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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/09/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Particularly the Non-Patent Literation Document, “Design and implementation of a wireless wearable dynamic temperature monitoring system” has not been considered. Provide an English Translation.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
The nonce term “wireless communication module” for battery replacing notification is used in claim(s) 3, invokes 35 USC 112(f). This limitation does not have structural information disclosed in the specification. The limitation are interpreted as a function that provides a notification to replace the battery.
The term, “module” is a non-structural generic placeholder that does not include any specific structure for performing the accompany functions. See MPEP 2181.I.A: The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 & 4-5 ais rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3:
As discussed above, the claim limitations below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f).
“a wireless communication module”
In the specification, at least ¶0011 & ¶0059, mention the term. The drawings do not provide any further detail. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the specification, the drawing and the original claims to disclose any particular structure that achieves the disclosed functionality.
This limitation fail to comply with the written description requirement as the limitations are unbound functional imitations which cover all ways of performing the respective functions and inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of such an invention. The limitation therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP 2181.II.A.
Claim 4: recites
“model training” for building a growth stage-temperature database.
Claim 5: recites:
“using a deep learning method to identify each of the livestock and poultry individuals, renumbering each of the livestock and poultry individuals in the breeding region blocks, and retrieving key pixel points and temperature information thereof in the image where each of the livestock and poultry individuals is located as the body temperature values of the livestock and poultry individuals”
An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). This can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015), see MPEP § 2161(I).
The claim is rejected under 35 USC § 112(a) for a lack of written description. Proper written description cannot be identified in the specification, claims, and drawings directed to the computer implemented steps of the segmentation to identify the interventional device can be achieved by the deep learning method. Specifically, the specification does not provide and lacks detailed a step-by-step description, any algorithmic or flowchart-based disclosure, specific functions, and/or weights for the machine learning techniques or convolutional networks used for deep learning method and the model training.
These limitations are computer/processor-implemented functional claim limitation as it is directed to a processor-controlled algorithm configured to determine a location. Yet the specification does not disclose the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions, i.e., “model training”-claim 4, “using a deep learning method to identify each of the livestock and poultry individuals, renumbering each of the livestock and poultry individuals in the breeding region blocks, and retrieving key pixel points and temperature information thereof in the image where each of the livestock and poultry individuals is located as the body temperature values of the livestock and poultry individuals”-claim 5 in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. It is not enough to disclose that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention, these claims are rejected for lack of written description. For more information regarding the written description requirement, see MPEP §§ 2161, 2162-2163.07(b).
The specification provides the following:
¶0019, ‘A growth stage-temperature database is built by using the body temperature monitoring curve changing over time which is obtained in step S2 under different breeds, different growth stages and different monitoring manners, and a normal body temperature change zone (model of body temperature changing over time) is obtained through processing the growth stage- temperature database;’
¶0024, “For the infrared thermal image collected by the infrared camera, instance segmentation on the infrared thermal image of each of the breeding region blocks is performed by using a deep learning method to identify each of the livestock and poultry individuals, each of the livestock and poultry individuals in the breeding region blocks is renumbered, and key pixel points and temperature information thereof in the image where each of the livestock and poultry individuals is located is retrieved as the body temperature values of the livestock and poultry individuals;”
¶0028, “During monitoring, the body temperatures of the corresponding timing are simultaneously established using machine learning methods, which is different from the single threshold setting method to build a normal body temperature change zone”
Indeed, the specification paragraph ¶0024 & ¶0028 is directed to a mere example of generalized machine learning models and model training tantamount to a black box, rather than showing procession of a particular implementation. Specifically, the input of the method is the infrared thermal image and the output is the instance segmentation to identify each individual, renumber them, and retrieve key pixel points. While the specification discloses weights and correction (specifically, as, bs, ac, and bc) at ¶0025, these are not deep learning parameters. Rather they are variables used in a separate linear formula that the system applies after the deep learning black box has already extracted the raw pixel temperature data. Without the level of detail regarding the weights used, parameters used, and operations of the deep learning method & model training, the written description requirement is not satisfied. The mere use of stating method is achieved by deep learning techniques is not sufficient. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to implement the described process without disclosure of said weights, parameters, and/or operations is achieved by deep learning techniques and model training in a step-by-step manner. In addition, an assertion that could be derived using simulations or test (i.e., prophetic examples) does not demonstrate that the inventors actual did so or had possession of the specific functional relationships and constraints to obviate the lack of written description requirement.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not deem the instant specification having sufficient detail so that they could understand how the inventor intended to achieve the aforementioned step. Since the instant specification fails to provide a finite sequence of steps for performing step, the aforementioned claim fails to meet the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency to abovementioned claims.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 1:
line 4, “comprising:”
line 3-4, “[[an]]the infrared camera”.
line 6, “cloud server,”.
line 7-8, ‘a livestock and poultry house with different breeding region blocks are disposed within respective three-dimensional spaces,’
line 10-11, “wherein each of the breading region blocks, a fixed proportion of the livestock and poultry individuals are randomly selected to wear a wearable temperature sensor of the plurality of wearable temperature sensors to form sentinel livestock and poultry individuals,”
line 11, “the plurality of wearable temperature sensors”.
line 12, “the infrared camera obtains a group infrared image”
line 14, “the plurality of wearable temperature sensors”.
Claim 3:
Lines 1-6: “wherein each of the plurality of wearable temperature sensors has a battery, a battery voltage collecting circuit, and a wireless communication module configure to transmit a notification to replace the battery, and collected data is transmitted to the communication terminal through a wireless data transmission protocol.”
Claim 4:
“4. The livestock and poultry body temperature monitoring system in which the wearable sensor and the infrared camera cooperate as claimed in claim 1, wherein the method comprises following steps:
Step S1)
a data obtaining step for obtaining continuous body temperature data of an appropriate number of the sentinel livestock and poultry individuals in the breeding region blocks through the plurality of wearable temperature sensors, and collecting location data of each of the breeding [[area]]region blocks and infrared thermal imaging data of each [[all]] of the livestock and poultry individuals in each of the breeding [[area]]region blocks through patrol inspection of the infrared camera[[s]];
Step S2)
a data transmission and preprocessing step for the communication terminal transmitting the continuous body temperature data and infrared thermal imaging data collected in step S1 to the local server, the local server respectively performing screening and image segmentation preprocessing on the infrared thermal imaging data to obtain [[a]]--preprocessed body temperature values, and the preprocessed body temperature values are analyzed to generate temporal body temperature monitoring curve [[of]]for each of the livestock and poultry individuals
Step S3)
a database building and model training step for building a growth stage-temperature database based on the temporal body temperature monitoring curve for each of the livestock and poultry individualsaccording to different breeds, different growth stages and different monitoring manners, and processing the growth stage-temperature database to obtain
Step S4)
a state determination and data review step for determining whether [[the]]a temperature state is abnormal or not by using a timing match and identify an abnormal temperature state by comparing the body temperature values against the normal temperature change zone in real-time designating the breeding region blocks where the livestock and poultry with the abnormal temperature state are located as an abnormal region, and moving the infrared camera to the abnormal [[area]]region to verify a complete monitoring of the livestock and poultry
The objections set forth with respect to claims 1 & 3-4 are applicable to claims 5-7, which include substantially similar claim language and corresponding grammatical errors. The claims contain multiple grammatical errors, including but not limited to run-on constructions, unclear antecedents, inconsistent terminology/claim language, improper clause structure, which hinder proper interpretation. Substantial revisions [emphasis added] to clarify the claim language is needed to ensure that the claim drafting follows the guideline in MPEP 608.01 - i.e., Appropriate correction is needed.
Examiners Notes
As stated previously, due to the numerous claim language issues that the Examiner has identified, Applicant is requested to check through the entire claim set & specification to ensure that the claim drafting follows the guideline in MPEP 608.01 to ensure that proper antecedent basis and consistent claim language, proper grammar are practiced. When the Applicant submits amendments regarding the claims in response to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and claim objections in this Office Action, the Examiner would prefer that Applicant submit two sets of claims: set 1) includes indicators for the status of the claim and all marked amendments to the claims without mistakes; and set 2) claims that contains a clean version of all the amendments without mistakes.
It should be noted that Claims 4-7, though rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), & 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), respectively are not rejected under the prior arts. Note; a change in scope in view of the requested corrections will require further search and consideration.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3: lines 5-6, “collected data is transmitted to the communication terminal through a wireless data transmission protocol.” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the collected data refers to in the context of the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes temperature data. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) as being indefinite. Specifically, claims 1-3 are drawn to a system claim; however, it is unclear whether claims 4-7 are drawn to a method or to the system. Specifically, claim 4 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 is a system claim. However, claim 4 recites, “wherein the method comprises following steps”, hence the scope of claim 4-7 is indefinite. Note- claim 1 recites no method steps. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7: “if not[...] if so [...]” limitations are conditional phrases that do not set forth the conditions and creates ambiguity. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes if the temperature value does not fall into the normal body temperature change zone, the body temperature state of the corresponding livestock and poultry is determined to be abnormal, and step 2 is performed. If the temperature state falls into the normal body temperature change zone, the body temperature state of the corresponding livestock and poultry is determined to be normal, and step 3 is performed. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamsuddin et al (US20230019190A1, paragraph citations are to Prov. No. 63/222,596 filed on 07/16/2021 for clarity) in view of Yajima et al (US 20180295809 A1) in view of Elazari-Volcani et al (US 20100198024 A1).
Claim 1: Singh discloses, A livestock and poultry body temperature monitoring system (¶0014-0015, ¶0024) in which a sensor and an infrared camera (imaging devices 108, FIG. 1, ¶0032. Imaging device is a comprehensive sensor array including infrared cameras as well as temperature sensors) cooperate, comprising
a plurality of temperature sensors, an infrared camera (imaging devices 108, FIG. 1, ¶0032. Imaging device is a comprehensive sensor array including infrared cameras as well as temperature sensors),
a communication terminal, a local server, (shed computing device 104 located at the enclosure. These devices include a communications interface to transmit and receive communications, messages, and/or signals, ¶0025, ¶0027-0028, ¶0032)
a cloud server (server computing device 102 located on premises at a farm, ¶0025, ¶0027-0028, ¶0032, can also be located off-premises, ¶0032) and
a client (client computing device 106, ¶0029);
a livestock and poultry house (The farm, particular location 114)
the infrared camera (¶0032) obtains group infrared image in an unit of the breeding region blocks (¶0014, ¶0017, The imaging devices capture wide group level images of the animals. A basic unit of space that the imaging devices’ monitor refers to a particular location which is defined an enclosure, shed, pen or fenced area, ¶0024. See also, ¶0036, “the plurality of poultry may be physically located in a first enclosure at the particular location. As another example, the plurality of poultry may be physically located in at least one enclosure at the particular location. In another example, the plurality of poultry may be located in a plurality of different enclosures at one or more locations.”. Hence the system of Shamsuddin utilizes infrared cameras to capture imaging data (i.e., full-shed video) of a group (i.e., plurality) of animals within specific physical units (i.e., enclosures, sheds, or pens), ¶0032, ¶0014, ¶0017, ¶0024),
the communication terminal is disposed in the livestock and poultry house (shed computing device 104 located at the enclosure. These devices include a communications interface to transmit and receive communications, messages, and/or signals, ¶0025, ¶0027-0028, ¶0032),
the temperature sensors and the infrared camera are in communication connection with the local server through the communication terminal and the local server is in communication connection with the client through the cloud server (FIG. 1, ¶0017-0020, ¶0023, ¶0026, ¶0032 – Data is collected by the imaging device which houses the cameras and temperature sensors, processed at the physical enclosure by the imaging device itself and the local shed computing device. The data is transmited to the server computing device (i.e., cloud server). The server computing device processes this information and transmits alters in real-time data, a benchmark to the client computing device so the user can view it on a display).
Shamsuddin fails to disclose: that the temperature sensors are wearable (i.e. wearable temperature sensors – a plurality of wearable temperature sensors, as required by the claim).
Shamsuddin fails to disclose:
different breeding region blocks are disposed within its own three-dimensional space, wherein each of the breeding region blocks has a plurality of livestock and poultry individuals,
all of the plurality of livestock and poultry individuals in each of the breeding region blocks,
a plurality of wearable temperature sensors, as required by the claim.
However, Yajima in the context of livestock management for livestock discloses:
different breeding region blocks are disposed within its own three-dimensional space, wherein each of the breeding region blocks has a plurality of livestock and poultry individuals, all of the plurality of livestock and poultry individuals in each of the breeding region blocks (¶0061, ¶0062, ¶0081-0086, FIG. 2; The system monitors these divided areas, which refer to as specific regions (R1, R2) within the facility. Each respective region, is a real-world area that exist in a physical space, and thus would constitute as a three-dimensional space. The system is further designed to manage the various animals including livestock and poultry, ¶0062, while tracking multiple animals grouped together such as Group A in R1 and Group B in R2.)
a plurality of wearable temperature sensors, (¶0066-0068, The transmission apparatus that is attached to the livestock. These transmission apparatus feature a sensor unit for “body temperature sensor that outputs vital data of a livestock animal, ¶0271.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system of Shamsuddin livestock and poultry house to comprise different breeding region blocks are disposed within its own three-dimensional space, wherein each of the breeding region blocks has a plurality of livestock and poultry individuals, as taught by Yajima. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to provide a livestock management system and a management method for livestock by which livestock can be easily managed, as suggested by Yajima, ¶0013.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of modified Shamsuddin such it comprises a plurality of wearable temperature sensors, as taught by Yajima. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to provide a livestock management system and a management method for livestock by which livestock can be easily managed, as suggested by Yajima, ¶0013.
Shamsuddin fails to disclose: all of the plurality of livestock and poultry individuals in each of the breeding region blocks, randomly wear the wearable temperature sensors in a fixed proportion to form sentinel livestock and poultry individuals, as required by the claim.
Under 35 USC § 112(b), the phrase is interpreted as wherein each of the breading region blocks, a fixed proportion of the livestock and poultry individuals are randomly selected to wear a wearable temperature sensor of the plurality of wearable temperature sensors to form sentinel livestock and poultry individuals.
However, Elazari-Volcani in the context of health monitoring of anonymous animals in livestock groups discloses, randomly wear the wearable temperature sensors in a fixed proportion to form sentinel livestock and poultry individuals (¶0015, ‘The vitality sensing unit may comprise processing means, communication means, a power source and a plurality of sensing devices selected from the group consisting of: acceleration measuring means, pulse rate sensing means and temperature measuring means.’; Claim 18; ¶0122, ‘The vitality meter units are mounted on a sample of statistically sufficient number of individuals within the flock, in order for the data collected to be statistically valid and sufficient for evaluation of the flock's health and for alert of disease outbreak and morbidity rate.’, For a sample to yield statistically valid data about entire anonymous pollution, that sample must representative rely on random or unbiased selection. The statistically sufficient number then becomes a fixed proportion of that specific house because the system’s algorithm analyzes the average, median, and standard deviation, and relative position of the sentinels, ¶Abstract, ¶0027-0028, ¶0087, Claim 15.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify for each breading block of modified Shamsuddin such that all of the plurality of livestock and poultry individuals in each of the breeding region blocks, randomly wear the wearable temperature sensors in a fixed proportion to form sentinel livestock and poultry individuals, as taught by Elazari-Volcani. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as enabling early and reliable detection of morbidity and disease outbreak, as suggested by Elazari-Volcani, ¶0053.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamsuddin et al (US20230019190A1, paragraph citations are to Prov. No. 63/222,596 filed on 07/16/2021 for clarity) in view of Yajima et al (US 20180295809 A1) in view of Elazari-Volcani et al (US 20100198024 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Li (CN 110612921 A).
Claim 2: Shamsuddin as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Shamsuddin fails to disclose, wherein the infrared camera performs patrol inspection between the breeding region blocks in the livestock and poultry house along a preset infrared camera patrol inspection route.
However, Li in the context of livestock and poultry breeding self-navigation discloses, wherein the infrared camera performs patrol inspection between the breeding region blocks in the livestock and poultry house along a preset infrared camera patrol inspection route (¶0009, ¶0035-0036, the system utilizes a closed-loop guide rail serving as the preset patrol inspection rout. The guide rial is mounted directly above the pens. ¶0010, ¶0037, ¶0043-0045, ¶0057, data acquisiton device is equipped with a thermal imaging sensor (i.e., infrared camera). The guide rail performs automated non taction inspection with the infrared camera. The device knows the exact locations between different regions (i.e., pens) of the livestock because the livestock is equipped with indicators. ¶0036-0040, during the patrol, the infrared camera captures thermal images of the livestock to estimate body temperature. This data is combined with depth and color to monitor the health status).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify infrared camera of modified Shamsuddin such that it is configured to include a patrol inspection between the breeding region blocks in the livestock and poultry house along a preset infrared camera patrol inspection route as taught by Li. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to improve the high-yield and stable production capacity of the breeding pig industry and even the entire animal husbandry sector, which has great practical significance for promoting the rapid development of modern agriculture, as suggested by Li, ¶0035.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shamsuddin et al (US20230019190A1, paragraph citations are to Prov. No. 63/222,596 filed on 07/16/2021 for clarity) in view of Yajima et al (US 20180295809 A1) in view of Elazari-Volcani et al (US 20100198024 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Yarden (US20150282457A1)
Claim 3: Shamsuddin as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Shamsuddin fails to disclose, wherein each of the wearable temperature sensors has a battery voltage collecting circuit and a wireless communication module for battery replacing notification, and collected data is transmitted to the communication terminal 7 through wireless data transmission protocol.
However, Yarden in the context of livestock monitoring discloses: wherein each of the wearable temperature sensors has a battery voltage collecting circuit and a wireless communication module for battery replacing notification, and collected data is transmitted to the communication terminal through wireless data transmission protocol. (¶Abstract, ¶0044-0045, ¶0066-tag 300, ¶0074-0075, the basic tags and smart tags are attached to the livestock to monitor the health. The tags contain a built in temperature sensor to measure the body temperature. ¶0060, ¶0104-0109, ¶0186-0187, ¶0220, The tags are powered by batteries The device monitors the battery state by comparing to a voltage threshold to detect when the batter is low. If a low battery is detected, the tag uses the communication module to transmit an alarm. This data is processed by the system to generate instructions for the farm staff to change the tag with low batteries. ¶0056, ¶0117, ¶0119, the tags contain wireless communication modules such as transmitters or transceivers to transmit to communication terminals such as a portable mobile unit or personable computer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of wearable temperature sensors of modified Shamsuddin such that each has a battery voltage collecting circuit and a wireless communication module for battery replacing notification, and collected data is transmitted to the communication terminal through wireless data transmission protocol as taught by Yarden for the advantage of providing an improved apparatus being able to generate task for farm staff to change the tags before they completely fail, as suggested by Yarden, ¶0187.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Singh (US20170156288A1) discloses a system and method for tracking the health, physical parameters, and behavioral parameters of an animal population.
Struhsaker et al (US20190130728A1) discloses, a system for a ranching or farmland environment, tracking animals as they move across the areas noting that the animals can be managed in fenced separate areas.
Manafiazar et al (US20230342902A1) discloses an automated evaluation of individual animals using external sensors and artificial intelligence.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights