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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Request for Continued Examination filed on April 27, 2026. Claims 1 and 13 been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 4, 7, and 12 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, and 13 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 27, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the details of the “barrier” as described in claims 8-9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Specifically, the “barrier in a circumferential direction in inner and outer edge regions of the segments” (claim 8) and “wherein the barrier projects upwardly” (claim 9). No new matter should be entered.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to because, in Fig. 3-4, it is unclear what the lines within “segment 11” are intended to represent. Specifically, it is unclear what the curly line at the bottom of segment 11 and the line through the vertical midpoint of segment 11 are intended to represent. These lines do not appear to be described in the specification and render the drawings unclear as to where the boundaries of segment 11 are located.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, and 13 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 1, lines 10-12, recites “wherein the platform further includes an in-situ concrete layer disposed above the plurality of radial segments as a whole". However, it is unclear whether the claimed “in-situ concrete layer” is the same structure or a different structure relative to the “platform…made of concrete” claimed previously in claim 1. It is thus also unclear how the initially claimed "concrete" structurally relates to both the "plurality of radial segments" and the "in-situ concrete layer disposed above the plurality of radial segments”, as it is unclear whether the radial segments are made up of the initially claimed "concrete" or another material. For at least these reasons, the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-11, and 13 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 1.
Claim 2, line 2, recites “wherein the platform is made up of segments”. However, it is unclear whether the claimed “segments” are the same as or different from the previously claimed "plurality of radial segments" of claim 1. The structure of the platform is thus also unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. The Examiner notes that further reference to said "segments" is made in claims 8 and 10.
Claim 5, line 2, recites “wherein the platform has a top layer”. However, it is unclear whether the claimed “top layer” is the same structure or a different structure relative to the “in-situ concrete layer disposed above the plurality of radial segments” claimed previously in claim 1. The structure of the platform is thus also unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. The Examiner notes that further reference to said "top layer" is made in claim 6.
Claim 11, line 2, recites "wherein a station spoke is an integral part of a segment". However, it is unclear whether the claimed “segment” is the same as or different from the previously claimed “plurality of radial segments” of claim 1. The structural relationship of the station spoke to the surrounding system is thus also unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. If claim 11, line 2, does refer to a segment of the plurality of radial segments, it is then further unclear whether claim 11 refers to a specific one of the plurality of radial segments or to each of the plurality of radial segments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowers (US 6,189,288 B1), hereinafter Bowers, in view Courtemanche (US 9,357,749 B2), hereinafter Courtemanche, and TU Dresden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB9ViglDMmg, last visited 06/13/2026), hereinafter TU Dresden.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers discloses a rotary milking parlor (abstract; col 1, lines 4-10), comprising
a rotatable platform (assembly of inner panels 15 and outer panels 16, shown in fig. 1) in the form of an annular disk (abstract, lines 1-3, “an elevated annular platform, generally elevated and which rotates”; see fig. 1, disk shape is made up of connected inner panels 15 and outer panels 16), and
wherein the platform has a plurality of milking stations (spaces defined by inner panels 15 and outer panels 16, shown in fig. 1, note that spaces defined by inner panels 15 and outer panels 16 are capable of supporting milking operations),
rests on a support structure (comprises at least rotating means 5, side supports 10, and metal strip 20; fig. 1-2),
is made of concrete (col 6, lines 5-9, inner panels 15 and outer panels 16 are made up of pre-cast concrete) and
wherein the platform includes a plurality of radial segments (radial segment defined by an inner panel 15 and outer panel 16 together, shown in fig. 1) positioned adjacently to form the annular disk (fig. 1, radial segments made up of inner panel 15 and outer panel 16 are positioned adjacently to form an annular disk), wherein the platform further includes an in-situ concrete layer (concrete 23) disposed above the plurality of radial segments as a whole (fig. 3 and 5; col 6, line 61-col 7, line 22, an additional layer of concrete 23 is poured and cured in-situ atop pre-cast concrete inner panels 15 and outer panels 16; the layer of in-situ concrete 23 extends across all radial segments formed by inner panels 15 and outer panels 16, as shown in 5, to form a unitary layer across the entirety of the annular disk shape).
Bowers does not appear to specifically disclose:
a driving and braking system for the platform,
wherein the platform has a carbon reinforcement in the form of meshes, wherein the concrete and the carbon reinforcement form together a composite material.
However, Courtemanche is in the field of rotary milking parlors (title; abstract) and teaches a driving and braking system (driving assembly 9 and “brake system”, col 15, lines 39-41) for the platform (carrousel 11; fig. 11 and 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotary milking parlor with platform of Bowers to incorporate the driving and braking mechanism as taught by Courtemanche with a reasonable expectation of success to allow the platform to be more automatically rotatably moveable (abstract), thereby reducing physical burden on users.
Additionally, TU Dresden is in the field of concrete construction (title) and teaches wherein the platform has a carbon reinforcement in the form of meshes (see timestamp 0:18-0:34), wherein the concrete and the carbon reinforcement form together a composite material (see timestamp 0:34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotary milking parlor with platform made of concrete of Bowers to have included a carbon reinforcement as taught by TU Dresden with a reasonable expectation of success to further strengthen the platform with a lightweight, environmentally-friendly, durable, and corrosion-resistant material (see timestamp 0:18, 0:26-0:27, and 1:04-1:20).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the platform (assembly of inner panels 15 and outer panels 16) is made up of segments (segment defined by an inner panel 15 and outer panel 16 together, shown in fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the support structure (comprises at least rotating means 5) has radially arranged station spokes (side supports 10, metal strip 20, shown in fig. 1 and 4) below the platform (fig. 4, side supports 10 are positioned below inner panels 15 and outer panels 16).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the platform (assembly of inner panels 15 and outer panels 16, shown in fig. 1) has a top layer (concrete 23 is positioned on top of inner panels 15 and outer panels 16).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the segments (segment defined by an inner panel 15 and outer panel 16 together, shown in fig. 1) contain a barrier (upright inner edging 13 and upright outer edging 14) in a circumferential direction in inner and outer edge regions (inner edge 11 and outer edge 12) of the segments (fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 8, and further discloses wherein the barrier (upright inner edging 13 and upright outer edging 14) projects upwardly (fig. 2, edgings 13 and 14 are shown projecting upwardly).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the segments (segment defined by an inner panel 15 and outer panel 16 together, shown in fig. 1) comprise upwards protrusions (upright inner edging 13 and upright outer edging 14) from the support structure (comprises at least rotating means 5; fig. 2, edging 13 and 14 protrude upwardly relative to rotating means 5).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein a station spoke (comprises side support 10, metal strip 20) is an integral part of a segment (segment defined by an inner panel 15 and outer panel 16 together, shown in fig. 1; see fig. 1 and 4, side support 10 is integral with inner panel 15 and outer panel 16), and the station spoke is connected to the support structure (comprises at least rotating means 5; fig. 2, side support 10 is connected to rotating means 5 via beam 4 and panels 15 and 16).
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bowers (US 6,189,288 B1), hereinafter Bowers, in view Courtemanche (US 9,357,749 B2), hereinafter Courtemanche, and TU Dresden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB9ViglDMmg, last visited 06/13/2026), hereinafter TU Dresden, as applied to claims 5 and 1 above, respectively, and further in view of Ritke (US 2010/0272509 A1), hereinafter Ritke.
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 5, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the reinforcement projects into the top layer.
However, Ritke is in the field of concrete construction (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the reinforcement (reinforcement members 66a, 172, 174) projects into the top layer (concrete moment slab footing 32; fig. 10-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotary milking parlor with carbon reinforcement and concrete layers of Bowers as modified to have made the reinforcement project into the top layer as taught by Ritke with a reasonable expectation of success to make the concrete layers more integral with one another, thereby further strengthening and stabilizing the combined construct (abstract; para [0028]). The Examiner further notes that no criticality appears to have been described in the instant disclosure regarding having the reinforcement project into the top layer (see Specification, filed November 30, 2023, page 5 of 11, lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the carbon reinforcement meshes extend through individual radial segments of the plurality of radial segments and upwardly into the in-situ concrete layer to strengthen the in-situ concrete layer.
However, Ritke is in the field of concrete reinforcement (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the carbon reinforcement meshes (reinforcement members 66a, 172, 174) extend through individual radial segments of the plurality of radial segments (barrier wall sections 30) and upwardly into the in-situ concrete layer (concrete moment slab footing 32; para [0017], footing 32 may be in-situ) to strengthen the in-situ concrete layer (fig. 9-11; para [0027]-[0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotary milking parlor with carbon reinforcement mesh, radial segments, and in-situ concrete layer of Bowers as modified to incorporate the teaching of extending the reinforcement into the in-situ concrete layer as taught by Ritke with a reasonable expectation of success to make the concrete layers more integral with one another, thereby further strengthening and stabilizing the combined construct (abstract; para [0028]). The Examiner further notes that no criticality appears to have been described in the instant disclosure regarding having reinforcement extending into the in-situ concrete layer (see Specification, filed November 30, 2023, page 5 of 11, lines 11-13).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 1-5 of 5), filed via Request for Continued Examination on April 27, 2026, regarding the rejection of at least claim(s) 1 under § 103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The Examiner notes that the prior art of Bowers (US 6,189,288 B1), hereinafter Bowers, in view Courtemanche (US 9,357,749 B2), hereinafter Courtemanche, and TU Dresden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB9ViglDMmg, last visited 06/13/2026), hereinafter TU Dresden, has been reinterpreted herein in light of the amendments to the claims, and updated citations to the prior art have been provided in the rejection above. Additionally, the prior art of Ritke (US 2010/0272509 A1), hereinafter Ritke, has been incorporated to further modify Bowers as modified in order to teach the limitations of claims 6 and 13.
Applicant asserts that “Bowers teaches a fundamentally different method and resulting structure as compared with the one now recited in amended claim 1” and that Bowers differs from the instant invention by its use of a “mould” and “individual formwork components” in order to make the overall system (Remarks, pages 2 of 5).
The Examiner respectfully asserts that Applicant’s arguments appear directed to the process of manufacturing the claimed invention; however, the claims themselves are drawn to a system, or product. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the process of making the product) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, should limitations pertaining to the process of making the product be incorporated into the product claim, the determination of patentability in a product-by-process claim is based on the product itself, even though the claim may be limited and defined by the process. That is, the product in such a claim is unpatentable if it is the same as or obvious from the product of the prior art, even if the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 697, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). A product-by-process limitation adds no patentable distinction to the claim, and is unpatentable if the claimed product is the same as a product of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113.
Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully asserts that Bowers as modified does in fact disclose the resulting structure of the system as claimed, and that all claim limitations are met by the prior art. As is further outlined in the rejection above made in light of the amendments to the claims, the inner and outer panels (15, 16) of Bowers, made of pre-cast concrete (col 6, lines 5-9) and joined together in a radial arrangement (shown in fig. 1), are currently interpreted as the “plurality of radial segments”, while the concrete (23) is currently interpreted as the “in-situ concrete layer” disposed above the “plurality of radial segments” as a whole (shown in fig. 3 and 5). Therefore, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Bowers does meet the limitations “wherein the platform includes a plurality of radial segments positioned adjacently to form the annular disk” and “wherein the platform further includes an in-situ concrete layer disposed above the plurality of radial segments as a whole” and thus teaches the asserted “two-part, layered structure” (Remarks, page 3 of 5).
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 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, Kimberly Berona, can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights