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 § 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 9-15 are 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 9 recites the limitation "the motive system" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The motive system is first mentioned in Claim 1, on which Claim 9 is not dependent.
Claims 10-15 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Smith (US 20210400908 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Smith teaches an apparatus for automatically moving an animal enclosure comprising:
a base, which is attachable to the animal enclosure (mobile barn 24 shown in Figure 15);
a motive system that is mounted to the base (drive system 270);
an electronic control unit that is mounted to the base for controlling the motive system (control system 300, shown in Figure 17);
a power source that is electrically connected with the motive system and the electronic control unit (solar panels 274 and power storage system 278);
and a light sensor that is electrically connected with the electronic control unit, wherein the electronic control unit is configured to actuate the motive system only while the light sensor detects day light (paragraph 0138-0141 describes motor movements being performed in response to signals from sensors such as light sensors).
Regarding Claim 2, Smith further teaches wherein the motive system comprises a pull-cable system (paragraph 0100 describes a towing mechanism such as a winch, being attached to the drive system for operable towing).
Regarding Claim 4, Smith further teaches an automatic feeding mechanism mounted to the base (feeder system 180 described in paragraph 0096).
Regarding Claim 5, Smith further teaches wherein the power source comprises a solar panel (described in paragraph 0119).
Regarding Claim 6, Smith further teaches wherein the electronic control unit is configured to actuate the motive system at periodic intervals for intermittent low-speed motion (described in paragraph 0137).
Regarding Claim 9, Smith further teaches an apparatus for automatically moving an animal enclosure comprising:
a base, wherein the base is fastened to the animal enclosure (mobile barn 24 attached to enclosure system 10 shown in Figure 15);
a first actuator mounted to the base (towing mechanism, or winch, described in paragraph 0100);
at least one rotatable element connected to the first actuator (wheels 50 on drive system 270);
an electronic control unit mounted to the base for providing control of the at least one rotatable element (control system 300 is described in paragraph 0116 as connected to drive system 270);
and a power source that is electrically connected with the motive system and the electronic control unit (solar panels 274).
Regarding Claim 10, Smith further teaches wherein the first actuator comprises a pull-cable system (towing mechanism described in paragraph 0100 includes a winch).
Regarding Claim 12, Smith further teaches an automatic feeding mechanism that may be actuated using the electronic control unit (feeder system 180 is controlled by the control system 300 described in paragraph 0126).
Regarding Claim 13, Smith further teaches wherein the power source comprises a solar panel (described in paragraph 0119).
Regarding Claim 14, Smith further teaches wherein the solar panel can automatically trigger a response from the electronic control unit when activated by a light source (paragraph 0138 describes motor movements being performed in response to signals from sensors such as light sensors).
Regarding Claim 15, Smith further teaches wherein the electronic control unit is configured to actuate the motive system at periodic intervals for intermittent low-speed motion (described in paragraph 0137).
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20210400908 A1).
Smith teaches the claim limitations of Claim 1 as above.
Regarding Claim 7, Smith further teaches an automatic feeding mechanism that is configured to dispense feed into the animal enclosure (described in paragraph 0096). Smith does not teach wherein the electronic control unit is configured to actuate the automatic feeding mechanism in association with actuation of the motive system. However, since the control system operates both the motive system and feeding system (described in paragraph 0125), one of ordinary skill in the art could modify the apparatus of Smith to have the electronic control unit actuate the feeding mechanism in association with actuation of the motive system. This could be for the purpose of ensuring that feeding and motion of the apparatus of Smith do not interfere with each other and that livestock within the apparatus can properly feed prior to or after movement.
Regarding Claim 8, it would have been further obvious when modifying the apparatus of Smith such that the electronic control unit is configured to actuate the automatic feeding mechanism before actuation of the motive system. This would be for the same purpose of ensuring that feeding and motion of the apparatus of Smith do not interfere with each other.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US 20210400908 A1) in view of Huisma (US 20170196203 A1).
Smith teaches the claim limitations of Claims 1 and 9 as above. They do not teach an electric fence wire that is controlled by the electronic control unit to activate upon the occurrence of a condition.
Huisma teaches an electric fence wire that is controlled by the electronic control unit to activate upon the occurrence of a condition (paragraph 0066 describes solar-powered electric fences, or electric fences activated under the condition of being in sunlight).
Regarding Claim 3, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the electric fence of Huisma to the apparatus of Smith. This would be for the purpose of ensuring containment of livestock and avoiding their interference with operation of the apparatus of Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the electric fence of Huisma to the apparatus of Smith without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the electric fence of Huisma to the apparatus of Smith would produce the predictable results of providing mobility to an animal shelter and its contents.
Regarding Claim 11, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the electric fence of Huisma to the apparatus of Smith. This would be for the purpose of ensuring containment of livestock and avoiding their interference with operation of the apparatus of Smith. One of ordinary skill in the art could apply the electric fence of Huisma to the apparatus of Smith without undue experimentation. Further, the application of the electric fence of Huisma to the apparatus of Smith would produce the predictable results of providing mobility to an animal shelter and its contents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIRAJ T PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272 -9330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Jacob Scott can be reached on 571-270-3415. 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.
/M.T.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3655
/JACOB S. SCOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3655