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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia et al. (CN 113875629 A), hereinafter referred to as Jia, in view of Wang et al. (CN 110608768 A), hereinafter referred to as Wang, and in further view of Signorini et al. (US Pub. # 20080125670), hereinafter referred to as Signorini.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Jia teaches, “A livestock biometric information scanning system (claim 12: method), comprising: a rail (Fig. 1, 2; ref. # 2) installed at a certain height from a floor of a livestock barn across a plurality of breeding spaces (1); a sensor unit (3 with 3143, 311) installed to be movable along the rail (2) and configured to obtain images and/or (claim 12: “and”) body temperatures of livestock located in the breeding spaces (1); and a control unit (32, 323) configured to control a movement of the sensor unit so that the sensor unit is located above any one of the plurality of breeding spaces through the driving unit (see pages 4–5 of the English translation; discussion related to 32, 323 and temperature/imaging control); wherein the control unit identifies when a sow stands still for a certain period of time through the images (see last line of page 4–line 11 of page 5; activity of livestock monitored using activity level (equivalent to determining sow standing still for certain period of time) in combination with temperature detected).” Jia does not appear to teach, “a wire connected to the sensor unit; a driving unit configured to pull the wire; wherein the wire is fixed to both ends of the sensor unit via at least one first pulley located at one end of the rail, at least one second pulley located at the other end, and the driving unit.” However, Wang teaches the deficiencies of Jia (Fig. 1–3, ref. # 5, 6, 7, 8; English translation pages 4–5, including discussion related to ref. # 6, and 8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jia’s invention to include a wire connected to the sensor unit; a driving unit configured to pull the wire; wherein the wire is fixed to both ends of the sensor unit via at least one first pulley located at one end of the rail, at least one second pulley located at the other end, and the driving unit.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Jia’s invention for at least the purpose of providing alternative means for controlling position of the sensing unit, while allowing more accurate placement over the entire length of the rod/wire/rail (i.e., docking to one side via a direct power source to charge externally mounted batteries that are entirely depleted).
Furthermore, Jia does not specifically mention, “determining whether a sow stands still for a certain period of time through the images, in order to determine a right time for fertilization. However, this limitation is an intended use/known purpose limitation. The detection of a sow standing still (“standing reflex” or Duldungsreflex) as an indicator of estrus and optimal insemination timing is well-known in the swine husbandry and veterinary arts, as evidenced by the teachings of Signorini (see entire application, specifically: abstract, and para. [0059, 0064]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the activity-detection system of Jia which already monitors pig stillness via thermal imaging, to the specific and well-known purpose of determining the optimal time for artificial insemination of sows. The combination involves no more than the application of a known technique (thermal imaging-based stillness detection) to a known problem (estrus detection for fertilization timing) using known methods, with a predictable result. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 8, Jia teaches, “a memory unit configured to store image or body temperature information acquired from the sensor unit, and a wireless communication unit configured to wirelessly transmit the image or body temperature information to the control unit (see page 2, last paragraph of the English translation).”
Regarding claim 10, Jia teaches, “wherein the sensor unit comprises a wheel unit for reducing friction with the rail when moving along the rail (see Fig. 2, ref. # 36, wheels shown moving along 2).”
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia, Wang, and Signorini, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin (CN 27854904).
Regarding claim 2, Jia, Wang, and Signorini do not appear to teach, “wherein the rail comprises a rail frame including a plastic material containing a hollow space, and a metal reinforcement in the hollow space of the rail frame along the longitudinal direction of the rail.” However, Lin teaches the deficiencies of Jia, Wang, and Signorini (Abstract, and page 2 of the English translation; discussion related to the reduction of weight by using plastic and some metal for structural integrity). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jia, Wang, and Signorini’s invention to include wherein the rail comprises a rail frame including a plastic material containing a hollow space, and a metal reinforcement in the hollow space of the rail frame along the longitudinal direction of the rail.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Jia, Wang, and Signorini’s invention for at least the purpose of reducing the overall weight and cost of the railing while maintaining the overall strength of the apparatus to support the moving sensing device.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia, Wang, and Signorini, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 211270123), hereinafter referred to as Zhu.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Jia, Wang, and Signorini do not appear to teach, “at least one magnet located along the rail; and a Hall sensor located on one side of the sensor unit and configured to detect the at least one magnet when the sensor unit moves along the rail; wherein the control unit is configured to control the position of the sensor unit based on the position of the at least one magnet.” However, Zhu teaches the deficiencies of Jia, Wang, and Signorini (see pages 2 and 4 of the English translation; discussion related to the Hall sensor and magnet). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jia, Wang, and Signorini’s invention to include at least one magnet located along the rail; and a Hall sensor located on one side of the sensor unit and configured to detect the at least one magnet when the sensor unit moves along the rail; wherein the control unit is configured to control the position of the sensor unit based on the position of the at least one magnet.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Jia, Wang, and Signorini’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuing the most accurate control of the moving device along a rail and targeting the proper position as taught by Zhu.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia, Wang, and Signorini, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jin et al. (CN 110663578 A), hereinafter referred to as Jin.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 11, and 13, Jia, Wang, and Signorini do not appear to teach, “an identifier storage unit installed at a position on the rail corresponding to the position of each breeding space and configured to store livestock identification information; and an identifier receiving unit located on one side of the sensor unit and configured to read the livestock identification information stored in the identifier storage unit; wherein the identifier storage unit includes an RFID tag, and the identifier receiving unit is configured to read livestock identification information stored in the RFID tag; wherein the rail comprises a recessed wheel guide for accommodating the wheel unit; recognizing livestock identification information stored in an RFID tag at a position corresponding to each breeding space through the sensor unit; and outputting image and/or body temperature information about the livestock along with the livestock identification information.” However, Jin teaches the deficiencies of Jia, Wang, and Signorini (abstract and English translation, pages 3–6, and discussion related to the RFID tag on rail, RFID module on the sensing robot; see page 5, discussion related to the wheel guide, “In order to realize … along the grooved rail”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jia, Wang, and Signorini’s invention to include an identifier storage unit installed at a position on the rail corresponding to the position of each breeding space and configured to store livestock identification information; and an identifier receiving unit located on one side of the sensor unit and configured to read the livestock identification information stored in the identifier storage unit; wherein the identifier storage unit includes an RFID tag, and the identifier receiving unit is configured to read livestock identification information stored in the RFID tag; wherein the rail comprises a recessed wheel guide for accommodating the wheel unit; recognizing livestock identification information stored in an RFID tag at a position corresponding to each breeding space through the sensor unit; and outputting image and/or body temperature information about the livestock along with the livestock identification information.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Jia, Wang, and Signorini’s invention for at least the purpose of more accurately tracking the information of each animal and position within the storage area/barn, and further for ensuring the sensing device stays on the track during the back/forth horizontal motion along the rail/wire/track.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia, Wang, and Signorini, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ju et al. (CN 109632059), hereinafter referred to as Ju.
Regarding claim 9, Jia, Wang, and Signorini do not appear to teach, “a battery charging unit located on one side of the rail; wherein the control unit is further configured to move the sensor unit to the position of the battery charging unit to charge an internal battery of the sensor unit through the battery charging unit.” However, Ju teaches the deficiencies of Jia, Wang, and Signorini (see the English translation, page 3, 2nd to last paragraph; discussion related to the charging device, “Further, the S1 comprising: …”). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Jia, Wang, and Signorini’s invention to include a battery charging unit located on one side of the rail; wherein the control unit is further configured to move the sensor unit to the position of the battery charging unit to charge an internal battery of the sensor unit through the battery charging unit.
The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify the combination of Jia, Wang, and Signorini’s invention for at least the purpose of ensuring the remotely powered device is charged to the proper voltage/power, providing the benefit of uninterrupted operation. (notably, Jin also teaches a charging port/power supply configuration as claimed in claim 9, see discussion thereof in Jin)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 30, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states, “While Jia describes measuring pigs' body temperature and even estimating "activity amount" by tracking displacement of a highest-temperature region, Jia is silent on detecting sow estrus or determining a right time for fertilization. There is no disclosure in Jia of any algorithm or control logic that identifies when a sow stands still for a duration indicative of estrus, nor any linkage of behavior detection to fertilization timing … Absence of Motivation to Combine: The Office Action's stated motivation for combining Jia and Wang relates to mechanical positioning, accuracy, and charging-not reproductive management. There is no articulated reasoning to modify the prior art to incorporate estrus detection based on the specific behavioral criterion claimed. See MPEP§ 2141 and 2143; In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d at 1370-71 (impermissible hindsight when references do not suggest the claimed combination).”
The Office disagrees with applicant’s conclusions.
In response to Jia having “no disclosure…of any algorithm or control logic that identifies when a sow stands still for a duration of estrus”, as shown in the rejection of claims 1 and 12 above, Jia discloses (see last line of page 4–line 11 of page 5) monitoring activity of livestock using activity level (equivalent to determining sow standing still for certain period of time) in combination with temperature detected. Furthermore, the intended purpose as disclosed does not impart patentability when the underlying steps are already known or obvious. The determination of standing stillness is the same physical operation regardless of whether the operator’s goal is general activity monitoring or estrus detection. It is well-settled that a recited purpose or intended use does not render a claim patentable when the underlying steps or structure are already known. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The system of Jia, as applied to sows, would inherently detect the standing reflex when a sow enters estrus, regardless of whether the operator labels the output as "fertilization timing." The claim scope covers any system performing the recited detection, including the system of Jia, and the applicant has not demonstrated any structural or operational difference between the claimed invention and the system of Jia, when applied to sows.
In response to the “impermissible hindsight” argument, a person of ordinary skill in the art, reasonably assumed to have knowledge of both thermal imaging sensor technology and basic swine reproductive management, would have immediately recognized that the standing behavior detectable by Jia's system is the same standing reflex that the industry relies upon for artificial insemination timing. The motivation to apply Jia's system to this known problem is inherent in the ordinary skill of the art. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.”).
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 RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights