DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20210096448A, a copy of translation is attached herein).
As per claim 1, Lee discloses a computer vision process for determining body weight measurements from a video source (abstract: a contactless mobile livestock weight measuring system using an asymmetrical stereo camera), the process comprising the steps of electronically: acquiring one or more sets of consecutive frames or images from the video source (abstract: a plurality of stereo cameras are used to capture a plurality of stereo images; ie. stereo video recording unit 110) of a plurality of broiler chickens (background art: livestock includes chickens) within a containment area (“livestock farm”); identifying one or more of the chickens in the consecutive frames or images; constructing a three-dimensional model of chicken volume for each of the identified chickens (page (: last two paragraphs and page 10: first two paragraphs: 3D point cloud generator 120 generate a 3D point cloud of the livestock based on identified corresponding pixel points from 2D stereo images, also see figure 4 for 3D livestock volume); and determining body weight measurements of the identified chickens based on the constructed chicken volume for each of the identified chickens (page 5: second paragraph: a weight calculator 130 is employed to measure the weight of the livestock from the 3D volume).
As per claim 2, Lee discloses optionally, segmenting and/or cropping the consecutive frames of images; annotating the consecutive frames or images of the chickens with landmarks; and identifying the chickens in the consecutive frames of images based on the annotated landmarks (as explained above, the images are video images by a stereo video recording unit 110, and the livestock are extracted from 2D images to construct a 3D volume as shown in figure 4, and the wall and floor in the images may be the claimed landmark in page 10, last two paragraphs).
As per claim 3, Lee discloses extracting at least texture, silhouette, and optical flow data from the consecutive frames or images of the video source, and computing foreground textures from the extracted data (see figures 4a-4e).
As per claim 4, Lee discloses computing chicken poses of the identified chickens and camera intrinsics of the video sources from the foreground textures using a deep learning neural network (page 4: first three paragraphs: a deep learning artificial intelligence is applied to 2D images to identify livestock based on intrinsic parameters of the stereo camera).
As per claim 5, see figure 4b for rest shape and figures 4a and 4c-4e for articulated shape.
As per claim 6, see figure 4g for physical specification measurement rendering of an optimized two-dimensional articulated shape from the 3D model.
As per claim 7, as shown in figure 4g, the shape may be photorealistic or non-photorealistic.
As per claim 8, the 2D articulated shape in figure 4g is optimized for weight measurement with effective length measuring unit 134 .
As per claim 9, see figure 4g for comparison between physical specification measurement and the 3D model.
As per claim 10, Lee in page 8 teaches using a regression analysis unit 135 for weight calculation based on the estimated 3D model for each livestock.
As per claim 11, see explanation in claim 1, and the examiner notes Lee’s contactless mobile livestock weight measuring system includes the claim features of video source, wireless interface and a processor.
As per claim 12, see page 8, last two paragraphs for server and a preset URL.
As per claim 13, see explanation in claim 5.
As per claim 14, see explanation in claim 4.
As per claim 15, see explanation in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM Y LU whose telephone number is (571)272-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272 - 7778. 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.
/TOM Y LU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667