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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/28/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “whether data” recited in line 4 should be “weather data.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0014742 to Leggett et al. (“Leggett”).
Regarding claim 17, Leggett discloses:
A method of controlling an animal feeder, the method comprising (Leggett discloses an animal feeding system 100 with a controller 110, at least one sensor 115, a communications module 120, and power supply 125 that collectively control (“method of controlling”) a hopper 100, motor driver 145 with motor 140, gate 135, and a dispenser 130 (collectively “animal feeder”). See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0023] and Fig. 1.):
coupling a feed level sensing unit within a hopper of the animal feeder, the feed level sensing unit configured to generate data corresponding to a level of feed in the hopper (Leggett discloses at least one sensor 115 that can comprise “an infrared hopper level sensor” (“feed level sensing unit”) for detecting a level of feed in the hooper (“generate data corresponding to a level of feed in the hopper”) and housed “within the hopper 105” (“within the hopper of the animal feeder”). See, e.g., pars. Leggett at pars. [0015], [0023], [0026], and [0041], claim 7, and Fig. 4.);
coupling a feed control unit to an electronic dispenser of the animal feeder (Leggett discloses a controller 110 and a communications module 120 (collectively “feed control unit”) coupled to motor 140 via motor driver 145 (collectively “electronic dispenser”). See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0023] and Fig. 1.),
the feed control unit configured to control a state of the electronic dispenser based upon user inputs wirelessly communicated from a user device (Leggett discloses a state chart 500 which displays a main menu on the user’s device. Leggett also discloses that “[i]n the enter spread instructions state 510, the user identifies the schedule for the system based on sunrise and sunset times. When instructions are received from the user, such as via smart phone, to run a spread program, the user device communicates instructions to the cloud which downloads them to the controller whereupon the controller [(“feed control unit”)] enters the ‘run spread instructions state’ 520 [(“control a state of the electronic dispenser based upon user inputs wirelessly communicated from a user device”)].” See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0042].);
automatically dispensing feed from the animal feeder based upon the user inputs, the user inputs include a feed schedule (Leggett discloses that the “set feed times screen 440 [(“user inputs “)] includes sunrise and sunset options and scroll wheels for selecting feeding slots and activation times to set for feed distribution” and that “the controller is configured to automatically regulate feeding times [(”feed schedule”)] according to … sunrise and sunset times of the location [(“automatically dispensing feed from the animal feeder”)].” See, e.g., Leggett at pars. [0004] and [0037] and Fig. 4.); and
transmitting the data from the feed level sensing unit to the user device via the feed control unit (Leggett discloses “a diagnostic screen 480 that includes a “diagnostics report” with “feed level” (“data from the feed level sensing unit to the user device”) and that the “controller 110 … is operatively connected with the at least one sensor 115 and the communications module 120[,which is] … configured to facilitate wireless communication (long-range short-range, or both) with remote devices and at least one user interface.” See, e.g., Leggett at pars. [0025] and [0041]. Thus, Leggett discloses the claimed “transmitting.”).
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 17, Leggett discloses:
wherein: the feed schedule is one or more of time dependent, day dependent, weather dependent, season dependent, or sunrise/sunset dependent (Leggett discloses that the “[s]etting the feed time may also include instructing a feeder to feed at sunrise and sunset determined by the feeding system's physical location … [and that the] controller may be configured to receive regular weather data updates regarding the feeder's position and adjust the feeding times accordingly. For example, in March, sunrise may be at 6:44 am and sunset at. 6:15 pm, but in July, sunrise may be at 6:10 am and sunrise [sic sunset] at 8:02 pm.” See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0039], emphasis added. Thus, Leggett discloses the claimed “feed schedule.”).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 11, 15, 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leggett in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2019/0387735 to Wynn et al. (“Wynn”).
Regarding Claim 1, Leggett in view of Wynn renders obvious:
A wireless feed control system configured to be coupled to an animal feeder including at least a hopper and an electronic dispenser, the wireless feed control system comprising (Leggett discloses a controller 110, at least one sensor 115, a communications module 120, and power supply 125 (collectively “wireless feed control system”) coupled to a hopper 100 (“hopper”), motor driver 145 with motor 140 (“electronic dispenser”), gate 135, and a dispenser 130 (collectively “animal feeder”). See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0023] and Fig. 1.):
a feed control unit configured to be coupled to the electronic dispenser of the animal feeder (Leggett discloses a controller 110 and a communications module 120 (collectively “feed control unit”) coupled to motor 140 via motor driver 145 (collectively “electronic dispenser”). See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0023] and Fig. 1.), the feed control unit including:
a network communication device configured to provide a cellular network connection to a cloud network accessible from a user device (Leggett discloses that “communications module 120 [(“network communication device”)]may include antennas, hardware, and may include a processor configured to facilitate wireless communication (long-range short-range, or both) with remote devices and at least one user interface.” See. e.g., par. [0025], emphasis added. Leggett also disclose that the long-range communications include cellular communications (“cellular network”) and communications with “the cloud” (“cloud network”). See, e.g., Leggett at pars. [0021] and [0028] and Figs 1 and 2.);
a local wireless receiver (Leggett discloses that communications module 120 includes an antenna, hardware, and processor for wireless communications (“local wireless receiver”). See. e.g., Leggett at pars. [0025], [0028], and [0030] and Figs. 1 and 2.); and
a controller operatively configured to control a state of the electronic dispenser of the animal feeder based upon user inputs from the user device (Leggett discloses that controller 110 (“controller”) controls the motor 140 via motor driver 145 (“state of the electronic dispenser”) to dispense the feed (via dispenser 130 and gate 135) based on instructions received by the user, e.g., via a smart phone (“based upon user inputs from the user device”). See e.g., Leggett at pars. [0023], [0034] (“instructions entry screens 400 for controlling the operation of an animal feeding system or systems”), and [0042] (user enters the schedule that “identifies the schedule for the system based on sunrise and sunset times.”) and Figs. 4 and 5.); and
a feed level sensing unit separate from the feed control unit and configured to be coupled within the hopper of the animal feeder (Leggett discloses at least one sensor 115 that can comprise “an infrared hopper level sensor” (“feed level sensing unit”) that can be housed “within the hopper 105” (“within the hopper of the animal feeder”). Fig. 4 shows that the sensor 115 is a component that is at least functionally “separate” from the controller 110 and communications module 120 (collectively “feed control unit”) (see below for additional analysis of “separate” in light of Wynn). See, e.g., pars. Leggett at [0023] and [0026] and Fig. 4.),
the feed level sensing unit configured to capture data corresponding to an amount of feed in the hopper and transmit the data to the feed control unit using a wireless transceiver in wireless communication with the local wireless receiver of the feed control unit (Leggett discloses that controller 110 (part of “feed control unit”) is operatively connected to at least one sensor 115 (“feed level sensing unit”) that can include an infrared hopper level sensor and can accept hopper level (“data corresponding to an amount of feed in the hopper”). See, e.g., Leggett at pars. [0026] and [0029].),
wherein the data from the feed level sensing unit and additional data from the feed control unit are configured to be transmitted to the user device from the feed control unit (Leggett discloses that the controller 110 can accept inputs such as hopper level (“data from the feed level sensing unit”) and other inputs such as camera input and inputs from motion sensors, infrared sensors, photo sensors, microphones, etc. (“additional data from the feed control unit”) and transmit them via short-range or long-range wireless communications to the user (“transmitted to the user device from the feed control unit”). See. e.g., Leggett at pars. [0029]-[0030] and Fig. 2.).
Regarding the feature “the feed level sensing unit configured to capture data corresponding to an amount of feed in the hopper and transmit the data to the feed control unit using a wireless transceiver in wireless communication with the local wireless receiver of the feed control unit,” while Leggett discloses that the “communication coupling can be wireless ….” (see par. [0025]), Leggett does not explicitly disclose that the sensor 115 is wireless. However, in the same field of endeavor, animal feeding systems, and thus analogous art, Wynn discloses a feed level indicator (FLI) that includes wireless transmission. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system in Leggett to include a wireless level indicator in order to directly control the level indicator as taught by Wynn. See Wynn at par. [0043] (“wireless, mobile device connected to a feed level indicator can be operated directly from a mobile app through direct connection ….”). See MPEP § 2143.I.G. In addition, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the level sensor of Leggett to include wireless transmission of Wynn because, in the proposed combination, one skilled in the art would have understood that each element (level indicator and wireless transceiver) performs the same function as they do separately and, based on the teachings of Wynn, the results of the combination would have been predictable. See MPEP § 2143.I.A.
With further regard to “separate,” as discussed above, Leggett discloses that Fig. 4 of Leggett shows that the sensor 115 is at least functionally “separate” from the controller 110. Additionally, Wynn also discloses a feed level sensor that “can operate independent[ly]” (“separate”). See Wynn at par. [0037] and Fig. 5. Accordingly, in the event that one contends that Leggett does not disclose a level sensor that is operated separately, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Leggett include a level sensor that operates independently of the other devices in order to “provide flexibility to the user if using a subset of the entire solution” and to “expand features.” See Wynn at par. [0037]. Because Wynn discloses such an independent configuration, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Leggett in view of Wynn renders obvious:
wherein: the user inputs include creating a feed schedule including automatic feed times when the state of the electronic dispenser is active (Leggett discloses that the “set feed times screen 440 [(“user inputs “)] includes sunrise and sunset options and scroll wheels for selecting feeding slots and activation times to set for feed distribution” and that “the controller is configured to automatically regulate feeding times according to … sunrise and sunset times of the location”(“creating a feed schedule including automatic feed times when the state of the electronic dispenser is active”). See, e.g., Leggett at pars. [0004] and [0037] and Fig. 4.).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Leggett in view of Wynn renders obvious:
wherein: the controller is configured to calculate an amount of time until the hopper of the animal feeder is empty based at least in part on the feed schedule and the data from the feed level sensing unit (Leggett discloses a diagnostic screen 480 that shows an “out of feed” condition (“hopper of the animal feeder is empty”). See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0041] and Fig. 4. Leggett does not explicitly disclose that controller 110 “calculate[s] an amount of time until the hopper of the animal feeder is empty ….” However, in the same field of endeavor, animal feeding systems, and thus analogous art, Wynn discloses that its system can perform an analysis to “identify and report to the user the amount of feed dispersed over a period of time to help in budgeting and/or determining the amount of feed to bring to the location when re-filling.” See, e.g., Wynn at par. [0046]. Wynn discloses that an estimated refill date is calculated (“calculate an amount of time”) based on the duration of time for the feed level to drop a predetermined level in the hopper (“based at least in part on the feed schedule and the data from the feed level sensing unit”) and the level for refilling. The example given in Wynn is that, if it takes 20 days for the hopper level to go from 100% to 50%, then an estimated refill date (with current level at 100%) would be the current date + 30 days to reach a hopper level of 25% (the refill setpoint). See, e.g., Wynn at par. [0064]. While Wynn discloses how to “calculate an amount of time until the hopper of the animal feeder” is at a 25% hopper level rather than at an empty hopper level, it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to calculate the refill date based on an empty hoper level as disclosed in Leggett because the calculation based on an empty hopper level rather than 25% falls under routine optimization. See MPEP § 2144.II.A (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Citing In re Aller.). Thus, Leggett as modified by the teachings of Wynn renders obvious a “controller [that] is configured to calculate an amount of time until the hopper of the animal feeder is empty based at least in part on the feed schedule and the data from the feed level sensing unit.”
It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Leggett to include the refill date calculation that corresponds to an empty hopper level in order to provide “a tool to remind users when to fill their feeder.” See Wynn at par. [0064]. Because the refill date calculation is explicitly disclosed in Wynn, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 2, Leggett in view of Wynn renders obvious:
wherein: the user inputs include selection of one or more rules that automatically adjust or override one or more of the automatic feed times of the feed schedule; and the one or more rules are based at least in part on one or more of whether data, seasonal data, moon phase data, or sunrise/sunset data (Leggett discloses that “[s]etting the feed time may also include instructing a feeder to feed at sunrise and sunset determined by the feeding system's physical location … [and that the] controller may be configured to receive regular weather data updates regarding the feeder's position and adjust the feeding times accordingly. For example, in March, sunrise may be at 6:44 am and sunset at. 6:15 pm, but in July, sunrise may be at 6:10 am and sunrise [sic sunset] at 8:02 pm.” See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0039], emphasis added. Thus, Leggett discloses the claimed “one or more rules that automatically adjust or override one or more of the automatic feed times of the feed schedule … based at least in part on one or more of whether data, seasonal data, moon phase data, or sunrise/sunset data.”).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Leggett in view of Wynn renders obvious:
wherein: the feed control unit is configured to transmit one or more alerts from the feed control unit to the user device in response to one or more events (Leggett discloses “a diagnostic screen 480 that includes an error report [(“one or more alerts”)] which can include “spin fault” or a “jam condition” to show motor drive problems and “out of feed” conditions [(“one or more events”)].” See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0041].).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Leggett in view of Wynn renders obvious:
wherein: battery level data of the feed control unit is configured to be transmitted to the user device (Leggett discloses that controller 110 is connected to a power supply 125 that can be a battery and that the “diagnostics report also includes battery life….” See, e.g., pars. [0023], [0027, and [0041] and Figs. 1 and 4. Leggett also discloses a smart phone 277 (“user device”) that can display the screens 400. See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0034] and Fig. 2. Thus, Leggett discloses the claimed “battery level data of the feed control unit is configured to be transmitted to the user device.”).
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 1, Leggett in view of Wynn renders obvious:
wherein: the data captured by the feed level sensing unit includes a battery level measurement corresponding to batteries of the feed level sensing unit (Leggett does not explicitly disclose that the sensor 115 includes a battery level measurement. However, as discussed above with respect to claim 1, Wynn discloses a feed level sensor that “can operate independent[ly],” and that it would have been obvious (and one skilled in the art would have been motivated) to modify Leggett include a level sensor that operates independently of the other devices in order to “provide flexibility to the user if using a subset of the entire solution.” See Wynn at par. [0037]. Additionally, Wynn discloses that the independently operated level indicator can be battery operated and the battery level can be sent to a user. See, e.g., Wynn at pars. [0046], [0064], and [0080] and Fig. 7. Thus, along with providing an independent level sensor, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the sensor 115 of Leggett to measure the battery level in order to provide a status of the battery level to the user. Because Wynn discloses an independent level sensor having a battery and measuring battery levels of the battery, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 16, Leggett in view of Wynn discloses:
A method of monitoring an animal feeder, the method comprising (Leggett discloses an animal feeding system 100 with a controller 110, at least one sensor 115, a communications module 120, and power supply 125 that collectively control (“method of monitoring”) a hopper 100, motor driver 145 with motor 140, gate 135, and a dispenser 130 (collectively “animal feeder”). See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0023] and Fig. 1.):
coupling a feed level sensing unit within a hopper of the animal feeder, the feed level sensing unit configured to generate data corresponding to a level of feed in the hopper (Leggett discloses at least one sensor 115 that can comprise “an infrared hopper level sensor” (“feed level sensing unit”) for detecting a level of feed in the hooper (“generate data corresponding to a level of feed in the hopper”) and housed “within the hopper 105” (“within the hopper of the animal feeder”). See, e.g., pars. Leggett at pars. [0015], [0023], [0026], and [0041], claim 7, and Fig. 4.);
determining an amount of time until the hopper is empty based at least in part on the level of the feed in the hopper (Leggett discloses a diagnostic screen 480 that shows an “out of feed” condition (“animal feeder is empty”). See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0041] and Fig. 4. Leggett does not explicitly disclose that controller 110 “determin[es] an amount of time until the hopper is empty ….” However, in the same field of endeavor, animal feeding systems, and thus analogous art, Wynn discloses that its system can perform an analysis to “identify and report to the user the amount of feed dispersed over a period of time to help in budgeting and/or determining the amount of feed to bring to the location when re-filling.” See, e.g., Wynn at par. [0046]. Wynn discloses that an estimated refill date is calculated (“determining an amount of time”) based on the duration of time for the feed level to drop a predetermined level in the hopper (“based at least in part on the level of feed in the hopper”) and the level for refilling. The example given in Wynn is that, if it takes 20 days for the hopper level to go from 100% to 50%, then an estimated refill date (with current level at 100%) would be the current date + 30 days to reach a hopper level of 25% (the refill setpoint). See, e.g., Wynn at par. [0064]. While Wynn discloses how to “determin[e] an amount of time until the hopper” is at a 25% hopper level rather than at an empty hopper level, it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to calculate the refill date based on an empty hoper level as disclosed in Leggett because the determination based on an empty hopper level rather than 25% falls under routine optimization. See MPEP § 2144.II.A (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Citing In re Aller.). Thus, Leggett as modified by the teachings of Wynn renders obvious a “determining an amount of time until the hopper is empty based at least in part on the level of the feed in the hopper.”
It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Leggett to include the refill date determination that corresponds to an empty hopper level in order to provide “a tool to remind users when to fill their feeder.” See Wynn at par. [0064]. Because the refill date determination is explicitly disclosed in Wynn, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.); and
transmitting the data from the feed level sensing unit to a user device, the data including the determined amount of time until the hopper is empty (Leggett discloses “a diagnostic screen 480 that includes a “diagnostics report” with “feed level.” Leggett discloses that the “controller 110 … is operatively connected with the at least one sensor 115 and the communications module 120[,which is] … configured to facilitate wireless communication (long-range short-range, or both) with remote devices and at least one user interface.” See, e.g., Leggett at pars. [0025] and [0041]. Thus, Leggett discloses “transmitting [] data from the feed level sensing unit to a user device.” Leggett does not disclose that the transmitted data the determined amount of time until the hopper is empty. However, as discussed above, Leggett in view of Wynn renders obvious the determination of the “amount of time until the hopper is empty.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to transmit data corresponding to an amount of time until the hopper is empty in order to provide “a tool to remind users when to fill their feeder.” See Wynn at par. [0064]. Because the determination is explicitly disclosed in Wynn, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 17, Leggett in view of Wynn discloses:
further comprising: determining an amount of time until the hopper is empty based at least in part on the level of the feed in the hopper and the feed schedule (Leggett discloses a diagnostic screen 480 that shows an “out of feed” condition (“hopper is empty”). See, e.g., Leggett at par. [0041] and Fig. 4. Leggett does not explicitly disclose that controller 110 “calculate[s] an amount of time until the hopper is empty ….” However, in the same field of endeavor, animal feeding systems, and thus analogous art, Wynn discloses that its system can perform an analysis to “identify and report to the user the amount of feed dispersed over a period of time to help in budgeting and/or determining the amount of feed to bring to the location when re-filling.” See, e.g., Wynn at par. [0046]. Wynn discloses that an estimated refill date is calculated (“determining an amount of time”) based on the duration of time for the feed level to drop a predetermined level in the hopper (“based at least in part on the level of the feed in the hopper and the feed schedule”) and the level for refilling. The example given in Wynn is that, if it takes 20 days for the hopper level to go from 100% to 50%, then an estimated refill date (with current level at 100%) would be the current date + 30 days to reach a hopper level of 25% (the refill setpoint). See, e.g., Wynn at par. [0064]. While Wynn discloses how to “determin[e] an amount of time until the hopper” is at a 25% hopper level rather than at an empty hopper level, it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art to determine the refill date based on an empty hoper level as disclosed in Leggett because the determination based on an empty hopper level rather than 25% falls under routine optimization. See MPEP § 2144.II.A (“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Citing In re Aller.). Thus, Leggett as modified by the teachings of Wynn renders obvious a “determining an amount of time until the hopper is empty based at least in part on the level of the feed in the hopper and the feed schedule.”
It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Leggett to include the refill date determination that corresponds to an empty hopper level in order to provide “a tool to remind users when to fill their feeder.” See Wynn at par. [0064]. Because the refill date determination is explicitly disclosed in Wynn, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 19, Leggett in view of Wynn discloses:
further comprising: adjusting the feed schedule based on the amount of time until the hopper is empty to increase the amount of time until the hopper is empty (Wynn discloses reducing the scheduled feed time duration (e.g., by half) “to extend the amount of time the user has to refill the feeder hopper yet still deliver feed at the same scheduled times to keep animals coming to the feed location” when the hopper level goes low. See, e.g., Wynn at par. [0064]. According, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Leggett to reduce the feeding duration in order “to extend the amount of time the user has to refill the feeder hopper yet still deliver feed at the same scheduled times to keep animals coming to the feed location.” Because the reduction in feeding duration is explicitly disclosed in Wynn, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G.).
Claims 6-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leggett in view of Wynn, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0267705 to Hankins et al. (“Hankins”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 5, Leggett in view of Wynn and Hankins renders obvious:
wherein: the one or more events includes tampering event (Leggett in view of Wynn discloses alerts “in response to one or more events” as discussed above. However, Leggett in view of Wynn does not explicitly disclose that “the one or more events includes tampering event.” In the same field of endeavor, a feeder for an animal (and thus analogous art), Hankins discloses activating an alarm when a “sensor detects tampering.” See, e.g., Hankins at pars. [0016] and [0040]. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Leggett in view of Wynn to include an alert based on a tampering event in order to notify a remote user in case undesired wildlife or people attempt to disturb or interfere with the feeder. See, e.g., Hankins at pars. [0016] and [0040]. Because an alert based on tampering is explicitly disclosed in Hankins, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G. Thus, Leggett in view of Wynn and Hankins discloses the claimed “tampering event.”).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 6, Leggett in view of Wynn and Hankins renders obvious:
wherein: the tampering event is generated based on movement of the feed level sensing unit (Leggett discloses that the at least one sensor 115 (“feed level sensing unit”) can also include other types of sensors such as accelerometers to sense motion (“movement of the feed level sensing unit”) that are connected to controller 110, which can provide error conditions to a user device. See Leggett at pars. [0023], [0025]-[0026], and [0042], emphasis added. While Leggett does not explicitly disclose that the motion can be used to identify a tampering event, Hankins discloses that the “[t]amper sensor 514 may include … a motion sensor ….” See, e.g., Hankins at par. [0040], emphasis added. Thus, Hankins discloses that motion can be used to generate a tampering event. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motived to modify the motion from the accelerometers of Leggett to trigger a tampering event as disclosed by Hankins for the reasons given above with respect to claim 6. According, Leggett in view of Wynn and Hankins discloses the claimed “tampering event [that] is generated based on movement of the feed level sensing unit.”).
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 6, Leggett in view of Wynn and Hankins renders obvious:
wherein: the tampering event is generated based on data from an accelerometer positioned within one of the feed control unit or the feed level sensing unit (Leggett discloses that the at least one sensor 115 (“feed level sensing unit”) can also include other types of sensors such as accelerometers to sense motion (“movement of the feed level sensing unit”) that are connected to controller 110, which can provide error conditions to a user device. See Leggett at pars. [0023], [0025]-[0026], and [0042], emphasis added. While Leggett does not explicitly disclose that the motion from the accelerometer can be used to identify a tampering event, Hankins discloses that the “[t]amper sensor 514 may include … a motion sensor ….” See, e.g., Hankins at par. [0040], emphasis added. Thus, Hankins discloses that motion can be used to generate a tampering event. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motived to modify the motion from the accelerometers of Leggett to trigger a tampering event as disclosed by Hankins for the reasons given above with respect to claim 6. According, Leggett in view of Wynn and Hankins discloses the claimed “tampering event [that] is generated based on data from an accelerometer positioned within one of the feed control unit or the feed level sensing unit.”).
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8, Leggett in view of Wynn and Hankins renders obvious:
wherein: the one or more events includes a malfunction of the electronic dispenser of the animal feeder (Leggett discloses “a diagnostic screen 480 that includes an error report [(“one or more alerts”)] which can include ‘spin fault’ or a ‘jam condition’ to show motor drive problems [(“malfunction of the electronic dispenser of the animal feeder”)]….” See, e.g., par. [0041] and Fig. 4.).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 9, Leggett in view of Wynn and Hankins renders obvious:
wherein: the malfunction includes one or more of a jammed state, a clogged state, or a spin state (Leggett discloses “a diagnostic screen 480 that includes an error report which can include ‘spin fault’ or a ‘jam condition’ to show motor drive problems [(“one or more of a jammed state, a clogged state, or a spin state”)]….” See, e.g., par. [0041] and Fig. 4.).
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 1, Leggett in view of Wynn and Hankins renders obvious:
wherein: the data captured by the feed level sensing unit includes one or more of a grain type or a grain weight associated with feed disposed within the hopper ((Leggett discloses at least one sensor 115 that can comprise a hopper level sensor (“feed level sensing unit”). See, e.g., pars. Leggett at [0023] and [0026]). However, Leggett in view of Wynn does not disclose that “the feed level sensing unit includes one or more of a grain type or a grain weight associated with feed disposed within the hopper.” In the same field of endeavor, a feeder for an animal (and thus analogous art), Hankins discloses a weight or load sensor 702 positioned in the feeder container 700 (“data captured by feed level sensing unit includes … a grain weight associated with feed disposed within the hopper”). See, e.g., Hankins at par. [0034] and Fig. 7. Hankins also discloses that the “weight of the feed 704 … can be correlated with a feed level.” See, e.g., Hankins at par. [0034]. Hankins teaches that a variety of methods can be used to determine the feed level in a hopper. For example, Fig. 1 and associated text discloses than ultrasonic transceiver can be used to detect the feed level, Par. [0032] discloses that a strip of LEDs can be used to detect the feed level, Fig. 6 and associated text discloses a plate and retractable cord can be used to detect the feed level, and Fig. 7 and associated text discloses that the weight of the feed can be used to detect the feed level. Thus, Hankins discloses that a variety of methods can be used to determine feed level in a hopper, including using the weight of the feed in the hopper.
