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 August 7th, 2026, amended claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are entered. Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 1-2, 4, and 6 are currently under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered. The objections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered. The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, filed on August 7th, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 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 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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte Uribe (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0353710; cited by Applicant) and Rettedal (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0289820).
Regarding Claim 1, Laporte Uribe discloses a livestock sensor (apparatus for monitoring nutrition; Abstract), comprising:
a housing (encasement 11); 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. The sensing unit 2 comprises a temperature sensor 10; [0096-0097]),
wherein the housing comprises a metal housing 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).
Laporte Uribe fails to specifically teach wherein the detector includes a piezoelectric sensor, an acceleration sensor, or a position sensor.
In a similar technical field, Rettedal discloses an animal environmental and physiological monitoring system (Abstract), wherein the detector includes a piezoelectric sensor, an acceleration sensor, or a position sensor (at least one bolus sensor (18) suitable for use in particular embodiments include: a global positioning chip (29) for example PN XPOSYS PMB 2540 distributed by Infineon Technologies AG, an omnidirectional tilt and vibration sensor (30) (also referred to as an “accelerometer”); [0075]).
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 bolus sensor teachings of Rettedal into those of Laporte Uribe in order to sense movement of the bolus to sense changes in one or more physiological parameters of the animal (Rettedal [0101]).
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 6, Laporte Uribe discloses wherein the thermoplastic resin covers, out of 100% (area %) of the 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laporte Uribe and Rettedal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stanley, II (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0167340; previously cited).
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 and Rettedal fail 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 and Rettedal in order to provide proper insulation and prevent any inadvertent burning (Stanley, II [0066]).
Conclusion
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.
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