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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “1”, “2”, “3”, “4”, “5”, and “6” have been used in both figure 1 and figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The spacing of the lines of the specification is such as to make reading difficult. New application papers with lines 1 1/2 or double spaced (see 37 CFR 1.52(b)(2)) on good quality paper are required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 5, line 17, “Vectors may be calculated, scores may be determined” should be “Vectors may be calculated; scores may be determined” or “Vectors may be calculated, and scores may be determined” or “Vectors may be calculated, or scores may be determined”
Page 19, line 1, “% of height at 146-150 cm etc” should be “% of height at 146-150 cm etc.”
Page 26, line 29, “i.e. at 140 cm, 145 cm, 150 cm, 155 cm etc” should be “i.e. at 140 cm, 145 cm, 150 cm, 155 cm etc.”
Page 27, line 29, “identifying cows from images of the cows' back” should be “identifying cows from images of the cows' backs”
Page 28, line 7, “. A third, fourth etc comparison” should be “. A third, fourth etc. comparison”
Page 28, line 23, “7th comparing: contour plots or planne areas” should be “7th comparing: contour plots or plane areas”
Page 32, line 30, “the length of the cows body” should be “the length of the cow’s body”
Page 35, “the longitudinal direction of the cow along the backbone of a heigher” should be “the longitudinal direction of the cow along the backbone of a higher cow” or perhaps “the longitudinal direction of the cow along the backbone of a heifer” if the intention is for it to be used in this example with heifers.
Page 36, line 9, “and these ID's” should be “and these IDs”
Page 40, lines 14-15, “If the vector for an un-identified cow resemble a vector for a cow in the herd then” should be ”If the vector for an un-identified cow resemble a vector for a cow in the herd, then”
Throughout the specification, “cM” should be “cm”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “castrated males” should be “castrated male pigs”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “are extracted” should be “is extracted”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “infrared images acquired by said airborne imaging unit”; “an airborne imaging unit configured for acquiring at least one 3D image”; “a processing unit configured for: extracting data”; “the airborne imaging unit is configured for determining location”; “reference imaging unit for providing one or more reference 3D images”; “wherein the system is further configured to store”; and “identity determining device is configured to determine” in claims 7, 11, 13, and 16-18.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4 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.
The term “open-air field” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “open-air field” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “open-air field” is a relative term. Two persons of ordinary skill in the art can disagree on what constitutes a field. It is exposed to the air, but how many trees are required before it would constitute a forest or woodland rather than a field? The terms, “Open-air area” or “open-air region” seem to be reasonable solutions to the problem as they are supported by the specification and the implications of a drone operated device.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "airborne imaging unit" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. An “airborne imaging unit” is a broader term than the recited “airborne camera system” of claim 1. However, due to the fact that other claims and the specification recite two systems for capturing images such as reference photos in claims 16-18 as a “reference imaging unit” with claims 11-15 reciting an “airborne imaging unit” as such, it isn’t clear if the recitation of the “airborne imaging unit” is in reference to the unit claimed in claims 11-15, the unit claimed in 16-18, or if it is supposed to be referring to the “airborne camera system” of claim 1. This rejection could be overcome by changing the phrasing to “airborne camera system” to establish that the relevant basis is the claimed system of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional computer elements are generic. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited elements like an airborne camera system is generically recited, any system that has cameras that are airborne could read upon this, airborne imaging unit and reference imaging unit are generic for similar reasons with the processing unit being a generic recitation, this could be a computer, a circuit, or a processor so long as it is a unit that can perform the claimed process.
In regards to claim 1, a method for determining the identity of an individual animal in a population of animals with known identity, the method comprising the steps of: acquiring at least one 3D image of the back of a preselected animal by means of an airborne camera system (A person of ordinary can acquire an image produced by a device, a person can be handed an image, be shown an image or acquire it through some means with the recitation of a generic “airborne camera system” seemingly acting as only linking to a field of use), extracting data from said at least one 3D image (A person of ordinary skill can look at one 3d image and extract data from an image), said extracted data relating to the anatomy of the back and/or topology of the back of the preselected animal (A person of ordinary skill can extract some anatomical data from an image of the back of an animal whether that be the coloration of the animal, a pattern on the animal’s back, or to more specific bone structure details), and comparing and/or matching said extracted data against reference data corresponding to the anatomy of the back and/or topology of the back of the animals with known identity (A person of ordinary skill can know an animal and be able to identify that animal via some patterning on the back of the animal or by some similar bone structure of the animal), thereby determining the identity of the preselected animal, wherein said reference data are extracted from at least one reference 3D image acquired of the back of each of the animals in the population of animals (A person of ordinary skill in the art can look at various images from a population of animals and determine which is which based off of the reference data from the images).
In regards to claim 2, wherein at least one reference 3D image of the back of an identified animal with known identity is obtained at least once a month (This is insignificant extra-solution activity, having this process occur once a month does not meaningfully limit the invention).
Further, wherein at least one reference 3D image of the back of an identified animal with known identity is obtained at least once a month (This is a mental process as a person of ordinary skill can only acquire these images once every month).
In regards to claim 3, wherein said at least one reference 3D image of the back of an identified animal is obtained at least every second week, or at least once a week, or at least twice a week, or at least three times a week, or at least every second day, or at least once a day, or at least twice a day (This is insignificant extra-solution activity. The frequency of when photos are taken is insignificant to the process of identification).
Further, wherein said at least one reference 3D image of the back of an identified animal is obtained at least every second week, or at least once a week, or at least twice a week, or at least three times a week, or at least every second day, or at least once a day, or at least twice a day (A person of ordinary skill can acquire photos at any one of the claimed frequencies).
In regards to claim 4, wherein the animal is located in an open-air field (This is insignificant extra-solution activity as the location of the animal is insignificant so long as the photos are able to be taken).
Further, wherein the animal is located in an open-air field (This is a mental process, a person of ordinary skill can only acquire photos with the animals being in fields).
In regards to claim 5, wherein the animal is located in a stable (This is insignificant extra-solution activity since the location of the animal is insignificant so long as the photo is bale to be taken).
Further, wherein the animal is located in a stable (This is a mental process, a person of ordinary skill can only acquire photos with the animals being in stables).
In regards to claim 6, wherein said at least one reference 3D image is obtained by means of the airborne camera system (This is insignificant extra-solution activity as how the reference images are acquired is insignificant to the process so long as the relevant data can be extracted to identify animals, how that image is acquired is insignificant).
Further, wherein said at least one reference 3D image is obtained by means of the airborne camera system (This is a mental process as a person could only acquire photos that are obtained in this method).
In regards to claim 7, wherein a location of an individual animal is determined based on infrared images acquired by said airborne imaging unit (A person of ordinary skill in the art can look at an image of an area and make a determination about where an object within it is regardless of whether or not the image is infrared or not).
In regards to claim 8, wherein said at least one reference 3D image of the back of an identified animal is obtained when an animal passes a reference 3D image location where an identification number of said animal is associated with at least one reference 3D image of the back of said animal (This is a mental process, a person could take reference photos or even only acquire photos or acquire just one photo of a particular animal in a particular location and associate a number to an animal).
Further, wherein said at least one reference 3D image of the back of an identified animal is obtained when an animal passes a reference 3D image location where an identification number of said animal is associated with at least one reference 3D image of the back of said animal (This is insignificant extra-solution activity as the identification relies on anatomical or topographical features, this number is not relevant to that process as such, the location of the photo is not significant to the claimed method).
In regards to claim 9, wherein said animal is a livestock animal selected from the group of cattle, cows, dairy cows, bulls, calves, pigs, sows, boars, castrated males, piglets, horses, sheep, goats, deer, and/or wherein said population of animals is a population of animals of the same type, breed and/or race selected from the group of cattle, cows, dairy cows, bulls, calves, pigs, sows, boars, castrated males, piglets, horses, sheep, goats, deer (Insignificant extra-solution activity as what kind of animal is being identified is insignificant unless the animal was lacking a back of some sort).
Further, wherein said animal is a livestock animal selected from the group of cattle, cows, dairy cows, bulls, calves, pigs, sows, boars, castrated males, piglets, horses, sheep, goats, deer, and/or wherein said population of animals is a population of animals of the same type, breed and/or race selected from the group of cattle, cows, dairy cows, bulls, calves, pigs, sows, boars, castrated males, piglets, horses, sheep, goats, deer (A person of ordinary skill in the art can perform the same process on any one or more of these kinds of animals).
In regards to claim 10, wherein said at least one reference 3D image of an animal is obtained by concurrently determining the identity of the animal by reading an identification marker attached to said animal (A person of ordinary skill can determine the identity of an animal at the same time as by anatomical or topographical features of the back since a human being can identify tags or brands that have been put on the animal).
In regards to claim 11, it is similar to claim 1, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claim 12, comprising a drone for carrying said airborne imaging unit (This is using a generic recitation of a drone to apply a field of use or a technological environment).
In regards to claim 13, wherein said airborne imaging unit comprises an infrared camera and wherein the airborne imaging unit is configured for determining location of live animals based on said infrared camera, (A person of ordinary skill in the art can look at an image of an area and make a determination about where objects or live animals within it are located regardless of whether or not the image is infrared or not).
In regards to claim 14, wherein said airborne imaging unit comprises one or more pivotable cameras configured to orient towards an individual animal based on a location of said individual animal (This is insignificant extra-solution activity as whether or not the cameras can pivot towards an animal is not significant to the identification of the animals).
In regards to claim 15, wherein said airborne imaging unit comprises one or more cameras selected from the group of range cameras, stereo cameras, time-of-flight cameras, and a 2D camera comprising a depth sensor (A person of ordinary skill in the art could make sure that images that they receive are taken from one or more of these kinds of cameras).
In regards to claim 16, comprising a reference imaging unit for providing one or more reference 3D images of an animal in the population of animals, wherein the reference imaging unit is different and/or separate from the airborne imaging unit, said reference imaging unit comprising (A person of ordinary skill in the art can acquire photos from multiple sources): at least one identity determining device configured to determine the identity of said animal (A person of ordinary skill can determine the identity of an animal via a photo), and at least one reference camera configured to acquire at least one reference 3D image of the back of said animal, wherein the system is configured to associate the determined identity of the animal with said at least one reference 3D image acquired by said reference camera(s) (A person of ordinary skill in the art can acquire some kind of 3d photo from a camera of some sort).
In regards to claim 17, wherein the system is further configured to store said at least one image as a reference 3D image (A person of ordinary skill can store an image as a reference by placing it somewhere or remembering the image)
In regards to claim 18, wherein said at least one identity determining device is configured to determine the identity of said animal by reading at least one identification marker attached to said animal (A person of ordinary skill in the art can identify an animal via a tag or brand or some other form of marker on the animal).
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.
Claim 1-6, 9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 20140140575 A1) in view of Banhazi et al. (US 9142028 B2), hereinafter referred to as Banhazi, and in view of Springer (US 20100246970 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Wolf discloses a method for determining the identity of an individual animal in a population of animals with known identity, the method comprising the steps of: acquiring at least one image of the back of a preselected animal by means of an airborne camera system (Paragraph 51, This discloses an airborne drone system used to take photos).
However, Wolf does not disclose the usage of 3d images or extracting data from said at least one 3D image, said extracted data relating to the anatomy of the back and/or topology of the back of the preselected animal, and comparing and/or matching said extracted data against reference data corresponding to the anatomy of the back and/or topology of the back of the animals with known identity, thereby determining the identity of the preselected animal, wherein said reference data are extracted from at least one reference 3D image acquired of the back of each of the animals in the population of animals.
