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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I, directed to claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 29th July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 29th July 2026.
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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites ‘a three dimensional, 3D, camera’, which is formatted strangely within a list of limiting elements, the cited limitation should likely read ‘a three-dimensional (3D) camera’.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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: ‘alerting device, configured to output an alerting signal when receiving a trigger signal’ in claim 1 (Pg. 17, lines 13-23), ‘animal identification device configured to determine an identity reference’ in claim 2 (Pg. 19, lines 17-26 ‘camera and a processor’).
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-13 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. The term “control model” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. For example, how many and what types of layers are there? How is the data propagated? What logics are programmed to help the machine learning algorithm make a decision? Is the training supervised or unsupervised? What are the weightings? Are other training concepts used such as regression? The specification describes training a control model on “some hundreds, thousands or tens of thousands of images” and using it to detect stages such as amniotic sac, frontal hoof/head, 50% emergence, dystocia). However, it provides insufficient detail on the specific training data, architecture, how the model distinguishes the claimed stages with and what precision, how are the exact timing thresholds derived and validated across animal types/lactation numbers. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
Claims 2-13 inherit this deficiency and are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected parent claim.
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 1-13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 & 4, recite ‘at least one parturition stage out of a plurality of parturition stages’, this limitation is unclear, containing two non-limited pluralities, as the at least one portion could be 6 out of a plurality of 5, rendering claim 1 indefinite.
Claims 1, 5-8 & 10, ‘a parturition event’/’the parturition event’, it is unclear whether this limitation is part of ‘a multitude of parturition events’ or not, rendering claims 1, 5-8 & 10 indefinite.
Claim 1, ‘the parturition stage’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Further, it is unclear whether this ‘parturition stage’ is part of ‘at least one parturition stage of the plurality of parturition stages’ or not, rendering claim 1 indefinite.
Claim 1, ‘the received image’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claim 1, ‘the detected parturition stage’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claim 1, ‘the image’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claim 1, ‘the determined moment in time’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner notes the limitation likely refers to ‘a moment in time’ previously recited and should read ‘the moment in time’.
Claim 1, ‘the determined passed time period’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner notes the limitation likely refers to ‘a passed time period’ previously recited and should read ‘the passed time period’.
Claim 1, ‘an anomaly’ it is unclear if this limitation is referring to ‘an anomaly’ as previously recited. Examiner interprets the limitation to intend ‘the anomaly’.
Claim 1, ‘the determined time period’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claim 2, ‘the animals’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim.
Claim 2, ‘the received lactation number’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner notes the limitation likely refers to ‘the lactation number’ previously recited.
Claim 3 recites ‘wherein the camera comprises: a video camera, stereo cameras, a three dimensional, 3D, camera, and/ or a thermal camera’, it is unclear how the singular camera can comprise a video camera and a thermal camera, rendering claim 3 indefinite.
Claim 4, ‘wherein the control model is trained to detect at least one parturition stage out of the plurality of parturition stages’, it is unclear whether this instance of ‘at least one parturition stage’ is the same as the ‘at least one parturition stage’ as previously recited or if it is a new, distinct instance of ‘at least one parturition stage’, rendering claim 4 indefinite.
Claim 4, ‘a multitude of parturition events’, it is unclear whether this instance of ‘a multitude of parturition events’ is the same as the ‘a multitude of parturition events’ as previously recited or if it is a new, distinct instance of ‘a multitude of parturition events’, rendering claim 4 indefinite.
Claim 4, ‘the received physical parameter measurements’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner notes the limitation likely refers to ‘physical parameter measurements of the animal’ as previously recited and should read ‘the physical parameter measurements of the animal’.
Claim 4, ‘the detected parturition stage’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner notes the limitation likely refers to ‘the parturition stage’ as previously recited.
Claim 4, ‘the physical parameter measurements’, it is unclear whether this limitation is intending to refer to ‘measurements of a physical parameter of animals’ or ‘physical parameter measurements of the animal’, rendering claim 4 indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to read ‘the physical parameter measurements of the animal’, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claim 4, ‘an animal-attached sensor such as a 3D accelerometer, an inertia sensor, a gyro sensor, a heartbeat sensor and/ or a thermal sensor’, it is unclear how the singular animal-attached sensor can comprise a heartbeat sensor and a thermal sensor, rendering claim 4 indefinite.
Claim 4, ‘an animal-attached sensor… configured to measure a physical parameter related to the animal’, it is unclear whether this limitation is intending to refer to or is part of ‘physical parameter measurements of the animal’ as previously recited or if it is a new, distinct instance of measurements of physical parameters of the animal, rendering claim 4 indefinite. Examiner interprets the limitation to be part of ‘physical parameter measurements of the animal’ and should likely read ‘a physical parameter measurement of the animal’, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claim 4, ‘the measured physical parameter related to the animal’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner notes the limitation likely refers to ‘a physical parameter related to the animal’ as previously recited, ‘a physical parameter related to the animal’ has been interpreted to be part of ‘physical parameter measurements of the animal’ as previously recited and read as ‘a physical parameter measurement of the animal’, the limitation ‘the measured physical parameter related to the animal’ is interpreted to read ‘the physical parameter measurement of the animal’, as best understood by the disclosure.
Claim 4, ‘the obtained physical parameter measurement related to the animal’, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in this claim. Examiner interprets this limitation to read ‘the physical parameter measurement of the animal’, due to interpretations of previous antecedent basis issues in claim 4 and as best understood by the disclosure.
Claims 5-8, ‘an image’, it is unclear whether this limitation is referring to ‘the received image’ or ‘the image’ or if it is part of ‘images’ or part of ‘the time-sequential stream of images’ as previously recited, or if it is a new, distinct instance of ‘an image’, rendering claim 5 indefinite.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for their dependence on a rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-13 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-13 recites at least one step or instruction for receiving data, making determinations based on the data, manipulating the data, and outputting data which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1-13 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically,
Regarding Claim 1, A system for alerting a farmer when an anomaly is detected during a parturition event before an offspring is separated from an animal (Observation, Judgement, Evaluation/Opinion),
wherein the system comprises: a control model trained to detect at least one parturition stage out of a plurality of parturition stages (Observation, Judgement, Evaluation/Opinion)
wherein said training is based on images of the plurality of parturition stages during a multitude of parturition events (Observation, Judgement, Evaluation/Opinion); and
wherein the control model is configured to repeatedly receive images (Observation) via a controller,
detect the parturition stage of the received image and return information concerning the detected parturition stage of the image (Observation, Judgement, Evaluation/Opinion), to the controller;
a camera configured to capture a time-sequential stream of images of the animal and provide the time-sequential stream of images to the control model, via the controller;
an alerting device configured to output an alerting signal when receiving a trigger signal (Observation) from the controller;
the controller, communicatively connected to the control model, to the camera and the alerting device, wherein the controller is configured to provide the time-sequential stream of images, captured by the camera, to the control model;
determine a moment in time when a selected parturition stage of the plurality of parturition stages of the parturition event is commenced, based on information returned (Judgement, Evaluation/Opinion) by the control model;
determine, repeatedly, by a time measurement functionality, a passed time period from the determined moment in time when the selected parturition stage is commenced (Judgement, Evaluation/Opinion);
compare, repeatedly, the determined passed time period since the determined moment in time when the selected parturition stage is commenced, with a time threshold length associated with the selected parturition stage (Judgement, Evaluation/Opinion); and
either detect an anomaly of the parturition event when the time threshold length associated with the selected parturition stage is exceeded by the determined time period that has passed since the determined moment in time when the selected parturition stage is commenced (Judgement, Evaluation/Opinion); and
output the trigger signal to the alerting device, upon detection of the anomaly (Observation, Judgement, Evaluation/Opinion);
or determine when the selected parturition stage of the parturition event is completed before the time threshold length associated with the selected parturition stage has passed, based on information returned (Judgement, Evaluation/Opinion) by the control model.
(The underlined portions above are abstract ideas interpreted as mental processes under the 2019 PEG, such as observations, judgements, opinions, determinations, interpretations of data, related to receiving, manipulating, analyzing, determining and outputting of data) (additional element); (Observation) (Judgement) (Evaluation/Opinion)
Further, dependent Claims 2-13 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-13 ) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 1) either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: control model; controller; camera; alerting device are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., controller as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-13 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: control model; controller; camera; alerting device
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, control model (Pg. 16, lines 27-28 ‘artificial neural network’ ); controller (Pg. 17, lines 25-30 ‘a computer’); camera/animal identification device (Pg. 4, lines 1-4./Pg. 19, lines 17-26 ‘camera and a processor’); alerting device (Pg. 17, lines 13-23).
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term controller is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the controller. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-13 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic ccomputerdoes not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the systems of Claims 1-13 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-13 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-13 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-13 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-13 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7-8 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020086868 to Rooda et al. (hereinafter, Rooda).
Regarding Claim 1, Rooda discloses a system for alerting a farmer when an anomaly is detected during a parturition event before an offspring is separated from an animal (Rooda: Para. [0010]), wherein the system comprises:
a control model trained to detect at least one parturition stage out of a plurality of parturition stages wherein said training is based on images of the plurality of parturition stages during a multitude of parturition events (Rooda: Para. [0021], [0023-0025], [0027-0028]); and
wherein the control model is configured to repeatedly receive images via a controller (Rooda: Para. [0021], [0023-0024]),
detect the parturition stage of the received image and return information concerning the detected parturition stage of the image, to the controller (Rooda: Para. [0027], [0029], [0032]);
a camera configured to capture a time-sequential stream of images of the animal (Rooda: Para. [0021]) and
provide the time-sequential stream of images to the control model, via the controller (Rooda: Para. [0025-0027]);
an alerting device configured to output an alerting signal when receiving a trigger signal from the controller (Rooda: Para. [0021-0022] ‘When the interval of time lapse between the first birth in process and the next birth in process exceeds a predetermined amount, system 100 can trigger an action from an alert trigger 112’);
the controller, communicatively connected to the control model, to the camera and the alerting device (Rooda: Para. [0010]),
wherein the controller is configured to provide the time-sequential stream of images, captured by the camera, to the control model (Rooda: Para. [0021], [0025-0028]);
determine a moment in time when a selected parturition stage of the plurality of parturition stages of the parturition event is commenced, based on information returned by the control model (Rooda: Para. [0021], [0025]);
determine, repeatedly, by a time measurement functionality, a passed time period since the determined moment in time when the selected parturition stage is commenced (Rooda: para. [0010], [0021], [0028]);
compare, repeatedly, the determined passed time period since the determined moment in time when the selected parturition stage is commenced, with a time threshold length associated with the selected parturition stage (Rooda: Para. [0010], [0021], [0028]); and
either detect an anomaly of the parturition event when the time threshold length associated with the selected parturition stage is exceeded by the determined time period that has passed since the determined moment in time when the selected parturition stage is commenced (Rooda: Para. [0010-0011]); and
output the trigger signal to the alerting device, upon detection of the anomaly (Rooda: Para. [0011], [0022] ‘When the interval of time lapse between the first birth in process and the next birth in process exceeds a predetermined amount, system 100 can trigger an action from an alert trigger 112’).
Regarding Claim 4, Rooda discloses the system of claim 1, Rooda further discloses wherein the control model is trained to detect at least one parturition stage out of the plurality of parturition stages (Rooda: Para. [0028]),
wherein said training is based on measurements of a physical parameter of animals during the plurality of parturition stages during a multitude of parturition events (Rooda: Para. [0026], [0032]); and
wherein the control model is configured to repeatedly receive physical parameter measurements of the animal via the controller (Rooda: Para. [0026], [0032]),
detect the parturition stage of the received physical parameter measurements and return information concerning the detected parturition stage of the physical parameter measurements, to the controller (Rooda: Para. [0027-0029]); and
wherein the system comprises: an animal-attached sensor such as a 3D accelerometer, an inertia sensor, a gyro sensor, a heartbeat sensor and/or a thermal sensor, configured to measure a physical parameter related to the animal (Rooda: Para. [0026] ‘accelerometer’); and
wherein the controller is communicatively connected to the animal-attached sensor (Rooda: Para. [0026]); and
wherein the controller is configured to obtain the measured physical parameter related to the animal from the animal-attached sensor (Rooda: Para. [0026]); and
provide the obtained physical parameter measurement related to the animal to the control model (Rooda: Para. [0026]); and
wherein the information returned by the control model is based on the physical parameter measurement (Rooda: Para. [0026]).
Regarding Claim 7, Rooda discloses the system of claim 1, Rooda further discloses wherein the selected parturition stage of the plurality of parturition stages of the parturition event comprises detection of at least 50% of the offspring leaving the animal in an image (Rooda: Para. [0024], [0027-0028]; Note: The entire birthing process is recorded continuously).
Regarding Claim 8, Rooda discloses the system of claim 1, Rooda further discloses wherein the selected parturition stage of the plurality of parturition stages of the parturition event comprises detection of a dystocia stage in an image (Rooda: Para. [0037]);
and wherein the controller is configured to detect the anomaly of the parturition event when the selected parturition stage comprises the dystocia stage (Rooda: Para. [0037]); and
output the trigger signal to the alerting device upon detection of the anomaly (Rooda: Para. [0037]).
Regarding Claim 13, Rooda discloses the system according to claim 1, Rooda further discloses wherein the images of the plurality of parturition stages on which the training is based are annotated with bounding boxes across a feature representing the parturition stage within each image (Rooda: Para. [0025-0026]; Note: Instant applications specification discloses bounding boxes as labels or tags on images in relation to features/objects presented on images during parturition stages.).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 9-10 & 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rooda in view of Simões et al. (hereinafter, Simões), (2021). Normal Birth (Eutocia). In: Calving Management and Newborn Calf Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68168-5_3 & Dystocia and Other Abnormal Occurrences During Calving. In: Calving Management and Newborn Calf Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68168-5_4.
Regarding Claim 2, Rooda discloses the system of claim 1, Rooda further discloses comprising: an animal identification device configured to determine an identity reference of the animal (Rooda: Para. [0033]);
a database comprising a lactation number associated with identity references of the animals (Rooda: Para. [0029] ‘all related records of that farrowing (filename, time, date, sow identification, duration of parturition, number of births and stillbirths…’; Note: In light of the specification, ‘lactation number’ is interpreted to be a numeral of births associated with an animal);
wherein the controller is configured to:
obtain the identity reference of the animal (Rooda: Para. [0027-0029])
provide the identity reference of the animal to the database (Rooda: Para. [0029]);
receive the lactation number of the animal from the database (Rooda: Para. [0029] ‘all related records of that farrowing (filename, time, date, sow identification, duration of parturition, number of births and stillbirths…can be grouped together and saved in mass storage 213 or system memory 204 for safekeeping and later upload and/or analysis.’; Note: In light of the specification, ‘lactation number’ is interpreted to be a numeral of births associated with an animal); and
set the time threshold length associated with the selected parturition stage of the animal (Rooda: Para. [0010], [0021], [0028-0029]; Note: In light of the specification, ‘lactation number’ is interpreted to be a numeral of births associated with an animal).
Rooda is silent on the setting of the time threshold length associated with the selected parturition stage of the animal being based on the received lactation number.
Simões teaches identity references particular to individual cows that cause difficulty and delay of parturition (Simões: 4.9.7 Other Relevant Risk Factors).
Note: Rooda teaches setting a time threshold length for the parturition stage of the animal based on various parturition parameters. Simões teaches that older cows (cows with a higher lactation number) have difficulties resulting in parturition time delays. Therefore, in combination Rooda in view of Simões teach setting a time threshold length based on the lactation number.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the time threshold length associated with the selected parturition stage of the animal to be based on the lactation number as taught by Simões to account for animals prone to difficulties with parturition that result in delays of farrowing (Simões: 4.9.7 Other Relevant Risk Factors).
Regarding Claim 5, Rooda discloses the system of claim 1, While Rooda discloses image detection capability of amniotic fluids of an animal during parturition, Rooda is silent on detection of an amniotic sac leaving the animal in an image.
However, Simões teaches wherein the selected parturition stage of the plurality of parturition stages of the parturition event comprises an amniotic sac leaving the animal (Simões: 3.5.2 Stage II (Foetal Expulsion Phase)).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the detection steps of Rooda to include an amniotic sac leaving the animal as taught by Simões since the emergence of the amniotic sac is considered the start of ‘calving time’ with regard to parturition. The slight protrusion of the amniotic sac through the vulva is considered a clinical indicator of the onset of this stage (Simões: 3.5.2 Stage II (Foetal Expulsion Phase)).
Regarding Claim 6, Rooda discloses the system of claim 1, Rooda further discloses wherein the selected parturition stage of the plurality of parturition stages of the parturition event comprises detection of the offspring leaving the animal in an image (Rooda: Para. [0027]; Fig. 4).
Rooda is silent on specific detection of at least one frontal hoof and/or head of the offspring leaving the animal.
However, Simões teaches at least one frontal hoof and/or head of the offspring leaving the animal (Simões: Foetal Maldisposition; Fig. 4.5, Fig. 4.6; Box 4.3 Unilateral (a) or Bilateral (b) Faulty Postures)
Note: Rooda teaches detection of the offspring leaving the animal but fails to specify the inclusion of at least one frontal hoof and/or head of the offspring. Simões teaches normal foetal disposition and many foetal maldispositions that have been documented and the risks involved, including the appearance of at least one frontal hoof and/or head of the offspring leaving the animal. Therefore, in combination Rooda in view of Simões teach detection of at least one frontal hoof and/or head of the offspring leaving the animal as this would necessarily be detected given the teachings of Rooda in view of Simões.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the detection of dystocia events in Rooda to include the appearance of foetal maldisposition as taught by Simões because dystocia can easily reach 10% of the total calvings in a herd, with a higher incidence in heifers and significant variation between breeds and herds (Simões: Introduction).
Regarding Claim 9, Rooda discloses the system of claim 8, Rooda is silent on the specifics regarding anomalous birthing difficulties of the animal.
However, Simões teaches wherein the dystocia stage is defined by appearance of:
at least one rear hoof leaving the animal, without detection of a front part of the offspring (Simões: Foetal Maldisposition; Fig. 4.5, Fig. 4.6; Box 4.3 Unilateral (a) or Bilateral (b) Faulty Postures);
a back part of the offspring leaving the animal, without detection of the front part of the offspring (Simões: Foetal Maldisposition; Fig. 4.5, Fig. 4.6; Box 4.3 Unilateral (a) or Bilateral (b) Faulty Postures);
a head of the offspring leaving the animal, without detection of frontal hoofs (Simões: Foetal Maldisposition; Fig. 4.5, Fig. 4.6; Box 4.3 Unilateral (a) or Bilateral (b) Faulty Postures); or
body parts of more than one offspring leaving the animal (Simões: Foetal Maldisposition ‘Additionally to maldisposition presented in singletons, twinning may also cause dystocia due to simultaneous entrance, generally of three limbs, in the birth canal. Frequently, twin foetuses will show opposite longitudinal presentations due to their accommodation in the uterus, and not rarely one limb of the second foetus will enter and block the birth canal simultaneously with the two forelimbs or hindlimbs of the first foetus… Foetal volume and hormonal changes, originated from the presence of multiple or not fully matured foetuses, can also adversely influence normal calving progress. Twining will usually cause shortening of pregnancy length in more than 4 days leading to premature parturition. In case of twins, individual calf weight and size are lower than in singletons.’).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the detection of dystocia events in Rooda to include detecting the appearance of foetal maldisposition as taught by Simões because dystocia can easily reach 10% of the total calvings in a herd, with a higher incidence in heifers and significant variation between breeds and herds (Simões: Introduction).
Regarding Claim 10, Rooda in view of Simões discloses the system of claim 2, Rooda further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine that the parturition event of the animal has resulted in a successful parturition of the offspring (Rooda: Para. [0027]); and
update the lactation number associated with identity reference of the animal in the database by one (Rooda: Para. [0028-0029]).
Regarding Claim 12, Rooda discloses the system according to claim 1, Rooda further discloses wherein the plurality of parturition stages comprise:
detection of the offspring leaving the animal in an image (Rooda: Para. [0027]; Fig. 4).
detection of at least 50% of the offspring leaving the animal (Rooda: Para. [0024], [0027-0028]; Note: The entire birthing process is recorded continuously); and
detection of a dystocia stage (Rooda: Para. [0037]).
Rooda is silent on detection of an amniotic sac leaving the animal and specific detection of at least one frontal hoof and/or head of the offspring leaving the animal.
However, Simões teaches wherein the selected parturition stage of the plurality of parturition stages of the parturition event comprises an amniotic sac leaving the animal (Simões: 3.5.2 Stage II (Foetal Expulsion Phase)); and
at least one frontal hoof and/or head of the offspring leaving the animal (Simões: Foetal Maldisposition; Fig. 4.5, Fig. 4.6; Box 4.3 Unilateral (a) or Bilateral (b) Faulty Postures)
Note: Rooda teaches detection of the offspring leaving the animal but fails to specify the inclusion of the amniotic sac and at least one frontal hoof and/or head of the offspring. Simões teaches appearance of the amniotic sac leaving the animal, normal foetal disposition and many foetal maldispositions that have been documented and the risks involved, including the appearance of at least one frontal hoof and/or head of the offspring leaving the animal. Therefore, in combination Rooda in view of Simões teach detection of at least one frontal hoof and/or head of the offspring leaving the animal as this would necessarily be detected given the teachings of Rooda in view of Simões.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the detection steps in Rooda to include an amniotic sac leaving the animal as taught by Simões since the emergence of the amniotic sac is considered the start of ‘calving time’ with regard to parturition. The slight protrusion of the amniotic sac through the vulva is considered a clinical indicator of the onset of this stage (Simões: 3.5.2 Stage II (Foetal Expulsion Phase)) and further to include the appearance of foetal maldisposition as taught by Simões because dystocia can easily reach 10% of the total calvings in a herd, with a higher incidence in heifers and significant variation between breeds and herds (Simões: Introduction).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rooda in view of US 10687927 B2 to De Groot et al. (hereinafter, De Groot).
Regarding Claim 3, Rooda discloses the system of claim 1, Rooda is silent on wherein the camera comprises: a video camera, stereo cameras, a three dimensional 3D, camera, and/ or a thermal camera, configured to capture the time-sequential stream of images of the animal
However, De Groot teaches a camera comprising: a video camera, stereo cameras, a three dimensional 3D, camera, and/ or a thermal camera, configured to capture the time-sequential stream of images of the animal (De Groot: Col. 5, lines 1-38).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the camera of Rooda to specify a three-dimensional camera as taught by De Groot because in the preparation phase cows in labor tend to walk around and as a result show a substantial change in the orientation of the cow (De Groot: Col. 2, lines 25-34).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rooda in view of US 20210338165 A1 to Kim.
Regarding Claim 11, Rooda discloses the system of claim 1, Rooda discloses wherein the control model is embodied as an artificial neural network (Rooda: Para. [0024]) but is silent on the specific layers.
However, Kim teaches an artificial neural network comprising an input layer, at least one hidden layer, and an output layer (Kim: Para. [0154]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the neural network of Rooda to specify the inclusion of the input, at least one hidden layer, and an output layer as taught by Kim to implement deep learning (Kim: Para. [0159]) and as one of many machine learning networks capable of performing the required functions that one skilled in the art would choose to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am-4pm 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at 571-272-4233. 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.
/SHAWN CURTIS BROUGHTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights