire external metal surface, 95% or higher of the external metal surface ([0095-0096]; Examiner’s Note: Figure 1 shows wherein the stainless steel encasement 11 is 100% covered with the PTFE membrane 6).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte Uribe in view of Stanley, II (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0167340).
Regarding Claim 2, although Laporte Uribe discloses wherein the metal housing (encasement 11; [0096]) is covered with the thermoplastic resin (PTFE membrane 6; [0095]; Figure 1), Laporte Uribe fails to specifically disclose wherein the metal housing is covered with a heat-shrink tube containing the thermoplastic resin.
In a similar technical field, Stanley, II discloses an electrode comprising a metal housing including an external metal surface (The electrode member 110 is formed of an electrically conductive material or materials. In some embodiments, the electrode member 110 is formed of metal; [0065]), wherein the metal housing is covered with a heat-shrink tube containing the thermoplastic resin (The insulation sleeve 102 is formed of an electrically insulating material or materials. The insulation sleeve 102 may be a preformed component or a coating. In some embodiments, the insulation sleeve 102 is formed of a polymeric insulating material. Suitable materials may include heat shrinkable thermoplastic; [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the heat-shrink tube teachings of Stanley, II into those of Laporte Uribe in order to provide proper insulation and prevent any inadvertent burning (Stanley, II [0066]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights