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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 & 17-19 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 as it is currently presented depended from the cancelled claim 16.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Markic, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0263140 A1, herein Mark in view of Burton, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0098874 A1, herein Burt and Biffert et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0200519 A1; herein Biff.
Re claim 1, Mark discloses a coop system (para 1, the field of invention is for a chicken coop) having an inside (para 27, within the coop) and an outside (para 27, within the run), comprising:
a coop comprising a run assembly (para 2-3; the door provides an entrance and exit between a chicken coop and run), wherein the run assembly defines an inner space of the coop system (again see para 2-3, the chicken coop defines a fenced in run for the chickens to have access thereto);
a chicken door (100; the door unit) configured as a first passageway for one or more animals (para 24, 27, & 59, the open state of the door assembly allows chicken to enter and exit the coop and run), wherein the chicken door is configured to transition between an opened configuration and a closed configuration in an automatic fashion (para 23-24, 42 & 48, the door plate is moved automatically);
a camera system comprising a first camera and a second camera configured to surveil the inner space of the coop system (para 46, the door unit having cameras for the mobility schedule);
a microphone system coupled to the camera system (para 46, the micro phone is coupled to the cameras via the PCB);
a remote device (328; the PCB, fig. 4), comprising:
a processor coupled with a memory (para 46, the PCB includes a processor and memory), the memory storing a coop application (again see para 46, where the processor and memory work to execute the program aspects of the door unit) that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to:
control the transitioning of the chicken door between the opened configuration and the closed configuration (para 46-54 & 56-57, wherein the program is set to one of the functionalities to open and close the door on a schedule),
wherein the coop application is communicatively coupled with the camera system and the microphone system (again see para 46), and wherein the first camera and the second camera are configured to collect data and transmit the data to the coop application (para 46, 52, & 59, wherein the sensor of the door unit is the cameras for identifying obstructions or counting/viewing the chickens), and
wherein the coop application is configured to output to a display one or more notifications comprising information related to at least one or more of the chicken door and the camera system (para 45-46, 52-53, 56-59, the display will show the state of the door unit and the smart phone will show states of the door, occupancy, or images of the coop therein), the one or more notifications further comprising information related to diagnostics of the coop system (again see para 45-46, 52-53, 56-59).
Mark fails to explicitly disclose the first camera on the inside of the coop system configured to surveil the inner space and the second camera on the outside of the coop system, wherein the microphone system is configured to collect data and transmit the data to the coop application, and wherein the coop application is configured to analyze the collected data to determine at least one of whether predators are present and new eggs are present. However, Burt discloses an animal management system (120; the pet access door device, fig. 4-5) having an inside (abstract, within the home) and an outside (abstract, outside the home), comprising: a space defining the interior of the system (abstract and para 74, the area about the environment), a camera system (132; the camera module, fig. 4) comprising a first camera on the inside of the housing configured to surveil the inner space (fig. 5 and para 66 & 74, a first camera module proximate the interior side of the door) and a second camera on the outside of the system (para 66 & 74, a second camera module observing the interior environment about the door).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the first camera on the inside of the coop system configured to surveil the inner space and the second camera on the outside of the coop system, wherein the microphone system is configured to collect data and transmit the data to the coop application, and wherein the coop application is configured to analyze the collected data to determine at least one of whether predators are present and new eggs are present however, Burt discloses utilizing cameras to examine the area on both sides of a door. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the motion sensor cameras for monitoring of animals around the door taught by Burt to both sides of the door of the prior art to yield the predictable result of an improved safety feature allowing the system to visually identify if an animal is in the way (Mark, para 52). See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
The combination of Mark and Burt fails to disclose wherein the microphone system is configured to collect data and transmit the data to the coop application, and wherein the coop application is configured to analyze the collected data to determine at least one of whether predators are present and new eggs are present. However, Biff discloses a camera system (72; the camera, para 95) coupled to a microphone system (66; the microphone, para 95) and configured to receive and process sounds produced by animals (para 95 & 172, via the audio data from the microphone) , wherein an application (fig. 3 and para 83, via the instructions on the processor) is configured to analyze the collected data to determine whether predator are present (para 172, the system is suitable for detecting a potential predator for audio and video data being processed).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the microphone system is configured to collect data and transmit the data to the coop application, and wherein the coop application is configured to analyze the collected data to determine at least one of whether predators are present and new eggs are present however, Biff discloses such a camera and microphone system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the audio and video processing as taught by Biff to the coop of the prior art to yield the predictable result of protecting the livestock from predators. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 4, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff discloses the invention of claim 1, Mark further discloses wherein the chicken door is further configured to open at sunrise and close at sunset via GPS coordinates (para 57, wherein the GPS mode is activated).
Re claim 8, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff discloses the invention of claim 1, Mark further discloses wherein the run assembly is positioned adjacent to the coop (para 27, the door joins the coop and run as such the areas are adjacent).
Re claim 9, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff discloses the invention of claim 1, Mark further discloses wherein the chicken door is further configured to communicate with the remove device via a communication path using a wireless protocol which includes a Wi-Fi communications protocol (para 56-59, wherein the PCB is internet connected to the external configurator).
Re claim 10, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff discloses the invention of claim 1, Burt further discloses wherein the coop application is configured to inform the user when a detection of the chicken door opening and/or closing has occurred (para 56-57, or when the coop system has detected an animal is outside of the coop (para 59, the user can access how many chicken are in the coop and how many exit the coop).
Re claim 17, as best understood, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff discloses the invention of claim 1, Mark further discloses wherein a mode of operation is configured to allow the chicken door to transition between the opened configuration and the closed configuration at a predetermined hour (para 48 & 56, wherein the time is set for the opening and closing trigger time).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark in view of Burt and Biff as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Bugeja, U.S. Patent No. 4,574,737 A, herein Bug.
Re claim 2, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff fails to disclose wherein the coop further comprises one or more roof panels, wherein the one or more roof panels are one or more double wall panels configured to insulate the interior of the coop. However, Bug discloses wherein the coop further comprises one or more roof panels (11 & 12; the sides, fig. 1), wherein the one or more roof panels are one or more double wall panels configured to insulate the interior of the coop (col 2; 35-47, the roof sheeting has an insulation sheet layer).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the coop further comprises one or more roof panels (11 & 12; the sides, fig. 1), wherein the one or more roof panels are one or more double wall panels configured to insulate the interior of the coop (col 2; 35-47, the roof sheeting has an insulation sheet layer). however, Bug discloses such an insulation structure. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of the roof and insulation layers taught by Bug to the coop of the prior art to yield the predictable result of an insulated indoor structure for the chickens. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark in view of Burt and Biff as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Lyman, U.S. Patent No. 1,087,847 A1, herein Ly.
Re claim 5, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose a side door configured as a second passageway for the one or more animals, wherein the side door forms a passageway to a premises external to the run assembly. However, Ly discloses a side door (21; the door opening or passage, fig. 1-4) configured as a second passageway for the one or more animals (fig. 1 the first being the door opening [11]), wherein the side door forms a passageway to a premises external to the run assembly (fig. 1-2, the door opening leads to an area exterior to the run).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a side door configured as a second passageway for the one or more animals, wherein the side door forms a passageway to a premises external to the run assembly however, Ly discloses such a side door. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the second door taught by Ly to the run of the prior art to yield the predictable result of another door to allow entrance and exit from the coop system for movement or cleaning. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 6, the combination of Mark, Burt, Biff, and Ly discloses the invention of claim 5, Mark further discloses wherein the one or more animals are one or more chickens (para 3, 24, 27 & 59, the animals are chickens).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark in view of Burt and Biff as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Rynne, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0295756 A1, herein Ry and Dyer, U.S. Patent No. 5,365,878 A.
Re claim 7, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose a nesting box with one or more nesting sections having one or more nesting pads, wherein the one or more nesting sections extend towards an outside area of the coop. However, Ry discloses a coop system comprising a nesting box with a nesting section (para 29, the nesting box is provided within the roofed section allowing nesting therein) wherein the one or more nesting sections extend towards an outside area of the coop (again see para 29).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a nesting box with one or more nesting sections having one or more nesting pads, wherein the one or more nesting sections extend towards an outside area of the coop however, Ry discloses a similar nesting box without a pad. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the nesting box and outside access taught by Ry to the coop of the prior art to yield the predictable result of an area for accessing eggs. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
The combination of Mark, Burt, and Ry fails to disclose the nesting section having one or more nesting pads. However, Dyer discloses a nesting box with a nesting section having a nesting pad (abstract and col 1-2; 63-2, the nesting pad fits within an existing nesting box).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the nesting section having one or more nesting pads however, Dyer discloses such an arrangement. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art element of the nesting pad taught by Dyer to the nesting box of the prior art to yield the predictable result of a surface that is easily cleaned or replaceable. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark in view of Burt and Biff as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sandberg, U.S. Patent No. 1,033,950 A, herein Sand.
Re claim 18, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination fails to disclose wherein the interior of the coop comprises one or more roosting bars, wherein the one or more roosting bars each have one or more rounded edges configured to avoid injury or damage to animals. However, Sand discloses a system of a plurality of roosting bars (12; the roosting rods, fig. 1), wherein the one or more roosting bars each have one or more rounded edges configured to avoid injury or damage to animals (fig. 1).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the interior of the coop comprises one or more roosting bars, wherein the one or more roosting bars each have one or more rounded edges configured to avoid injury or damage to animals however, Sand discloses such a structure. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the roosting rod arrangement taught by Sand to the coop of the prior art to yield the predictable result of a greater area for the poultry to occupy, to provide protection for the smaller chicks (page 1; 91-97). See MPEP 2143 I. (A) & (G).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mark in view of Burt and Biff as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kurtz U.S. Patent No. 3,046,940 A.
Re claim 19, the combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff discloses the invention of claim 1, Mark further discloses wherein the coop comprises a coop floor (para 2-3, the surface which the poultry move on inside the coop).
The combination of Mark, Burt, and Biff fails to disclose a coop floor with a molded pulp tray, wherein the molded pulp tray is configured to cover the coop floor and is removable. However, Kurtz discloses a coop (10; the nest, fig. 1) comprising a coop floor (42; the sheet metal layer, fig. 1 & 4) with a molded pulp tray (56; the layer of organic fibrous material, fig. 4) wherein the molded pulp tray is configured to cover the coop floor and is removable (fig. 1 & 4 and page 1; 43-48, the layer covering the sheet metal).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a coop floor with a molded pulp tray, wherein the molded pulp tray is configured to cover the coop floor and is removable however, Kurtz discloses such a tray. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the removable tray and layer taught by Kurtz to the floor of the prior art to yield the predictable result of a simple method of cleaning the coop. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
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 NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm EST.
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, Joshua J Michener can be reached on 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642