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 1-2 and 4-14 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
lines 17-18, “a feed container of the one of the autonomously moving feeding device” should read “the feed container of one of the autonomously moving feeding devices”.
lines 19-22 include grammatical inconsistencies in the parallel phrasing. The phrase “feeding device has:… requires the feed component” should read either “feeding device:… requires the feed component” or “feeding device has:… required the feed component”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 8-10, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aridison et al. (US 20220055517 A1), hereafter referred to as “Ardison” in view of Bachman et al. (US 20170055493 A1), hereafter referred to as “Bachman.”
Regarding claim 1, Ardison teaches a feed delivery system (figs. 1-12) comprising:
a plurality of autonomously moving feeding devices (16; figs. 1-2), each feeding device having a feed container (40; fig. 2) for accommodating feed received at the feed delivery system (paragraph [0037]), a mixer (48; fig. 2) for mixing ingredients (paragraph [0044] teaching that element 48 is an auger, which would necessarily mix ingredients within 16) and a dispenser (40g, 40h, 40j; fig. 2) for dispensing mixed feed to animals at a location remote from the feed delivery system (paragraph [0035] and fig. 2);
a feed ingredient source (12) for holding different feed components being portions of the mixed feed mixture (fig. 1 and paragraphs [0031]-[0032]) and comprising:
a storage container (12) having a bottom wall and upstanding sidewalls defining a container volume (fig. 1 and paragraph [0032]) holding an identified feed component (paragraph [0032], e.g., teaching that element 12 includes a known, preset feed component);
a conveyor system (26) to move feed material from the container volume to an exit channel (26) at a first sidewall of the storage container (fig. 1), the exit channel positioned to discharge feed material into a feed container of one of the autonomously moving feeding device positioned adjacent to the storage container (fig. 1); and
further including an electronic controller (18) operating to control power to the conveyor system (paragraph [0062]) to initiate discharge of feed material into a feed container of the one of the autonomously moving feeding device (paragraph [0062]). Ardison further teaches that the electronic controller operates to control element 16 to move into position adjacent to the given storage container (12) to be able to receive feed from the exit channel (fig. 1 and paragraph [0064]; see also paragraph [0032] teaching that elements 16 “will position itself correctly relative to the loading station 28 so that a preset quantity of mixed feed 24 will be loaded into the vehicle 16”), that control logic controls the on/off status of the conveyor (paragraph [0062]), and that the conveyor system is powered to initiate discharge of feed material according to a determination that the one of the autonomously moving feeding devices requires the feed component identified to the given storage container (paragraphs [0031], [0062], and [0074]). However, Ardison does not explicitly teach that the conveyor is driven by a motor, and that the electronic controller controls power to the motor of the conveyor system according to a determination that one of the autonomously moving feeding device has moved into position adjacent to the given storage container.
In addition, Ardison does not explicitly teach that the feed ingredient source is a set of at least two feed ingredient sources, and that feed ingredient sources include a scale providing an electronic weight signal indicating a weight of feed material in the storage container.
It is well settled, however, that that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Ardison further considers elements 16 travelling in multiple pathways within the system (paragraph [0031]). 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 feed delivery system of Ardison to include an additional feed ingredient source, such that the system includes a set of at least two feed ingredient sources, in order to improve the efficiency of the system by providing multiple reloading points for the plurality of feeding devices.
Bachman teaches a feed delivery system (figs. 2A-11) including a conveyor system (214, 230, 232, 234; fig. 2A and paragraph [0037]) driven by a motor (220, 240; paragraphs [0037]-[0038]), a scale (252, 254, 256, 258) providing an electronic weight signal indicating a weight of feed material in a storage container (200; paragraphs [0077]-[0083]), and according to a determination that the autonomously moving feeding device is positioned adjacent to the storage container to receive feed from the exit channel (paragraphs [0037]-[0038], [0140]-[0142], [0150]).
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 system of Ardison, such that the conveyor system is driven by a motor, as taught by Bachman, in order to provide a consistent actuator means to drive the conveyor.
In addition, 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 system of Ardison to include a scale providing an electronic weight signal indicating a weight of feed material in the storage container, as further taught by Bachman, in order to monitor the feed levels in the storage container.
Further, 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 system of Ardison in view of Bachman such that operating to control power to the motor of the conveyor system is according to a determination that the one of the autonomously moving feeding device has moved into a position adjacent to the given storage container, as further taught by Bachman, in order to improve the automation efficiency of the system by ensuring that the autonomously moving feeding device is correctly positioned before the feed ingredient sources reloads feed into the devices, mitigating wasted feed.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings of Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the autonomously moving feeding devices (16 of Ardison) are coordinated by a central controller (18; paragraph [0062] of Ardison) and further including a means for communicating the electronic weight signal to the central controller to control the autonomously moving feeding devices according to availability of feed material in the storage container (paragraphs [0095-0102] of Bachman).
Regarding claim 8, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the autonomously moving feeding devices (16) are coordinated by a central controller (18), and wherein the feed delivery system provides to the central controller a feed type identifier linked to the storage container (paragraph [0103]).
Regarding claim 9, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, and Ardison further teaches wherein the conveyor is a belt conveyor (paragraph [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, and Bachman further teaches that the exit channel (236) includes a beater bar (paragraph [0087], e.g., disclosing agitators including an axle with pegs).
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 system of Ardison in view of Bachman to include a beater bar at the exit channel, as further taught by Bachman, in order to improve the mixing of the feed.
Regarding claim 13, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, and Bachman further teaches including at least one sensor for a detection of material flow from the exit channel (paragraph [0082]).
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 system of Ardison in view of Bachman to include at least one sensor for a detection of material flow from the exit channel, as further taught by Bachman, in order to monitor the flow of feed from the storage container and the vehicle.
Regarding claim 14, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, and Bachman further teaches wherein the (252, 254, 256, 258) provides a set of load cells distributed at support points of the storage container (fig. 2A and paragraphs [0077], [0079], and [0082]-[0083]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardison in view of Bachman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keller (DE 19756367 A1), hereafter referred to as “Keller.”
Regarding claim 4, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, and Ardison further teaches a control system (18; paragraph [0062]), but does not explicitly teach controlling a speed of the motor of the conveyor system according to a rate of change of the electronic weight signal to provide improved uniformity of discharge of feed material through the exit channel.
Keller teaches a feed delivery system (fig. 1; see attached machine translation, paragraph [0001]) including a control system (12, 14) controlling a speed of a motor (10, 10’) of a conveyor system (machine translation, paragraph [0017]) according to a rate of change of an electronic weight signal to provide improved uniformity of discharge of feed material (machine translation, paragraphs [0010], [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 system of Ardison in view of Bachman such that the control system controls the speed of the motor of the conveyor system according to a rate of change of the electronic weight signal, as taught by Keller, in order to avoid irregularities of the feed dispensed (machine translation of Keller, paragraph [0010]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardison in view of Bachman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryder et al. (US 20130276709 A1), hereafter referred to as “Ryder.”
Regarding claim 5, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, and Ardison further teaches a monitoring system receiving an electronic weight signal (paragraphs [0054]-[0056]) to determine an exhaustion of feed material from the storage container (paragraphs [0054]-[0056]), but does not explicitly teach the monitoring system providing a prediction of an exhaustion of feed material from the storage container based on historical changes in the electronic weight signal.
Ryder teaches a system (figs. 1-15) including a monitoring system receiving an electronic weight signal to provide a prediction of an exhaustion of feed material from a storage container based on historical changes in the electronic weight signal (paragraphs [0054]-[0055] and [0068]).
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 system of Ardison in view of Bachman, such that the monitoring system providing a prediction of an exhaustion of feed material from the storage container based on historical changes in the electronic weight signal, as taught by Ryder, in order to improve the efficiency of the feed dispensing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardison in view of Bachman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van den Berg et al. (US 20230232741 A1), hereafter referred to as “Van den Berg.”
Regarding claim 6, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the storage container cover covers only a portion of the storage container to provide an opening for introduction of feed material into the storage container.
Van den Berg teaches a feed delivery system (figs. 1-5) including a storage container cover covering only a portion of the storage container to provide an opening for introduction of feed material into the storage container (fig. 1 and paragraph [0031] showing an opening within the top of element 6 for introduction of feed material).
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 system of Ardison in view of Bachman, such that the storage container covers only a portion of the storage container to provide an opening for introduction of feed material into the storage container, as taught by Van den Berg, in order to improve the ease of refilling the storage container with feed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardison in view of Bachman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hendricus (US 20190021278 A1), hereafter referred to as “Hendricus.”
Regarding claim 7, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the storage container provides a trailer hitch and wheels and further includes a releasable power connector for connecting power to the motor from a stationary power source communicating with a controller controlling the autonomously moving feeding devices.
Bachman further teaches wherein the storage container (200) provides a trailer hitch (330) and wheels (fig. 3B and paragraph [0089]).
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 system of Ardison in view of Bachman, such that the storage container provides a trailer hitch and wheels, as further taught by Bachman, in order to improve the ease of moving the storage container as needed.
Hendricus teaches a feed delivery system (figs. 1-7) including a releasable power connector for connecting power to the motor from a stationary power source communicating with a controller controlling autonomously moving feeding devices (abstract, claim 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 system of Ardison in view of Bachman to include a releasable power connector for connecting power to the motor from a stationary power source communicating with a controller controlling the autonomously moving feeding devices, as taught by Hendricus, in order to provide the motor with a consistent supply of electricity.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardison in view of Bachman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qiu et al. (CN 111903547 A), hereafter referred to as “Qiu.”
Regarding claim 11, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches the feed delivery system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the exit channel includes a funnel chute for gravity to feed the feed material to the feed container.
Qiu teaches a system (figs. 1-11) including an exit channel (11) with a funnel chute (figure 6 showing element 11 with funnel shape).
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 system of Ardison in view of Bachman such that the chute is a funnel chute, as taught by Qiu, in order to better guide the flow of feed from the chute to a feed container without spilling the feed.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ardison in view of Bachman and Qiu as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Albright et al. (US 20210070210 A1), hereafter referred to as “Albright.”
Regarding claim 12, Ardison in view of Bachman and Qiu teaches the feed delivery system of claim 11, but does not explicitly teach wherein the bottom of the storage container slopes up toward the exit channel when the storage container is supported on a level surface.
Albright teaches a system (figs. 1-15) including a storage container (10, fig. 2), in which the bottom of the storage container slopes up (fig. 2) toward an exit channel (25) when the storage container is supported on a level surface (fig. 2).
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 system of Ardison in view of Bachman and Qiu such that the bottom of the storage container slopes up toward the exit channel when the storage container is supported on a level surface, as taught by Albright, in order to allow the system to dispense feed in feed containers of different heights without interference between the storage container and the feed containers (paragraphs [0060]-[0061]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ardison and Bachman do not teach the amended limitations of claim 1, including that the plurality of autonomously moving feeding devices each includes a mixer for mixing ingredients, and a set of at least two feed ingredient sources for holding different feed components being portions of the mixed feed mixture. Applicant states that Ardison teaches a single mixer 22 delivering feed to the feed robots and “does not address the problem of a bottleneck at one mixer or of managing different consumption rates of different feed components” (Remarks, page 2).
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, Ardison teaches that each element 16 includes an auger 48, which would necessarily mix ingredients within the device. Additionally, while Ardison teaches a single feed ingredient source 12, Ardison contemplates the plurality of elements 16 travelling in multiple pathways within the system. It would have been obvious to modify the feed delivery system of Ardison to include an additional feed ingredient source, such that the system includes a set of at least two feed ingredient sources, in order to improve the efficiency of the system by providing multiple reloading points for the plurality of feeding devices. Thus, Ardison in view of Bachman teaches each and every limitation of independent claim 1.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights