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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehmann et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20180180632) in view of Makiuchi et al (U.S. Patent No. 5,047,351).
Regarding claim 1, Lehmann et al. disclose a milking arrangement comprising: a milking machine for milking an animal (See paragraph 0038); and an analyzing unit configured to determine a value of haptoglobin quantity in a milk sample taken from milk harvest by the milking machine (See paragraph 0039 HP), said analyzing unit comprising: a haptoglobin sensor device configured to provide a value of haptoglobin quantity in said milk sample, (See paragraph 0039, 0040, 0060 biomarkers are used as sensor device) and
a processor (as implied in paragraph 0035, 0036)
Lehmann et al. fail to specifically disclose wherein said processor is configured, on the basis of a reaction time being a time during which said milk sample has been in contact with the haptoglobin sensor device, to: determine, when the reaction time exceeds a threshold time if the provided value of haptoglobin quantity is above a haptoglobin threshold , and in a confirmative case, assign the provided value of haptoglobin quantity to be a determined value of haptoglobin quantity, and in a non-confirmative case, increase the reaction time to a total reaction time, and at a point in time where the reaction time exceeds the total reaction time, provide a further value of the haptoglobin quantity in the milk sample and assign the provided further value of haptoglobin quantity to be the determined value of haptoglobin quantity.
In a related art, Makiuchi et al. disclose on the basis of a reaction time being a time during which said milk sample has been in contact with the haptoglobin sensor device, to: determine, when the reaction time exceeds a threshold time if the provided value of haptoglobin quantity is above a haptoglobin threshold , and in a confirmative case, assign the provided value of haptoglobin quantity to be a determined value of haptoglobin quantity, and in a non-confirmative case, increase the reaction time to a total reaction time, and at a point in time where the reaction time exceeds the total reaction time, provide a further value of the haptoglobin quantity in the milk sample and assign the provided further value of haptoglobin quantity to be the determined value of haptoglobin quantity (See col. 1, line 60-col.2 line 13; it is considered that shortening the reaction time to the minimum without reducing the analytical accuracy). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system of Lehmann with the reaction time of Makiuchi et al. since it would solve the problem posed for managing the reaction time by shortening the analysis time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art fails to disclose: The milking arrangement according to claim 1,further comprising a diluent container that uses a diluent to dilute the milk sample prior to being provided to the haptoglobin sensor device, wherein the haptoglobin sensor device is configured to provide the value of haptoglobin quantity (15) in said milk sample having been diluted by the diluent, and the total reaction time is determined on the basis of an amount of the diluent added to the said milk sample.
Nor does the prior art disclose the milking arrangement wherein the haptoglobin sensor device comprising an optical device configured to optically read: a test signal at a test line of a dry stick , and wherein said processor is configured to determine said provided value of haptoglobin quantity based on said test signal.
Nor does the prior art disclose the milking arrangement wherein the haptoglobin sensor device comprising an optical device configured to optically read: a test signal at a test line of a dry stick, and a control signal at a control line of said dry stick, wherein said processor is further configured to determine said provided value of haptoglobin quantity [[is]] based on an algebraic relationship between the test signal and the control signal and haptoglobin quantity.
The prior art fails to disclose the limitations of claims 12-22.
Claim 2 is allowed.
The prior art fails to disclose a milking arrangement comprising: a milking machine for milking an animal; and an analyzing unit configured to determining a value of haptoglobin quantity in a milk sample taken from milk harvest by the milking machine and having been having been diluted by a diluent, said analyzing unit comprising: a haptoglobin sensor device configured to provide a value of haptoglobin quantity in said milk sample, and a processor, wherein said processor is configured to assign the provided value of haptoglobin quantity to be a determined value of haptoglobin quantity when a reaction time, being a time during which said milk sample has been in contact with the haptoglobin sensor device, exceeds a total reaction time, and wherein the total reaction time is determined on the basis of an amount of the diluent added to said milk sample.
In combination the limitation is neither taught nor obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Spetzler et al. (U.S. Pub No. 20140141986) discloses Biomarkers can be assessed for diagnostic, therapy-related or prognostic methods to identify phenotypes, such as a condition or disease, or the stage or progression of a disease. Circulating biomarkers can be detected and optionally used in profiling of physiological states or determining phenotypes. These include nucleic acids, protein, and circulating structures such as vesicles. Biomarkers can be assessed for diagnostic, prognostic or theranostic purposes, e.g., to select candidate treatment regimens for diseases, conditions, disease stages, and stages of a condition, and can also be used to determine treatment efficacy. Examples of useful circulating biomarkers include polypeptides, nucleic acids (e.g., DNA, mRNA, microRNA) and vesicles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE whose telephone number is (571)272-6954. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 7:30-8:00 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, Ramya P Burgess can be reached at 571-272-6011. 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.
/GERTRUDE ARTHUR JEANGLAUDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661