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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/2/2016 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.
Claim 1 is 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 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of environmental parameters" in line 2 of page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the sense that the “correlate” limitation initially refers within the step “at least one said environmental parameter”. Although claim 1 in lines 11-12 on page 2, states “detect, by controlling the plurality of sensor devices, a plurality of environmental parameters of a poultry farm”. The claim presents indefiniteness issue because if it intended to work within the “correlate” limitation, the language is inconsistent due to antecedent basis, and vice versa, if it was intended to work with the “detect” limitation, the claim limitations present different contradictions. Further clarification is needed.
Additionally, the phrasing “and/or” used twice in the “correlate” limitation for the correlation input and the result clause renders the claim indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty which of the many distinct operational configurations is claimed. Configuration A: Correlate environmental parameters only (no environmental features from images), Configuration B: Correlate environmental features only (no sensor-measured parameters) and Configuration C: Correlate both environmental parameters and environmental features. Therefore, the claim is internally inconsistent and its metes and bounds cannot be ascertained with reasonable certainty. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898 (2014).
Examiner suggests the best amendment to claim 1 is to remove inconsistencies and vagueness to overcome the 112, 2nd rejection. However, based on the best interpretation below, examiner reserves the rights to present another grounds of interpretation and concurrent rejection based on any potential new claim language filing, which could present a new scope of the claim in its entirety.
However, for the purpose of applying prior art to the claim language, examiner gives the best interpretation as intended by the applicants of a plurality of poultry characteristics and plurality of environmental features.
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 of this title, 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, 3-8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartung et al. (US 2019/0307106) in view of Zhao, Zhonghao et al. “Research on the Correlation between Breeding Environment and Activity of Yellow Feather Broilers Based on the Multichromatic Aberration Model”, Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2021, Article ID 2897879, 14 pages, Sept. 14, 2021. Doi: 10.1155/2021/2897879. PMID: 34567099; PMCID: PMC8457967.
Regarding claim 1, Hartung teaches a multi-use monitoring system, comprising:
an electronic device (Fig. 1, device 3);
a plurality of cameras, being coupled to the electronic device (paragraph 121, cameras);
a plurality of sensor devices, being coupled to the electronic device (Fig. 3 and paragraphs 122-124, sensors 23 and 24);
at least one wireless interface, being in communication with the electronic device (paragraphs 75 and 120 teaches transceivers on the device); and
a remote electronic device (Fig. 1, Computer System 8), being in communication with the electronic device (Fig. 1 and 3, device 3);
wherein the electronic device comprises a first processor (Fig. 3 and paragraph 120, device 27 includes microprocessor) and a first memory coupled to the first processor (paragraph 120: device 27 includes memory for the device’s functions), the first memory storing a first application program, and the first processor executing the first application program so as to be configured to:
detect, by controlling the plurality of sensor devices, a plurality of environmental parameters of a poultry farm environment (paragraphs 120-121 teaches wherein the sensors capture environmental data);
acquire, by controlling the plurality of cameras, a plurality of images of a group of poultry animals bred in the poultry farm environment (paragraphs 120-121 teaches wherein the sensors capture images of the environment) and
transmit, by controlling the wireless interface, the plurality of images and the plurality of environmental parameters to the remote electronic device (paragraphs 120-121 teaches wherein the data from the sensors are transmitted bidirectionally to a computer system 8);
wherein the remote electronic device (Fig. 1, Computer System 8) comprises a second processor and a second memory coupled to the second processor, the second memory storing a second application program (Fig. 1, Computer System 8 and paragraphs 72-74 includes a processor, memory with software since it functions as a terminal for a user to utilize), and the second processor executing the second application program so as to be configured to:
extract, after applying at least one image process to at least one said image, at least one poultry characteristic and at least one environmental feature from the plurality of images (paragraphs 16, 45, 68-69, 79 at least teaches plurality of analysis results regarding the environment (temp/humidity/etc.) and the poultry characteristics (poultry identification, feather detection, etc.)); and
correlate, at least one said environmental parameter and/or (examiner makes note of the alternative language, however, presents both) at least one environmental feature to the at least one poultry characteristic (paragraph 45, 68-69, 79 at least teaches plurality of analysis results regarding the environment and the poultry characteristics. Paragraphs 120-124 teaches the analysis of sensor data to generate a correlation to wellness, sick, dead, disease, wet litter condition, etc. of the poultry overall).
However, while Hartung teaches the ability to detect a plethora of environmental features and poultry characteristics, fails to explicitly teach, however, Zhao et al. teaches the claimed wherein:
Correlate; at least one said environmental parameter and/or (examiner makes note of the alternative language) a plurality of environmental features with a plurality of poultry characteristics so as to determine respective relationships between the plurality of poultry characteristics and the plurality of environmental parameters and/or (examiner makes note of the alternative language) environmental features (as discussed in the 112, 2nd paragraph rejection above, the examiner gives the interpretation that respective relationships exists between poultry characteristics (such as activity level and heat map distribution) and its relationship with environmental parameters (such as the humidity and ammonia concentration. See sections 2.4 through 3.3 (pages 5-9)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the correlation/relationship determination computation of Zhao into the image extraction pipeline of Hartung as both references are directed to the same problem of monitoring poultry welfare through combined environmental and behavioral analysis from camera images, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the correlation computation of Zhao et al. provides the predictive/management value that the raw detection of Hartung alone do not deliver.
Regarding claim 3, Hartung teaches the claimed wherein the environmental parameter is selected from a group consisting of (examiner notes the Markush group) gas level, wind speed, temperature, humidity, and particulate matter (PM) (see paragraphs 40, 120, 22-124).
Regarding claim 4, Hartung teaches the claimed wherein the poultry animal is selected from a group consisting of (examiner notes the Markush group) chicken, duck and goose (paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 5, Hartung teaches the claimed wherein the sensor component is integrated with at least one sensor film for sensing specific gas selected from a group consisting of (examiner notes the Markush group) ammonia (NHs3), carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CHa), carbon monoxide (CO), molecular oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), nitric oxide (NO), nitric dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and formaldehyde (CH20) (at least paragraph 40 teaches carbon dioxide and ammonia).
Regarding claim 6, Hartung teaches the claimed wherein each said camera is integrated with a storage device therein, and the storage device is selected from a group consisting of (examiner notes the Markush group) flash memory and solid-state drive (SSD) card (paragraphs 73 and 240).
Regarding claim 7, Hartung teaches the claimed wherein the electronic device is integrated with a storage device therein, and the storage device is selected from a group consisting of (examiner notes the Markush group) hard disk drive (HDD), flash memory and solid-state drive (SSD) card (paragraphs 73 and 240).
Regarding claim 8, Hartung teaches the claimed wherein each said camera is powered by a battery device, a power adapter or a PoE device, and being selected from a group consisting of (examiner notes the Markush group) SWIR camera, MWIR camera, LWIR camera, RGB camera, RGB-IR camera, LiDAR camera, time-of-flight (ToF) camera, and structured light camera (paragraph 96 and 121 teaches infrared, thermographic, tof, hyperspectral cameras, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, Hartung teaches the claimed wherein the plurality of images comprise 2D images, 3D images, and thermal images (paragraph 34).
Regarding claim 11, Hartung teaches the claimed wherein the environmental feature is selected from a group consisting of (examiner notes the Markush group) litter temperature (paragraph 45), litter water content (paragraph 47), activity of said poultry animal (paragraph 50), and acoustic profile of said poultry animal (sound of poultry in paragraph 121)).
Regarding claim 12, Hartung teaches the claimed wherein the wireless interface is selected from a group consisting of (examiner notes the Markush group) 4G communication interface, 4G LTE communication interface, 5G communication interface, 6G communication interface, WiFi interface, and Bluetooth interface (paragraph 75).
Regarding claim 13, Hartung teaches the claimed further comprising:
at least one microphone (Fig. 3, Microphone 11), being coupled to the electronic device;
a plurality of peripheral devices (Fig. 3, additional devices such as gyroscopes 18, lights (para. 83), arm 16, hand, claw, box, etc.), being coupled to the electronic device; and
a supporting module, wherein the electronic device is disposed on the supporting member, has a mount member for ceiling mounting, a din rail adapter (paragraphs 59, 80, 121, 220 and Fig. 16 teaches structure such a rails, transport systems for allowing support of the device 3),
for being attached on a din rail and/or a wall mount (paragraphs 59 and 80 teaches ceiling or wall attachment options).
Regarding claim 14, Hartung teaches the claimed wherein the peripheral device is selected from a group consisting of (examiner notes the Markush group) lighting device, gyroscope, and warning device (Fig. 3, additional devices such as gyroscopes 18, lights (para. 83), arm 16, hand, claw, box, etc.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartung et al. (US 2019/0307106) in view of Zhao, Zhonghao et al. “Research on the Correlation between Breeding Environment and Activity of Yellow Feather Broilers Based on the Multichromatic Aberration Model”, Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2021, Article ID 2897879, 14 pages, Sept. 14, 2021. Doi: 10.1155/2021/2897879. PMID: 34567099; PMCID: PMC8457967 and further in view of Raymond et al. (US 2015/0271642).
Regarding claim 2, Hartung and Zhao teaches the claimed as discussed in claim 1 above, however fails to, but Raymond teaches the claimed wherein each said sensor device has a plug and play interface, and the first processor executing the first application program so as to be further configured to: recognize and then enable, after a sensor component is integrated in said sensor device thereby being electrically connected to the plug and play interfaces, said sensor component (paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Raymond into the system of Hartung and Zhao because said incorporation allows for the benefit of making it easier for integration and maintenance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartung et al. (US 2019/0307106) in view of Zhao, Zhonghao et al. “Research on the Correlation between Breeding Environment and Activity of Yellow Feather Broilers Based on the Multichromatic Aberration Model”, Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2021, Article ID 2897879, 14 pages, Sept. 14, 2021. Doi: 10.1155/2021/2897879. PMID: 34567099; PMCID: PMC8457967 and further in view of Nagatomo et al. (US 2022/0394956).
Regarding claim 9, Hartung and Zhao teaches the claimed wherein the second processor 15 executes the second application program so as to be further configured to:
identify and outline, a plurality of individual poultry animal profiles corresponding to the group of poultry animals appearing in said image (Fig. 19 teaches detecting and outlining a plurality of poultry animals by defining and looking for certain points in the image);
generate, after processing the plurality of images, a thermal profile of the group of poultry animals appearing in said image (Fig. 19, generates an IR image);
recognize, any one object that is not said poultry animal contained in said image (Fig. 19, recognizes one of the objects as not being a live poultry animal);
However, while Hartung teaches the claimed as discussed above, fails to teach, however, Nagatomo teaches the claimed:
predict, based on the plurality of individual poultry animal profiles, a weight of each said poultry animal (Fig. 13 and paragraph 79-80 teaches camera using images as a weight estimating device);
calculate, based on a weight data consisting of the weight of each said poultry animal, a uniformity of the group of poultry animals bred in the breeding environment (see Fig. 11 and paragraph 70 wherein uniformity of the group of chicken is tracked in a curve because it’s a estimated values of a plurality of weights); and
predict, a weight increase of each said poultry animal (see Fig. 11 and paragraph 70 wherein future weight for each chicken).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Nagatomo into the system of Hartung because said incorporation allows for the benefit of predicting workload (paragraph 71).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hartung et al. (US 2019/0307106) in view of Zhao, Zhonghao et al. “Research on the Correlation between Breeding Environment and Activity of Yellow Feather Broilers Based on the Multichromatic Aberration Model”, Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, vol. 2021, Article ID 2897879, 14 pages, Sept. 14, 2021. Doi: 10.1155/2021/2897879. PMID: 34567099; PMCID: PMC8457967 and further in view of Fuchs (US 2023/0332940).
Regarding claim 15, Hartung and Zhao teaches the claimed camera that has the ability to estimate the weight of a bird, however fails to explicitly teach, however, Fuchs teaches wherein each said camera is connected with an automated weighing scale (Figs 1-3 teaches a camera integrated with an automatic weight scale whenever a bird steps on the scale).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to incorporate the teachings of Fuchs into the system of Hartung because said incorporation allows for the benefit of reliably checking the weight of poultry at a poultry farm (paragraphs 5-6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GELEK W TOPGYAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (9:30-6 PST).
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/GELEK W TOPGYAL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481