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 Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on December 31, 2025. Claims 9-10 have been amended and are hereby entered. Claims 12-13 have been added. Claims 4 and 7 have been canceled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-13 are currently pending and have been examined. This action is made FINAL.
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, 5-6, and 8-13 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 01/23/2026), hereinafter TU Dresden.
Regarding claim 1, Bowers discloses a rotary milking parlor (abstract; col 1, lines 4-10), comprising
a rotatable platform (platform 2) in the form of an annular disk (abstract, lines 1-3, “an elevated annular platform, generally elevated and which rotates”), and
wherein the platform has a plurality of milking stations (spaces defined by bail sections 3, shown in fig. 1, note that spaces defined by bail sections 3 are capable of supporting milking operations),
rests on a support structure (rotating means 5; fig. 1-2),
is made of concrete (concrete 23; col 6, lines 58-60, platform 2 comprises concrete) and
has a reinforcement (reinforcing rods 21 and 22).
Bowers does not appear to specifically disclose:
a driving and braking system for the platform, and
wherein the reinforcement is 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 reinforced concrete construction materials (title) and teaches wherein the reinforcement is 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 and having a reinforcement of Bowers to have made the reinforcement of carbon as taught by TU Dresden with a reasonable expectation of success to provide more lightweight, environmentally-friendly, durable, and corrosion-resistant support to the concrete platform structure (see timestamp 0:18, 0:26-0:27, and 1:04-1:20).
Regarding claim 2, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the platform (platform 2) is made up of segments (bail sections 3; fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the support structure (rotating means 5) has radially arranged station spokes (side supports 10; fig. 1-2; col 5, lines 29-31 and col 5, lines 43-49, supports 10 are fixed to upper flat surface 7 of rotating means 5) below the platform (platform 2; fig. 4, side support 10 is shown below at least parts of inner panels 15 of platform 2).
Regarding claim 5, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the platform (platform 2) has a top layer (layer formed by concrete 23; fig. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 5, and further discloses wherein the reinforcement (reinforcing rods 21 and 22) projects into the top layer (layer formed by concrete 23; fig. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 8, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the segments (bail sections 3) 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, 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, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 2, and further discloses wherein the segments (bail sections 3) comprise upwards protrusions (upright inner edging 13 and upright outer edging 14) from the support structure (rotating means 5; fig. 2, edging 13 and 14 protrude upwardly relative to rotating means 5).
Regarding claim 11, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein a station spoke (side support 10) is an integral part of a segment (bail section 3; fig. 1 and 4, side support 10 is integral with inner panel 15 of bail stations 3), and the station spoke is connected to the support structure (rotating means 5; fig. 2, side support 10 is connected to rotating means 5 via beam 4 and panels 15 and 16).
Regarding claim 12, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the platform (platform 2) includes a plurality of radial segments (bail sections 3 each comprising an inner panel 15 and outer panel 16) positioned adjacently to form the annular disk (fig. 1), 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 4, line 22, concrete 23 is poured and cured in situ and extends across the space defined by panels 15 and 16 and edgings 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 13, Bowers as modified discloses the rotary milking parlor as claimed in claim 12, and further discloses wherein the carbon reinforcement meshes (from Bowers, reinforcing rods 21 and 22, modified as “carbon reinforcement meshes” by TU Dresden, timestamp 0:18-0:34) extend through individual radial segments (from Bowers, each bail section 3) of the plurality of radial segments (from Bowers, bail sections 3; rods 21 and 22 extend through each section 3) and upwardly into the in-situ concrete layer (from Bowers, concrete 23; fig. 3) to strengthen the in-situ concrete layer (disclosed reinforcing material is capable of strengthening concrete 23).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, pages 1-2 of 5), filed December 31, 2025, regarding the rejection of claim(s) 1-3 and 5-11 under §103 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art of “TU Dresden” has a video upload date of March 26, 2020 but that this upload date “is not necessarily the date on which the video first became publicly available”. Applicant asserts therefore that “no valid prior art has been cited to address ‘a carbon reinforcement in the form of meshes, wherein the concrete and the carbon reinforcement form together a composite material,’ as recited in claim 1”.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner maintains that the cited reference “TU Dresden” was made publicly available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The public availability date of “TU Dresden” is further evidenced by its publication in the Wayback Machine®, which shows public availability at least on August 21, 2020. Per MPEP 2128, “Publications obtained via the Wayback Machine® are prima facie deemed to be publicly accessible at the date and time provided in the time stamp”. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the prior art of “TU Dresden” serves as valid prior art to teach the abovementioned limitation of claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, page 3 of 5), filed December 31, 2025, regarding newly added claim(s) 12-13 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the prior art, particularly “Bowers” does not disclose the limitations of the newly added claims. In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully asserts that “Bowers” does in fact read upon the newly added claims per the details of the “Bowers” disclosure cited in the above rejection.
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 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