Banhazi does disclose extracting data from said at least one image, said extracted data relating to the anatomy of the back and/or topology of the back of the preselected animal, and comparing and/or matching said extracted data against reference data corresponding to the anatomy of the back and/or topology of the back of the animals with known identity (Figures 22-27, Column 5 Lines 17-33, Column 6, lines 44-59, column 2 lines 39-42, These lines and figures show that images are taken of the animals’ back and that these images are compared with an expected outcome which corresponds to the anatomy of the back of the animal).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts. As combining the airborne drone technology of Wolf with the animal identification technology of Banhazi would allow for a predictable increase in the portability and mobility of the system. The disclosed drone technology of Wolf allows for a variety of aircraft of varying sizes to be able to perform the role required as such, this would allow for smaller drones that are very portable to be used to identify a target animal in the field quickly and easily. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine these arts.
Neither Banhazi or Wolf disclose the usage of 3d images or thereby determining the identity of the preselected animal, wherein said reference data are extracted from at least one reference 3D image acquired of the back of each of the animals in the population of animals.
Springer does disclose the usage of 3d images (Abstract, discloses the usage of 3d images) or thereby determining the identity of the preselected animal, wherein said reference data are extracted from at least one reference 3D image acquired of the back of each of the animals in the population of animals (Abstract, discloses the usage of 3d images on livestock for analysis that derives further features of the animals in question).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine these prior arts. The usage of 3D images would allow for a predictable increase in reliability. The additional dimension to the image would allow for the identifier and processor to additionally cover aspects of the animal’s back that would have been lost in a 2D image. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine these arts.
In regards to claim 2, Springer discloses wherein at least one reference 3D image of the back of an identified animal with known identity is obtained at least once a month (Paragraph 41, This paragraph describes that the data can be recorded over days, weeks, and months, this would imply that a monthly schedule would be within the implied parameters of the device).
In regards to claim 3, Springer discloses wherein said at least one reference 3D image of the back of an identified animal is obtained at least every second week, or at least once a week, or at least twice a week, or at least three times a week, or at least every second day, or at least once a day, or at least twice a day (Paragraph 41, This paragraph describes that the data can be recorded over days, weeks, and months, this would imply that any schedule ranging from biweekly to daily would be within the implied parameters of the device).
In regards to claim 4, Wolf discloses wherein the animal is located in an open-air field (Paragraph 51, Wolf’s disclosure of an aerial drone would imply that the device could be used in an area which has no notable aerial obstructions).
In regards to claim 5, Banhazi discloses wherein the animal is located in a stable (Figures 22-27, These are vertically oriented photos of the pigs and there is no disclosure in this art of using an aerial device as such, they must be in an analogous structure to a stable).
In regards to claim 6, Wolf discloses wherein said at least one reference 3D image is obtained by means of the airborne camera system (Paragraph 51, This discloses an airborne drone system used to take photos).
In regards to claim 9, Banhazi discloses wherein said animal is a livestock animal selected from the group of cattle, cows, dairy cows, bulls, calves, pigs, sows, boars, castrated males, piglets, horses, sheep, goats, deer, and/or wherein said population of animals is a population of animals of the same type, breed and/or race selected from the group of cattle, cows, dairy cows, bulls, calves, pigs, sows, boars, castrated males, piglets, horses, sheep, goats, deer (Figures 22-27, Column 1, lines 13-14, Discloses that the animals can be pigs and the figures show a population of pigs).
In regards to claim 10, Springer discloses wherein said at least one reference 3D image of an animal is obtained by concurrently determining the identity of the animal by reading an identification marker attached to said animal (Paragraph 66, The RFID marker is a way to identify the animal that is attached to said animal).
In regards to claim 12, Wolf discloses comprising a drone for carrying said airborne imaging unit (Paragraph 51, This discloses that the system can be a drone.).
In regards to claim 15, Wolf discloses wherein said airborne imaging unit comprises one or more cameras selected from the group of range cameras, stereo cameras, time-of-flight cameras, and a 2D camera comprising a depth sensor (Paragraph 51 and 87, Wolf discloses the usage of a time-of-flight sensor and various 2d imaging cameras as a time-of-flight sensor is a specialized depth sensor and the cameras are 2d cameras, then this is enough to read on the claims as it only requires one camera from that group.).
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 20140140575 A1) in view of Banhazi et al. (US 9142028 B2), hereinafter referred to as Banhazi, and in view of Springer (US 20100246970 A1) as applied to claims 1-6, 9-12, and 15 above, and further in view of Pettersson et al. (US 20100199915 A1), hereinafter referred to as Pettersson.
In regards to claim 7, Wolf, Banhazi, and Springer do not explicitly disclose wherein a location of an individual animal is determined based on infrared images acquired by said airborne imaging unit.
However, Pettersson does disclose wherein a location of an individual animal is determined based on infrared images acquired by said airborne imaging unit (Paragraph 21, Discloses using infrared cameras to locate the positions of certain parts of an animal. One could simply substitute the whole animal in place of just one part of an animal).
It would have been prima facie obvious to simply substitute a whole animal for the teats disclosed in Pettersson. Infrared technology is able to detect and visualize the heat that comes from living animals as such, applying the method that Pettersson employs but for the whole animals of Wolf, Banhazi, and Springer would have been prima facie obvious to do.
In regards to claim 13, Pettersson discloses wherein said airborne imaging unit comprises an infrared camera and wherein the airborne imaging unit is configured for determining location of live animals based on said infrared camera (Paragraph 21, Discloses using infrared cameras to locate the positions of certain parts of an animal. One could simply substitute the whole animal in place of just one part of an animal).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 20140140575 A1) in view of Banhazi et al. (US 9142028 B2), hereinafter referred to as Banhazi, and in view of Springer (US 20100246970 A1) as applied to claims 1-6, 9-12, and 15 above, and further in view of Masin et al. (US 20090205584 A1), hereinafter referred to as Masin.
In regards to claim 8, Springer does disclose wherein said at least one reference 3D image of the back of an identified animal is obtained when an animal passes a reference 3D image location (Abstract, Springer discloses that the 3D images of the animals are taken when the animal is passing through the animal passage which is enough to read on the BRI of this part of the claim).
However, Springer does not explicitly disclose where an identification number of said animal is associated with at least one reference 3D image of the back of said animal.
Masin does disclose where an identification number of said animal is associated with at least one reference 3D image of the back of said animal (Paragraph 4 and Paragraph 21, Masin discloses that a unique identification number can be associated with specific animals, and that it can be used for livestock along with it being used alongside the RFID tags. As such, it would be simple substitution for a number to then be associated with a reference image of the animal along with the animal itself).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the disclosures of Masin and Springer as the inclusion of another identifier such as a number associated with each animal would lead to a predictable increase in the system’s reliability. Allowing for multiple ways of identification would ensure that individual animals are properly identified even if the images were taken in conditions where specific back features were hard to spot such as in inclement weather. Having the ability to use specific numbers to associate specific animal would allow for a way around that as one could keep track of the numbered animals instead of having to identify them over and over again.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolf (US 20140140575 A1) in view of Banhazi et al. (US 9142028 B2), hereinafter referred to as Banhazi, and in view of Springer (US 20100246970 A1) as applied to claims 1-6, 9-12, and 15 above, and further in view of Quigley et al. (“Target Acquisition, Localization, and Surveillance Using a Fixed-Wing Mini-UAV and Gimbaled Camera”), hereinafter referred to as Quigley.
In regards to claim 14, Wolf, Banhazi, and Springer do not disclose wherein said airborne imaging unit comprises one or more pivotable cameras configured to orient towards an individual animal based on a location of said individual animal.
However, Quigley does disclose wherein said airborne imaging unit comprises one or more pivotable cameras configured to orient towards an individual animal based on a location of said individual animal (Third and fourth paragraphs in section 2, Figure 2, and abstract: the disclosed paragraphs and figure showcase a camera which uses a gimble to pivot and orient itself as the operator wants and the abstract shows that the UAV and camera are trying to view a particular target).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these disclosures as the it would have led to a predictable increase in the usability and energy efficiency of the device. As the ability to move the camera and have it pivot towards objects allows for it remain stationary and observe multiple targets without having to physically move the device which save energy to make sure that each animal is within shot of the camera. As such, this renders the claim prima facie obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675