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 .
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.
Claims 8, 11-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pohlkamp (EP 1665923) in view of Michael (GB 2583918) and Nester (US 11484004).
Regarding Claim 8, Pohlkamp discloses a milking system, comprising
at least one milking stall (Page 4 Paragraph 3 of translation) and
an access area to the at least one milking stall (“an installation with at least one treatment area, in particular a milking stall, at least one passage to the treatment area is proposed,” Page 4 Paragraph 3 of translation), wherein the access area has a path boundary for directing animal traffic in a movement direction (passage 3), comprising
a first boundary gate (wall 1) and a second boundary gate (wall 2), opposite the first boundary gate (Figure 1), which enclose a path between them (passage 3),
at least one guide unit projecting into the path (blocking means 7; Figure 1), wherein this guide unit has a geometry such that a spacing from the opposing boundary gate is reduced as seen in the movement direction (Figures 1-4), wherein the guide unit is freely displaceable in a horizontal plane (arrow A in Figure 3),
a positioning unit (drive 10 and actuating element 11), which is suitable and intended for altering a position of the guide unit (“For pivoting the blocking means 7 about the vertical axis 8, the blocking means 7 is connected to an actuating element 11. For actuating a drive 10 is provided.” Page 4 last Paragraph of translation).
Pohlkamp fails to disclose wherein the guide unit comprises at least one concertina grille, and wherein the guide unit comprises a bow-shaped piece, the bow shape of which is oriented in the horizontal direction, and wherein the bow-shaped piece comprises a first portion that narrows the path, a second portion adjoining the first portion and extending approximately along the movement direction, and a third portion adjoining the second portion such that a width of the path behind the second portion becomes greater again.
However, Michael teaches a similar access gate wherein the guide unit comprises at least one concertina grille and is freely displaceable in a horizontal plane (“the entrance gate 110 is an inwardly opening concertina gate.” Page 21 lines 20-23; Figures 5A and 5B; the gate opens across a horizontal plane).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guide unit of Pohlkamp, with the concertina gate of Michael, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help decrease the amount of space needed for storage of the gate when not in use.
Additionally, Nester teaches a similar gate system comprising a first boundary gate and a second boundary gate, opposite the first boundary gate (alley 60 shown in Figure 6), which enclose a path between them (60), at least one guide unit projecting into the path (alley stop 10; Figures 6 and 8), wherein the guide unit comprises a bow-shaped piece, the bow shape of which is oriented in the horizontal direction (stop 10; Figure 8, plate 120; Figure 10), and wherein the bow-shaped piece comprises a first portion that narrows the path (deflection arm component 22; Figures 2 and 6), a second portion adjoining the first portion and extending approximately along the movement direction (bracing arm component 26; Figures 2 and 6), and a third portion adjoining the second portion such that a width of the path behind the second portion becomes greater again (forward-facing backstop arm component 24; Figures 2, 6, and 8A-D).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guide unit of Pohlkamp, with the 3 part bow shaped piece in the horizontal orientation of Nester, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the animal is easily guided in the correct direction, while also helping prevent injury to the animal from any sharp or pinch points.
Alternatively, as explained above, the examiner outlines that Nester teaches the claimed limitation. If, however, it can be interpreted that Nester does not specifically teach wherein the guide unit comprises a bow-shaped piece, the alternative 103 rejection applies.
Nester teaches a similar gate system comprising a first boundary gate and a second boundary gate, opposite the first boundary gate (alley 60 shown in Figure 6), which enclose a path between them (60), at least one guide unit projecting into the path (alley stop 10; Figures 6 and 8), wherein the guide unit comprises a triangle-shaped piece, the triangle shape of which is oriented in the horizontal direction (stop 10; Figure 8, plate 120; Figure 10), wherein the triangle-shaped piece comprises a first portion that narrows the path (deflection arm component 22; Figures 2 and 6), a second portion adjoining the first portion and extending approximately along the movement direction (bracing arm component 26; Figures 2 and 6), and a third portion adjoining the second portion such that a width of the path behind the second portion becomes greater again (forward-facing backstop arm component 24; Figures 2, 6, and 8A-D).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guide unit of Pohlkamp, with the triangle shaped piece in the horizontal orientation of Nester, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help ensure the animal is easily guided in the correct direction, while also helping prevent injury to the animal from any sharp or pinch points.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the triangle shaped piece of Nester, with a bow shaped piece, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help prevent injury to the animal from any sharp corners or edges when moving through the gate system, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 11, Pohlkamp as modified teaches the milking system as claimed in claim 8. Pohlkamp further discloses wherein the guide unit is swivel-mounted (“The blocking means 7 is pivotable about a substantially vertically extending axis 8. For this purpose, for example, the blocking means 7 may be connected to the side wall 1 via at least one hinge.” Page 4 of translation).
Regarding Claim 12, Pohlkamp as modified teaches the milking system as claimed in claim 8. Pohlkamp further discloses wherein the guide unit comprises at least one joint (“The blocking means 7 is pivotable about a substantially vertically extending axis 8. For this purpose, for example, the blocking means 7 may be connected to the side wall 1 via at least one hinge.” Page 4 of translation) and one end of the guide unit is displaceable along the first boundary gate in a parallel manner (end portion 15; arrow shown in Figures 2 and 4; “The opposite end portion 15 is slidably disposed in the longitudinal direction of the passage. The displaceability of the end region 15 is represented by the arrow A.” Page 5 Paragraph 4 of translation).
Regarding Claim 13, Pohlkamp as modified teaches the milking system as claimed in claim 8. Pohlkamp further discloses wherein the guide unit comprises multiple elements (blocking means 7 and actuating element 11 Figure 1; Page 4 last Paragraph of translation) and at least one angle joint (“The blocking means 7 is pivotable about a substantially vertically extending axis 8. For this purpose, for example, the blocking means 7 may be connected to the side wall 1 via at least one hinge.” Page 4 of translation) and is displaceable relative to a boundary gate (blocking means 7 is pivotable relative to wall).
Regarding Claim 15, Pohlkamp as modified teaches the milking system as claimed in claim 8. Pohlkamp further discloses wherein the positioning unit has an arresting component (“a passage means 6 is provided, is locked by the gear 3 in a first position and released in a second position for an animal.” Page 4 of translation; per Applicant’s definition of arresting component on page 5 of the specification).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7 and 8 that Nester fails to disclose the claimed bow shaped guide piece, as Nester discloses a deflectable arm, which differs from Applicant’s claimed guide unit. The Office respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument, 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). In this instance, Nester is being used to teach the shape of the guide piece, while the primary reference Pohlkamp is teaching the use of a controlled guide piece. Additionally, as discussed in the rejection above, Nester teaches the 3 part guide piece as claimed in the newly added amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights