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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
No claim limitation has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites the limitation “providing objective criteria defining various health states of a selected animal specie and recording such criteria in a database of said computer processor” in lines 4-5, which it appears should instead recite “providing objective criteria defining various health states of a selected animal species and recording such criteria in a database of said computer processor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 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.
With regard to the method step recitation in claim 1, “wherein the coating is applied in solution by dipping the stent carried by a mandrel in the solution”, it is noted that the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not given patentable weight.
Claim 14 is indefinite because it is directed to a system/apparatus but also recites the method step limitations “providing the device of claim 1; providing objective criteria defining various health states of a selected animal specie and recording such criteria in a database of said computer processor; automatically correlating, by said computer processor, a calculated BSA with a corresponding health status of an animal whose BSA has been calculated; and automatically generating, by said computer processor, a second output that describes the corresponding health status”. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, II (US Patent No. 7,128,024 B2) (cited by Applicant), further in view of Mulder (US Patent No. 8,425,434 B2) (cited by Applicant), and Buranakarl et al. (“Estimation of Body Weight and Body Surface Area in Swamp Buffaloes using Visual Image Analysis”, Journal of Buffalo Science, 1.1 (2012): pp. 13-20) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Doyle, II discloses a device for determining the body surface area (BSA) of an animal, comprising:
a measurement frame (36) comprising, a pair of horizontally spaced posts and at least one overhead sensor mount located above and adjacent to said horizontally spaced posts (see Figures 2B and 3A and col. 10, lines 15-18 – “To measure animals outside a particular range, ultrasound transducer 50 may be mounted to a track or guide to enable it to be moved along the length of the animal to the desired pelvic region” and lines 43-48 – “As shown in FIG. 2B, the pair of opposing ultrasound transducers 60, 62 can alternatively be mounted on the rail 36 having wheels 38 so that the ultrasound transducers 60, 62 can be automatically or manually moved relative to pelvic region of the animal to make lateral measurements”);
a plurality of measurement sensors (60, 62) mounted to said posts for measuring corresponding distances between selected sides of an animal to be measured, a first group of said measurement sensors being mounted to or adjacent said posts in opposing pairs and said first group of measurement sensors projecting a beam or wave in a substantially horizontal direction to sense side and lower surfaces of an animal passing through said measurement frame (see Figures 2B and 3A);
a second group of said measurement sensors (50) secured to said at least one overhead sensor mount, said second group of measurement sensors projecting a beam or wave in a substantially vertical direction to sense a general upper surface of an animal passing through said measurement frame (see Figures 2B and 3A);
a computer processor (80) for receiving and storing measurement data taken by the measurement sensors, said computer processor including at least one algorithm for estimating body parameters of an animal considering a plurality of measurements taken by the measurement sensors (see col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc”);
an output associated with the body parameters, said output including a user interface that displays information including the measurement data and a calculated body parameter (see col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc”); and
wherein said measurement data includes a plurality of measurements taken along corresponding planes that are converted to the body parameters of the animal (see Figure 3A col. 10, lines 48-55 – “In yet another alternative shown in FIG. 3A, a plurality of opposing ultrasound transducers 60, 62 can be fixedly mounted in the disclosed system 10 for making lateral measurement. In these arrangements, the lateral ultrasound transducers 60, 62 are preferably positioned in vertical alignment with the vertical acoustic device 50 so that they measure substantially the same area of the pelvic region of the animal”).
Doyle, II describes determining distances between opposite sides of an animal to provide an approximate 3-dimensional geometric measurement of the skeletal size of the animal but does not specifically teach wherein said plurality of measurement sensors are vertically spaced from one another or wherein the estimated body parameters include a body surface area. However, Mulder teaches said plurality of measurement sensors (6, 7) are vertically spaced from one another (see Figures 4-5 and col. 7, lines 59-65 – “Measurement may be effected by means of receivers 7 of electromagnetic radiation which may be emitted from an animal, such as infra red radiation, or which may be emitted by an emitter 6 in the height gauge 1. In most cases, receivers and any emitters may be located at intervals a which may be regular intervals along a length direction, or axis 29, of the height gauge 1”). Buranakarl et al. teaches a computer processor including at least one algorithm for estimating body surface area of an animal considering a plurality of measurements taken by the measurement sensors (see Table 4 and p. 16, col. 1, lines 2-9 – “The body surface area was obtained by summation of the number of the lattice points using 3D scanner as described earlier [5]. To estimate surface area, the body of buffalo model was vertically sliced from the tip of nose to the bottom, typically having 200 slices. If the circumference of each slice multiplied by slice thickness and then we summed the products of all slices, the body surface area was obtained”), wherein said measurement data includes a plurality of measurements taken along corresponding planes that are converted to the BSA of the animal (see p. 16, col. 1, lines 2-9 – “The body surface area was obtained by summation of the number of the lattice points using 3D scanner as described earlier [5]. To estimate surface area, the body of buffalo model was vertically sliced from the tip of nose to the bottom, typically having 200 slices. If the circumference of each slice multiplied by slice thickness and then we summed the products of all slices, the body surface area was obtained”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Doyle, II to include said plurality of measurement sensors are vertically spaced from one another, as disclosed in Mulder, so as to determine the height of the animal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Doyle, II to include the estimated body parameters that include a body surface area, as disclosed in Buranakarl et al., because body surface area, in contrast to body weight, has long been known to be beneficial in calculating doses of medication especially in large animals as well as in scientific research in which body functions are compared for different sizes of the animals (see Buranakarl et al.: p. 19, lines 21-26).
Regarding claim 2, Doyle, II teaches each measurement sensor of said first group of sensors is configured to measure a distance (d1, d2) to account for sideways or transverse movement of the animal as it passes through said measurement frame (see col. 12, line 61-col. 13, line 1 – “The lateral ultrasound transducers 60, 62 each implement an ultrasonic wave, which is reflected when encountering the animal A. The ultrasound transducers 60, 62 receive the reflected signal. The speed of the sound waves is then divided by the travel times between the transmission and reception of the ultrasonic signals in order to approximate the respective distances d1 and d2 from the ultrasound transducers 60, 62 to the animal).
Regarding claim 4, Doyle, II teaches said corresponding planes are vertically oriented and a measured length (L) of an animal is horizontally oriented (see Figures 2A and 3A).
Regarding claim 5, Doyle, II teaches said corresponding planes are oriented substantially perpendicular to a measured length (L) of an animal (see Figures 2A and 3A).
Regarding claim 6, Doyle, II teaches said at least one algorithm includes mathematical calculations using said measurement data (see col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc”).
Regarding claim 7, Doyle, II teaches said at least one overhead sensor mount further includes a second overhead sensor mount, the at least one overhead sensor mount having an array of sensors mounted thereto and said array of sensors being disposed laterally and longitudinally with respect to said horizontally spaced posts, and said second overhead sensor mount having a plurality of sensors oriented substantially perpendicular to said sensors mounted to said posts, said plurality of sensors mounted to said second overhead mount being disposed longitudinally with respect to a direction of an animal passing through said measurement frame (see Figure 3A col. 10, lines 28-32 – “In an alternative embodiment shown in FIG. 3A, a plurality of ultrasound transducer 50 can be fixedly mounted in the disclosed system 10 for making vertical measurements at various points along the length of the disclosed system 10” and lines 48-55 – “In yet another alternative shown in FIG. 3A, a plurality of opposing ultrasound transducers 60, 62 can be fixedly mounted in the disclosed system 10 for making lateral measurement. In these arrangements, the lateral ultrasound transducers 60, 62 are preferably positioned in vertical alignment with the vertical acoustic device 50 so that they measure substantially the same area of the pelvic region of the animal”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Doyle, II, Mulder, and Burankarl et al. teaches a method of determining the body surface area (BSA) of an animal, comprising:
providing the device of claim 1 (see rejection above);
taking and recording a plurality of measurements of the animal as the animal passes the measurement frame, said measurements being taken along selected vertical planes (see Doyle, II: Figure 3A col. 10, lines 48-55 – “In yet another alternative shown in FIG. 3A, a plurality of opposing ultrasound transducers 60, 62 can be fixedly mounted in the disclosed system 10 for making lateral measurement. In these arrangements, the lateral ultrasound transducers 60, 62 are preferably positioned in vertical alignment with the vertical acoustic device 50 so that they measure substantially the same area of the pelvic region of the animal”);
processing the measurements by the computer processor (see Doyle, II: col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc”);
generating an output indicating the BSA of the animal, said output including a user interface that displays information including measurements taken and a calculated BSA (see Doyle, II: col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc” and Burankarl et al.: p. 16, col. 1, lines 2-9 – “The body surface area was obtained by summation of the number of the lattice points using 3D scanner as described earlier [5]. To estimate surface area, the body of buffalo model was vertically sliced from the tip of nose to the bottom, typically having 200 slices. If the circumference of each slice multiplied by slice thickness and then we summed the products of all slices, the body surface area was obtained”); and
wherein said measurement data includes a plurality of measurements taken along corresponding planes that are converted to the BSA of the animal (see Doyle, II: col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc” and Burankarl et al.: p. 16, col. 1, lines 2-9 – “The body surface area was obtained by summation of the number of the lattice points using 3D scanner as described earlier [5]. To estimate surface area, the body of buffalo model was vertically sliced from the tip of nose to the bottom, typically having 200 slices. If the circumference of each slice multiplied by slice thickness and then we summed the products of all slices, the body surface area was obtained”).
Regarding claim 10, Doyle, II teaches said corresponding planes are vertically oriented and a measured length (L) of an animal is horizontally oriented (see Figures 2A and 3A).
Regarding claim 11, Doyle, II teaches said corresponding planes are oriented substantially perpendicular to a measured length (L) of an animal (see Figures 2A and 3A).
Regarding claim 12, Doyle, II teaches said at least one algorithm includes mathematical calculations using said measurement data (see col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc”).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Doyle, II, Mulder, and Burankarl et al. teaches a method for determining a health status of an animal based on a measured body surface area (BSA) of the animal, comprising:
providing the device of claim 1 (see rejection above);
providing predetermined animal health criteria stored in said computer processor to correlate the calculated BSA to a health status of the animal (see Doyle, II: col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc” and Burankarl et al.: p. 16, col. 1, lines 2-9 – “The body surface area was obtained by summation of the number of the lattice points using 3D scanner as described earlier [5]. To estimate surface area, the body of buffalo model was vertically sliced from the tip of nose to the bottom, typically having 200 slices. If the circumference of each slice multiplied by slice thickness and then we summed the products of all slices, the body surface area was obtained”); and
automatically assigning, by said computer processor, a health status to the animal considering the predetermined animal health criteria and an associated calculated BSA (see Doyle, II: col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc” and Burankarl et al.: p. 16, col. 1, lines 2-9 – “The body surface area was obtained by summation of the number of the lattice points using 3D scanner as described earlier [5]. To estimate surface area, the body of buffalo model was vertically sliced from the tip of nose to the bottom, typically having 200 slices. If the circumference of each slice multiplied by slice thickness and then we summed the products of all slices, the body surface area was obtained”).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Doyle, II, Mulder, and Burankarl et al. teaches a system for determining a health status of an animal based on a measured body surface area (BSA) of the animal, comprising:
providing the device of claim 1 (see rejection above);
providing objective criteria defining various health states of a selected animal specie and recording such criteria in a database of said computer processor (see Doyle, II: col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc”);
automatically correlating, by said computer processor, a calculated BSA with a corresponding health status of an animal whose BSA has been calculated (see Doyle, II: col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc” and Burankarl et al.: p. 16, col. 1, lines 2-9 – “The body surface area was obtained by summation of the number of the lattice points using 3D scanner as described earlier [5]. To estimate surface area, the body of buffalo model was vertically sliced from the tip of nose to the bottom, typically having 200 slices. If the circumference of each slice multiplied by slice thickness and then we summed the products of all slices, the body surface area was obtained”); and
automatically generating, by said computer processor, a second output that describes the corresponding health status (see Doyle, II: col. 13, lines 47-58 – “The processing system 80 in FIGS. 1-2B can record and display data and results of calculations in a number of different manners. In one embodiment, for example, the processing system 80 can include a display or printer that provides a read out of the stored, measured, and calculated data. It is preferred that the processing system 80 include software for calculating various aspects of the animal, such as frame score, skeletal coefficient, hip height, hip width, skeletal trunk length L, percent body fat and/or protein, etc. In addition, it is preferred that the processing system 80 store relevant data relating to variables used in the calculations, such as age, sex, breed, etc” and Burankarl et al.: p. 16, col. 1, lines 2-9 – “The body surface area was obtained by summation of the number of the lattice points using 3D scanner as described earlier [5]. To estimate surface area, the body of buffalo model was vertically sliced from the tip of nose to the bottom, typically having 200 slices. If the circumference of each slice multiplied by slice thickness and then we summed the products of all slices, the body surface area was obtained”).
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doyle, II, Mulder, and Buranakarl et al., further in view of Kalscheur et al. (US Patent No. 6,625,302 B2) (cited by Applicant).
Regarding claims 3 and 9, it is noted none of Doyle, II, Mulder, or Burankarl et al. specifically teach said plurality of measurement sensors includes at least one of a pulse coherent radar (PCR) sensor device or an infrared (IR) sensor device. However, Kalscheur et al. teaches said plurality of measurement sensors (104, 106) includes at least one of a pulse coherent radar (PCR) sensor device or an infrared (IR) sensor device (see col. 4, lines 42-53 – “Infrared sensors 104 and 106 may comprise any suitable infrared sensor capable of obtaining heat signatures. In accordance with some embodiments of the invention, infrared sensors 104 and 106 comprise model numbers 2000B, manufactured by Ratheon, located in Dallas, Tex. As illustrated in FIG. 1, infrared sensor 104 is mounted on an adjustable stand 114 and is configured to obtain side view infrared images of animals as they pass through chute 102. Similarly, infrared sensor 106 is mounted on an adjustable stand 118 and is configured to obtain top view infrared images of animals as they pass through the chute”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device and method of Doyle, II, Mulder, and Burankarl et al. to include said plurality of measurement sensors includes at least one of a pulse coherent radar (PCR) sensor device or an infrared (IR) sensor device, as disclosed in Kalscheur et al., because pulse coherent radar sensor devices or infrared sensor devices are obvious variants of the sensor devices described in Doyle, II, Mulder, and Burankarl et al. and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized such to be a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the same result of measuring animal dimensions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN B HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM ET - 5 PM ET.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791