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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/18/2026 has been entered.
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 02/18/2026.
Claims 1-12 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 15-21 are new.
Claims 13 and 15-21 are pending for examination.
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) 13, 15-19 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2021/03072941) in view of Forehan (WO 2016/183616).
Regarding claim 13: Singh disclose an ear tag for attachment to an animals ear and comprising an electronic tag (Fig. 2A-D), the electronic tag comprising:
a microprocessor (Fig. 1D, item 116), and at least one sensor (Fig. 1D, item 114),
wherein the electronic tag is configured to obtain, via the at least one sensor, movement data of an animal to which the electronic tag is attached (¶0077),
wherein the microprocessor is configured to determine, based on the obtained movement data, a behaviour of the animal (¶0077),
the ear tag comprising:
a pin connected to the ear tag for piercing an animal’s ear (Fig. 2B, item 204);
a reception space connected to the pin integrally formed with the pin (Fig. 2B:¶0102: Notice stick protruding from item 212 which would be couple to tag connector 204, therefore, inherently comprising a reception space to receive said stick to make the coupling integrally formed with the pin),
wherein the reception space is positioned centrally with respect to the pin (Fig. 2B), and
a housing configured to close the reception space (Fig. 2B, item 212).
Singh does not explicitly disclose wherein the centre of gravity of the ear tag is positioned centrally with respect to the pin.
In analogous art regarding tags, Forehan disclose an electronic tag wherein the centre of gravity of the ear tag is positioned centrally with respect to the pin.(¶0037)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the centre of gravity of the ear tag is positioned centrally with respect to the pin, as disclose by Forehan, to the tag of Singh. The motivation is to make less uncomfortable to the animal to wear the tag.
Regarding claim 15: The combination of Singh and Forehan disclose the ear tag of claim 13, wherein the microprocessor is configured to determine the behaviour according to at least one behavioural threshold (Singh: ¶0078).
Regarding claim 16: The combination of Singh and Forehan disclose the ear tag of claim 15, wherein the at least one behavioural threshold is individually set for each animal (Singh: ¶0078).
Regarding claim 17: The combination of Singh and Forehan disclose the ear tag of claim 13, wherein the behaviour comprises at least one of a calm or normal state, an agitated or stressed state, or immobility (Singh: ¶0111, ¶0123).
Regarding claim 18: The combination of Singh and Forehan disclose the electronic tag according to claim 1, further comprising a transmitter or transceiver configured to transmit the behaviour of the animal (Singh: ¶0048, ¶0077) but it does not explicitly disclose wherein the transmitter or transceiver is configured to perform at least one of internet of things (IoT) communication, global system for mobile communication (GSM) communication, satellite communication, long range (LoRa) communication, SigFox communication or 5G communication. However it does disclose that a number of different communication method can be used (Singh: ¶0048, ¶0077). Therefore, Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to configure the transceiver wherein the transmitter or transceiver is configured to perform at least one of internet of things (IoT) communication, global system for mobile communication (GSM) communication, satellite communication, long range (LoRa) communication, SigFox communication or 5G communication, since having a limited universe of potential options (method of communication), since the selection of any particular option (internet of things (IoT) communication, global system for mobile communication (GSM) communication, satellite communication, long range (LoRa) communication, SigFox communication or 5G communication) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Jones, 412 F.2d 241, 162 USPO 224 (COPA 1969). Since either option would provide the same predictable result of transmitting data, either option would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Regarding claim 19: The combination of Singh and Forehan disclose the ear tag according to claim 13, wherein the at least one sensor is at least one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, an acceleration sensor, a gyroscope, an inertial measurement unit (IMU), a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, an air quality sensor, an audio sensor, a pressure sensor or a physiological sensor.(Singh: ¶0058)
Regarding claim 21: The combination of Singh and Forehan disclose the ear tag according to claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic tag is positioned centrally with respect to the pin. Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to rearrange (position) the electronic tag centrally with respect to the pin, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2021/03072941) in view of Forehan (WO 2016/183616) and further in view of Ingham et al. (WO 2017/210740).
Regarding claim 20: The combination of Singh and Forehan disclose the ear tag according to claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic tag further comprises at least one photosensitive element configured to provide energy to an energy storage comprised in the electronic tag.
In analogous art regarding electronic tags, Ingham disclose wherein the electronic tag further comprises at least one photosensitive element configured to provide energy to an energy storage comprised in the electronic tag.(¶0040: Solar panel with battery storage)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein the electronic tag further comprises at least one photosensitive element configured to provide energy to an energy storage comprised in the electronic tag, as disclose by Ingham, to the tag of Singh. The motivations is to make it energy efficient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of the claims under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In regards to the argument that the prior art is not integral because Singh does not teach a reception space that is integrally formed with the pin.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Fig. 2C of Sinch teaches a tag that tag has a backside portion that that sensor unit 212 may be coupled (¶0102) and it also teaches in Figure 2B a shaft that inherently show is inserted back in the back portion of item 204. Additionally, even arguendo that the prior art does not explicitly disclose it, it would also be obvious as explained above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689