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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 27 August 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 11,937,581 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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 limitation “means to turn lights on and off in claim 21 has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it gives structure to the means as an electronic system. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claims 22 is rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2564727 to Sasaki et al.
Regarding Claim 19, Sasaki teaches a lighting system for a poultry house (Sasaki #1, #3 and #10) to control the amount of light and the intensity of light available to poultry in the poultry house during a poultry production cycle comprising a poultry house having a ceiling and a floor (Sasaki Fig. 1 and Fig. 9) at least one line of a plurality of feeders (Sasaki Fig.2 #12), at least one line of a plurality of lights adapted to be raised and lowered in relation to the floor of the poultry house and the plurality of feeders (Sasaki teaches #10 is raised and lowered, paragraph [0009] “slidac”) and the plurality of lights adapted to control the amount of light and the intensity of light provided to the poultry at the plurality of feeders at predetermined times during the poultry production cycle, wherein the at least one line of the plurality of lights are adapted to be suspended from the ceiling approximately a foot away in a horizontal direction from a respective at least one line of a plurality of feeders. Sasaki appears to teach the light #10 is “approximately” a foot away (applicant doesn’t claim that the vertical position is at the same height as the feeder, but merely that the light is offset in a horizontal direction from the feeder), but is silent on explicitly teaching the distance. However, applicant does not provide criticality in the specification for this distance. The modification is merely a shift in location of a known component performing the same intended function and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record [/n re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70, 73 (CCPA 1950)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sasaki before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to stimulate physical activity of the poultry. The modification is merely “obvious to try’ choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, Sasaki as modified is silent on wherein there are three lines of lights. However, the modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice and does not present a patentably distinct limitation over the prior art of record. The modification is merely the duplication of a known element for a multiple effect performing the same intended function [/n re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960)] to cover a large area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sasaki before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for large coverage areas for larger facilities. The modification is merely “obvious to try” to choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 20, 21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2564727 to Sasaki et al in view of Korean Patent KR 200302101.
Regarding Claims 20 and 24, Sasaki as modified teaches the light is adjusted up in down, but is silent on explicitly teaching a winch assembly comprising a bi-directional pull winch, a cable attached to the winch, plurality of light drop lines connected to the cable and attached to a light support rod, the plurality of lights are attached to the light support rod, and an electronic system or a manual system to control the winch to raise and lower the light drop lines, and wherein the three lines of lights are adapted to be independently raised and lowered to provide a different amount of light and/or a different intensity of light to the poultry in each respective zone. However, Korean Patent ‘101 teaches a winch assembly comprising a bi-directional pull winch, a cable attached to the winch, plurality of light drop lines connected to the cable and attached to a light support rod, the plurality of lights are attached to the light support rod, and an electronic system or a manual system to control the winch to raise and lower the light drop lines (KR ‘101 #11, #21, #23; Fig. 2; #34, #30 control box). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sasaki with the teachings of KR ‘101 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide optimal lighting to an indoor space with high ceilings as taught by KR’101. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known lift configuration for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 21, Sasaki as modified teaches wherein the electronic system further includes a means to turn the lights on and off at prescribed times over the poultry production cycle (KR ‘101 abstract “switch”, #31 and #80).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2564727 to Sasaki et al in view of Korean Patent KR 200302101 as applied to claims 19, 23, 24 above and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,189,983 to Aitchison.
Regarding Claim 25, Sasaki as modified teaches an indoor space of 9m (30ft), but is silent on the poultry house is about 40 feet to about 50 feet in width. However, Aitchison teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a lighted indoor poultry house about 40 feet to about 50 feet in width (Aitchison Col. 1 lines 41-42, 450’x40’). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sasaki with the teachings of Aitchison before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a brooder house for an efficient use of land. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known indoor space for another to obtain predictable results and/or “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is merely an obvious change in size performing the same intended function [/n re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463, 105 USPQ 237, 240 (CCPA 1955)].
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2564727 to Sasaki et al in view of Korean Patent KR 200302101 and U.S. Patent No. 5,189,983 to Aitchison as applied to claims 19, 23, 24, 25 above, and further in view of Lighting for Poultry Farms and Processing Plants, Joseph M. Zulovich, Department of Agricultural Engineering, University of Missouri, 01 August 2005 [retrieved from the internet 03 October 2023 https://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/lighting-for- poultry-farms-and-processing-plants] 17 pages.
Regarding Claim 26, Sasaki as modified is silent on the first line of lights is about 10 feet to about 12 feet off of a first side wall of the poultry house, the second line of lights is about 20 feet to about 25 feet off of the first side wall of the poultry house, and the third line of lights is about 10 feet to about 12 feet off of a second side wall of the poultry house. However, Zulovich teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that the spacing in a poultry house depends on the size of the house and the lumens of the selected light bulb (Zulovich pages 6, 7, 8 and Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sasaku with the teachings of Zulovich before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to improve worker productivity as taught by Zulovich. The modification is merely an engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize conditions, applicant does not provide criticality for the claimed spacing and even indicates in the specification that spacing is subject to the selected size of poultry house. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2564727 to Sasaki et al in view of Korean Patent KR 200302101 as applied to claims 19, 20, 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2015/0351325 to Shelor et al.
Regarding Claim 22, Sasaki as modified is silent on the electronic system further includes a dimmer to dim the lights. However, Shelor teaches the electronic system further includes a dimmer to dim the lights (Shelor paragraph [0011], [0051], and [0016], Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sasaki with the teachings of Shelor before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve optimal and efficient operation as taught by Shelor. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2564727 to Sasaki et al in view of PCT WO 0234039 to Kuijeprs.
Regarding Claim 27, Sasaki as modified teaches the lights and the feeder drop lines (Sasaki #10), but is silent on wherein at least one or more lights of the one line of lights is adapted to be held over the at least one or more feeders by an S-Hook connected to the light drop line and to the feeder drop line. However, Kuijeprs teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to use S-hooks in drop lines in poultry facilities (Kuijeprs Fig.3 line 59 has an S-hook connecting #45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sasaki with the teachings of Kuijeprs before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success as a known connector for suspension as taught by Kuijeprs. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device yielding predictable results.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent JP 2564727 to Sasaki et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 2024/0163999 to Stephan et al.
Regarding Claim 28, Sasaki as modified the structure of Sasaki is capable of the claimed function and Sasaki teaches that it is known to increase the brightness of the light as the chicks grow after a predetermined number of days (Sasaki Fig. 2 and R and Fig. 3 R, paragraph [0006]). Sasaki teaches a line of lights remains in raised position (Sasaki #3) and a line of lights adjusts in height (Sasaki #10) and that light increases after a predetermined number of days (Sasaki claim 1) and teaches the initial day range of chicks is 2-10 days. These are apparatus claims and Sasaki is capable of performing the claimed functions.
Alternatively, Sasaki is silent on explicitly teaching wherein the at least one line of lights is in a raised position for at least the first seven days of the poultry production, and thereafter the at least one line of lights is lowered to a lowered position during the poultry production. However, Stephan teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known that within the first 7-10 days of life chicks require special care (Stephan paragraph [0006]) and that different lighting conditions are required for first days of rear versus later rearing periods (Stephan paragraph [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to raise and lower the lights of Sasaki based on the operating needs of the facility and it does not present a patentably distinct limitation over the prior art of record. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Sasaki with the teachings of Stephan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide proper care for the chicks. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traversed the 35 U.S.C. §112(f) rejection of claims 21 and 22. However, the examiner maintains this rejection because claim 21 “means” is modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. The structure of the electronic system performs the function of turning the lights on or off at prescribed times.
Sasaki Fig. 7 explicitly teaches an embodiment where lights #10 are raised and lowered. Sasaki teaches controlling the amount and intensity of light by raising and lowering light #10. Applicant doesn’t claim how the intensity of the light is controlled or an amount/range of intensity, but merely that it is controlled. The examiner maintains that a light positioned closer to a chick will be more “intense” than a light positioned farther away. Intensity can merely be the concentration of light and the closer the light is positioned the more concentrated it is and the greater intensity. Also, paragraph [0010] of the English translation J-PlatPat provide by applicant teaches that light #10 is on a dimmer switch (i.e. slider) which can control intensity too. The examiner maintains that Sasaki lighting structure is capable of the claimed function of controlling the amount of light and intensity of light available to poultry in the poultry house.
In addition, Sasaki teaches in Fig. 6 that the length of the poultry house has spaced plurality of lights #10 along the length. Each of these lights is associated with its own feeder and water configuration illustrated in Fig.2. Sasaki paragraph [0014] of the J-PlatPat translation states that “under each light bulb 3, 1000 newborn chicks are raised, but the breeding conditions are the same, so the following description will be give under one light bulb 3.” In other words, the configuration under each bulb is the same and Sasaki picks one of these bulb position on the floor of the poultry house to describe in detail. However, the detail applies to all the bulbs and conditions underneath them. Thus, the configuration of Fig. 2 is found under each of the bulbs not just one bulb. As a results, there are two interpretations of the art that satisfy the claim limitations. First, the feeders associated with each respective light #10 in Fig. 6 is the claimed “line of plurality of feeders” and not just a feeder configuration found under one light as argued by applicant. Sasaki Fig. 6 is a line of a plurality of lights #10 and the feeders under each of these lights creates a line of spaced feeders along the length of the poultry house. Second interpretation, a line can be curved. Claiming a line does not claim a straight line. Therefore, the circular line of feeders in Fig. 2 can satisfy the broad limitation of at least one line of a plurality of feeders. Applicant hasn’t claimed a straight line.
As regard to the placement of the light suspended from the ceiling approximately a foot away in a horizontal direction from a respective at least one lone of a plurality of feeders it is the examiner’s position that Sasaki appears to teach the light #10 is “approximately” a foot away, but is silent on explicitly teaching the distance. It is the examiner position that shifting the location of Sasaki light #10 is not a patentable distinction over the prior art of record and is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation. Applicant does not provide criticality in the specification for this distance. The modification is merely a shift in location of a known component performing the same intended function and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record [/n re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70, 73 (CCPA 1950)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sasaki before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to stimulate physical activity of the poultry. The modification is merely “obvious to try’ choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
04 November 2025