METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR REAL-TIME LIVESTOCK MANAGEMENT

Application No. 18/673,789

• Filed: May 24, 2024
• Examiner: PADUA, NICO LAUREN
• Art Unit: 3626
• Tech Center: 3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
• Assignee: Premex Inc.
• OA Round: 2 (Final)

Office Action

DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
2. This is a final rejection in response to amendment/remarks filed on 01/16/2026. Claims 1, 6, 12 and 18 are amended. Claims 4, 5, and 21 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, and 6-20 remain pending and are examined herein.
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The present application is a continuation(CON) of US Patent No. 11997988(Application No. 17/070,261) filed on 2020-10-14, which is a CON of US Patent No. 10806130 (Application No. 16/225,740) filed on 2018-12-19, which holds priority to provisional application No. 62/607,500 filed on 2017-12-19. Therefore, the earliest priority date of the present claims is 2017-12-19.
Double Patenting
4. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.

5. Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of obviousness-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10806130. Claims 1-11, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10806130 in view of Cook et al. (US 20110010154 A1). The chart below maps the patented claims to the present claims, and indicates the limitations not taught by the patented claims. The limitations not taught in the patented claims are shown to be taught by the prior art of record after the chart. Similarly, Claims 12-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10806130 in view of Cook et al. (US 20110010154 A1) further in view of Case (US 20060085272 A1).
(The examiner notes in MPEP 804(II)(B)(3) states, “A nonstatutory double patenting rejection, if not based on an anticipation rationale or an "unjustified timewise extension" rationale, is "analogous to [a failure to meet] the nonobviousness requirement of 35 U.S.C. 103 " except that the patent disclosure principally underlying the double patenting rejection is not considered prior art. The examiner notes that the chart below satisfies (A) Determine the scope and content of a patent claim relative to a claim in the application at issue. Below the chart, in the section under (the patented claims fail to teach), satisfies (B) Determine the scope and content of a patent claim relative to a claim in the application at issue; The obviousness statement after the citations of the prior art satisfy (C) Determine the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (D) Evaluate any objective indicia of nonobviousness.)
The examiner makes clear the differences between the inventions in the conflicting claims in the graph below. The examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent because the teachings provided by the secondary prior art references. Please see the obviousness rationale statements for the particular reasons.
Please see the graph below for the mapping:
#
Examined Claims
#
Patented Claims (US 10806130) filed on 12/19/2018
Explanation
1
A computer-implemented method of managing livestock health in real-time, the method comprising
1
A method of managing livestock health in real-time, the method comprising
These limitations patentably indistinct because the patented claims require “analyzing, by processor” which makes the method computer-implemented.
1
Obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock,
1
obtaining real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock,

1
the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
1
the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;

1
analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
1
analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;

1
wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed

With the exception of this limitation, each of the remaining limitations holds patentably indistinct scope from the patented claims. These remaining limitations would have been obvious in a combination of the patented claims and the prior art of record. Following this chart is the explanation of the obviousness rationale, along with the citations.
1
and generating, by processor, a customized livestock health management plan in response to the detected anomaly,
1
generating a customized livestock health management plan...

1
the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly
1
that includes a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly upon being fed to the livestock;

1
through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral, or caloric intake;
7
wherein the customized feedstock recipe includes a change in protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake to correct the anomaly.

1
transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan;
1
transmitting the livestock health management plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface;

1
receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan
1
and confirming or denying acceptance of the livestock health management plan by the livestock owner;

1
upon receiving the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock.
1
wherein upon confirmation of acceptance of the livestock health management plan, a wireless signal is sent to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the livestock owner.

2
The method of claim 1, wherein the livestock health management plan includes a customized feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly upon being fed to the livestock.
1
generating a customized livestock health management plan that includes a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly upon being fed to the livestock;
This limitation is taught in the patented claim 1, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

3
The method of claim 2, wherein the customized feedstock recipe includes a change in protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake to correct the anomaly.
7
The method of claim 1, wherein the customized feedstock recipe includes a change in protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake to correct the anomaly.
This limitation is taught in the patented claim 7, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

6
The method of claim 1, wherein the livestock owner interface includes a livestock owner portal.
2
The method of claim 1, wherein the livestock owner interface includes a livestock owner portal.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 2, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

7
The method of claim 6, wherein the livestock owner interface is a laptop or smart device.
3
The method of claim 2, wherein the livestock owner interface is a laptop or smart device.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 3, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

8
The method of claim 1, wherein the livestock sensor data is obtained from a plurality of sensors located on a plurality of livestock and the customized feedstock recipe may be fed to the plurality of livestock
4
The method of claim 1, wherein the livestock sensor data is obtained from a plurality of sensors located on a plurality of livestock and the customized feedstock recipe may be fed to the plurality of livestock.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 4, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

9
The method of claim 1, wherein the livestock sensor data is obtained from at least one sensor on or around an individual livestock animal
5
The method of claim 1, wherein the livestock sensor data is obtained from at least one sensor on or around an individual livestock animal
This limitation is taught in patented claim 5, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.
9
and the customized feedstock recipe may be fed to the individual livestock animal.
5
and the customized feedstock recipe may be fed to the individual livestock animal.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 5, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

10
The method of claim 9, wherein the at least one livestock sensor transmits a particular code associated with an individual livestock animal.
6
The method of claim 5, wherein the at least one sensor transmits a particular code associated with an individual livestock animal.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 6, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

11
The method of claim 1, wherein the health management plan further includes at least one livestock medical diagnosis and, optionally, at least one prescribed medicament.
8
The method of claim 1, wherein the health management plan further includes at least one livestock medical diagnosis and, optionally, at least one prescribed medicament.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 8, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

12
A system for livestock health management comprising: at least one server; at least one livestock owner interface including a data entry system, the livestock owner interface in wireless communication with a gateway and the at least one server;
9
A system for livestock health management comprising: at least one server; at least one livestock owner interface including a data entry system, the livestock owner interface in wireless communication with a gateway and the at least one server;

12
at least one livestock sensor, the livestock sensor coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server;
9
at least one livestock sensor, the livestock sensor coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server;

12
a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturing equipment;
9
a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturing equipment;

12
and a memory and processor in wireless communication with the server, livestock owner interface, at least one livestock sensor and livestock producer interface, the memory and processor configured to perform the steps of:
9
and a memory and processor in wireless communication with the server, livestock owner interface, at least one livestock sensor and livestock producer interface, the memory and processor configured to perform the steps of:

12
obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
9
obtaining real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;

12
analyzing the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;

9
analyzing the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;

12
wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed

Limitation is not taught in the patented claims
12
and generating, by processor, a customized livestock health management plan in response to the detected anomaly,
9
generating a customized livestock health management plan

12
in response to the detected anomaly, the plan includinq a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly
9
that includes a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly upon being fed to the livestock;

12
the plan includinq a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly throuqh a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral, or caloric intake;

Limitation is not taught in the patented claims
12
transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan;

Limitation is not taught in the patented claims
12
receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan; and

Limitation is not taught in the patented claims
12
upon receivinq the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock.

Limitation is not taught in the patented claims , however, each of the remaining limitations holds patentably indistinct scope from the patented claims. The remaining limitations not taught in the patented claims would have been an obvious in a combination of the patented claims and the prior art of record. Following this chart is the explanation of the obviousness rationale, along with the citations.

13
The system of claim 12, wherein the memory and processor are configured to perform the additional step of transmitting the livestock health management plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface.
9
transmitting the livestock health management plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 9, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

14
The system of claim 12, further comprising at least one livestock scale, the livestock scale coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server, memory and processor.
10
The system of claim 9, further comprising at least one livestock scale, the livestock scale coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server, memory and processor.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 10, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

15
The system of claim 12, further comprising at least one database coupled to or in wireless communication with a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server, memory and processor.
11
The system of claim 9, further comprising at least one database coupled to or in wireless communication with a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server, memory and processor.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 11, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

16
The system of claim 12, wherein the livestock owner interface allows the livestock owner to enter individual livestock input data regarding at least one of feeding method, feed type, feeding schedule, medical history, breed, gender, breeding status, age, and body condition.
12
The system of claim 9, wherein the livestock owner interface allows the livestock owner to enter individual livestock input data regarding at least one of feeding method, feed type, feeding schedule, medical history, breed, gender, breeding status, age, and body condition.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 12, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

17
The system of claim 12, wherein the at least one server, memory and processor are configured to process one or more of owner input data, sensor data, and any normalized data to produce a health management plan that includes a customized livestock feedstock recipe that cures the at least one anomaly.
13
The system of claim 9, wherein the at least one server, memory and processor are configured to process one or more of owner input data, sensor data, and any normalized data to produce a health management plan that includes a customized livestock feedstock recipe that cures the at least one anomaly.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 13, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

18
A method for manufacturing a customized feed for at least one livestock animal, the method comprising the steps of:
14
A method for manufacturing a customized feed for at least one livestock animal, the method comprising the steps of:

18
Obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
14
obtaining real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;

18
analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
14
analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;

18
wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;

Limitation is not taught in the patented claims, however, each of the remaining limitations holds patentably indistinct scope from the patented claims. The remaining limitations not taught in the patented claims would have been an obvious in a combination of the patented claims and the prior art of record. Following this chart is the explanation of the obviousness rationale, along with the citations.
18
and generating, by the processor, a customized livestock health management plan that includes a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly
14
generating a customized livestock health management plan that includes a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly upon being fed to the livestock;

18
through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral, or caloric intake

19
The method of claim 18, further comprising the steps of: transmitting the livestock health management plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface;
14
transmitting the livestock health management plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface;

19
and confirming acceptance of the livestock health management plan by the livestock owner.
14
and confirming acceptance of the livestock health management plan by the livestock owner;
This limitation is taught in patented claim 14, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

20
The method of claim 19, further comprising the steps of: transmitting the confirmed livestock health management plan from the livestock owner to a feedstock producer;
14
transmitting the confirmed livestock health management plan from the livestock owner to a feedstock producer;

20
manufacturing the customized livestock feed according to the customized livestock feed recipe; and shipping the customized livestock feed to the livestock owner.
14
and manufacturing the customized livestock feed according to the customized livestock feed recipe.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 14, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.
20
and shipping the customized livestock feed to the livestock owner.
15
The method of claim 13, further comprising the step of shipping the customized livestock feed to the livestock owner.
This limitation is taught in patented claim 15, and is therefore anticipated by the patented claims.

Regarding Claim 1:
The patented claims (US 10806130) teach:
- A computer-implemented method of managing livestock health in real-time, the method comprising
- obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
- analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH; wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed; and
- generating, by processor, a customized livestock health management plan in response to the detected anomaly, the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral, or caloric intake;
- transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan;
- receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan; and
- upon receiving the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock.
However, the patented claims fail to teach:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed; and

However, the prior art of record Cook teaches:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;(Cook [0084] Empirical testing may further include monitoring the animals within the animal production system. For example, an animal may be monitored for metabolic indicators. Metabolic indicators may be indicative of metabolic problems such as milk fever, ketosis, imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Other monitored characteristics may include characteristics that must be tested within a laboratory such as non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), beta hydroxyl butyrate (BHBA), urine pH, milk urea nitrogen (MUN), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), body temperature, blood AA, manure characteristics, carbon dioxide levels, minerals, fat pad probes for pesticide residue testing, etc... Other physiological measurements may include microbial profile or but histological measurements. [0096] Animal requirements generated by requirements engine 310 may include a listing of nutrient requirements for a specific animal or group of animals. Animal requirements may be a description of the overall diet to be fed to the animal or group of animals. Animal requirements further may be defined in terms of a set of nutritional parameters ("nutrients"). Nutrients and/or nutritional parameters may include those terms commonly referred to as nutrients as well as groups of ingredients, microbial measurements, indices of health, relationships between multiple ingredients, etc. Further, the set of animal requirements may include constraints or limits on the amount of any particular nutrient, combination of nutrients, and/or specific ingredients... The constraints may be minimums or maximums and may be placed on the animal requirement as a whole, any single ingredient, or any combination ingredients. [0097] Additionally, animal requirements may be generated that define ranges of acceptable nutrient levels. [0100] Table 2 below includes an exemplary listing of nutrients that may be included in the animal requirements. According to an exemplary embodiment, within the animal requirements, each listed nutrient may be associated with a value, percentage, range, or other measure of amount. The listing of nutrients may be customized to include more, fewer, or different nutrients based on any of a variety of factors, such as animal type, animal health, nutrient availability, etc. [0030] Information associated with a specific animal or a group or type of animals may include, but is not limited to, a species, ) Cook’s indicators of “metabolic problems” is an example of an anomaly, such as imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Since [0096-0100] provides examples of predetermined health thresholds (acceptable nutrient levels, constraints/limits), it is clear that an imbalance in dietary protein, or “overheating” falls within the scope of “a deviation from a predetermined health threshold.” Since these nutritional ranges are specific requirements for a specific “animal” or “animal type”, which includes a “species” based on [0030].
A person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the patented claims by adding the teachings of Cook which specify particular health thresholds for a species or breed, and wherein the plan addresses anomalies in the thresholds through a change in proteins, vitamins, or minerals content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of Cook’s system optimizing for the desired outcome, which leads to maximal quality or amount of product produced by an animal. (Cook [0069] Advantageously, system 100 may optimize across all variable animal information inputs to generate recommendations for producing the output having specified target characteristics at the lowest cost. The recommendation may include a single optimal recommendation or a plurality of recommendations yielding equivalent benefits. [0004] A producer (i.e. a farmer, rancher, aquaculture specialist, etc.) generally benefits from maximizing the amount or quality of the product produced by an animal (e.g. gallons of milk, pounds of meat, quality of meat, amount of eggs, nutritional content of eggs produced, amount of work, hair/coat appearance/health status, etc.) while reducing the cost for the inputs associated with that production.)

Regarding Claim 12:
The patented claims (US 10806130) teach:
A system for livestock health management comprising:
at least one server;
at least one livestock owner interface including a data entry system, the livestock owner interface in wireless communication with a gateway and the at least one server;
at least one livestock sensor, the livestock sensor coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server;
a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturing equipment; and
a memory and processor in wireless communication with the server, livestock owner interface, at least one livestock sensor and livestock producer interface, the memory and processor configured to perform the steps of:
obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH, wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed; and
generating, by processor, a customized livestock health management plan in response to the detected anomaly,

However, the Patented Claims fail to teach:

- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;
- the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake;
- a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturing equipment; and
-That the memory and processor is also in wireless communication with the livestock producer interface
- transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan;
- receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan; and
- upon receiving the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock.

