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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 contains several acronyms (e.g. LCD, UART, etc.); the first instance of each of these acronyms should be fully spelled out, with the acronym following in parenthesis: “Liquid Crystal Display (LCD)” – for example.
Claim 1 also contains numerous claim elements that are missing the article “a” or “an” before the first recitation of the element. For example, “Lora terminal” should be “a Lora terminal” and “liquid level sensor” should be “a liquid level sensor.”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 should begin with “An in-tank raw milk monitoring method…” (if claim 2 is intended to be an independent claim, see below)
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2 is 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 2 uses the phrase “in general,” which renders what follows indefinite since this phrase makes it unclear if the following limitations are always performed or meant to be a part of the claimed method, and therefore does not clearly define the metes and bounds of the claim (the examiner recommends deleting the phrase).
Claim 2 recites numerous limitations that begin with the article “the” (such as “the cloud” and “the first microcontroller,” etc.). There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. If claim 2 is meant to be an independent claim, the first recitation of each of these claim elements should begin with “a” or “an.” Alternatively, it is possible that claim 2 is meant to be in dependent form and contain a reference to claim 1. If this is the case (and claim 2 were amended to depend on claim 1), any claim element in claim 2 that begins with “the” and has antecedent basis in claim 1 would not be rejected under 112(b).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The prior art of record does not show or suggest:
“…Lora terminal, LTE and Lora antenna to provide wireless long distance data exchange…
“…Lora Gateway to collect wireless and long-distance sensor data… and
“…UPS to provide uninterrupted power to the system…”
(as in claim 1)
And
“…sending the sensor data to the first microcomputer address in the Lora network formed by the Lora terminal and antenna, receiving and analyzing data by the first microcomputer from the Lora terminal to its own address in the Lora network provided by the Lora Gateway and antenna…
“…as a part of the tank filling process, measuring if the tank pressure goes beyond to the full value range, the tank temperature is within the measurement value range and liquid can be drawn from the tank, checking the calibration values of the sensors, starting the calibration process if there is a deterioration in the calibration, and if there is no deterioration, proceed with the sampling process from the tank - as a part of the calibration process, transferring the solution at pH 7.0 from the pH 7.0 solution container to the sample container by a peristaltic pump, performing calibration for pH 7.0 after the sensors make a stable reading, then transferring the calibration solution to the drain container with a peristaltic pump, transferring the cleaning solution from the cleaning container to the sample container by a peristaltic pump, then transferring the cleaning solution in the cleaned sample container to the drain container by a peristaltic pump, transferring the pH solution from the pH 4.0 solution container to the sample container by a peristaltic pump after cleaning, performing pH 4.0 calibration after the sensors have stable readings…”
(as in claim 2)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lidman et al. (WO 02/074069 – copy attached), Baines (WO 2016/162654 – copy attached), Alpmann (DE 202020000234 – copy/translation attached), and Lax (U.S. Pub. 2023/0329185) all disclose raw milk monitoring systems using various sensors and communications systems.
Hartmann (DE 102009009552 – copy/translation attached) discloses sampling raw milk using an inline system.
Liu et al. (CN 107481159 – copy/translation attached) discloses a LoRa antenna system to monitor livestock.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852