Based on the disclosure in Hankins, it would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to simply substitute the infrared hopper level sensor of Leggett with the weight sensor of Hankins. As shown in Hankins, the substitution of the type of feed level sensor merely involves a combination of familiar elements according to known method that does no more than yield predictable results. Here, substituting the weight sensor for the infrared hopper level sensor would have yielded the predictable result of providing the feed level. See MPEP § 2143.I.B. Accordingly, Leggett in view of Wynn and Hankins the claimed “data captured by the feed level sensing unit includes one or more of a grain type or a grain weight associated with feed disposed within the hopper.”
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leggett in view of Wynn, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0011326 to Matthew L. Abbondanzio (“Abbondanzio”).
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, Leggett in view of Wynn and Abbondanzio renders obvious:
wherein: the data captured by the feed level sensing unit includes a temperature associated with an interior of the hopper of the animal feeder (Leggett discloses that at least one sensor 115 (“feed level sensing unit”) can also include other types of sensors that are connected to controller 110. See Leggett at pars. [0023] and [0025]. However, Leggett does not explicitly disclose that sensor 115 includes a temperature sensor. In the same field of endeavor, animal feeding systems (see Abbondanzio at par. [0041]), and thus analogous art, Abbondanzio discloses a temperature sensor 110d that can be attached to the bin 101 at a location that senses the temperature of food or other matter contained within the bin-liner 105 (“a temperature associated with an interior of the hopper of the animal feeder”) to provide notice of “an imminent fire hazard.” See, e.g., Abbondanzio at par. [0029]. It would have been obvious and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify the sensor 115 of Leggett to include a temperature sensor as taught by Abbondanzio in order to provide notice of an imminent fire hazard. Because an alert based on an imminent fire hazard using a temperature sensor in an animal feeder is explicitly disclosed in Abbondanzio, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.I.G. Thus, Leggett in view of Wynn and Abbondanzio discloses the claimed “data” that “includes a temperature associated with an interior of the hopper of the animal feeder.”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leggett in view of Wynn, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0018378 to Varikooty et al. (“Varikooty”).
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 1, Leggett in view of Wynn and Varikooty renders obvious:
wherein: the data captured by the feed level sensing unit includes a humidity associated with an interior of the hopper of the animal feeder (Leggett discloses that at least one sensor 115 (“feed level sensing unit”) can also include other types of sensors that are connected to controller 110. See Leggett at pars. [0023] and [0025]. However, Leggett does not explicitly disclose that sensor 115 includes a humidity sensor. Varikooty discloses environmental sensors 110 that can be a humidity sensor and that can be located in the storage area of a grain bin. See, e.g., Varikooty at par. [0031] and Fig. 1. Varikooty discloses sensing environmental conditions such as moisture and that “by sensing, the quality control of grain one can detect and mitigate risks associated with food contamination that could have a health impact in the final product.” See, e.g., Varikooty at par. [0031]. Thus, Varikooty teaches to monitor the environmental conditions of the stored grain in order to mitigate the risks associated with food contamination. While Varikooty relates to environmental monitoring of storage bins, those skilled would have understood that the grain hoppers of animal feeders as disclosed in Leggett are analogous to the grain storage bins of Varikooty. Accordingly, similar to the grain stored in Varikooty, there would have been design incentives to mitigate the risks associated with food contamination due to moisture in the grain stored in the hoppers of Leggett. Varikooty is analogous art because it teaches to mitigate the risks of contamination in stored grains by monitoring moisture within the storage space. Thus, modifying the at least one sensor 115 of Leggett to include a humidity sensor to measure the moisture in the hopper 105 of Leggett would have been obvious and predictable to one skilled in the art. See MPEP § 2143.I.F.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0196568 to Robertson et al. discloses adjustment of feed schedules for an animal feeder.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0105388 to Carl Pfeiff discloses an animal feeder with a remote unit for user control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BHASKAR KAKARLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8221. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at 571-272-9774. 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.
/B.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2116
/KENNETH M LO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2116