Alternatively, Case teaches:
- a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturer; and (Case [0083] The system may be configured to allow the manufacturer or vendor to send back the approved and/or modified nutritional blend formulation (and other pertinent information) to the user via the graphical user interface 14 and/or the reporting module 30 for the user’s further review and approval. The system may further be configured to allow the user after such further review and approval to submit the nutritional blend formulation for a price quotation or for manufacture, for instance, through the on line link (e.g., graphical user interface 14 and reporting module 30) to manufacturer’s system 50. [0032] System 15 may be implemented through one or more servers or groupings of servers or other host computer systems having programs, modules, or other processing units accessible to a user operating local node 12. [0104] If the user accepts (i.e., places an order), the master system (e.g., enterprise system) so indicates in the appropriate systems and the nutritional blend formulation is released for manufacture, billing, etc.) The manufacturer’s system 50 is mapped to the livestock feed producer interface because it is the user interface for the manufacturer or vendor to interact with the data. Though Case does not explicitly disclose the interface being in wireless communication with the livestock feed manufacturing equipment, the memory or the processor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify the patented claims by connecting the livestock feed manufacturer interface of Case with the livestock feed manufacturing equipment of The Patented Claims. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would yield the benefit of conveniently and rapidly develop and manufacture the custom feed. (Case [0005])
- transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan; (Case [0010] In preferred embodiments, the system can identify and provide to the user a group of suggested nutrients for each of several possible intended uses; after the user indicates a particular intended use for the nutritional blend formulation, the system presents to the user through the graphical user interface a list of the suggested nutrients for that intended use... the system contains means for notifying the user through the graphical user interface if the desired nutritional activity and/or concentration for one or more of the nutrients are below the suggested minimum or above the suggested maximum concentration or activity for one or more of the nutrients for the intended use; the system contains means to communicate to the user at least a portion of the hierarchy of the available nutritional formulation materials for one or more of the nutrients in the nutritional blend formulation; [0014] Thus, a user may be an individual who on behalf of a company for which he or she works enters specifications on his or her home or office computer or input/output device for a nutritional blend formulation the company ... uses internally in its own operations (e.g., animal husbandry).[0031] Using a communications network, preferably the Internet, a connection between system 15 and a local node 12 of a user is established, preferably over the “World Wide Web” or other computer network, which network is preferably but not necessarily global and which network may or may not be accessible by the public at large (for convenience the term “web” is used herein to refer to a communications network.) The suggest nutrients for the particular nutritional blend formulation falls within the scope of “livestock health management plan.” Since this is presented to the user, which is the owner of the livestock, the limitation is satisfied.
- receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan; and (Case [0010] the system contains means to allow the user to approve the nutritional blend formulation (e.g., based on original or modified specifications) for manufacture; [0079] The user may choose to make modifications because of curiosity as to the effect that one or more modifications would have on the formulation product information (e.g., how would reducing the activity of a nutrient affect the cost) or as a result of something in the formulation product information being unacceptable)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Patented Claims to add interface features as taught by Case such as transmitting the health plan to receive confirmation or denial of the plan by the owner. By combining these two inventions one would at arrive at the predictable outcome of transmitting the plan to the livestock owner interface and confirming or denying acceptance, because it would merely be a simple substitution wherein Patented Claim’s recipe is transmitted in Case’s system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination due to the benefit of providing up-to-date, accurate and clearly presented information between customer’s and manufacturer’s to improve the business relations. (Case [0006])
- upon receiving the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock. (Case [0010] the system contains means for allowing review of the nutritional blend formulation after it has been approved for manufacture; and/or the system contains means to transmit the nutritional blend formulation and/or its corresponding formulation product information to another system (e.g., a manufacturing control system or an enterprise system) to allow the nutritional blend formulation to be manufactured.)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the patented claims to add the wireless signal sent to the feedstock producer to manufacture the custom recipe as taught by Case. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination due to the benefit of providing up-to-date, accurate and clearly presented information between customer’s and manufacturer’s to improve the business relations. (Case [0006])

However, neither the Patented Claims nor Case teach or suggest:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;
- the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake;
-That the memory and processor is also in wireless communication with the livestock producer interface.

Alternatively, Cook discloses a system and method for optimizing animal production, including generation of diet information for a particular species of animal based on a particular nutritional anomaly. Cook teaches:
-That the memory and processor is also in wireless communication with the livestock producer interface (Cook [0057] Enterprise supervisor 200 may include or be linked to one or more databases configured to automatically provide animal information inputs or to provide additional information based upon the animal information inputs. [0058] User interface 210 may be any type of interface configured to allow a user to provide input and receive output from system 100... For example, user interface 210 may be implemented as a web page including a plurality of input fields configured to receive animal information input from a user. [0028] System 100 may be implemented utilizing a single or multiple computing systems. For example, where system 100 is implemented using a single computing system, each of enterprise supervisor 200... Each separate computing system may further include hardware configured for communicating with the other components of system 100 over a network. According to yet another embodiment, system 100 may be implemented as a combination of single computing systems implementing multiple processes and distributed systems. [0141] Although specific functions are described herein as being associated with specific components of system 100, functions may alternatively be associated with any other component of system 100. For example, user interface 210 may alternatively be associated with simulator 300 according to an alternative embodiment.)

- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;(Cook [0084] Empirical testing may further include monitoring the animals within the animal production system. For example, an animal may be monitored for metabolic indicators. Metabolic indicators may be indicative of metabolic problems such as milk fever, ketosis, imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Other monitored characteristics may include characteristics that must be tested within a laboratory such as non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), beta hydroxyl butyrate (BHBA), urine pH, milk urea nitrogen (MUN), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), body temperature, blood AA, manure characteristics, carbon dioxide levels, minerals, fat pad probes for pesticide residue testing, etc... Other physiological measurements may include microbial profile or but histological measurements. [0096] Animal requirements generated by requirements engine 310 may include a listing of nutrient requirements for a specific animal or group of animals. Animal requirements may be a description of the overall diet to be fed to the animal or group of animals. Animal requirements further may be defined in terms of a set of nutritional parameters ("nutrients"). Nutrients and/or nutritional parameters may include those terms commonly referred to as nutrients as well as groups of ingredients, microbial measurements, indices of health, relationships between multiple ingredients, etc. Further, the set of animal requirements may include constraints or limits on the amount of any particular nutrient, combination of nutrients, and/or specific ingredients... The constraints may be minimums or maximums and may be placed on the animal requirement as a whole, any single ingredient, or any combination ingredients. [0097] Additionally, animal requirements may be generated that define ranges of acceptable nutrient levels. [0100] Table 2 below includes an exemplary listing of nutrients that may be included in the animal requirements. According to an exemplary embodiment, within the animal requirements, each listed nutrient may be associated with a value, percentage, range, or other measure of amount. The listing of nutrients may be customized to include more, fewer, or different nutrients based on any of a variety of factors, such as animal type, animal health, nutrient availability, etc. [0030] Information associated with a specific animal or a group or type of animals may include, but is not limited to, a species, ) Cook’s indicators of “metabolic problems” is an example of an anomaly, such as imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Since [0096-0100] provides examples of predetermined health thresholds (acceptable nutrient levels, constraints/limits), it is clear that an imbalance in dietary protein, or “overheating” falls within the scope of “a deviation from a predetermined health threshold.” Since these nutritional ranges are specific requirements for a specific “animal” or “animal type”, which includes a “species” based on [0030].
- the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake;(Cook [0009] What is needed is a system and method for maximizing nutritional criteria satisfaction in view of nutrient modification and nutrient utilization factors. Further, there is a need for a such a system and method configured to create a customized animal feed formulated to satisfy a requirement in view of the nutrient modification and nutrient utilization factors. [0102] The requirements engine 310 may further be configured to generate the animal requirements based on one or more dynamic nutrient utilization models. Dynamic nutrient utilization may include a model of the amount of nutrients ingested by an animal feed that are utilized by an animal based on information received in the animal information inputs... Nutrient utilization may further depend on the presence or absence of other nutrient additives, microbes and/or enzymes,... animal production or life stage, previous nutrition level, etc. [0103] Simulator 300 may be configured to account for these effects. For example, simulator 300 may be configured to adjust the level of a particular nutrient, defined in an animal feed formulation input, from the level determined based on the animal requirement to a different level based on the presence or absence of another particular nutrient. [0104] Accordingly, an animal feed formulation input may be modified based on the nutrient utilization model. However, this change in the animal feed formulation may have an effect on the animal feed formulation, including the animal feed formulation that was just modified. Accordingly, compensating for a nutrient utilization model may require an iterative calculation, constantly updating values, to arrival at a final value that is within a predefined tolerance. [0127] Table 3 below includes an exemplary list of ingredients which may be used in generating the animal feed formulation. The listing of ingredients may include more, fewer, or different ingredients depending on a variety of factors, such as ingredient availability, entry price, animal type, etc.... Soy Protein Concentrate... Vitamin A Vitamin B Complex Vitamin B12 Vitamin D3 Vitamin E) As seen above, an optimized feed formulation is generated specifically to address the requirements (including anomalies) by changing the ingredients, which include various proteins, vitamins, and minerals. Therefore, Cook satisfies the limitations above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of the Patented Claims and Case by adding the teachings of Cook which specify particular health thresholds for a species or breed, and wherein the plan addresses anomalies in the thresholds through a change in proteins, vitamins, or minerals content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of Cook’s system optimizing for the desired outcome, which leads to maximal quality or amount of product produced by an animal. (Cook [0069] and [0004])

Regarding Claim 18:
The patented claims teach:
A method for manufacturing a customized feed for at least one livestock animal, the method comprising the steps of:
Obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH, and
generating, by the processor, a customized livestock health management plan that includes a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly

However, the Patented claims fail to teach:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;
- through a change in at least of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake.

However, the prior art of record Cook teaches:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;(Cook [0084] Empirical testing may further include monitoring the animals within the animal production system. For example, an animal may be monitored for metabolic indicators. Metabolic indicators may be indicative of metabolic problems such as milk fever, ketosis, imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Other monitored characteristics may include characteristics that must be tested within a laboratory such as non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), beta hydroxyl butyrate (BHBA), urine pH, milk urea nitrogen (MUN), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), body temperature, blood AA, manure characteristics, carbon dioxide levels, minerals, fat pad probes for pesticide residue testing, etc... Other physiological measurements may include microbial profile or but histological measurements. [0096] Animal requirements generated by requirements engine 310 may include a listing of nutrient requirements for a specific animal or group of animals. Animal requirements may be a description of the overall diet to be fed to the animal or group of animals. Animal requirements further may be defined in terms of a set of nutritional parameters ("nutrients"). Nutrients and/or nutritional parameters may include those terms commonly referred to as nutrients as well as groups of ingredients, microbial measurements, indices of health, relationships between multiple ingredients, etc. Further, the set of animal requirements may include constraints or limits on the amount of any particular nutrient, combination of nutrients, and/or specific ingredients... The constraints may be minimums or maximums and may be placed on the animal requirement as a whole, any single ingredient, or any combination ingredients. [0097] Additionally, animal requirements may be generated that define ranges of acceptable nutrient levels. [0100] Table 2 below includes an exemplary listing of nutrients that may be included in the animal requirements. According to an exemplary embodiment, within the animal requirements, each listed nutrient may be associated with a value, percentage, range, or other measure of amount. The listing of nutrients may be customized to include more, fewer, or different nutrients based on any of a variety of factors, such as animal type, animal health, nutrient availability, etc. [0030] Information associated with a specific animal or a group or type of animals may include, but is not limited to, a species, ) Cook’s indicators of “metabolic problems” is an example of an anomaly, such as imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Since [0096-0100] provides examples of predetermined health thresholds (acceptable nutrient levels, constraints/limits), it is clear that an imbalance in dietary protein, or “overheating” falls within the scope of “a deviation from a predetermined health threshold.” Since these nutritional ranges are specific requirements for a specific “animal” or “animal type”, which includes a “species” based on [0030].
- the tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly through a change in at least one protein, vitamin, mineral, or caloric intake;(Cook [0009] What is needed is a system and method for maximizing nutritional criteria satisfaction in view of nutrient modification and nutrient utilization factors. Further, there is a need for a such a system and method configured to create a customized animal feed formulated to satisfy a requirement in view of the nutrient modification and nutrient utilization factors. [0102] The requirements engine 310 may further be configured to generate the animal requirements based on one or more dynamic nutrient utilization models. Dynamic nutrient utilization may include a model of the amount of nutrients ingested by an animal feed that are utilized by an animal based on information received in the animal information inputs... Nutrient utilization may further depend on the presence or absence of other nutrient additives, microbes and/or enzymes,... animal production or life stage, previous nutrition level, etc. [0103] Simulator 300 may be configured to account for these effects. For example, simulator 300 may be configured to adjust the level of a particular nutrient, defined in an animal feed formulation input, from the level determined based on the animal requirement to a different level based on the presence or absence of another particular nutrient. [0104] Accordingly, an animal feed formulation input may be modified based on the nutrient utilization model. However, this change in the animal feed formulation may have an effect on the animal feed formulation, including the animal feed formulation that was just modified. Accordingly, compensating for a nutrient utilization model may require an iterative calculation, constantly updating values, to arrival at a final value that is within a predefined tolerance. [0127] Table 3 below includes an exemplary list of ingredients which may be used in generating the animal feed formulation. The listing of ingredients may include more, fewer, or different ingredients depending on a variety of factors, such as ingredient availability, entry price, animal type, etc.... Soy Protein Concentrate... Vitamin A Vitamin B Complex Vitamin B12 Vitamin D3 Vitamin E) As seen above, an optimized feed formulation is generated specifically to address the requirements (including anomalies) by changing the ingredients, which include various proteins, vitamins, and minerals. Therefore, Cook satisfies the limitations above.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in the claim at issue would have been an obvious variation of the invention defined in a claim in the patent because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the patented claims by adding the teachings of Cook which specify particular health thresholds for a species or breed, and wherein the plan addresses anomalies in the thresholds through a change in proteins, vitamins, or minerals content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of Cook’s system optimizing for the desired outcome, which leads to maximal quality or amount of product produced by an animal. (Cook [0069] Advantageously, system 100 may optimize across all variable animal information inputs to generate recommendations for producing the output having specified target characteristics at the lowest cost. The recommendation may include a single optimal recommendation or a plurality of recommendations yielding equivalent benefits. [0004] A producer (i.e. a farmer, rancher, aquaculture specialist, etc.) generally benefits from maximizing the amount or quality of the product produced by an animal (e.g. gallons of milk, pounds of meat, quality of meat, amount of eggs, nutritional content of eggs produced, amount of work, hair/coat appearance/health status, etc.) while reducing the cost for the inputs associated with that production.)

Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
6 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

7. Claims 1-3, and 6-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claims 1-3, and 6-11: A computer-implemented method of managing livestock health in real-time, the method comprising
Claim 12-17: A system for livestock health management comprising: at least one server; at least one livestock owner interface including a data entry system, the livestock owner interface in wireless communication with a gateway and the at least one server; at least one livestock sensor, the livestock sensor coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server; a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturing equipment; and a memory and processor in wireless communication with the server, livestock owner interface, at least one livestock sensor and livestock producer interface, the memory and processor configured to perform the steps of:
Claim 18-20: A method for manufacturing a customized feed for at least one livestock animal, the method comprising the steps of:

Claims 1-3, and 6-11 and 18-20 recite a method which falls under “process.” Claims 12-17 recite a system apparatus with structure such as a server, interface, sensors, memory and processor, which falls under at least machine or manufacture. Therefore the claims are potentially eligible and are to be further analyzed under step 2.

Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a Judicial Exception (A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claims 1, 12 and 18 are marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 1: A computer-implemented method of managing livestock health in real-time, the method comprising
obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH; wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed; and
generating, by processor, a customized livestock health management plan in response to the detected anomaly, the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral, or caloric intake;
transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan;
receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan; and
upon receiving the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock.

Claim 12: A system for livestock health management comprising:
at least one server;
at least one livestock owner interface including a data entry system, the livestock owner interface in wireless communication with a gateway and the at least one server;
at least one livestock sensor, the livestock sensor coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server;
a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturing equipment; and
a memory and processor in wireless communication with the server, livestock owner interface, at least one livestock sensor and livestock producer interface, the memory and processor configured to perform the steps of:
obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed; and
generating, by processor, a customized livestock health management plan in response to the detected anomaly, the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral, or caloric intake;
transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan;
receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan; and
upon receiving the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock.

Claim 18: A method for manufacturing a customized feed for at least one livestock animal, the method comprising the steps of:
Obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH;
analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH, wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed; and
generating, by the processor, a customized livestock health management plan that includes a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly through a change in at least of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake.

When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claims 1, 12, and 18 recite the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity. This abstract idea grouping found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) includes claims to “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The invention is directed to this subcategory which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions, which is supported by the background of the specification,
“Livestock production currently suffers from a fragmented system where an animal may be weighed only a limited number of times during ownership. Any adjustments made to the livestock’s nutritional program to accommodate for changes in weight, health status and other health indicators are not usually made or are made at a time that is too late to improve the animal’s health. Even when changes to a livestock feed is made, a livestock owner is usually relegated to purchasing and feeding livestock from bulk purchased foodstuff. Such a lack of care may result in underweight, overweight or otherwise unhealthy livestock since particular livestock may need regular nutritional adjustments during their lifespan to compensate for changes in various factors. Such lack of nutritional adjustment and feeding conditions may result in profit loss for the livestock owner. Thus, there remains a need for system and method that addresses these and other challenges in real-time and provides a health management plan particularly suited to livestock in immediate need thereof.”
Due to the fact that that the claims merely gather data and result in a recommendation/plan provided to the owner that the owner must execute, the claims are merely “managing personal behavior” by providing teachings or instructions to a person. Therefore, in light of the specification, the claims merely recite methods of organizing activity in the subcategory of “managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals.” Therefore, in view of the claims in bold, the abstract idea is the “obtaining of real-time livestock data, analyzing the real-time livestock data to detect anomalies, and generating a customized livestock health management plan such as a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly being fed to the livestock.” Due to the generality and breadth of these claims which allow for any manner in determining the anomalies and generating a plan, it is no more than a management of personal behavior because it merely provides teachings and instructions to a person. Furthermore, claim 12 enables communication between the livestock owner, feed producer, and livestock manufacturer, further evidencing that the claims recite “managing personal behavior or interactions between individuals.” Furthermore, these interactions can even be considered “commercial or legal interactions,” which is another subcategory of “certain methods of organizing human behavior” as outlined in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B).
Furthermore, even when considering the amended limitations, using claim 1 as a representative claim, which also covers the amendments made to claims 12 and 16, the amended limitations in bold further limit the abstract idea by specifying that the plan includes a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake (generated in response to a detected anomaly). This still falls under certain methods of organizing human activity because it still merely recites the generating of a plan, which is no more than a set of instructions to an individual to manage their behavior. Even when considering that the plan is sent to a livestock owner to receive and display the plan, receiving confirmation of acceptance of the plan, and sending instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the livestock, these steps all still fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity” because they merely are steps in which interactions between people are managed or are merely instructions to an individual to manage their behavior. Therefore, even when considering the amended limitations, the steps are still at least reciting an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract and are to be further analyzed under step 2a prong 2 and step 2b.

Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1, 12, and 18 recite the following additional elements:
-computer-implemented method in claim 1 - real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock in claims 1, 12, 18
-processor, at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor in claims 1, 12, 18
- at least one server; in claim 12
-at least one livestock owner interface, in claims 1, 12
-the livestock owner interface in wireless communication with a gateway and the at least one server; in claim 12
-at least one livestock sensor, in claim 12
-the livestock sensor coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server; in claim 12
-a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, in claim 12
-the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturing equipment; in claim 12
-and a memory and processor in wireless communication with the server, in claim 12
-livestock owner interface, in claim 12
-at least one livestock sensor and livestock producer interface, in claim 12

The additional elements are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). In this case, the abstract idea of “obtaining of real-time livestock data, analyzing the real-time livestock data to detect anomalies, and generating a customized livestock health management plan such as a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly being fed to the livestock” is merely instructed to be performed on generic computing devices such as a computer, processor, sensors, servers, gateway, data entry system, interfaces, and memory. These are generic computing components as evident in at least in Page 6 of the specification,
“According to one embodiment, the system as provided herein includes the components shown in FIG. 1. According to one embodiment, the system as provided herein includes at least one livestock owner interface including a data entry system. The livestock owner interface may be in wireless communication with a gateway, at least one server, processor and memory. According to one embodiment, the livestock owner interface includes a livestock owner portal for owner access to the system as provided herein. According to one embodiment, the owner interface includes an application that may be installed on a stationary device such as, for example, a desktop computer. According to one embodiment, the owner interface includes an application that may be installed on a mobile device such as laptop computer or smart device such as a smart phone or tablet. According to either embodiment, a user-friendly dashboard may be provided.”
Despite the volume of additional elements provided in the claims, since they all are considered generic computing components instructed to perform the abstract idea or are ordinary devices operating in their ordinary capacity (such as sensors to sense weight, activity level, ammonia level...or livestock feed manufacturing equipment not specifically utilized in the claims), they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements are merely computing devices not instructed to perform any particular task with specific steps that would constitute an improvement to technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)). Furthermore, since the sensors are merely used in their ordinary capacity, without specific detail on how they sense and how the anomalies are detected, then they are merely “apply it” level elements. This also applies to the livestock feed manufacturing equipment which is merely introduced in the claims to be in communication with the livestock manufacturer interface, but is not specifically utilized in the functional limitations of the claims to perform any tasks that would be considered a practical application. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(f), “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.”
Even when considering the amended additional elements such as “automatically transmitting a wireless signal” or “transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan;” it is clear that these amendments are merely equivalent to “apply it” or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claim is recited broadly enough such that it is clearly performing the abstract idea of “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” by relaying interactions and instructions to another individual. The limitations are merely claimed in a manner that requires such interactions to be performed on any generic computer or device in its ordinary capacity. For example, using an interface to collect, capture, and display data is merely using computer interfaces in their ordinary capacity to perform an economic task. Furthermore, requiring the processor to be “in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor” is also merely using generic computers to perform the abstract idea because generic computers are capable of transmitting signals between devices wirelessly. Furthermore, the claimed computer infrastructure claimed does not make it apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art that an improvement to technology is reflected within the present claim scope. See MPEP 2106.05(a) for more information on improvements to technology.
Even when considering the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination, and even when viewing the claims as a whole, the claims merely use computers/devices to perform the abstract idea or generate outputs such as instructions to a person, therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea.

Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claims 1, 12, and 18 recite the following additional elements:
- real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock in claims 1, 12, 18
-processor, at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor in claims 1, 12, 18
- at least one server; in claim 12
-at least one livestock owner interface, in claims 1, 12
-the livestock owner interface in wireless communication with a gateway and the at least one server; in claim 12
-at least one livestock sensor, in claim 12
-the livestock sensor coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server; in claim 12
-a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, in claim 12
-the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturing equipment; in claim 12
-and a memory and processor in wireless communication with the server, in claim 12
-livestock owner interface, in claim 12
-at least one livestock sensor and livestock producer interface, in claim 12
-automatically transmitting a wireless signal in claims 1, 12

The additional elements have also not been found to include significantly more in order to consider it an inventive concept for the same reasons set forth in Prong 2. The additional elements are no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). More specifically, the use of a computers, processor, sensors, servers, gateway, data entry system, interfaces, and memory to perform the abstract idea of “obtaining of real-time livestock data, analyzing the real-time livestock data to detect anomalies, and generating a customized livestock health management plan such as a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly being fed to the livestock” does not provide significantly more, because they do not meaningfully limit the use of the field on the abstract idea. Furthermore, improvements to the technology or technical field have not been purported. Please review MPEP 2106.05(a) for more information regarding improvements to computing devices(Section I), or technological fields(Section II).
Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the abstract idea such that it is significantly more. The claims as a whole are merely using generic computing capabilities to perform the certain methods of organizing human activity. Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more and are not patent eligible.

The dependent claims 2, 3, 6-14, and 17-20 are also given the full two-part analysis, individually and in combination with the claims they depend on, in the following analysis:
Claim 11 merely further limits the abstract idea by specifically limiting what is included in the livestock health management plan. However, because these additional limitations are still broadly reciting recipes or instructions to be performed by an individually, they are still more of the same abstract idea of managing personal behavior. Claim 11 merely determines a medical diagnosis and prescribed medicament, but these are still management of personal behavior, because it does not specifically recite how this diagnosis is performed. Since there are no further additional elements to consider, and even when considering the previous additional elements in combination with these functions, and considering the claims as a whole, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 4, 13, and 19 are merely further limitations of the same abstract idea, as they merely provide steps of outputting the management plan to the owner, and receiving feedback as to whether the acceptance of the plan is accepted or denied. Such interactions are still more of the same abstract idea because they are merely data output steps providing the instructions, which is still categorized under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Furthermore, even though the providing of feedback is done on a generic computing device, it is still a “managing of personal behavior or interactions,” as stated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II),
“Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.” Therefore, even when considering the additional elements of transmitting the plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface individually or in combination with the previous additional elements, the claims are still reciting an abstract idea without integration into a practical application. Even when considering the claims as a whole, including any intervening claims, the claims are patent ineligible under 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 5 recites more of the same abstract idea because it is merely sending a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized recipe for the livestock owner. This is more of the same abstract idea because it is merely facilitating the interactions between individuals because it merely results in instructions to manufacture the feed relayed to another individual. The wireless signal is part of the abstract idea because it encompasses any form of communication to instruct another person. Therefore, there are no additional elements to consider, and even when considering the previously stated additional elements in view of the additional limitations, it still fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more. Therefore, even when considering claim 5 as a whole it is patent ineligible for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 6 and 7 merely further limit the abstract idea by further limiting the additional element of “livestock owner interface” to be a livestock owner portal or a laptop or a smart device. It is more of the same abstract idea because it does include any additional functional steps. The livestock owner portal, laptop or smart devices are still generic computing components instructed to perform the abstract idea as outlined in MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, even when considered the claims as a whole, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 8, 9, 10, and 14 merely further limits the abstract idea by further limiting the structure of the sensors. For example, claims 8 and 9 limit the sensor data to be obtained by sensor located on or around a livestock animal. Claims 8 and 9 also recite that the recipe can be fed to the animal, but this is also more of the same abstract idea of “managing personal behavior” because they are merely instructions to a person to perform the feeding. Limiting the sensors to be located near or around a livestock animal does not transform the abstract idea in any significant way, and neither does instructing the sensors to transmit code associated with an individual livestock animal. Claim 14 further limits the sensors to be a livestock scale coupled to a gateway. However, this scale is still a device utilized in its ordinary capacity (a scale to weigh an animal) to facilitate the abstract idea. Therefore, even when considering the claims individually or as an ordered combination, the claims still recite an abstract idea without integration into a practical application. Even when considering the claims as a whole, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are therefore patent ineligible under 101.
Claim 15 merely further limits the abstract idea by adding a database in communication with the other structural components already recited. There are no steps associated with the database, therefore, the claims are still reciting more of the same abstract idea recited in the independent claim. Even when considering the database as an additional element, it would still be an “apply it” level element. Therefore, even when considering the claims individually or as an ordered combination, the claims still recite an abstract idea without integration into a practical application. Even when considering the claims as a whole, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are therefore patent ineligible under 101.
Claim 16 merely further limits the abstract idea by adding the ability for the owner to enter individual livestock input data. This is more of the same abstract idea because it is merely data input steps towards performing the same abstract idea. As stated above in regards to the rejections to claims 4, 13, and 19, performing an input on a device can still be considered “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Therefore, even when considering these steps in combination with the additional elements of the claims depended upon, the claims still recite an abstract idea without integration into a practical application. Even when considering the claims as a whole, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are therefore patent ineligible under 101.
Claim 20 further defines the abstract idea by adding the steps of transmitting the confirmed livestock health management plan from the livestock owner to a feedstock producer; manufacturing the customized livestock feed according to the customized livestock feed recipe; and shipping the customized livestock feed to the livestock owner. The examiner notes that these additional steps require more consideration for whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The examiner points to the October 2019 PEG, Example 46, regarding livestock management. In this example, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because it merely collects data and provides the results of the data. However, in claims 2 and 3 the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they effectuate the dispersal of the proper amounts of nutrition through a physical sorting gate. In the present application, the transmission of the plan is merely part of the abstract idea because it is also merely a transfer and output of information. At the manufacturing step, compared to example 46, there is an insufficient amount of detail to meaningfully limit how the customized livestock feed is manufactured according to the recipe. Since this limitation encompasses the scope of instructing a person to perform the weighing and mixing of the various ingredients at the instructed amounts, it is still a “certain method of organizing human activity.” Regarding the shipping step, since this shipping also encompasses the scope of instructing a person to carry a bag of feed to the livestock owner, it is still “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Therefore, even when viewing the claims as a whole, and after a detailed analysis, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, claim 20 is also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.

Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
8. 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.

9. 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.

10. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhusudan et al. (US 20180206448 A1), in view of Cook et al. (US 20110010154 A1) hereinafter Cook.

Regarding Claim 18:
Madhusudan teaches:
A method for manufacturing a customized feed for at least one livestock animal, the method comprising the steps of: (Madhusudan [0014] The system may be further configured to determine a feed composition for each of the plurality of dairy animals, based on the determined amount of milk yielded by corresponding dairy animal and the monitored activities. The system may be further configured to control a loading device that loads a feed container with the determined feed composition for a first dairy animal to manage consumption of the feed composition by the first dairy animal.)
- obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, (Madhusudan [0021]The sensing tag 102a may be further configured to store identification information of a dairy animal... configured to determine health information of the first dairy animal 106a... to transmit the determined health information of the first dairy animal 106a to the feed-management server 112. The sensing tag 102a may include the image-capture device 104. The sensing tag 102a may comprise a plurality of sensors, such as a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor, a health monitoring sensor, a proximity sensor, an infra-red (IR) sensor, or a combination thereof, which may enable the sensing tag 102a to determine the health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The sensing tag 102a may be worn by an individual dairy animal to track activities of the individual dairy animal. [0023] Examples of the image-capture device 104 may include, but are not limited to, at least a camera, a camcorder, and an action cam. The image-capture device 104 may be implemented as an integrated unit of the sensing tag 102a or a separate device. For example, the image-capture device 104 may be positioned at various body portions, such as strapped around the neck portion of a dairy animal, or along the legs or lower portion of stomach, of a dairy animal, such as the first dairy animal 106a... The image-capture device 104 may be positioned at other body portions of the dairy animal to focus at surrounding areas around the dairy animal and/or an udder portion of the dairy animal. [0103] The disclosed system, such as the feed-management server 112, comprises one or more circuits, such as the processor 202 and the feed controller 206. The one or more circuits in the feed-management server 112 monitors the real time activities of the plurality of entities in a dairy farm by the plurality of sensing devices 102.) Madhusudan [0021] teaches a sensing tag located directly on the livestock, and [0023] teaches examples of sensors located around the livestock. [0021] teaches the health information being transmitted to the feed management server, satisfying the “obtaining...” limitation.
-the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH; (Madhusudan [0031] For example, the first dairy animal 106a may graze grass in a grazing area, which is referred to as a free-style grazing activity. The image-capture device 104 of the sensing tag 102a may capture one or more digital images and/or videos during the free-style grazing activity by the first dairy animal 106a. [0040] In accordance with an embodiment, the sensing tag 102a may be further configured to determine health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The health information may include one or more health parameters of the first dairy animal 106a. Examples of the one or more health parameters, may include, but are not limited to, blood count, body temperature, respiration rate, heart beat rate, and/or a combination thereof.) Since Madhusudan teaches “livestock activity level,” in the form of capturing the free-style grazing activity of the animal, and also teaches “body temperature” the limitation above has been satisfied since only at least one of the list is required.
- analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH, (Madhusudan [0040] The sensing tag 102a may further transmit the statistics of health information of the first dairy animal 106a to the feed-management server 112. The feed-management server 112 in return may update the determined feed composition based on an anomaly that is detected in the health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The feed-management server 112 may add one or more medicinal ingredients in the determined feed composition to treat the detected anomaly. For example, the feed-management server 112 may detect an increment in body temperature of the first dairy animal 106a, based on the health information received from the sensing tag 102a.) Since Madhusudan detects anomalies in the data, which Madhusudan has been shown to teach including “livestock activity level” and “body temperature,” then the limitation above has been satisfied since it only requires at least one of the items in the list.
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;
- and generating, by the processor, a customized livestock health management plan that includes a tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly (Madhusudan [0040] The feed-management server 112 may add a medicinal ingredient (such as an antibiotic) required to treat the increased body temperature. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may be further configured to transmit the health information of the first dairy animal 106a to a computing device (not shown) of a health analyst, in real time. The health analyst may further prescribe one or more medicinal ingredients to be added to the determined feed composition of the first dairy animal 106a by use of the computing device. The feed-management server 112 may further add the one or more medicinal ingredients prescribed by the health analyst. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may further update the feed composition based on one or more external parameters, such as temperature conditions, weather conditions, or one or more guidelines by various health agencies.)

However, Madhusudan fails to teach:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;
-the tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly through a change in at least one protein, vitamin, mineral, or caloric intake(Madhusudan does not explicitly teach that the tailored feedstock recipe specifically changes a protein, vitamin, mineral, or caloric intake in order to cure at least one detected anomaly.

However, Cook discloses a system and method for optimizing animal production, including generation of diet information for a particular species of animal based on a particular nutritional anomaly. Cook teaches:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;(Cook [0084] Empirical testing may further include monitoring the animals within the animal production system. For example, an animal may be monitored for metabolic indicators. Metabolic indicators may be indicative of metabolic problems such as milk fever, ketosis, imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Other monitored characteristics may include characteristics that must be tested within a laboratory such as non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), beta hydroxyl butyrate (BHBA), urine pH, milk urea nitrogen (MUN), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), body temperature, blood AA, manure characteristics, carbon dioxide levels, minerals, fat pad probes for pesticide residue testing, etc... Other physiological measurements may include microbial profile or but histological measurements. [0096] Animal requirements generated by requirements engine 310 may include a listing of nutrient requirements for a specific animal or group of animals. Animal requirements may be a description of the overall diet to be fed to the animal or group of animals. Animal requirements further may be defined in terms of a set of nutritional parameters ("nutrients"). Nutrients and/or nutritional parameters may include those terms commonly referred to as nutrients as well as groups of ingredients, microbial measurements, indices of health, relationships between multiple ingredients, etc. Further, the set of animal requirements may include constraints or limits on the amount of any particular nutrient, combination of nutrients, and/or specific ingredients... The constraints may be minimums or maximums and may be placed on the animal requirement as a whole, any single ingredient, or any combination ingredients. [0097] Additionally, animal requirements may be generated that define ranges of acceptable nutrient levels. [0100] Table 2 below includes an exemplary listing of nutrients that may be included in the animal requirements. According to an exemplary embodiment, within the animal requirements, each listed nutrient may be associated with a value, percentage, range, or other measure of amount. The listing of nutrients may be customized to include more, fewer, or different nutrients based on any of a variety of factors, such as animal type, animal health, nutrient availability, etc. [0030] Information associated with a specific animal or a group or type of animals may include, but is not limited to, a species, ) Cook’s indicators of “metabolic problems” is an example of an anomaly, such as imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Since [0096-0100] provides examples of predetermined health thresholds (acceptable nutrient levels, constraints/limits), it is clear that an imbalance in dietary protein, or “overheating” falls within the scope of “a deviation from a predetermined health threshold.” Since these nutritional ranges are specific requirements for a specific “animal” or “animal type”, which includes a “species” based on [0030].
- the tailored feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly through a change in at least one protein, vitamin, mineral, or caloric intake;(Cook [0009] What is needed is a system and method for maximizing nutritional criteria satisfaction in view of nutrient modification and nutrient utilization factors. Further, there is a need for a such a system and method configured to create a customized animal feed formulated to satisfy a requirement in view of the nutrient modification and nutrient utilization factors. [0102] The requirements engine 310 may further be configured to generate the animal requirements based on one or more dynamic nutrient utilization models. Dynamic nutrient utilization may include a model of the amount of nutrients ingested by an animal feed that are utilized by an animal based on information received in the animal information inputs... Nutrient utilization may further depend on the presence or absence of other nutrient additives, microbes and/or enzymes,... animal production or life stage, previous nutrition level, etc. [0103] Simulator 300 may be configured to account for these effects. For example, simulator 300 may be configured to adjust the level of a particular nutrient, defined in an animal feed formulation input, from the level determined based on the animal requirement to a different level based on the presence or absence of another particular nutrient. [0104] Accordingly, an animal feed formulation input may be modified based on the nutrient utilization model. However, this change in the animal feed formulation may have an effect on the animal feed formulation, including the animal feed formulation that was just modified. Accordingly, compensating for a nutrient utilization model may require an iterative calculation, constantly updating values, to arrival at a final value that is within a predefined tolerance. [0127] Table 3 below includes an exemplary list of ingredients which may be used in generating the animal feed formulation. The listing of ingredients may include more, fewer, or different ingredients depending on a variety of factors, such as ingredient availability, entry price, animal type, etc.... Soy Protein Concentrate... Vitamin A Vitamin B Complex Vitamin B12 Vitamin D3 Vitamin E) As seen above, an optimized feed formulation is generated specifically to address the requirements (including anomalies) by changing the ingredients, which include various proteins, vitamins, and minerals. Therefore, Cook satisfies the limitations above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Madhusudan by adding the teachings of Cook which specify particular health thresholds for a species or breed, and wherein the plan addresses anomalies in the thresholds through a change in proteins, vitamins, or minerals content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of Cook’s system optimizing for the desired outcome, which leads to maximal quality or amount of product produced by an animal. (Cook [0069] Advantageously, system 100 may optimize across all variable animal information inputs to generate recommendations for producing the output having specified target characteristics at the lowest cost. The recommendation may include a single optimal recommendation or a plurality of recommendations yielding equivalent benefits. [0004] A producer (i.e. a farmer, rancher, aquaculture specialist, etc.) generally benefits from maximizing the amount or quality of the product produced by an animal (e.g. gallons of milk, pounds of meat, quality of meat, amount of eggs, nutritional content of eggs produced, amount of work, hair/coat appearance/health status, etc.) while reducing the cost for the inputs associated with that production.)

11. Claims 1-3, and 6-3, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhusudan et al. (US 20180206448 A1), in view of Case et al. (US 20060085272 A1) hereinafter Case, further in view of Cook et al. (US 20110010154 A1) hereinafter Cook.

Regarding Claim 1:
Madhusudan discloses a system and method for animal feed management for a dairy farm with servers connected to health monitoring sensors to monitor the activities of a plurality of animals and determine a feed composition for each of the plurality based on the monitored activities. Madhusudan teaches:
- A computer-implemented method of managing livestock health in real-time, (Madhusudan [0016] The system may be further configured to update the determined feed composition based on health information of the plurality of dairy animals received from the plurality of sensing devices associated with the plurality of dairy animals. [0101] Various embodiments of the disclosure may provide a non-transitory, computer readable medium and/or storage medium, and/or a non-transitory machine readable medium and/or storage medium stored thereon, a machine code and/or a set of instructions executable by a machine and/or a computer for animal feed management.)
- the method comprising obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, (Madhusudan [0021] The sensing tag 102a may be further configured to store identification information of a dairy animal... configured to determine health information of the first dairy animal 106a... to transmit the determined health information of the first dairy animal 106a to the feed-management server 112. The sensing tag 102a may include the image-capture device 104. The sensing tag 102a may comprise a plurality of sensors, such as a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor, a health monitoring sensor, a proximity sensor, an infra-red (IR) sensor, or a combination thereof, which may enable the sensing tag 102a to determine the health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The sensing tag 102a may be worn by an individual dairy animal to track activities of the individual dairy animal. [0023] Examples of the image-capture device 104 may include, but are not limited to, at least a camera, a camcorder, and an action cam. The image-capture device 104 may be implemented as an integrated unit of the sensing tag 102a or a separate device. For example, the image-capture device 104 may be positioned at various body portions, such as strapped around the neck portion of a dairy animal, or along the legs or lower portion of stomach, of a dairy animal, such as the first dairy animal 106a... The image-capture device 104 may be positioned at other body portions of the dairy animal to focus at surrounding areas around the dairy animal and/or an udder portion of the dairy animal. [0103] The disclosed system, such as the feed-management server 112, comprises one or more circuits, such as the processor 202 and the feed controller 206. The one or more circuits in the feed-management server 112 monitors the real time activities of the plurality of entities in a dairy farm by the plurality of sensing devices 102.) Madhusudan [0021] teaches a sensing tag located directly on the livestock, and [0023] teaches examples of sensors located around the livestock. [0021] teaches the health information being transmitted to the feed management server, satisfying the “obtaining...” limitation.
- the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH; (Madhusudan [0031] For example, the first dairy animal 106a may graze grass in a grazing area, which is referred to as a free-style grazing activity. The image-capture device 104 of the sensing tag 102a may capture one or more digital images and/or videos during the free-style grazing activity by the first dairy animal 106a. [0040] In accordance with an embodiment, the sensing tag 102a may be further configured to determine health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The health information may include one or more health parameters of the first dairy animal 106a. Examples of the one or more health parameters, may include, but are not limited to, blood count, body temperature, respiration rate, heart beat rate, and/or a combination thereof.) Since Madhusudan teaches “livestock activity level,” in the form of capturing the free-style grazing activity of the animal, and also teaches “body temperature” the limitation above has been satisfied since only at least one of the list is required.
- analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH; and (Madhusudan [0040] The sensing tag 102a may further transmit the statistics of health information of the first dairy animal 106a to the feed-management server 112. The feed-management server 112 in return may update the determined feed composition based on an anomaly that is detected in the health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The feed-management server 112 may add one or more medicinal ingredients in the determined feed composition to treat the detected anomaly. For example, the feed-management server 112 may detect an increment in body temperature of the first dairy animal 106a, based on the health information received from the sensing tag 102a.) Since Madhusudan detects anomalies in the data, which Madhusudan has been shown to teach including “livestock activity level” and “body temperature,” then the limitation above has been satisfied since it only requires at least one of the items in the list.
- generating, by processor, a customized livestock health management plan in response to the detected anomaly, (Madhusudan [0040] The feed-management server 112 may add a medicinal ingredient (such as an antibiotic) required to treat the increased body temperature. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may be further configured to transmit the health information of the first dairy animal 106a to a computing device (not shown) of a health analyst, in real time. The health analyst may further prescribe one or more medicinal ingredients to be added to the determined feed composition of the first dairy animal 106a by use of the computing device. The feed-management server 112 may further add the one or more medicinal ingredients prescribed by the health analyst. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may further update the feed composition based on one or more external parameters, such as temperature conditions, weather conditions, or one or more guidelines by various health agencies. [0092] At 510, a check may be performed to detect any health anomaly in each of the plurality of dairy animals (such as the first dairy animal 106a) and/or a change in the monitored activities. Based on any health anomaly that is detected in the first dairy animal and/or a change that is detected in the monitored activities, control passes to 512 else control passes to 514. At 512, the determined feed composition of the first dairy may be updated by the feed controller 206. An example is described in FIG. 4A, where the feed controller 206 may update the determined feed composition of the first dairy animal 106a based on the detection of the health anomaly in the first dairy animal 106a.) The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of a customized livestock health management plan, in view of the specification, includes customized feed recipes to treat the anomalies.

However, Madhusudan fails to teach:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;
- the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake;
- transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan;
- receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan; and
- upon receiving the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock.

Alternatively, Case teaches:
- transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan; (Case [0010] In preferred embodiments, the system can identify and provide to the user a group of suggested nutrients for each of several possible intended uses; after the user indicates a particular intended use for the nutritional blend formulation, the system presents to the user through the graphical user interface a list of the suggested nutrients for that intended use... the system contains means for notifying the user through the graphical user interface if the desired nutritional activity and/or concentration for one or more of the nutrients are below the suggested minimum or above the suggested maximum concentration or activity for one or more of the nutrients for the intended use; the system contains means to communicate to the user at least a portion of the hierarchy of the available nutritional formulation materials for one or more of the nutrients in the nutritional blend formulation; [0014] Thus, a user may be an individual who on behalf of a company for which he or she works enters specifications on his or her home or office computer or input/output device for a nutritional blend formulation the company ... uses internally in its own operations (e.g., animal husbandry).[0031] Using a communications network, preferably the Internet, a connection between system 15 and a local node 12 of a user is established, preferably over the “World Wide Web” or other computer network, which network is preferably but not necessarily global and which network may or may not be accessible by the public at large (for convenience the term “web” is used herein to refer to a communications network.) The suggest nutrients for the particular nutritional blend formulation falls within the scope of “livestock health management plan.” Since this is presented to the user, which is the owner of the livestock, the limitation is satisfied.
- receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan; and (Case [0010] the system contains means to allow the user to approve the nutritional blend formulation (e.g., based on original or modified specifications) for manufacture; [0079] The user may choose to make modifications because of curiosity as to the effect that one or more modifications would have on the formulation product information (e.g., how would reducing the activity of a nutrient affect the cost) or as a result of something in the formulation product information being unacceptable)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madhusudan to add interface features as taught by Case such as transmitting the health plan to receive confirmation or denial of the plan by the owner. By combining these two inventions one would at arrive at the predictable outcome of transmitting the plan to the livestock owner interface and confirming or denying acceptance, because it would merely be a simple substitution wherein Madhusudan’s recipe is transmitted in Case’s system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination due to the benefit of providing up-to-date, accurate and clearly presented information between customer’s and manufacturer’s to improve the business relations. (Case [0006])

- upon receiving the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock. (Case [0010] the system contains means for allowing review of the nutritional blend formulation after it has been approved for manufacture; and/or the system contains means to transmit the nutritional blend formulation and/or its corresponding formulation product information to another system (e.g., a manufacturing control system or an enterprise system) to allow the nutritional blend formulation to be manufactured.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madhusudan to add the wireless signal sent to the feedstock producer to manufacture the custom recipe as taught by Case. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination due to the benefit of providing up-to-date, accurate and clearly presented information between customer’s and manufacturer’s to improve the business relations. (Case [0006])

However, neither Madhusudan nor Case teach or suggest:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;
- the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake;

Alternatively, Cook teaches:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;(Cook [0084] Empirical testing may further include monitoring the animals within the animal production system. For example, an animal may be monitored for metabolic indicators. Metabolic indicators may be indicative of metabolic problems such as milk fever, ketosis, imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Other monitored characteristics may include characteristics that must be tested within a laboratory such as non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), beta hydroxyl butyrate (BHBA), urine pH, milk urea nitrogen (MUN), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), body temperature, blood AA, manure characteristics, carbon dioxide levels, minerals, fat pad probes for pesticide residue testing, etc... Other physiological measurements may include microbial profile or but histological measurements. [0096] Animal requirements generated by requirements engine 310 may include a listing of nutrient requirements for a specific animal or group of animals. Animal requirements may be a description of the overall diet to be fed to the animal or group of animals. Animal requirements further may be defined in terms of a set of nutritional parameters ("nutrients"). Nutrients and/or nutritional parameters may include those terms commonly referred to as nutrients as well as groups of ingredients, microbial measurements, indices of health, relationships between multiple ingredients, etc. Further, the set of animal requirements may include constraints or limits on the amount of any particular nutrient, combination of nutrients, and/or specific ingredients... The constraints may be minimums or maximums and may be placed on the animal requirement as a whole, any single ingredient, or any combination ingredients. [0097] Additionally, animal requirements may be generated that define ranges of acceptable nutrient levels. [0100] Table 2 below includes an exemplary listing of nutrients that may be included in the animal requirements. According to an exemplary embodiment, within the animal requirements, each listed nutrient may be associated with a value, percentage, range, or other measure of amount. The listing of nutrients may be customized to include more, fewer, or different nutrients based on any of a variety of factors, such as animal type, animal health, nutrient availability, etc. [0030] Information associated with a specific animal or a group or type of animals may include, but is not limited to, a species, ) Cook’s indicators of “metabolic problems” is an example of an anomaly, such as imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Since [0096-0100] provides examples of predetermined health thresholds (acceptable nutrient levels, constraints/limits), it is clear that an imbalance in dietary protein, or “overheating” falls within the scope of “a deviation from a predetermined health threshold.” Since these nutritional ranges are specific requirements for a specific “animal” or “animal type”, which includes a “species” based on [0030].
- the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake;(Cook [0009] What is needed is a system and method for maximizing nutritional criteria satisfaction in view of nutrient modification and nutrient utilization factors. Further, there is a need for a such a system and method configured to create a customized animal feed formulated to satisfy a requirement in view of the nutrient modification and nutrient utilization factors. [0102] The requirements engine 310 may further be configured to generate the animal requirements based on one or more dynamic nutrient utilization models. Dynamic nutrient utilization may include a model of the amount of nutrients ingested by an animal feed that are utilized by an animal based on information received in the animal information inputs... Nutrient utilization may further depend on the presence or absence of other nutrient additives, microbes and/or enzymes,... animal production or life stage, previous nutrition level, etc. [0103] Simulator 300 may be configured to account for these effects. For example, simulator 300 may be configured to adjust the level of a particular nutrient, defined in an animal feed formulation input, from the level determined based on the animal requirement to a different level based on the presence or absence of another particular nutrient. [0104] Accordingly, an animal feed formulation input may be modified based on the nutrient utilization model. However, this change in the animal feed formulation may have an effect on the animal feed formulation, including the animal feed formulation that was just modified. Accordingly, compensating for a nutrient utilization model may require an iterative calculation, constantly updating values, to arrival at a final value that is within a predefined tolerance. [0127] Table 3 below includes an exemplary list of ingredients which may be used in generating the animal feed formulation. The listing of ingredients may include more, fewer, or different ingredients depending on a variety of factors, such as ingredient availability, entry price, animal type, etc.... Soy Protein Concentrate... Vitamin A Vitamin B Complex Vitamin B12 Vitamin D3 Vitamin E) As seen above, an optimized feed formulation is generated specifically to address the requirements (including anomalies) by changing the ingredients, which include various proteins, vitamins, and minerals. Therefore, Cook satisfies the limitations above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Madhusudan and Case by adding the teachings of Cook which specify particular health thresholds for a species or breed, and wherein the plan addresses anomalies in the thresholds through a change in proteins, vitamins, or minerals content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of Cook’s system optimizing for the desired outcome, which leads to maximal quality or amount of product produced by an animal. (Cook [0069] and [0004].)

Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach or suggest: The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
-wherein the livestock health management plan includes a customized feedstock recipe adapted to cure the at least one detected anomaly upon being fed to the livestock. (Madhusudan [0040] The feed-management server 112 may add a medicinal ingredient (such as an antibiotic) required to treat the increased body temperature. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may be further configured to transmit the health information of the first dairy animal 106a to a computing device (not shown) of a health analyst, in real time. The health analyst may further prescribe one or more medicinal ingredients to be added to the determined feed composition of the first dairy animal 106a by use of the computing device. The feed-management server 112 may further add the one or more medicinal ingredients prescribed by the health analyst. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may further update the feed composition based on one or more external parameters, such as temperature conditions, weather conditions, or one or more guidelines by various health agencies.)

Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach or suggest: The method of claim 2,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
- wherein the customized feedstock recipe includes a change in mineral to correct the anomaly. (Madhusudan [0036] The feed composition may also depend on the amount of milk yielded by a dairy animal. For example, for a milk yield of “1 liter” from a cow, the feed composition may include “500 g” of balanced cattle feed, “100 g” of mineral mixture, and “10 liters” of water. [0092] At 510, a check may be performed to detect any health anomaly in each of the plurality of dairy animals (such as the first dairy animal 106a) and/or a change in the monitored activities. Based on any health anomaly that is detected in the first dairy animal and/or a change that is detected in the monitored activities, control passes to 512 else control passes to 514. At 512, the determined feed composition of the first dairy may be updated by the feed controller 206. An example is described in FIG. 4A, where the feed controller 206 may update the determined feed composition of the first dairy animal 106a based on the detection of the health anomaly in the first dairy animal 106a.) See Fig. 5, 512, which clearly shows a change in the recipe based on the anomaly. Madhusudan [0036] is included to show that the composition change includes a change in minerals specifically.

Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach or suggest: The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
- at least one livestock owner interface; (Madhusudan [0026] The electronic device 110 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to determine an amount of milk yielded by an identified dairy animal (such as the first dairy animal 106a) of the plurality of dairy animals. The electronic device 110 may be associated with the first care-taker 108a. The electronic device 110 may generate a notification to notify the first care-taker 108a to discontinue a hand-based milking activity of the first dairy animal 106a, based on a time duration of the hand-based milking activity that exceeds a defined milking duration threshold of the first dairy animal 106a. The electronic device 110 may be communicatively coupled to the wearable device 102b associated with the first care-taker 108a and the feed-management server 112, via the communication network 114. Examples of the electronic device 110 may include, but are not limited to, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a computing device, a server, a computer work-station, a mainframe machine, and/or other electronic devices.)

However, Madhusudan fails to teach or suggest:

- further comprising the steps of: transmitting the livestock health management plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface;
- and confirming or denying acceptance of the livestock health management plan by the livestock owner.

Alternatively, Case discloses a customized feed ordering platform with interfaces providing the features of:
- transmitting the livestock health management plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface; (Case [0010] In preferred embodiments, the system can identify and provide to the user a group of suggested nutrients for each of several possible intended uses; after the user indicates a particular intended use for the nutritional blend formulation, the system presents to the user through the graphical user interface a list of the suggested nutrients for that intended use... the system contains means for notifying the user through the graphical user interface if the desired nutritional activity and/or concentration for one or more of the nutrients are below the suggested minimum or above the suggested maximum concentration or activity for one or more of the nutrients for the intended use; the system contains means to communicate to the user at least a portion of the hierarchy of the available nutritional formulation materials for one or more of the nutrients in the nutritional blend formulation; [0014] Thus, a user may be an individual who on behalf of a company for which he or she works enters specifications on his or her home or office computer or input/output device for a nutritional blend formulation the company ... uses internally in its own operations (e.g., animal husbandry).[0031] Using a communications network, preferably the Internet, a connection between system 15 and a local node 12 of a user is established, preferably over the “World Wide Web” or other computer network, which network is preferably but not necessarily global and which network may or may not be accessible by the public at large (for convenience the term “web” is used herein to refer to a communications network.) The suggest nutrients for the particular nutritional blend formulation falls within the scope of “livestock health management plan.” Since this is presented to the user, which is the owner of the livestock, the limitation is satisfied.
- and confirming or denying acceptance of the livestock health management plan by the livestock owner. (Case [0010] the system contains means to allow the user to approve the nutritional blend formulation (e.g., based on original or modified specifications) for manufacture; [0079] The user may choose to make modifications because of curiosity as to the effect that one or more modifications would have on the formulation product information (e.g., how would reducing the activity of a nutrient affect the cost) or as a result of something in the formulation product information being unacceptable)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madhusudan to add interface features as taught by Case such as transmitting the health plan to receive confirmation or denial of the plan by the owner. By combining these two inventions one would at arrive at the predictable outcome of transmitting the plan to the livestock owner interface and confirming or denying acceptance, because it would merely be a simple substitution wherein Madhusudan’s recipe is transmitted in Case’s system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination due to the benefit of providing up-to-date, accurate and clearly presented information between customer’s and manufacturer’s to improve the business relations. (Case [0006])

Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach or suggest: The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
However, Madhusudan fails to teach or suggest:
- wherein the livestock owner interface includes a livestock owner portal.

Alternatively, Case teaches:
- wherein the livestock owner interface includes a livestock owner portal. (Case [0034] FIG. 2 illustrates the functionalities encompassed by graphical user interface 14. Graphical user interface 14 encompasses web pages 3, which are accessible to the user on local node 12 using, for instance, a local web browser program, as well as other supporting programs, tools, and software needed to enable communication and interaction between the user and system 15 through local node 12. Thus, graphical user interface 14 is the point of interactivity between local node 12 and the rest of system 15 and its various other components and functionalities, allowing a user to enter, modify, and receive information. Preferably, graphical user interface 14 provides web pages 3 in appropriate graphical formats for the user’s entry and receipt of information, which formats may include one or more templates, pull-down menus, selection fields, input fields, text area fields, dialog boxes, and/or other modes and structures to receive data from or display data to a user.) The BRI of “livestock owner portal” is any web-accessible interface that allows for the user to interact with the platform. Fig. 7 of Case is an example of a portal.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madhusudan to add Case’s livestock owner portal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination due to the benefit of providing up-to-date, accurate and clearly presented information between customer’s and manufacturer’s to improve the business relations. (Case [0006])

Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach or suggest: The method of claim 6,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
-wherein the livestock owner interface is a laptop or smart device. (Madhusudan [0026] Examples of the electronic device 110 may include, but are not limited to, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a computing device, a server, a computer work-station, a mainframe machine, and/or other electronic devices.)

Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach or suggest: The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
-wherein the livestock sensor data is obtained from a plurality of sensors located on a plurality of livestock and (Madhusudan [0021]The sensing tag 102a may be further configured to store identification information of a dairy animal... configured to determine health information of the first dairy animal 106a... to transmit the determined health information of the first dairy animal 106a to the feed-management server 112. The sensing tag 102a may include the image-capture device 104. The sensing tag 102a may comprise a plurality of sensors, such as a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor, a health monitoring sensor, a proximity sensor, an infra-red (IR) sensor, or a combination thereof, which may enable the sensing tag 102a to determine the health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The sensing tag 102a may be worn by an individual dairy animal to track activities of the individual dairy animal.)
-the customized feedstock recipe may be fed to the plurality of livestock. (Madhusudan [0073] The feed controller 206 may further determine the feed composition for the first dairy animal 106a based on the amount of milk yielded by the first dairy animal 106a and the monitored activities (such as the free style grazing) of the first dairy animal 106a. The feed controller 206 may further determine an amount of feed of the determined feed composition to be fed to the first dairy animal 106a. The feed controller 206 may be further configured to control the loading device 116 that may load a feed container or dispenser (such as the feed container 120), associated with the first dairy animal 106a, with the determined feed composition. The feed controller 206 may load the feed container 120 with the determined feed composition for the first dairy animal 106a to manage consumption of the determined feed composition by the first dairy animal 106a. An example to manage consumption of the determined feed composition by a specific dairy animal is described in FIG. 4C.)

Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach or suggest: The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
-wherein the livestock sensor data is obtained from at least one sensor on or around an individual livestock animal and (Madhusudan [0023] Examples of the image-capture device 104 may include, but are not limited to, at least a camera, a camcorder, and an action cam. The image-capture device 104 may be implemented as an integrated unit of the sensing tag 102a or a separate device. For example, the image-capture device 104 may be positioned at various body portions, such as strapped around the neck portion of a dairy animal, or along the legs or lower portion of stomach, of a dairy animal, such as the first dairy animal 106a... The image-capture device 104 may be positioned at other body portions of the dairy animal to focus at surrounding areas around the dairy animal and/or an udder portion of the dairy animal.)
- the customized feedstock recipe may be fed to the individual livestock animal. (Madhusudan [0073] The feed controller 206 may further determine the feed composition for the first dairy animal 106a based on the amount of milk yielded by the first dairy animal 106a and the monitored activities (such as the free style grazing) of the first dairy animal 106a. The feed controller 206 may further determine an amount of feed of the determined feed composition to be fed to the first dairy animal 106a. The feed controller 206 may be further configured to control the loading device 116 that may load a feed container or dispenser (such as the feed container 120), associated with the first dairy animal 106a, with the determined feed composition. The feed controller 206 may load the feed container 120 with the determined feed composition for the first dairy animal 106a to manage consumption of the determined feed composition by the first dairy animal 106a. An example to manage consumption of the determined feed composition by a specific dairy animal is described in FIG. 4C.)

Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach or suggest: The method of claim 9,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
-wherein the at least one livestock sensor transmits a particular code associated with an individual livestock animal. (Madhusudan [0021] The sensing tag 102a may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to track the activities of a dairy animal (such as the first dairy animal 106a). The sensing tag 102a may be further configured to store identification information of a dairy animal (such as the first dairy animal 106a) of the plurality of dairy animals... such as a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor, [0045] The electronic device 110 may further identify the dairy animal, such as the first dairy animal 106a, associated with the identified sensing tag 102a.) The BRI of “particular code” is any form of signals identifying the individual livestock animal, which is satisfied by the use of code to transmit identification information from an RFID as taught by Madhusudan.

Regarding Claim 11:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach or suggest: The method of claim 1,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
-wherein the health management plan further includes at least one livestock medical diagnosis and, optionally, at least one prescribed medicament. (Madhusudan [0040] The feed-management server 112 may add one or more medicinal ingredients in the determined feed composition to treat the detected anomaly. For example, the feed-management server 112 may detect an increment in body temperature of the first dairy animal 106a, based on the health information received from the sensing tag 102a. The feed-management server 112 may add a medicinal ingredient (such as an antibiotic) required to treat the increased body temperature. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may be further configured to transmit the health information of the first dairy animal 106a to a computing device (not shown) of a health analyst, in real time. The health analyst may further prescribe one or more medicinal ingredients to be added to the determined feed composition of the first dairy animal 106a by use of the computing device. The feed-management server 112 may further add the one or more medicinal ingredients prescribed by the health analyst. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may further update the feed composition based on one or more external parameters, such as temperature conditions, weather conditions, or one or more guidelines by various health agencies.)

Regarding Claim 12:
A system for livestock health management comprising:
- at least one server; (Madhusudan [0027] The feed-management server 112 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to determine a feed composition for each of the plurality of dairy animals (such as the first dairy animal 106a)... Examples of the feed-management server 112 may include, but are not limited to, an application server, a cloud server, a web server, a database server, a file server, a mainframe server, or a combination thereof.)
- at least one livestock owner interface including a data entry system, the livestock owner interface in wireless communication with a gateway and the at least one server; (Madhusudan [0049] The training data for training the feed-management server 112 to determine the milking capacity of a care-taker (such as the first care-taker 108a) may include an amount of milk collected by the first care-taker 108a and a time duration of the hand-based milking activity performed by the first care-taker 108a to collect the amount of milk... In accordance with an embodiment, the first care-taker 108a may use a specific application installed in the electronic device 110 to manually feed the information of the amount of milk collected. [0056] The network interface 208 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to establish communication between the feed-management server 112, the plurality of sensing devices 102, and the electronic device 110, via the communication network 114. The network interface 208 may be implemented by use of various known technologies to support wired or wireless communication of the feed-management server 112 with the communication network 114.) The specific application installed in the electronic device, which is connected to the server, is an example of a livestock owner interface. Madhusudan’s network interface is an example of a gateway.
- at least one livestock sensor, the livestock sensor coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server; (Madhusudan [0021] The sensing tag 102a may be configured to transmit the determined health information of the first dairy animal 106a to the feed-management server 112. The sensing tag 102a may include the image-capture device 104. The sensing tag 102a may comprise a plurality of sensors, such as a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor, a health monitoring sensor, a proximity sensor, an infra-red (IR) sensor, or a combination thereof, which may enable the sensing tag 102a to determine the health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The sensing tag 102a may be worn by an individual dairy animal to track activities of the individual dairy animal.)
- livestock feed manufacturing equipment; and (Madhusudan [0039] The feed-management server 112 may be further configured to control the loading device 116 that may load the feed container 120, associated with the first dairy animal 106a, with the determined feed composition. The feed-management server 112 may load the feed container 120 with the determined feed composition for the first dairy animal 106a to manage consumption of the feed composition by the first dairy animal 106a. The loading device 116 may refer to a device where the feed of the determined feed composition is prepared. The loading device 116 may comprise one or more feed mixing compartments (such as the feed mixing compartment 118). The one or more ingredients of the feed corresponding to the first dairy animal 106a are mixed in accordance with the determined feed composition in the feed mixing compartment 118 that is related to the first dairy animal 106a.) The loading device having mixing compartment’s is an example of livestock feed manufacturing equipment, which is connected to the server.
- a memory and processor in wireless communication with the server, livestock owner interface, at least one livestock sensor, the memory and processor configured to perform the steps of: (Madhusudan [0052] FIG. 2 is a detailed block diagram that illustrates an exemplary feed-management server for management of animal feed in a dairy farm, in accordance with an embodiment of the disclosure. FIG. 2 is explained in conjunction with elements from FIG. 1. With reference to FIG. 2, the exemplary feed-management server (such as the feed-management server 112) may comprise one or more circuits, such as a processor 202, a memory 204, a feed controller 206, and a network interface 208. The memory 204, the feed controller 206, and the network interface 208 may be communicatively connected to the processor 202. The feed-management server 112 may correspond to the animal feed management system.
- obtaining, by at least one processor in wireless communication with at least one livestock sensor, real-time livestock sensor data from at least one sensor located on or around one or more livestock, (Madhusudan [0021]The sensing tag 102a may be further configured to store identification information of a dairy animal... configured to determine health information of the first dairy animal 106a... to transmit the determined health information of the first dairy animal 106a to the feed-management server 112. The sensing tag 102a may include the image-capture device 104. The sensing tag 102a may comprise a plurality of sensors, such as a radio frequency identification (RFID) sensor, a health monitoring sensor, a proximity sensor, an infra-red (IR) sensor, or a combination thereof, which may enable the sensing tag 102a to determine the health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The sensing tag 102a may be worn by an individual dairy animal to track activities of the individual dairy animal. [0023] Examples of the image-capture device 104 may include, but are not limited to, at least a camera, a camcorder, and an action cam. The image-capture device 104 may be implemented as an integrated unit of the sensing tag 102a or a separate device. For example, the image-capture device 104 may be positioned at various body portions, such as strapped around the neck portion of a dairy animal, or along the legs or lower portion of stomach, of a dairy animal, such as the first dairy animal 106a... The image-capture device 104 may be positioned at other body portions of the dairy animal to focus at surrounding areas around the dairy animal and/or an udder portion of the dairy animal.) Madhusudan [0021] teaches a sensing tag located directly on the livestock, and [0023] teaches examples of sensors located around the livestock. [0021] teaches the health information being transmitted to the feed management server, satisfying the “obtaining...” limitation.
-the data comprising at least one of livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH; (Madhusudan [0031] For example, the first dairy animal 106a may graze grass in a grazing area, which is referred to as a free-style grazing activity. The image-capture device 104 of the sensing tag 102a may capture one or more digital images and/or videos during the free-style grazing activity by the first dairy animal 106a. [0040] In accordance with an embodiment, the sensing tag 102a may be further configured to determine health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The health information may include one or more health parameters of the first dairy animal 106a. Examples of the one or more health parameters, may include, but are not limited to, blood count, body temperature, respiration rate, heart beat rate, and/or a combination thereof.) Since Madhusudan teaches “livestock activity level,” in the form of capturing the free-style grazing activity of the animal, and also teaches “body temperature” the limitation above has been satisfied since only at least one of the list is required.
- analyzing, by processor, the real-time livestock sensor data to detect at least one anomaly in the livestock weight, livestock activity level, livestock ammonia level, body temperature, body weight, water intake, or body pH, (Madhusudan [0040] The sensing tag 102a may further transmit the statistics of health information of the first dairy animal 106a to the feed-management server 112. The feed-management server 112 in return may update the determined feed composition based on an anomaly that is detected in the health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The feed-management server 112 may add one or more medicinal ingredients in the determined feed composition to treat the detected anomaly. For example, the feed-management server 112 may detect an increment in body temperature of the first dairy animal 106a, based on the health information received from the sensing tag 102a.) Since Madhusudan detects anomalies in the data, which Madhusudan has been shown to teach including “livestock activity level” and “body temperature,” then the limitation above has been satisfied since it only requires at least one of the items in the list.
-
- and generating, by processor, a customized livestock health management plan in response to the detected anomaly, (Madhusudan [0040] The feed-management server 112 may add a medicinal ingredient (such as an antibiotic) required to treat the increased body temperature. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may be further configured to transmit the health information of the first dairy animal 106a to a computing device (not shown) of a health analyst, in real time. The health analyst may further prescribe one or more medicinal ingredients to be added to the determined feed composition of the first dairy animal 106a by use of the computing device. The feed-management server 112 may further add the one or more medicinal ingredients prescribed by the health analyst. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may further update the feed composition based on one or more external parameters, such as temperature conditions, weather conditions, or one or more guidelines by various health agencies. [0092] At 510, a check may be performed to detect any health anomaly in each of the plurality of dairy animals (such as the first dairy animal 106a) and/or a change in the monitored activities. Based on any health anomaly that is detected in the first dairy animal and/or a change that is detected in the monitored activities, control passes to 512 else control passes to 514. At 512, the determined feed composition of the first dairy may be updated by the feed controller 206. An example is described in FIG. 4A, where the feed controller 206 may update the determined feed composition of the first dairy animal 106a based on the detection of the health anomaly in the first dairy animal 106a.)

However, Madhusudan fails to teach:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;
- the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake;
- a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturing equipment; and
-That the memory and processor is also in wireless communication with the livestock producer interface
- transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan;
- receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan; and
- upon receiving the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock.

Alternatively, Case teaches:
- a livestock feed producer interface including a data entry system, the livestock manufacturer interface in wireless communication with the at least one server and livestock feed manufacturer; and (Case [0083] The system may be configured to allow the manufacturer or vendor to send back the approved and/or modified nutritional blend formulation (and other pertinent information) to the user via the graphical user interface 14 and/or the reporting module 30 for the user’s further review and approval. The system may further be configured to allow the user after such further review and approval to submit the nutritional blend formulation for a price quotation or for manufacture, for instance, through the on line link (e.g., graphical user interface 14 and reporting module 30) to manufacturer’s system 50. [0032] System 15 may be implemented through one or more servers or groupings of servers or other host computer systems having programs, modules, or other processing units accessible to a user operating local node 12. [0104] If the user accepts (i.e., places an order), the master system (e.g., enterprise system) so indicates in the appropriate systems and the nutritional blend formulation is released for manufacture, billing, etc.) The manufacturer’s system 50 is mapped to the livestock feed producer interface because it is the user interface for the manufacturer or vendor to interact with the data. Though Case does not explicitly disclose the interface being in wireless communication with the livestock feed manufacturing equipment, the memory or the processor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present disclosure to modify Madhusudan by connecting the livestock feed manufacturer interface of Case with the livestock feed manufacturing equipment of Madhusudan. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform this combination as it would yield the benefit of conveniently and rapidly develop and manufacture the custom feed. (Case [0005])
- transmitting the customized livestock health management plan wirelessly to a livestock owner interface configured to receive and display the plan; (Case [0010] In preferred embodiments, the system can identify and provide to the user a group of suggested nutrients for each of several possible intended uses; after the user indicates a particular intended use for the nutritional blend formulation, the system presents to the user through the graphical user interface a list of the suggested nutrients for that intended use... the system contains means for notifying the user through the graphical user interface if the desired nutritional activity and/or concentration for one or more of the nutrients are below the suggested minimum or above the suggested maximum concentration or activity for one or more of the nutrients for the intended use; the system contains means to communicate to the user at least a portion of the hierarchy of the available nutritional formulation materials for one or more of the nutrients in the nutritional blend formulation; [0014] Thus, a user may be an individual who on behalf of a company for which he or she works enters specifications on his or her home or office computer or input/output device for a nutritional blend formulation the company ... uses internally in its own operations (e.g., animal husbandry).[0031] Using a communications network, preferably the Internet, a connection between system 15 and a local node 12 of a user is established, preferably over the “World Wide Web” or other computer network, which network is preferably but not necessarily global and which network may or may not be accessible by the public at large (for convenience the term “web” is used herein to refer to a communications network.) The suggest nutrients for the particular nutritional blend formulation falls within the scope of “livestock health management plan.” Since this is presented to the user, which is the owner of the livestock, the limitation is satisfied.
- receiving, from the livestock owner interface, a confirmation of acceptance of the customized livestock health management plan; and (Case [0010] the system contains means to allow the user to approve the nutritional blend formulation (e.g., based on original or modified specifications) for manufacture; [0079] The user may choose to make modifications because of curiosity as to the effect that one or more modifications would have on the formulation product information (e.g., how would reducing the activity of a nutrient affect the cost) or as a result of something in the formulation product information being unacceptable)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madhusudan to add interface features as taught by Case such as transmitting the health plan to receive confirmation or denial of the plan by the owner. By combining these two inventions one would at arrive at the predictable outcome of transmitting the plan to the livestock owner interface and confirming or denying acceptance, because it would merely be a simple substitution wherein Madhusudan’s recipe is transmitted in Case’s system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination due to the benefit of providing up-to-date, accurate and clearly presented information between customer’s and manufacturer’s to improve the business relations. (Case [0006])
- upon receiving the confirmation, automatically transmitting a wireless signal to a feedstock producer including instructions to manufacture the customized feedstock recipe for the one or more livestock. (Case [0010] the system contains means for allowing review of the nutritional blend formulation after it has been approved for manufacture; and/or the system contains means to transmit the nutritional blend formulation and/or its corresponding formulation product information to another system (e.g., a manufacturing control system or an enterprise system) to allow the nutritional blend formulation to be manufactured.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Madhusudan to add the wireless signal sent to the feedstock producer to manufacture the custom recipe as taught by Case. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination due to the benefit of providing up-to-date, accurate and clearly presented information between customer’s and manufacturer’s to improve the business relations. (Case [0006])

However, neither Madhusudan nor Case teach or suggest:
- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;
- the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake;
-That the memory and processor is also in wireless communication with the livestock producer interface.

Alternatively, Cook discloses a system and method for optimizing animal production, including generation of diet information for a particular species of animal based on a particular nutritional anomaly. Cook teaches:
-That the memory and processor is also in wireless communication with the livestock producer interface (Cook [0057] Enterprise supervisor 200 may include or be linked to one or more databases configured to automatically provide animal information inputs or to provide additional information based upon the animal information inputs. [0058] User interface 210 may be any type of interface configured to allow a user to provide input and receive output from system 100... For example, user interface 210 may be implemented as a web page including a plurality of input fields configured to receive animal information input from a user. [0028] System 100 may be implemented utilizing a single or multiple computing systems. For example, where system 100 is implemented using a single computing system, each of enterprise supervisor 200... Each separate computing system may further include hardware configured for communicating with the other components of system 100 over a network. According to yet another embodiment, system 100 may be implemented as a combination of single computing systems implementing multiple processes and distributed systems. [0141] Although specific functions are described herein as being associated with specific components of system 100, functions may alternatively be associated with any other component of system 100. For example, user interface 210 may alternatively be associated with simulator 300 according to an alternative embodiment.)

- wherein the anomaly indicates a deviation from a predetermined health threshold for a particular species or breed;(Cook [0084] Empirical testing may further include monitoring the animals within the animal production system. For example, an animal may be monitored for metabolic indicators. Metabolic indicators may be indicative of metabolic problems such as milk fever, ketosis, imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Other monitored characteristics may include characteristics that must be tested within a laboratory such as non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), beta hydroxyl butyrate (BHBA), urine pH, milk urea nitrogen (MUN), blood urea nitrogen (BUN), body temperature, blood AA, manure characteristics, carbon dioxide levels, minerals, fat pad probes for pesticide residue testing, etc... Other physiological measurements may include microbial profile or but histological measurements. [0096] Animal requirements generated by requirements engine 310 may include a listing of nutrient requirements for a specific animal or group of animals. Animal requirements may be a description of the overall diet to be fed to the animal or group of animals. Animal requirements further may be defined in terms of a set of nutritional parameters ("nutrients"). Nutrients and/or nutritional parameters may include those terms commonly referred to as nutrients as well as groups of ingredients, microbial measurements, indices of health, relationships between multiple ingredients, etc. Further, the set of animal requirements may include constraints or limits on the amount of any particular nutrient, combination of nutrients, and/or specific ingredients... The constraints may be minimums or maximums and may be placed on the animal requirement as a whole, any single ingredient, or any combination ingredients. [0097] Additionally, animal requirements may be generated that define ranges of acceptable nutrient levels. [0100] Table 2 below includes an exemplary listing of nutrients that may be included in the animal requirements. According to an exemplary embodiment, within the animal requirements, each listed nutrient may be associated with a value, percentage, range, or other measure of amount. The listing of nutrients may be customized to include more, fewer, or different nutrients based on any of a variety of factors, such as animal type, animal health, nutrient availability, etc. [0030] Information associated with a specific animal or a group or type of animals may include, but is not limited to, a species, ) Cook’s indicators of “metabolic problems” is an example of an anomaly, such as imbalances in dietary protein, overheating, etc. Since [0096-0100] provides examples of predetermined health thresholds (acceptable nutrient levels, constraints/limits), it is clear that an imbalance in dietary protein, or “overheating” falls within the scope of “a deviation from a predetermined health threshold.” Since these nutritional ranges are specific requirements for a specific “animal” or “animal type”, which includes a “species” based on [0030].
- the plan including a customized feedstock recipe tailored to address the anomaly through a change in at least one of protein, vitamin, mineral or caloric intake;(Cook [0009] What is needed is a system and method for maximizing nutritional criteria satisfaction in view of nutrient modification and nutrient utilization factors. Further, there is a need for a such a system and method configured to create a customized animal feed formulated to satisfy a requirement in view of the nutrient modification and nutrient utilization factors. [0102] The requirements engine 310 may further be configured to generate the animal requirements based on one or more dynamic nutrient utilization models. Dynamic nutrient utilization may include a model of the amount of nutrients ingested by an animal feed that are utilized by an animal based on information received in the animal information inputs... Nutrient utilization may further depend on the presence or absence of other nutrient additives, microbes and/or enzymes,... animal production or life stage, previous nutrition level, etc. [0103] Simulator 300 may be configured to account for these effects. For example, simulator 300 may be configured to adjust the level of a particular nutrient, defined in an animal feed formulation input, from the level determined based on the animal requirement to a different level based on the presence or absence of another particular nutrient. [0104] Accordingly, an animal feed formulation input may be modified based on the nutrient utilization model. However, this change in the animal feed formulation may have an effect on the animal feed formulation, including the animal feed formulation that was just modified. Accordingly, compensating for a nutrient utilization model may require an iterative calculation, constantly updating values, to arrival at a final value that is within a predefined tolerance. [0127] Table 3 below includes an exemplary list of ingredients which may be used in generating the animal feed formulation. The listing of ingredients may include more, fewer, or different ingredients depending on a variety of factors, such as ingredient availability, entry price, animal type, etc.... Soy Protein Concentrate... Vitamin A Vitamin B Complex Vitamin B12 Vitamin D3 Vitamin E) As seen above, an optimized feed formulation is generated specifically to address the requirements (including anomalies) by changing the ingredients, which include various proteins, vitamins, and minerals. Therefore, Cook satisfies the limitations above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Madhusudan and Case by adding the teachings of Cook which specify particular health thresholds for a species or breed, and wherein the plan addresses anomalies in the thresholds through a change in proteins, vitamins, or minerals content. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform this combination by the benefit of Cook’s system optimizing for the desired outcome, which leads to maximal quality or amount of product produced by an animal. (Cook [0069] and [0004])

Regarding Claim 13:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach or suggest: The system of claim 12,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
- wherein the memory and processor are configured to perform the additional step of transmitting the livestock health management plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface.(Madhusudan [0040] The sensing tag 102a may further transmit the statistics of health information of the first dairy animal 106a to the feed-management server 112. The feed-management server 112 in return may update the determined feed composition based on an anomaly that is detected in the health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The feed-management server 112 may add one or more medicinal ingredients in the determined feed composition to treat the detected anomaly. For example, the feed-management server 112 may detect an increment in body temperature of the first dairy animal 106a, based on the health information received from the sensing tag 102a. The feed-management server 112 may add a medicinal ingredient (such as an antibiotic) required to treat the increased body temperature. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may be further configured to transmit the health information of the first dairy animal 106a to a computing device (not shown) of a health analyst, in real time. [0056] The network interface 208 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to establish communication between the feed-management server 112, the plurality of sensing devices 102, and the electronic device 110, via the communication network 114. The network interface 208 may be implemented by use of various known technologies to support wired or wireless communication of the feed-management server 112 with the communication network 114.)

Regarding Claim 15:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teaches or suggests The system of claim 12,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
-further comprising at least one database coupled to or in wireless communication with a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server, memory and processor. (Madhusudan [0027] The feed-management server 112 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces, and/or code that may be configured to determine a feed composition for each of the plurality of dairy animals (such as the first dairy animal 106a)... Examples of the feed-management server 112 may include, but are not limited to, an application server, a cloud server, a web server, a database server, a file server, a mainframe server, or a combination thereof. [0035] The information pertaining to the amount of milk collected by the first care-taker 108a may be stored in local memory of the wearable device 102b. The amount of milk yielded by the first dairy animal 106a may be stored in local memory of the sensing tag 102a. [0052] With reference to FIG. 2, the exemplary feed-management server (such as the feed-management server 112) may comprise one or more circuits, such as a processor 202, a memory 204, a feed controller 206, and a network interface 208. The memory 204, the feed controller 206, and the network interface 208 may be communicatively connected to the processor 202. The feed-management server 112 may correspond to the animal feed management system.) Madhusudan’s database server satisfies the limitation above.

Regarding Claim 17:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teaches or suggests The system of claim 12,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
-wherein the at least one server, memory and processor are configured to process one or more of sensor data to produce a health management plan that includes a customized livestock feedstock recipe that cures the at least one anomaly. (Madhusudan [0040] In accordance with an embodiment, the sensing tag 102a may be further configured to determine health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The health information may include one or more health parameters of the first dairy animal 106a. Examples of the one or more health parameters, may include, but are not limited to, blood count, body temperature, respiration rate, heart beat rate, and/or a combination thereof. The sensing tag 102a may further transmit the statistics of health information of the first dairy animal 106a to the feed-management server 112. The feed-management server 112 in return may update the determined feed composition based on an anomaly that is detected in the health information of the first dairy animal 106a. The feed-management server 112 may add one or more medicinal ingredients in the determined feed composition to treat the detected anomaly. For example, the feed-management server 112 may detect an increment in body temperature of the first dairy animal 106a, based on the health information received from the sensing tag 102a. The feed-management server 112 may add a medicinal ingredient (such as an antibiotic) required to treat the increased body temperature. In accordance with an embodiment, the feed-management server 112 may be further configured to transmit the health information of the first dairy animal 106a to a computing device (not shown) of a health analyst, in real time.)

Regarding Claim 19:
The combination of Madhusudan, and Cook teaches or suggests The method of claim 18,
However, neither Madhusudan nor Cook teach or disclose:
- further comprising the steps of: transmitting the livestock health management plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface;
- and confirming acceptance of the livestock health management plan by the livestock owner.

Alternatively, Case discloses a customized feed ordering platform with interfaces providing the features of:
- transmitting the livestock health management plan wirelessly to at least one livestock owner interface; (Case [0010] In preferred embodiments, the system can identify and provide to the user a group of suggested nutrients for each of several possible intended uses; after the user indicates a particular intended use for the nutritional blend formulation, the system presents to the user through the graphical user interface a list of the suggested nutrients for that intended use... the system contains means for notifying the user through the graphical user interface if the desired nutritional activity and/or concentration for one or more of the nutrients are below the suggested minimum or above the suggested maximum concentration or activity for one or more of the nutrients for the intended use; the system contains means to communicate to the user at least a portion of the hierarchy of the available nutritional formulation materials for one or more of the nutrients in the nutritional blend formulation; [0014] Thus, a user may be an individual who on behalf of a company for which he or she works enters specifications on his or her home or office computer or input/output device for a nutritional blend formulation the company ... uses internally in its own operations (e.g., animal husbandry).[0031] Using a communications network, preferably the Internet, a connection between system 15 and a local node 12 of a user is established, preferably over the “World Wide Web” or other computer network, which network is preferably but not necessarily global and which network may or may not be accessible by the public at large (for convenience the term “web” is used herein to refer to a communications network.)
- and confirming acceptance of the livestock health management plan by the livestock owner. (Case [0010] the system contains means to allow the user to approve the nutritional blend formulation (e.g., based on original or modified specifications) for manufacture; [0079] The user may choose to make modifications because of curiosity as to the effect that one or more modifications would have on the formulation product information (e.g., how would reducing the activity of a nutrient affect the cost) or as a result of something in the formulation product information being unacceptable)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the combination of Madhusudan and Cook to add Case’s livestock owner portal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the combination due to the benefit of providing up-to-date, accurate and clearly presented information between customer’s and manufacturer’s to improve the business relations. (Case [0006])

Regarding Claim 20:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teaches or suggests The method of claim 19,
However, neither Madhusudan nor Cook teach or disclose:
further comprising the steps of:
-transmitting the confirmed livestock health management plan from the livestock owner to a feedstock producer;
-manufacturing the customized livestock feed according to the customized livestock feed recipe; and shipping the customized livestock feed to the livestock owner.

Alternatively, Case teaches:
-transmitting the confirmed livestock health management plan from the livestock owner to a feedstock producer; (Case [0081] Upon completion of the review of the on-screen information, the user may transmit the formulation product information to another system 50, for instance, the manufacturer’s internal computer system, linked on line to system 15. Such transmission to system 50 may be made by any suitable means, for example, on line through the graphical user interface 14 and the reporting module 30. [0010] the system contains means to transmit the nutritional blend formulation and/or its corresponding formulation product information to another system (e.g., a manufacturing control system or an enterprise system) to allow the nutritional blend formulation to be manufactured.)
-manufacturing the customized livestock feed according to the customized livestock feed recipe; (Case[0104] When the user and vendor (at all approval levels) are satisfied, the proposed formulation can be entered into the vendor’s or manufacturer’s records. That might involve entering the formulation into a master system such as an enterprise system that contains tracking, raw material ordering, accounting, billing, production scheduling, and other systems. At this point, a final quotation (including a firm offer price) can be given to user (e.g., by email, by telephone, and/or through the graphical user interface of the system). If the user accepts (i.e., places an order), the master system (e.g., enterprise system) so indicates in the appropriate systems and the nutritional blend formulation is released for manufacture, billing, etc.)
- and shipping the customized livestock feed to the livestock owner. (Case [0017] The term “formulation product information” should be understood broadly and will typically include an identification of the nutrients and/or nutritional formulation materials in the nutritional blend formulation and their quantities and/or activities and may also include the name or other identification assigned to the nutritional blend formulation (e.g., by the user) as well as an identification of the physical form of the nutritional blend formulation, estimates of various physical properties of the formulation, and/or information concerning its packaging, estimated delivery time, and/or estimated cost.)

Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Madhusudan, Cook and Case by adding the features of transmitting the custom recipes to the feedstock producer, manufacturing the feed, and delivering the feed to the producer as taught by Case. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform the combination as it would provide the benefit of providing user convenience by promptly facilitating the ordering of such custom feeds. (Case [0005])

12. Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhusudan et al. (US 20180206448 A1), in view of Case et al. (US 20060085272 A1) hereinafter Case, further in view of Cook (US 20110010154 A1), further in view of Albornoz et al. (US 20190075756 A1) hereinafter Albornoz.

Regarding Claim 14:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach The system of claim 12,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
- further comprising at least one livestock sensor, the livestock sensor coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server, memory and processor.(See Madhusudan [0067] The wearable device 406 may include, and/or may be communicatively coupled to one or more sensors that may track the activities of the first care-taker 108a. The wearable device 406 may be configured to detect a presence of the first sensing tag 410a, based on the first sensing tag 410a that is in the proximity range of the wearable device 406. The wearable device 406 may further transmit the information pertaining to the detected presence of the first sensing tag 410a to the processor 302, via a short range communication of the communication network 114.)

However, neither Madhusudan, Case, nor Cook teach or suggest:
-The livestock sensor is a livestock scale
- the livestock scale coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server, memory and processor.

Alternatively, Albornoz discloses
- further comprising at least one livestock scale, the livestock scale coupled to a gateway that is in wireless communication with the at least one server, memory and processor. (Albornoz [0017] This disclosure is directed to systems, methods, and/or apparatuses for improved animal weight monitoring and management. In some examples, a system, method, and/or apparatus may comprise one or more weight sensors fixed to a platform, an identification tag detector for detecting one or more identification tags and determining one or more identifiers associated with the one or more identification tags, a localized computing device and/or a remote server, an animal profile database, an analysis module, and/or a graphical user interface. [0032] The localized computing device 122 may comprise a memory (400 of FIG. 4) coupled to a processor (402 of FIG. 4), e.g., via a PCB board or mini-board, and may be situated in proximity to other components of the system 100 (e.g., the one or more weight sensors 102, the identification tag detector 112, and the power supply 120).)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook by adding the features of allowing weight sensors such as a scale coupled to the server to monitor the weight of the animals. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform the combination as it would provide the benefit of storing a reliable profile of information to help manage the animal’s weight. (Albornoz [0018])

Regarding Claim 16:
The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teach The system of claim 12,
Furthermore, Madhusudan teaches:
-wherein the livestock owner interface allows the livestock owner to enter individual livestock input data (Madhusudan [0049] Alternatively, the amount of milk collected may be fed manually by the first care-taker 108a by use of the electronic device 110. In accordance with an embodiment, the first care-taker 108a may use a specific application installed in the electronic device 110 to manually feed the information of the amount of milk collected. [0050] The first care-taker 108a may transmit the training data (i.e., the determined amount of milk consumed by the off-spring from the feeder bottle and the time duration of the milk consumption activity from the feeder bottle) to the feed-management server 112 by use of the specific application installed in the electronic device 110.)

However, neither Madhusudan, Case, nor Cook teach or suggest:
- regarding at least one of feeding method, feeding schedule, medical history, breed, gender, breeding status, age, and body condition.

Alternatively, Albornoz teaches:
- regarding at least one of medical history, breed, and body condition. (Albornoz [0023] In some examples, the systems, methods, and/or apparatuses may provide a user interface to present information collected or generated by the systems, methods, and/or apparatuses. The user interface may present statistical information on the weight(s) of a herd, and may present the results of analyses that calculate metrics of a whole herd (e.g., the weight distribution of the stock, weight changes over time of the herd, etc.), weight gain performances of different sub-groups (e.g., breeds of cattle, cattle from different suppliers, etc.), or weight change histories of individual animals. [0065] In some embodiments, the animal profile 426 may include additional information 604 corresponding to the animal 106 associated with the animal profile 426. For instance, the additional information may include a supplier identity of the animal 106, a breed of the animal 106, a purchase date of the animal 106, and/or a birthdate of the animal 106. The additional information 604 may be accessed and processed by the analysis module 422 to generate output data 408 for presentation on the graphical user interface 410, and/or to set alarms 602, as discussed in greater detail below with respect to FIGS. 8-10.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook by adding the features of allowing the user to input medical history (such as weight), breed, and body condition. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to perform the combination as it would provide the benefit of storing a reliable profile of information for cases such as sales, auditing, statistical analysis, or regulatory reasons. (Albornoz [0020])

Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s remarks over the rejections of claims 1-21 for non-statutory double patenting, the claims remain rejected under obviousness type non-statutory double patenting. See the rejection above, therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the claims remain rejected under non-statutory double patenting. The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s willingness to file a terminal disclaimer and urges the applicant to file the terminal disclaimer.
Regarding the applicant’s remarks over rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons. The applicant asserts that the claims are directed to a specific technological environment, and addresses the concrete technical problem, namely the inability of existing livestock management systems to detect and respond to physiological health anomalies in real time with individual nutritional remedies. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees that the problem introduced is a “technical” or computer-based problem, therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive because improvements must be to computer functionality or to a technical field. Improvements to “livestock management systems to detect and respond to physiological health anomalies in real time with individual nutritional remedies” is more akin to an improvement to the abstract idea, especially as claimed. MPEP 2106.05(a) states, “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Furthermore, the applicant asserts that the solution provided by the claims requires livestock-mounted sensors, processors, wireless communication interfaces, and feed manufacturing systems, and therefore cannot be reduced to a mental process, mathematical concept or method of organizing human activity. However, this argument is not persuasive because the existing of technology and computing devices does not preclude the claims from being directed to an abstract idea, especially when the additional elements are merely an equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer, or using devices in their ordinary capacity to perform an economic task (using sensors to collect data). Furthermore, it is noted that the additional elements are merely used to collect, transmit, and display information, resulting in instructions to manage personal behavior. The features in which the applicant’s arguments are based upon (feed manufacturing systems) are not required in the present claim language. Though claims are interpreted in the broadest reasonable interpretation, features in the specification are not read into the claims unless they are explicitly required. Therefore, the claims do not specifically require feed manufacturing equipment, and merely include instructions to a feed manufacturer (which can be an individual) to produce the feed. Therefore, even when considering the claims as a whole, they are no more than instructions to perform an abstract idea on generic computers or devices in their ordinary capacity because the claims merely collect data, process data, transmit data, and display the results of the processing to an individual.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments over Step 2A, the applicant alleges that the Examiner’s characterization of the claims overlooks the real-time acquisition of physiological data from physical sensors on or around livestock. However, use of wearable sensors to collect information still falls under merely using devices in their ordinary capacity to perform economic functions. The measurements being ammonia level, body PH or otherwise, does not provide an integration into a practical application or significantly more. Furthermore, the arguments that the data is analyzed by processors to detect deviations from predetermined health thresholds is not persuasive because it is merely indicating that a computer is performing the function. However, the function itself, of comparing actual data to thresholds, encapsulates the scope of instructions to an individual, as such as a function can be performed by a person. The applicant’s argument that the analysis is not a mental process that can be performed by a human, or an fundamental economic practice, or method of organizing human activity is not persuasive because individuals can read the outputs of sensors and compare them to known thresholds, as Physicians and Veterinarians have done without the use of a computer. Thus the applicant’s arguments that the analysis is a technical process is not persuasive because the use of specialized sensors, computer processing, and real-time data transmission, even as a combination, is still merely equivalent to “apply it” because all of the abstract idea steps can be performed as instructions on any generic computer.
Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments that the sequence of “generating a livestock health management plan, and transmitting the plan wirelessly for review, and then transmitting instructions to a feedstock producer” allegedly constitutes a “closed-loop, automated control system that links sensor data acquisition, computational analysis, decision logic, and physical manufacturing” is not persuasive for the same reasons presented above. Specifically that the technological implementation is no more than “apply it,” or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer. Secondly, the feature of “physical manufacturing” is not covered within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, because the claims only include instructions to a feedstock manufacturer(such as a person). Thus, the data transmissions are no more than a facilitation of communication between individuals, which is still part of the abstract idea. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the system is fundamentally “technological” in nature is not persuasive, because the claims merely collect sensor data, and facilitate business interactions between individuals.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that the claims recite significantly more under Step 2B, the applicant repeats the argument that the arrangement of components work together to improve livestock health management technology. However, all of the examiner’s arguments above also apply to these arguments. The use of “real-time livestock sensors” are merely claimed broadly such that they are no more than using sensors in their ordinary capacity to perform an economic task. Furthermore, even when considering that the livestock feed generation is performed by the computer, this is still not an improvement to computer functionality, because it is equivalent to “apply it” or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even viewing the claims as a whole, including all of the steps allegedly included in the applicant’s remarks, the claims do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Furthermore, in regards to the applicant’s ordered combination argument, even when viewing the entire technological infrastructure of the claims as a whole, it is still no more than a generic computer in which the abstract idea is implemented on. Sensing data on a wearable device, transmitting data to a processor wirelessly, and providing interfaces to users are all features inherent to a generic computer at the time of filing. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments that the system recites a specialized implementation in real-time livestock health management, addressing a technological problem in the agricultural domain, and provide a solution that depends on computer processing, sensor technology, and automated manufacturing are not persuasive for the same reasons stated above. Specifically, that the improvement must be to computer functionality, not to the agricultural domain. Furthermore, the use of computer processing, sensor technology, or data transmission still falls within the capabilities of a generic computer. Lastly, “automated manufacturing” is not reflected within the scope of the claims, nor is it supported in the specification. Transmitting instructions to manufacture the recipe is not the same as “automated manufacturing,” and it is merely a facilitation of a commercial interaction. Therefore, the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 stands.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments over the rejection of claims over prior art, (including the rejection of claims 1-3, 8-11 and 18 under Madhusudan, the rejections of claims 4-7, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 19-21 under 103 over Madhusudan in view of Case, and the rejections of claims 14 and 16 under 103 over Madhusudan, Case, and Albornoz) the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are now moot in view of the updated rejection which now includes Cook et al. More specifically, the applicant’s argument that Madhusudan does not disclose the generation of a customized livestock health management plan in response to the detection of an anomaly in sensor, is not persuasive because Madhusudan has been shown to teach the above in at least (Madhusudan [0080] The feed-management server 112 continuously monitors the health of each of the dairy animal by the plurality of sensing devices 102, such as the first sensing tag 410a, to update the feed composition based on any health anomaly that is detected in a particular dairy animal, such as the first dairy animal 106a.). Furthermore, the examiner concedes that Madhusudan fails to teach that the detection of anomalies are based on species/breed specific health thresholds, or an accompanying tailoring of feed formulations based on these remedying these anomalies. However, the updated rejection reflects that the combination teaches each and every limitation of claim 1, including Cook’s teachings of the species specific thresholds, and tailoring of formulations. Therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Furthermore, the applicant argues that Madhusudan lacks discussion of the two-step decision structure, (receiving...a confirmation of acceptance of the plan and upon receiving confirmation automatically transmitting). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of Madhusudan, Case, and Cook teaches each and every limitation of independent claims 1 and 12. Furthermore, the combination of Madhusudan and Cook teach the limitations of independent claim 18. In addition, the applicant argues that Madhusudan does not describe tailoring nutritional content in this manner to address specific health anomalies, and does not tailor feedstock based on deviations from health metrics or medical-style corrective nutrition. However, this argument is not persuasive because Madhusudan alone is not relied upon to teach the above. Secondly, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., medical-style corrective nutrition) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the applicant’s arguments over the rejection of the independent claims are not persuasive.
Furthermore, regarding applicant’s arguments over the rejections over Madhusudan and Case, these arguments are also moot in view of the updated rejection which is now based on the combination of Madhusudan, Case and Cook. However, the applicant’s concerns which may still be applicable to the updated combination are addressed as follows. In regards to the applicant’s argument on page 9 of the remarks, that “Case is a manually operated interface, and its formulation product information is not generated automatically in response to physiological data, therefore, Case cannot cure the deficiencies of Madhusudan. However, Case is not relied upon to teach the automatic generation of a feedstock recipe, such features are taught by Madhusudan and Cook. Case has been brought to overcome the deficiencies of the livestock owner portal features that are not taught by Madhusudan and Cook, therefore the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Similarly in page 10 of the applicant’s remarks, regarding claim 7, the applicant alleges that Case’s interface is not configured to interact with a user or real-time sensor input. However, Case is not required to interact with real-time sensor because it is merely used to perform the confirmation of the livestock feed interface AFTER tailored feedstock has been generated by Madhusudan. Madhusudan is shown to teach the required sensors and one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably expect the combination to successfully receive the sensor data as taught by Madhusudan and input it into Case’s animal input information. The applicant’s arguments over claim 12, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 20 also suffer from a piecemeal analysis of references, only including Madhusudan and Case, and not addressing the combination as a whole. Furthermore, the arguments repeatedly argue that the combination would not arrive at the claimed invention. However, none of these arguments are persuasive because none of them attack the rationale provided by the examiner in combining the references. In response to applicant's argument that combining the references would not result in the claimed functionality, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, the examiner does not carry the burden of reconstructing the invention through bodily incorporation, but merely citing the features that are taught or suggested by each references and providing the teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references. Since each feature and limitation has been taught or suggested by the prior art of record, and the motivations to combine the references have been provided by the examiner above, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The arguments above also apply to rejections of claims 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 101 over Madhusudan, Case, and Albornoz. Because the claims are now rejected under an updated combination of Madhusudan, Case, Cook and Albornoz, the applicant’s arguments based on a failure of the Albornoz to teach “weight monitoring, identification, instructions to feedstock producers, and managing nutritional compositions” are not persuasive because it is a piecemeal analysis of references. The combination of Madhusudan, Case, Cook and Albornoz has been shown to teach each and every limitation of claims 14 and 16, along with a supporting rationale for obviousness. Should the applicant that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, all of the cited prior art of record, including Madhusudan, Case, Cook and Albornoz are livestock management systems, which all share the same purpose of tailoring management plans to provide a particular outcome for livestock. The rationale statements in each rejection statement reflect the motivation for combination, in which various features of each prior art of record provides an improvement to the efficiency, accuracy, or optimization of the livestock system. Please see the rejections above for the specific rationale statements. Therefore, none of the applicant’s arguments over rejections under prior art are persuasive in view of the updated rejection. Thus, claims 1-3, and 6-20 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.

Conclusion
14. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Patrick R Zimmerman (US 20120294876 A1) discloses a system for managing the health of ruminants by using sensors and process to diagnose ailments and providing the appropriate interventions.
15. 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.

16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at [phone]. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626

/SANGEETA BAHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626

Prosecution Timeline

• May 24, 2024: Application Filed
• Sep 15, 2025: Non-Final Rejection — §101, §103, §DP
• Jan 16, 2026: Response Filed
• Feb 09, 2026: Final Rejection — §101, §103, §DP (current)