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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0200519 to Biffert et al. (“Biffert”).
Regarding claim 17, Biffert anticipates a method for using (e.g. “discrete methods” discussed at para. 168) a sensor tag (e.g. tag 20, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 67), comprising: i) detecting (para. 3; also per para. 7, events are detected) that a detrimental event (e.g. events discussed at para. 6-7, including illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc.) to an animal (e.g. livestock 12, as shown in fig. 2 and discussed in written abstract and at para. 40) has occurred during a period (e.g. “period of time” discussed at para. 140), where a sensor tag (20) configured (e.g. “configured to communicate”, per para. 98) with a geo-locating sensor (e.g. global navigation satellite system receiver 82; per para. 98, each tag 20 contains a communications interface 62, which itself can include a global navigation satellite system receiver 82) for detecting geo-location (per para. 7, each tag 20 can detect a location of livestock 12; also note that the instant claim is drawn to a method for using a sensor tag- not a method of operation of geo-locating sensor) and producing geo-location data (para. 6-7; note that teach tag 20 can receive and/or acquire data regarding location of livestock 12; also note that the instant claim is drawn to a method for using a sensor tag- not a method of operation of geo-locating sensor) is coupled to (figs. 2 and 5; per para. 98, each tag 20 is attached to livestock 12) the animal (12); ii) obtaining (per para. 44, each tag 20 communicates its data and determinations with management system platform 140 and remote computer system 220 via one or more wireless networks; note that said management system platform 140 and remote computer system 220 thereby “obtain” said data and determinations) the detected geo-location data (aforementioned data regarding location of livestock 12, discussed at para. 6) for the period (aforementioned “period of time” discussed at para. 140) for the animal (12) impacted by (i.e. “experiencing”) the detrimental event (aforementioned illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc. discussed at para. 6-7) from (para. 44) the sensor tag (20) coupled to (figs. 2 and 5, and para. 98) the animal (12) using a signal connection (per para. 46, signals may be utilized for communication from tag 20 to management system platform 140 and/or remote computer system 220); and iii) determining a location (per para. 182, tag 20 can communicate an alarm or alert in response to determining the presence of a predator, gunshot, vehicle noise, severe weather, dangerous conditions, or sudden shock to the livestock 12, and said alarm can contain information about the location of the condition that resulted in the alarm or alert) where the detrimental event (aforementioned illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc. discussed at para. 6-7) occurred (para. 182) using the detected (per para. 182, the most recent detected location and movement of the livestock 12 including GPS coordinates, speed, direction, etc. may be utilized) geo-location data (aforementioned data regarding location of livestock 12, discussed at para. 6).
Regarding claim 19, Biffert anticipates the method of claim 17, further comprising determining the location (e.g. “past location” discussed at para. 128) of the animal (12) impacted by (i.e. “experiencing”) the detrimental event (aforementioned illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc. discussed at para. 6-7) for a period between (e.g. time between ingestion and exhibition of illness symptoms, as discussed at para. 128) the occurrence (e.g. eating/ingestion, per para. 128) of the detrimental event (aforementioned illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc. discussed at para. 6-7) and the detection (e.g. exhibition of illness symptoms) of the detrimental event (aforementioned illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc. discussed at para. 6-7) using the detected geo-location data (aforementioned data regarding location of livestock 12, discussed at para. 6).
Regarding claim 20, Biffert anticipates the method of claim 17, further comprising applying a mitigation (e.g. intervening to remove the threat or moving the livestock to another location, as discussed at para. 278) to the determined location (para. 182) where the detrimental event (aforementioned illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc. discussed at para. 6-7) occurred (para. 182), where the mitigation (aforementioned intervening to remove the threat or moving the livestock to another location) is suitable to prevent future occurrence (para. 278) of the detrimental event (aforementioned illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc. discussed at para. 6-7).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biffert in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0077844 to van Wijk et al. (“van Wijk”).
Regarding claim 1, Biffert discloses a sensor tag (e.g. tag 20, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 67), comprising: a sensor unit (e.g. sensors discussed at para. 6) located within (para. 6; note that such sensors may be incorporated into aforementioned tag 20) a unit pouch (e.g. enclosure 22, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 67) and at least in part encapsulated by (para. 6) a protective barrier (e.g. plastic materials discussed at para. 68, used to form aforementioned enclosure 22), the protective barrier (aforementioned plastic materials used to form enclosure 22) comprising a polymeric material (para. 68).
Biffert does not disclose the sensor tag (20) weighing a total of no more than 34.5 grams.
van Wijk teaches the concept of providing a sensor tag (e.g. female ear tag part 1 and male part 5, together, as shown in figs. 1B-C and discussed at para. 48) weighing a total of no more than 34.5 grams (e.g. 12 grammes, as discussed at para. 7).
Given that Biffert and van Wijk both concern ear tag assemblies to be attached to livestock ears, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the van Wijk 12 gramme weight limit teachings to the Biffert assembly, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant Biffert ear tag that will be minimally obstructive to the livestock to which it is attached in use.
Regarding claim 2, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 1, wherein the sensor tag (Biffert 20) is a positioning tag (Biffert para. 42) and the sensor unit (aforementioned sensors discussed at Biffert para. 6) is a positioning unit (Biffert para. 91 and 166).
Regarding claim 3, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 1, wherein the sensor tag (Biffert 20) is a gas composition tag (i.e. gas gauge discussed at Biffert para. 97) and the sensor unit (aforementioned sensors discussed at Biffert para. 6) is a gas composition unit (Biffert para. 97).
Regarding claim 4, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 1, where the sensor tag (Biffert 20) is an accelerometer tag (per Biffert para. 85, tag 20 contains an accelerometer 52) and the sensor unit (aforementioned sensors discussed at Biffert para. 6) is an accelerometer unit (Biffert para. 85).
Regarding claim 5, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 1, where the sensor tag (Biffert 20) is an environmental tag (per Biffert para. 89, tag 20 provides data indicative of environmental and weather-related conditions) and the sensor unit (aforementioned sensors discussed at Biffert para. 6) is an environmental unit (Biffert para. 89).
Regarding claim 6, Biffert discloses a sensor tag (e.g. tag 20, as shown in figs. 1-2 and discussed at para. 67), comprising: i) a sensor unit (e.g. sensors discussed at para. 6) located within (para. 6; note that such sensors may be incorporated into aforementioned tag 20) a unit pouch (e.g. enclosure 22, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 67) and at least in part encapsulated by (para. 6) a protective barrier (e.g. plastic materials discussed at para. 68, used to form aforementioned enclosure 22), the protective barrier (aforementioned plastic materials used to form enclosure 22) comprising a polymeric material (para. 68); ii) a battery (para. 72 and claim 22); and iii) an antenna (para. 45).
Biffert does not disclose the sensor tag (20) weighing a total of no more than 34.5 grams.
van Wijk teaches the concept of providing a sensor tag (e.g. female ear tag part 1 and male part 5, together, as shown in figs. 1B-C and discussed at para. 48) weighing a total of no more than 34.5 grams (e.g. 12 grammes, as discussed at para. 7).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1, supra, it would have been obvious to apply the van Wijk 12 gramme weight limit teachings to the Biffert assembly.
Regarding claim 7, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 6, wherein the antenna (Biffert para. 45) is configured for receiving a Global Positioning System (GPS) signal (Biffert para. 6), a Global System for Mobile Communications (GMS), a General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) signal, or a wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) signal (Biffert para. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 6, wherein the polymeric material (Biffert para. 68) of the protective barrier (aforementioned plastic materials discussed at Biffert para. 68, used to form aforementioned enclosure 22) is comprised of a thermoset polymer, a thermoplastic material, a carbon-based material (note that plastic is a carbon-based material), or a silicon-based material.
Regarding claim 13, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 6, wherein the unit pouch (Biffert 22) comprises a material that is a non-woven fabric (per Biffert para. 68, commercially available plastic materials may be used to form enclosure 22; note that synthetic textiles made from polyester, nylon, PVC and polyurethane are available commercially).
Regarding claim 14, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 6, wherein the unit pouch (Biffert 22) comprises a material that is a plastic film (Biffert para. 68), a laminate, or a hydrophobic polymer.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biffert in view of van Wijk and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0318781 to Rollins et al. (“Rollins”).
Regarding claim 9, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the protective barrier (aforementioned plastic materials used to form Biffert enclosure 22) is comprised of a hydrophobic polymer, an elastomer, or a foamed polymeric material.
Rollins teaches the concept of providing a protective barrier (e.g. tag 10, as shown in fig. 1) comprised of a hydrophobic polymer (e.g. polyurethane discussed at para. 25), an elastomer (e.g. thermoplastic elastomeric material discussed at claim 5), or a foamed polymeric material.
Given that Biffert and Rollins both concern tags designed to be applied to livestock, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the Biffert tag 20 using the Rollins polyurethane and thermoplastic elastomeric materials as desired, in order provide the benefit of yielding a resultant stronger, water-repellant tag assembly.
Regarding claim 10, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the protective barrier (aforementioned plastic materials used to form Biffert enclosure 22) is comprised of two or more polymeric materials.
Rollins teaches the concept of forming a protective barrier (e.g. tag 10, as shown in fig. 1) comprised of two or more polymeric materials (e.g. polyurethane discussed at para. 25 and thermoplastic elastomeric material discussed at claim 5).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 9, supra, it would have been obvious to form the Biffert tag 20 using the Rollins polyurethane and thermoplastic elastomeric materials as desired.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biffert in view of van Wijk and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0199602 to van der Weide et al. (“van der Weide”).
Regarding claim 11, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the unit pouch (Biffert 22) comprises a material that is a woven fabric.
van der Weide teaches the concept of providing a unit pouch comprising a material that is a woven fabric (per para. 46, woven fiberglass cloth may be utilized as desired).
Given that Biffert and van der Weide both concern the provision of tags to be attached to livestock (see Biffert fig. 2 and van der Weide para. 2), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the Biffert tag using van der Weide material as desired, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant softer tag that is more comfortable to the livestock to which it is attached.
Regarding claim 12, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the unit pouch (Biffert 22) comprises a material that is an interwoven fabric.
van der Weide teaches the concept of providing a unit pouch comprising a material that is an interwoven fabric (per para. 49, fabrics may be utilized as desired).
For the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 11, supra, it would have been obvious to provide the Biffert tag using van der Weide material as desired.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biffert in view of van Wijk and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0103150 to Turner et al. (“Turner”).
Regarding claim 15, Biffert in view of van Wijk discloses the sensor tag of claim 6, but does not disclose wherein the unit pouch (Biffert 22) comprises a material that is selected from the group consisting of a polyethylene (PE), a liquid crystalline polymer (LCP), an aromatic polyamide, a nylon, a polymer-coated natural material, a polypropylene, a polyurethane, a polyester, a polyacrylic, a rayon, a fluorinated polyethylene, and combinations thereof.
Turner teaches the concept of providing a tag (100, as shown in fig. 1) comprising a material that is selected from the group consisting of a polyethylene (PE) (e.g. ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene, as discussed at para. 72), a liquid crystalline polymer (LCP), an aromatic polyamide (an “aramid”), a nylon, a polymer-coated natural material, a polypropylene, a polyurethane, a polyester, a polyacrylic, a rayon, a fluorinated polyethylene, and combinations thereof.
Given that Biffert and Turner both concern tags to be utilized for identification purposes, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the Biffert tag using Turner ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene material, in order to provide the benefit of yielding a resultant stronger, more durable tag assembly.
Regarding claim 16, Biffert in view of van Wijk and further in view of Turner discloses the sensor tag of claim 15, wherein the polyethylene comprises ultra-high molecular weight PE (UHMWPE) (Turner para. 72).
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicants’ claim amendments, a further search of the pertinent body of prior art was executed. The aforementioned van Wijk reference was identified within said search. Accordingly, the Office encourages Applicants to see the treatment of claims set forth supra.
In response to Applicants’ argument that Biffert fails to teach “a sensor unit located within a unit pouch and at least in part encapsulated by a protective barrier, the protective barrier comprising a polymeric material” as required by independent claims 1 and 6 (Arguments/Remarks pgs. 5-6), the Office respectfully asserts that as set forth supra, Biffert indeed teaches “a sensor unit (e.g. sensors discussed at para. 6) located within (para. 6; note that such sensors may be incorporated into aforementioned tag 20) a unit pouch (e.g. enclosure 22, as shown in fig. 1 and discussed at para. 67) and at least in part encapsulated by (para. 6) a protective barrier (e.g. plastic materials discussed at para. 68, used to form aforementioned enclosure 22), the protective barrier (aforementioned plastic materials used to form enclosure 22) comprising a polymeric material (para. 68)”.
In response to Applicants’ argument that Biffert does not disclose “detecting that a detrimental event”, “obtaining the detected geo-location data for the period for the animal impacted by the detrimental event”, and “determining the location where the detrimental event occurred” (Arguments/Remarks pg. 8), the Office respectfully asserts that as indicated supra, Biffert indeed teaches: i) “detecting (para. 3; also per para. 7, events are detected) that a detrimental event (e.g. events discussed at para. 6-7, including illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc.)”; ii) “obtaining (per para. 44, each tag 20 communicates its data and determinations with management system platform 140 and remote computer system 220 via one or more wireless networks; note that said management system platform 140 and remote computer system 220 thereby “obtain” said data and determinations) the detected geo-location data (aforementioned data regarding location of livestock 12, discussed at para. 6) for the period (aforementioned “period of time” discussed at para. 140) for the animal (12) impacted by (i.e. “experiencing”) the detrimental event (aforementioned illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc. discussed at para. 6-7)”; and iii) “determining a location (per para. 182, tag 20 can communicate an alarm or alert in response to determining the presence of a predator, gunshot, vehicle noise, severe weather, dangerous conditions, or sudden shock to the livestock 12, and said alarm can contain information about the location of the condition that resulted in the alarm or alert) where the detrimental event (aforementioned illness or injury, nearby predators or vehicles, livestock leaving a designated area under management, bad weather, etc. discussed at para. 6-7) occurred (para. 182)”.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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 JUSTIN V LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)270-5052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Daniel J. Troy can be reached at (571) 270-3742. 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.
/JUSTIN V LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3637
Prosecution Insights