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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/17/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN209402620U) in view of Forsen (EP3336782A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a system intended to be used in an animal husbandry, wherein a group of animals can move about freely in an area, the system comprising; monitoring and analyzing means (note camera described throughout the translated text) configured for repeatedly generating images and gathering data therefrom regarding at least one mobile being and/or object in the area (note object D in Fig. 11); illumination means (1) provided with a number of illumination elements, each illumination element being arranged for illuminating at least a subarea of the area (note Figs. 10 and 11); and control means (3) connected to the monitoring and analyzing means and to the illumination means, wherein the monitoring and analyzing means are configured for determining an image quality value for each generated image and for detecting an insufficient image quality due to an unsuitable illumination intensity in at least one of the subareas (note paragraph bridging in between pages 13 and 14 of the translated text), wherein the control means are configured for adjusting said unsuitable illumination intensity in said subarea to a suitable illumination intensity, so that the image quality becomes sufficient (note paragraph bridging in between pages 14 and 15 of the translated text).
Ma does not disclose that the system is provided with additional localization means, the additional localization means being configured to provide localization data for the at least one mobile being and/or the object in the area, independently of and separately from the monitoring and analyzing means, and wherein the control means is configured for controlling the illumination element(s), in response to the localization data from the localization means, so that a selected mobile being and/or object in the area is illuminated with a suitable illumination intensity. However, in middle paragraph of page 15 of the translated text, Ma discloses that a person in motion is being monitored or tracked but without detail how the tracking is being carried out. Forsen, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches a livestock ID reader 24 and the RFID tag carried by the livestock (note the ID reader 24 in par. 37 and the RFID in par. 2 and 25). The livestock ID reader 24 and the RFID tag communicate with each other via the WIFI-net as described in par. 37. Since WIFI communication protocol is being utilized as the communication format, the livestock ID reader 24 and the RFID tag together monitor and track the livestock separately and independently from the optical camera 12. The camera 12 uses visible light as the monitoring medium. Therefore, the livestock ID reader 24 and the RFID tag together meets the localization means as claimed. Thus, knowing that an object tracking means is needed in Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Forsen into Ma to perform the well known localization functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Ma does not disclose that the monitoring and analyzing means are configured for tracking the at least one mobile being and/or the object in the area by means of tracking data gathered from the repeatedly generated images as claimed. However, in middle paragraph of page 15 of the translated text, Ma discloses that a person in motion is being monitored or tracked but without detail how the tracking is being carried out. Forsen, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches such tracking system (note tracking server 170, Figs. 5 and 6). Thus, knowing that an object tracking means is needed in Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Forsen into Ma to perform the well known object tracking as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Ma discloses that the at least one mobile being and/or the object in the area comprises an animal. That is, the object being monitored can be anything, including a person or an animal.
Regarding claim 4, Ma discloses that the at least one mobile being and/or the object in the area comprises a vehicle. That is, the object being monitored can be anything, including a person or a vehicle.
Regarding claim 5, Ma discloses at least one of the illumination elements is suitable for illuminating a moveable subarea of the area (note the walking person d Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 6, Ma discloses all the feature as claimed except in response to the tracking data from the monitoring and analyzing means, in such a way that the tracked mobile being and/or object in the area is being substantially continuously illuminated with a suitable illumination intensity. However, in middle paragraph of page 15 of the translated text, Ma discloses that a person in motion is being monitored or tracked but without detail how the tracking is being carried out. Forsen, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches such tracking system (note tracking server, Figs. 5 and 6). Thus, knowing that an object tracking means is needed in Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Forsen into Ma to perform the well known object tracking and illuminating functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Ma discloses the vehicle is provided with reflector means. That is, all vehicles inherently include reflector means.
Regarding claim 10, Ma does not disclose that the system is provided with event detection means for detecting specific events related to the at least one mobile being and/or object in the area, the control means being configured for controlling the illumination element(s), in response to data from the event detection means, in such a way that mobile beings and/or objects in the area which are involved in the detected event are illuminated with a suitable illumination intensity. However, in middle paragraph of page 15 of the translated text, Ma discloses that a person in motion is being monitored or tracked but without detail how the tracking is being carried out. Forsen, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches such tracking system (note tracking server 170, Figs. 5 and 6, and par. 35). That is, in paragraph 35, Forsen discloses an event detecting means for detecting livestock ailments by using the collected data. Thus, knowing that an object tracking means is needed in Ma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Forsen into Ma to perform the well known event detection as claimed.
Regarding claims 11-16, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Regarding claim 17, see similar rejection as set forth above.
Claim(s) 8, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (CN209402620U).
Regarding claims 8, and 18-20, Ma does not disclose that the vehicle is provided with navigation means, the control means being configured for calibrating the navigation means. The examiner takes Official Notice that using camera and lighting control means to calibrate a vehicle navigation means is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the camera and lighting control means in Ma to calibrate the navigation means in a vehicle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remark, applicant argues that either Ma or Forsen or the combination thereof does not teach the new limitations:
In direct contrast, the claimed invention provides an additional and separate localization means that enables direct determination of the position of a mobile being independently of any such prior image-quality-driven illumination correction. Because the additional localization means operates separately from the monitoring and analyzing means (e.g., using RFID transponders/readers rather than camera frames), the control means knows exactly where the selected animal is located regardless of whether the subarea is pitch black or poorly illuminated. As a result, the illumination can be adjusted selectively and directly for the relevant subarea or individual animal, without requiring a preceding global illumination optimization step (page 7).
The examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection above, Forsen teaches, in addition to the optical camera monitoring and tracking system, a livestock ID reader 24 and a RFID tag carried by the livestock are being used to monitor and track the livestock movements (par. 2, 25 and 37). The two systems are operated separately and independently from each other. Thus, the new limitations to the claims are still met by Forsen.
In view of above arguments, it is clear that applicant fails to overcome the combination of Ma and Forsen. As result, the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights