DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hoven (US 8171881 B2) in view of Birk (US 20040261723 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Van Hoven discloses a milking installation configured to milk a group of animals (Fig. 1), the milking installation comprising an entrance area (11), a number of milking positions (31) configured to milk one of the animals at a time; the animal identification devices being configured to generate an animal ID associated with a particular individual of the group of animals present at the animal identification device (Col 2 lines 61-65); a selection gate (21); another said animal identification device arranged at the selection gate (Col 5 lines 28-36); at least one milking stall (Col 6 lines 13-17); and an exit path (17b,19b), wherein the entrance area (11) is configured to receive therein the group of animals (Fig. 1), wherein an entry of each said milking position (31) of the number of milking positions is arranged with direct access from the entrance area (11), wherein the selection gate (21) is accessible from an exit of each of the milking positions (Fig. 1), and wherein the selection gate (21) is configured to direct one or more individual animals from the group of animals either to the at least one milking stall or to the exit path (Fig. 1, Col 5 lines 28-36), based on individual animal ID controlling the selection gate to direct one or more animal individuals from the group of animals either to the at least one milking stall or to the exit path (Col 5 lines 28-36; Col 6 lines 3-17).
Van Hoven fails to teach an animal identification device arranged at each of the milking positions, a control arrangement; wherein the control arrangement is configured, based on the animal ID, to determine whether to retain within a first milking position of the number of milking positions an animal individual having entered the first milking position so that the animal individual will be milked, or to provide free passage through the first milking position for the animal individual to proceed to the selection gate without being milked.
Birk teaches an animal identification device (20) arranged at each of the milking positions (9), a control arrangement (32); wherein the control arrangement (32) is configured, based on the animal ID, to determine whether to retain within a first milking position (9) an animal individual (4) having entered the first milking position so that the animal individual will be milked, or to provide free passage through the first milking position (9) for the animal individual to proceed to the selection gate (23) without being milked (para 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the milking system as disclosed by Van Hoven with the identification controls as taught by Birk with a reasonable expectation of success because such inclusion provides a means for identification at the milking stations would allow for the milking system to determine whether the animal should be milked or not, increasing the efficiency of the milking installation by optimizing the amount of milked obtained per cow.
Regarding claim 5: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Van Hoven further teaches a diverting area (33) arranged between the selection gate (21) and the at least one milking stall (Col 6 lines 3-17).
Regarding claim 6: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Van Hoven further teaches at least one robot arm configured to attach teat cups to the teats of an animal, wherein the at least one robot arm is associated with at least one said milking position (31) of the number of milking positions and/or associated with the at least one milking stall (Col 4 lines 54-58).
Regarding claim 7: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Van Hoven further teaches wherein the entrance area (11) is configured for the group of animals to move freely therein (Col 5 lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 8: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Van Hoven further teaches wherein each of the milking positions comprises a first set of equipment (31) and the at least one milking stall comprises a second set of equipment (described to be provided in separation room 33), and wherein the first set of equipment is different from the second set of equipment (Col 6 lines 13-17 describe a second set of milking stations in separation similar to, but distinct and separately from, the milking stations 31).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hoven and Birk as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Schulte (US 20080282985 A1).
Regarding claim 9: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 8 as shown above.
Modified Van Hoven fails to teach a common milk receiver for milk milked in at least two of the milking positions, wherein the first set of equipment comprises first teat cups and milk conduits and is connected to the common milk receiver, wherein the first set of equipment is configured to, during milking of one animal individual, conduct milk from the one animal individual via the milk conduits to the common milk receiver, and wherein the second set of equipment comprises second teat cups, second milk conduits and a local milk receiver for temporary storage of milk milked from one animal individual only.
Birk teaches wherein the first set of equipment comprises first teat cups and milk conduits (16) and is connected to the common milk receiver (15), wherein the first set of equipment is configured to, during milking of one animal individual, conduct milk from the one animal individual via the milk conduits to the common milk receiver (para 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the milk station as disclosed by Van Hoven with the conduits as taught by Birk with a reasonable expectation of success because providing conduits would achieve the predictable result of providing means for transporting the milk to storage containers.
Schulte teaches a common milk receiver for milk milked in at least two of the milking positions (milk collected in milking system 15, Fig. 1, para 14), and wherein the second set of equipment (11) comprises second teat cups (para 30), second milk conduits and a local milk receiver for temporary storage of milk milked from one animal individual only (Para 67 when describing automated milking system 11 states “automatically redirecting the milk from the animal to e.g. other milk collecting recipient”, which suggests that batchwise milking system 15 and automated milking system 11 have separate and distinct milk collecting recipients, which would therefore meet this limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the milking station as disclosed by modified Van Hoven with the temporary milk station as taught by Schulte with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a temporary isolated milking station would allow for an individual animal to be milked which can allow for a user to examine the condition of the milk for veterinarian or quality purposes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Van Hoven and Birk fail to teach or suggest the claimed configuration, as Van Hoven is directed to the voluntary milking of cows while Birk is focused on enticing the animal to move from a resting area to a feeding area. The Office respectfully disagrees with the assessment that this combination would not arrive at the claimed configuration, because even though the two prior art have different philosophies regarding how milking should occur, one of ordinary skill in the art would nonetheless be influenced to modify the art of Van Hoven to identify and control milking of the animal, because milking an animal which is not ready to be milk would be inefficient and prevent an animal or animals outside of the milking stall, which are ready to be milked, from using the station. In short, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification in order to further improve traffic flow within the voluntary system of Van Hoven.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s arguments that one of ordinary skill would not have the motivation from Birk to redesign Van Hoven’s plurality of automatic milking stations is not persuasive. Providing proper identification means to determine the milking status of animal would decrease the amount of time allocated to an animal which is not ready to be milk. One of ordinary skill in the art would find this very beneficial as this methodology of categorizing the animals would optimize the milking installation and produce an optimal amount of milk year round.
Applicant argues that the claimed combination would require substantial modification. The Office respectfully disagrees, as the only modification that is occurring would be to the milking stations of Van Hoven in order to properly identify whether the animal is in condition to be milked. Furthermore, the combination provides structural elements of identification and control as taught by Birk, which would allow for the modified Van Hoven to teach the claimed limitations.
Applicant argues that Van Hoven teaches away from placing identification devices at each milking position. The Office respectfully disagrees, as Applicant’s remarks don’t seem to suggest that one of ordinary skill in the art would not find it beneficial, not that such modification is impossible. Regardless, as stated above, one of ordinary skill would find it beneficial to modify the milking stations of Van Hoven so that the milking stations do not take too much time servicing an animal that would provide an undesirably low amount of milk.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642