DETAILED ACTION
This office action is made final. Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are pending. 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
Applicant’s amendment date 11/04/2025, amended claims 1-6 and 11-19; and canceled claims 7 and 20.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-20, under 35 USC 101 (Alice), will be maintained.
The previously claim interpretation to claims 1-6 and 13-19, have been withdrawn.
The previously pending rejection to claims 1-6 and 13-19, under 35 USC 112(b), have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments received on date 11/04/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by Applicant's amendments to the claims. The art rejection has been updated to address these amendments.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant asserts that “claim I expressly recites a method that is not merely directed to performing a mental process.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Pursuant to 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (the SME Guidance), in order to determine whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, under Step 2A, we first (1) determine whether the claims recite limitations, individually or in combination, that fall within the enumerated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes), and (2) determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55. Next, if a claim (1) recites an abstract idea and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, in order to determine whether the claim recites an “inventive concept,” under Step 2B, we then determine whether the claim recites any of the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and in combination, are significantly more than the abstract idea itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
Here, under prong 1 of Step 2A, claim 1, and similarly 11-12, recites the abstract elements of
acquiring evaluation method data; creating evaluation criteria information for evaluating collected information that integrates data collected that manages field information based on the evaluation method data, the collected information comprising camera data and sensor data; and evaluating the collected information based on the evaluation criteria information to create an evaluation result
As set forth in the SME Guidance, a claim recites mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the elements describe a process for evaluating collected information.
Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims, including the claim features referred to by Applicant, recite a mental processes.
Applicant asserts that “the independent claims, as amended integrate the limitations into a practical application by providing a technical solution for ensuring animal safety by evaluating environmental conditions in real time.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, under the second prong of Step 2A, we determine whether any additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, individually and as an ordered combination, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52, 54-55.
Here, under the second prong of Step 2A, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly 11-12) recite “acquiring evaluation method data from an evaluation method provision apparatus; creating evaluation criteria information for evaluating collected information that integrates data collected from a field management system that manages field information based on the evaluation method data, the collected information comprising camera data from a camera of the field management system and sensor data from at least one environmental sensor of the field management system, and the at least one environmental sensor comprising a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, or an illuminance sensor; and evaluating the collected information based on the evaluation criteria information to create an evaluation result in real time are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
Applicant asserts that “the combination of limitations, viewed as a whole, would also amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because claim I includes an improvement to systems engineering technologies.” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The MPEP discusses that "the second part of the Alice/Mayo test [(Step 2B)] is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept," and "an 'inventive concept' is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself." MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added). Further, the MPEP goes on to describe "Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Examiners should answer this question by first identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)).” MPEP 2106.05 (emphasis added).
The search for an inventive concept under § 101 is distinct from demonstrating novel and non-obviousness. See SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed Cir. May 15, 2018) (citing Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even novel and newly discovered judicial exceptions are still exceptions, despite their novelty. July 2015 Update, p. 3; see SAP America at 2. In Step 2B, “[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP America at 11. As discussed in SAP America, no matter how much of an advance the claims recite, when “the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm,” “[a]n advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.” Id. at 3.
Here, under Step 2B, the only additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of claim 1, and similarly claims 11-12, are the recitations of “data collected from a camera ... and sensor data from at least one environmental sensor ... comprising a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, or an illuminance sensor" and "create an evaluation result in real time are carried out by at least one computing device,” and these additional elements, individually and in combination, are nothing more than computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Accordingly, contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 102/103:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claim rejections have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below in this Office action. The art rejection has been updated to address these amendments.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations (See claims 8-10) that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: “a field management system, an evaluation method provision apparatus, an evaluation system, an information management apparatus” in claims 8-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Specification describes:
Para 0040 The evaluation apparatus 10 collects data (corresponding to the input data in FIG. 3) necessary for each evaluation item in the evaluation criteria information 16a from the field management system 40, and stores the collected
data as collected information 16b. The evaluation apparatus 10 creates an evaluation result 16c of the stored collected information 16b based on the created evaluation criteria information 16a and makes the collected information 16b and the evaluation result 16c viewable by way of the viewing terminal 80. As the evaluation apparatus 10, for example, a server apparatus comprising a computer including a processor, a memory, a network interface, etc.
According to the Specification, the generic place holders could be by hardware, software, and/or any combination of hardware, software. The Specification does not specifically point out the structure. The generic place holders are not modified by significant structure, material, or acts of performing the claimed function. Therefore the limitations of Claims 8-10 listed above have invoked 112(f).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8-10 have a number of limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claims 8-10 do NOT state that a field management system, an evaluation method provision apparatus, an evaluation system, an information management apparatus stored in memory and executed by the processor. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0040] states that embodiments may be entirely software, hardware, or some combination. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 10 is rejected for having the same deficiencies as those set forth with respect to the claims that they depend from, independent claim 8.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 8-9 appears to combined both an apparatus (the system) and a method of using that apparatus in a single claim, making it unclear whether infringement occurred during system creation or user operation, but the body of the claim includes both steps as well as structure (“means for” limitations). A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.2d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005); because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.") Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
Dependent claim 10 is rejected based upon the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-6 and 8-19 are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the framework, claims 1 and 11-12 recite an abstract idea. Claims 1 and 11-12 include “acquiring evaluation method data; creating evaluation criteria information for evaluating collected information that integrates data collected that manages field information based on the evaluation method data, the collected information comprising camera data and sensor data; and evaluating the collected information based on the evaluation criteria information to create an evaluation result”.
The limitations above recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. More particularly, the elements above recite mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) because the elements describe a process for evaluating collected information. As a result, claims 1 and 11-12 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
Claims 2-6, 8-10 and 13-19 further describe the process for evaluating collected information. As a result, claims 2-6, 8-10 and 13-19 recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claims 1 and 11-12.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the framework, claims 1 and 11-12 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11-12 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1 and 11-12 include a camera, environmental sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, an illuminance sensor, a processor, a memory, an evaluation apparatus, an evaluation method acquisition, an evaluation criteria creation, an evaluation processing, an evaluation method provision apparatus, hardware, and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium. When considered in view of the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As a result, claims 1 and 11-12 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, and 13-19 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2-6, 8-10, and 13-19 include a simulation, an information management apparatus, an information collection, a storage, an information provision, a viewing terminal, evaluation method acquisition, evaluation criteria creation, a field management system, an evaluation method provision apparatus, a viewing terminal, an evaluation system, an information management apparatus, an authentication terminal, and an authentication server. When considered in view of the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As a result, claims 2-6, 8-10, and 13-19 do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two.
With respect to Step 2B of the framework, claims 1 and 11-12 do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. As noted above, claims 1 and 11-12 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 1 and 11-12 include a camera, environmental sensor, a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, an illuminance sensor, a processor, a memory, an evaluation apparatus, an evaluation method acquisition, an evaluation criteria creation, an evaluation processing, an evaluation method provision apparatus, hardware, and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements are generic computing elements that are merely used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, independent claims 1 and 11-12 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, and 13-19 include additional elements that do not recite an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One. The additional elements of claims 2-6, 8-10, and 13-19 include a simulation, an information management apparatus, an information collection, a storage, an information provision, a viewing terminal, evaluation method acquisition, evaluation criteria creation, a field management system, an evaluation method provision apparatus, a viewing terminal, an evaluation system, an information management apparatus, an authentication terminal, and an authentication server. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computing elements do no more than generally link the use of the recited abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Further, looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when considering the additional elements individually. As a result, claims 2-6, 8-10, and 13-19 do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2B.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea without additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claims 1-6 and 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 13-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroman et al. (US Pub No. 2008/0097809) (hereinafter Stroman et al.) in view of Matsuyama et al. (US Pub No. 2006/0122849) (hereinafter Matsuyama et al.).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Stroman discloses an evaluation apparatus, comprising:
at least a processor (see Stroman, Fig. 26 para [0070]); and
a memory in circuit communication with the processor (see Stroman, Fig. 26 para [0070]), wherein the processor is configured to execute program instructions stored in the memory to perform:
acquiring evaluation method data from an evaluation method provision apparatus (see Stroman, para [0021], wherein system may retrieve historical data from the central database (obtained from other systems and applications) and compare the data with the collect adaptive reasoning information; para [0085], wherein certification system 180 may assist a user (e.g., a producer or feedlot manager) with evaluating the requirements of one or more beef marketing programs and selecting the program most appropriate for his or her operation; and para [0131], wherein from sensor measurements may refer to monitoring);
creating evaluation criteria information for evaluating collected information that integrates data collected from a field management system that manages field information based on the evaluation method data (see Stroman, paras [0129]-[0131], wherein adaptive reasoning system 140 simulates logic, rules, and/or good practices used by experts for livestock management. Adaptive reasoning system 140 may recommend actions to be taken based on criteria, such as observations, measurements, and historical information archived in the central database…..collect adaptive reasoning information from the animal. The adaptive reasoning information may be collected using a data acquisition station or using any other suitable approach. Collecting information may be automated or may require a user to manually enter data into the database. Information may include animal observations, sensor measurements, or any other suitable information. Animal observations may refer to ocular or nasal discharges, coughing, posture, movement, feeding pattern, and social behavior),
the collected information comprising camera data from a camera of the field management system and sensor data from at least one environmental sensor of the field management system, and the at least one environmental sensor comprising a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, or an illuminance sensor (see Stroman, paras [0142] & [0131], wherein the station may capture a static or dynamic image of the animal with a digital camera or any other suitable image-capturing device. As another example, the station may use temperature sensing devices (e.g., rectal thermometers)..…The adaptive reasoning information may be collected using a data acquisition station or using any other suitable approach. Collecting information may be automated or may require a user to manually enter data into the database. Information may include animal observations, sensor measurements); and
evaluating the collected information based on the evaluation criteria information and create an evaluation result in real time (see Stroman, paras [0129]-[0131], wherein recommend actions to be taken based on criteria, such as observations, measurements, and historical information archived in the central database. The outcome of these actions may be compared with expected results and trends established. The actual outcome may be used to continuously refine, improve, and/or recalibrate analytical and empirical models.…..collect adaptive reasoning information from the animal. The adaptive reasoning information may be collected using a data acquisition station or using any other suitable approach. Collecting information may be automated or may require a user to manually enter data into the database. Information may include animal observations, sensor measurements, or any other suitable information. Animal observations may refer to ocular or nasal discharges, coughing, posture, movement, feeding pattern, and social behavior……The expert system may guide one or more users at the feedlot through a process of making observations, taking physical measurements, reviewing medical records, and making a correct diagnosis and selecting an appropriate treatment),
wherein the creating evaluation criteria information (see Stroman, paras [0129]-[0131]) comprises:
wherein the collected information is information recording backstory of domestic animals (see Stroman, paras [0003]-[0005], wherein beginning at the producer or ranch level, owners typically raise animals until they are a certain age and weight. Livestock owners sell a majority of their animals via local auction sale barns or through order buyers. Sometimes the livestock are purchased by buyers acting on behalf of feedlots or stocker operations. After sorting and commingling the animals, which may occur several times, the animals are sold to the feedlots or stocker operations. Typically, all animals eventually end up at feedlots (sold or under retained ownership) where they are grown to selling weight….…Once the animals commingle, they lose their identity, and with each subsequent commingling, owners and buyers possess less information about each individual animal).
Stroman et al. fails to explicitly disclose extracting keywords from the acquired evaluation method data; extracting keywords related to evaluation from the extracted keywords based on preset criteria; and creating the evaluation criteria information based on the extracted keywords related to the evaluation.
Analogous art Matsuyama discloses extracting keywords from the acquired evaluation method data (see Matsuyama, paras [0341]-[0344], wherein extracted from the "abstract" and "claims" described in the patent publication (S141). Similarity rates ((G) and@) with respect to the specific publication and the population are determined by using the keyword (S142)…….evaluating system 12 for exactly evaluating patent values of the respective companies will be described));
Analogous art Matsuyama discloses extracting keywords related to evaluation from the extracted keywords based on preset criteria (see Matsuyama, para [0019], wherein a similarity rate acquisition means for obtaining the similarity rate based on the proportion in which more than one technology relevant to the patent information containing the prescribed keyword is present in the database population of the patent information, registration counting means for obtaining the number of registration of established patent information in the information of patents subjected to investigation, and a display means for displaying the similarity rate thus obtained in correlation with the number of registration of the established patents); and
Analogous art Matsuyama discloses creating the evaluation criteria information based on the extracted keywords related to the evaluation (see Matsuyama, paras [0341]-[0345], wherein evaluation means 3' (information processing means 380) for creating evaluating resources serving as reference indicators for evaluating the value of a company or enterprise by analyzing the correlation among the business management,
financial affairs and patents on the basis of the business management, financial affairs and technical information stored in the database; and para [0019], wherein a similarity rate acquisition means for obtaining the similarity rate based on the proportion in which more than one technology relevant to the patent information containing the prescribed keyword is present in the database population of the patent information, registration counting means for obtaining the number of registration of established patent information in the information of patents subjected to investigation, and a display means for displaying the similarity rate thus obtained in correlation with the number of registration of the established patents).
Stroman directed to a system for tracking animal performance, creating increased value. Matsuyama directed to evaluating technology. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Stroman, regarding the Livestock Management Systems, to have included extracting keywords from the acquired evaluation method data; extracting keywords related to evaluation from the extracted keywords based on preset criteria; and creating the evaluation criteria information based on the extracted keywords related to the evaluation because both inventions teach improving operational efficiency. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 2, Stroman discloses the evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions to perform:
simulating whether or not virtual information from the field management system satisfies criteria of the evaluation criteria information, create a simulation result, and transmit the simulation result to the field management system (see Stroman, paras [0128]-[0131], wherein adaptive reasoning system 140 may simulate an array of experts overlooking an operation. Adaptive reasoning system 140 may be standalone or may be included as part of the system. Any other suitable approach may also be used. [0129] Adaptive reasoning system 140 simulates logic, rules, and/or good practices used by experts for livestock management. Adaptive reasoning system 140 may recommend actions to be taken based on criteria, such as observations, measurements, and historical information archived in the central database. The outcome of these actions may be compared with expected results and trends established. The actual outcome may be used to continuously refine, improve, and/or recalibrate analytical and empirical models. Reasoning system 140 may create web-enabled expert systems and/or knowledge-based tools available at, for example, ranches and feedlots and may be part of an overall livestock management system…….An expert system may be used for early detection of sickness in calves at a feedlot. The expert system may guide one or more users at the feedlot through a process of making observations, taking physical measurements, reviewing medical records, and making a correct diagnosis and selecting an appropriate treatment. For example, the expert system may use RFID tags to determine the number of times an animal has approached the feeding bunk. If an animal does not approach the feeding bunk the average number of times, adaptive reasoning system 140 may trigger a tracking device on the animal (e.g., place a flag) and notify the user. In some embodiments, adaptive reasoning system 140 at, for example, a feedlot may periodically (e.g., a time predetermined by adaptive reasoning system 140) look at the weight history and medical records of animals and may identify calves that are potential railers (i.e., calves that may not meet their potential for growth and/or performance) and may be sold at the earliest opportunity).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Stroman discloses the evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions to perform:
acquiring the collected information from an information management apparatus that manages the collected information, wherein the evaluating the collected information comprises
evaluating the acquired collected information based on the evaluation criteria information, creating the evaluation result, and transmitting the evaluation result to the information management apparatus (see Stroman, paras [0128]-[0131]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Stroman discloses the evaluation apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to execute the program instructions to perform:
collecting the data from the field management system based on preset collection items (see Stroman, para [0099], wherein tracking system 145 may periodically (e.g., a time predetermined by tracking system 145 and/or the user) store the tracking information acquired on animals in the central database);
storing the collected information obtained by integrating the collected data in association with the evaluation result (see Stroman, para [0081], wherein the system may store the collected information in a database. In some embodiments, the system may automatically collect information based at least in part on the detection of the one or more animals; and para [0010], wherein a computer stores individual animal measurement, performance and location data); and
when receiving viewing request information from a viewing terminal, extracting information corresponding to the viewing request information from the collected information or the evaluation result, and transmitting the extracted information to the viewing terminal (see Stroman, para [0084], wherein user interfaces may be accessed over the Internet; para [0133], wherein retrieve historical data from the database via the Internet at step 1015. Based on the collected information and the rules of adaptive reasoning system 140, the expert system may make one or more recommendations to the user; and paras [0089]-[0093], wherein notifications may also qualify the value of recommended procedures and treatments through valuation of a seller's costs and a buyer's benefits. The seller's costs may include vaccinations, labor, feed, calf morbidity and mortality during weaning, market price volatility, etc.…..A notification 1500 may include a message to the user and a valuation or rating of the user's animal. For example, the valuation may be in terms of the user's costs, buyer's benefits, and comparisons relative to other participants).
Regarding claims 6 and 16-19, Stroman discloses the evaluation apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the acquiring evaluation method data comprises comparing the evaluation method data acquired currently with evaluation method data acquired in the past, and, in case that the evaluation method data acquired currently is a new type of evaluation method data, or in case that the evaluation method data acquired currently has been revised, save the currently acquired evaluation method data (see Stroman, para [0129], wherein adaptive reasoning system 140 simulates logic, rules, and/or good practices used by experts for livestock management. Adaptive reasoning system 140 may recommend actions to be taken based on criteria, such as observations, measurements, and historical information archived in the central database. The outcome of these actions may be compared with expected results and trends established. The actual outcome may be used to continuously refine, improve, and/or recalibrate analytical and empirical models); and
wherein the creating evaluation criteria information comprises creating the evaluation criteria information based on the currently acquired evaluation method data when the currently acquired evaluation method data is saved (see Stroman, paras [0021] & [0129]-[0131], wherein collect adaptive reasoning information from the animal. The adaptive reasoning information may be collected using a data acquisition station or using any other suitable approach. Collecting information may be automated or may require a user to manually enter data into the database. Information may include animal observations, sensor measurements, or any other suitable information. Animal observations may refer to ocular or nasal discharges, coughing, posture, movement, feeding pattern, and social behavior…..Adaptive reasoning information may include animal observations, sensor measurements, or any other suitable information relating to adaptive reasoning. The adaptive reasoning system may retrieve historical data from the central database (obtained from other systems and applications) and compare the data with the collect adaptive reasoning information).
Regarding claim 8, Stroman discloses the an evaluation system comprising: the evaluation apparatus according to claim 1;
a field management system that manages field information and is communicably connected to the evaluation apparatus (see Stroman, paras [0171]-[0172], wherein environmental information associated with land application area management may be integrated with environmental information associated with source material quality and quantity to determine nutrient information. In some embodiments of the invention, users may select specific parameters (e.g., yield goal, etc.) and view integrated information, utilizing comparisons between the chosen parameters……The user may complete and send required forms to regulatory agencies, such as nutrient management on land application areas. The forms may be stored in the central database, sorted, and utilized to verify past compliance and future plans);
an evaluation method provision apparatus that provides evaluation method data and is communicably connected to the evaluation apparatus (see Stroman, paras [0131]-[0133], wherein adaptive reasoning system 140 may collect adaptive reasoning information from the animal. The adaptive reasoning information may be collected using a data acquisition station or using any other suitable approach……adaptive reasoning system 140 may be a closed loop feedback system. The information collected at step 1005 may be analyzed by an expert system and/or a knowledge-based tool at step 1010); and
a viewing terminal communicably connected to the evaluation apparatus (see Stroman, para [0133], wherein the recommendations from adaptive reasoning system 140 may be reviewed by the user at step 1020. The user may assess the risks associated with the actions recommended by adaptive reasoning system 140 at step 1025).
Regarding claim 9, Stroman discloses an evaluation system comprising: the evaluation apparatus according to claim 1;
an information management apparatus that manages the collected information and is communicably connected to the evaluation apparatus (see Stroman, paras [0131]-[0133], wherein adaptive reasoning system 140 may collect adaptive reasoning information from the animal. The adaptive reasoning information may be collected using a data acquisition station or using any other suitable approach……adaptive reasoning system 140 may be a closed loop feedback system. The information collected at step 1005 may be analyzed by an expert system and/or a knowledge-based tool at step 1010);
a field management system that manages field information and is communicably connected to the information management apparatus (see Stroman, paras [0171]-[0172], wherein environmental information associated with land application area management may be integrated with environmental information associated with source material quality and quantity to determine nutrient information. In some embodiments of the invention, users may select specific parameters (e.g., yield goal, etc.) and view integrated information, utilizing comparisons between the chosen parameters……The user may complete and send required forms to regulatory agencies, such as nutrient management on land application areas. The forms may be stored in the central database, sorted, and utilized to verify past compliance and future plans);
an evaluation method provision apparatus that provides evaluation method data and is communicably connected to the evaluation apparatus (see Stroman, paras [0131]-[0133], wherein adaptive reasoning system 140 may collect adaptive reasoning information from the animal. The adaptive reasoning information may be collected using a data acquisition station or using any other suitable approach……adaptive reasoning system 140 may be a closed loop feedback system. The information collected at step 1005 may be analyzed by an expert system and/or a knowledge-based tool at step 1010); and
a viewing terminal communicably connected to the information management apparatus (see Stroman, para [0133], wherein the recommendations from adaptive reasoning system 140 may be reviewed by the user at step 1020. The user may assess the risks associated with the actions recommended by adaptive reasoning system 140 at step 1025).
Regarding claim 10, Stroman discloses the evaluation system according to claim 8, further comprising an authentication terminal or an authentication server that executes authentication processing on the evaluation result and is communicably connected to the evaluation apparatus (see Stroman, para [0124], wherein data transactions system 165 may provide users with an opportunity to log in. In some embodiments, users may be required to log in by, for example, entering a user name and password….where users log in, data transactions system 165 may use the log in information to retrieve the user's status and accessibility during the data transaction process; and para [0124], wherein the outcome of these actions may be compared with expected results and trends established. The actual outcome may be used to continuously refine, improve, and/or recalibrate analytical and empirical models.).
Claims 5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stroman et al. (US Pub No. 2008/0097809) (hereinafter Stroman et al.), in view of Matsuyama et al. (US Pub No. 2006/0122849) (hereinafter Matsuyama et al.), and further in view of Teng et al. (US Pub No. 2013/0275316) (hereinafter Teng et al.).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Stroman discloses the evaluation apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the extracting information comprises (see Stroman, para [0065], wherein by collecting and processing information…….):
when there is a visualization request in the viewing request information (see Stroman, para [0175], wherein map data may be represented in numeric and graphic format. The user may view data associated with a physical point of interest graphically and sort based on specific criteria to create a map that displays and compares points of interest and their affiliated data properties),
searching for the collected information or the evaluation result based on the viewing request information (see Stroman, para [0155], wherein search the database for suitable sires available for the artificial insemination with semen for sale. These sires may be used to enhance overall herd productively through an optimum combination of calving ease, calf growth and replacement heifer production); and
transmitting the collected information or the evaluation result extracted by the search (see Stroman, para [0070], wherein server 107 may be any server suitable for transmitting and receiving data over communication network 120; para [0133], wherein retrieve historical data from the database via the Internet at step 1015. Based on the collected information and the rules of adaptive reasoning system 140, the expert system may make one or more recommendations to the user; and paras [0089]-[0093], wherein notifications may also qualify the value of recommended procedures and treatments).
Stroman et al. and Matsuyama et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose creating visualization information based on the information extracted by the search and the created visualization information to the viewing terminal.
Analogous art Teng discloses creating visualization information based on the information extracted by the search (see Teng, para [0144], wherein referring to Figs. 9 and 10, a system for integrating information in a visual format may include providing a visual integration presentation 210. For example, the visual presentation may include an actual image, either by schematic, or by actual photographs; and para [0222], wherein extracting information from the records in order properly analyze, evaluate, judge), and
Analogous art Teng discloses the created visualization information to the viewing terminal (see Teng, para [0144], wherein referring to Figs. 9 and 10, a system for integrating information in a visual format may include providing a visual integration presentation 210; para [0013], wherein Synchronizing data between mobile field devices and desktop systems available typically requires a physical connection).
Stroman directed to a system for tracking animal performance, creating increased value. Teng directed to tracking, selecting, evaluating, analyzing, rating and ranking animals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Stroman, regarding the Livestock Management Systems, to have included creating visualization information based on the information extracted by the search and the created visualization information to the viewing terminal because both inventions teach improving operational efficiency. Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Stroman discloses storing a program that causes hardware resources to execute processing for evaluating collected information, wherein the program that causes the hardware resources to execute processing:
acquiring evaluation method data from the evaluation method provision apparatus, as set forth above with claim 1;
based on the evaluation method data, creating evaluation criteria information for evaluating collected information that integrates data collected from a field management system that manages field information, the collected information comprising camera data from a camera of the field management system and sensor data from at least one environmental sensor of the field management system, and the at least one environmental sensor comprising a temperature sensor, a humidity sensor, or an illuminance sensor, as set forth above with claim 1; and
evaluating the collected information based on the evaluation criteria information to create an evaluation result in real time, as set forth above with claim 1,
wherein the creating evaluation criteria information, as set forth above with claim 1 comprises:
extracting keywords from the acquired evaluation method data, as set forth above with claim 1;
extracting keywords related to evaluation from the extracted keywords based on preset criteria, as set forth above with claim 1; and
creating the evaluation criteria information based on the extracted keywords related to the evaluation, and wherein the collected information is information recording backstory of domestic animals, as set forth above with claim 1.
Stroman et al. and Matsuyama et al. combined fail to explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer readable recording medium.
Analogous art Teng discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium (see Teng, para [0018]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Teng would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system for the same reasons as stated above with respect to claim 5.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAFIZ A KASSIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8534. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:00 PM.
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, Rutao Wu can be reached at 571-272-6045. 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.
/HAFIZ A KASSIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 12/16/2025
Prosecution Insights