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 .
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filed 07/18/2024 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
a plurality of water nipple assemblies respectively in fluid communication with the reservoir tanks, the water nipple assemblies in fluid communication with the individual bird cage, as it pertains to claim 7.
An individual bird cage comprising a plurality of corresponding reservoir tanks with water volume sensors to form a network of the water volume sensors, as it pertains to claim 12.
A system operatable with a plant in the individual bird cage, as it pertains to claim 17
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1,2,3,7,13,14,15,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 5967167 A) in view of Willis (US 20190261605 A1) in view of Veith (US2251507A) and in view of Herve (FR 2766330 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Johnson discloses:
A system for low flow water monitoring in agriculture, the system comprising: (abstract and figs)
a pressure regulation device in fluid communication with (20)
one or more water reservoir tanks, (12)
the pressure regulation device configured to supply air pressure to the reservoir tanks; (36+32, col 3 ln23-48, col 4 ln 26-38)
one or more water nipple assemblies (14)
respectively in fluid communication with the reservoir tanks; (col 2 ln 52-61)
and a computer processor in communication with the pressure regulation device, (26, col 3 ln 24-30)
the computer processor comprising a controller (44)
configured to selectively adjust the air pressure supplied to the reservoir tanks in order to adjust water output volumes from the water nipple assemblies. (col 2 ln 65-col 3 ln 6)
Johnson doesn’t disclose:
a pressure regulation device removably connected to one or more water reservoir tanks
Willis teaches:
a pressure regulation device removably connected to one or more water reservoir tanks (para0041, 0047, 0050)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pressure regulation device of Johnson such that it was removably connected to the reservoir tanks as taught by Willis to allow the system to be retrofit into existing watering systems with minimal effort and at low cost (para0004).
Johnson as modified doesn’t teach:
one or more water nipple assemblies removably connected to and respectively in fluid communication with the reservoir tanks
Veith teaches:
one or more water nipple assemblies removably connected to and respectively in fluid communication with the reservoir tanks (5, fig 4, col 1 ln 12-15, col 2 ln 24-28)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the nipple assemblies of Johnson as modified such that as they were removably connected to the reservoir tanks taught Veith by to provide for a detachable and leakproof connection between the nipple and water reservoirs (col 2 ln 24-28).
Johnson as modified doesn’t disclose:
Wherein the system for low flow water monitoring is an individual bird cage low flow water monitoring system.
Herve discloses:
Wherein the system for low flow water monitoring is an individual bird cage low flow water monitoring system. (“In order to make all the cages independent, each of them has an independent water circuit 30 to which the sprinkling devices 17 are connected. Each independent circuit 30 is controlled by a piloting device 31 which manages the passage of the water in each circuit 30. This control device 31 can comprise, as shown, a programmer 32 which controls for each independent circuit 30 a solenoid valve 33. Thus, with such a control device 31, it is possible to make vary the duration and the flow rate of the water flow from one cage to another in order to adapt it to the different types of birds. This piloting device 31 also makes it possible to alternate the cleaning of the cages in order to obtain a sufficient withdrawal even if the general installation has only a low flow of water which would be insufficient if one started, at the same time, the cleaning of all cages.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Johnson as modified such that it was an individual bird cage low flow water monitoring system to allow for the supply of water and a clean cage (Herve).
Regarding claim 2:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 1 and Johnson further teaches:
wherein the pressure regulation device further comprises a reservoir pressure adjustment apparatus to selectively adjust the air pressure supplied from the pump to the reservoir tanks. (col 5 ln 26-48)
Regarding claim 3:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 1 and Johnson further teaches:
wherein the controller is further configured to selectively adjust a water volume within the reservoir tanks. (col 5 ln 49- col 6 ln 16)
Regarding claim 7:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 1 and Johnson as modified by the individual bird cage of Herve further teaches:
wherein the system for low flow water monitoring in the individual bird cage further comprises: the pressure regulation device in fluid communication with a plurality of water reservoir tanks (Johnson: col 2 ln 7-9, 20 in fluid communication with reservoir tanks 12)
a plurality of water nipple assemblies respectively in fluid communication with the reservoir tanks, (Johnson: plurality of 14 in fluid communication with reservoir tanks 12)
the water nipple assemblies in fluid communication with the individual bird cage; (Johnson: col 2 ln 47-55 modified to comprise the individual bird cage of Herve from claim 1)
and the computer processor further comprises: a processing component in communication with or housed within the pressure regulation device, (Johnson: col 5 ln 42-48)
the processing component configured to selectively adjust the air pressure supplied to each of the reservoir tanks in order to adjust the water output volumes from the water nipple assemblies to the individual bird cage. (Johnson: col 2 ln 65-col 3 ln 6 modified to comprise the individual bird cage of Herve)
Johnson doesn’t teach:
and the computer processor further comprises: a memory component in communication with or housed within the pressure regulation device;
Willis further teaches:
and the computer processor further comprises: a memory component in communication with or housed within the pressure regulation device; (para0022, 0056-0060, 0095, abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the computer processor of Johnson as modified to comprise a memory component as taught by Willis to allow the medium to store information with can be accessed by a computer (para0095).
Regarding claim 13:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 1 and Veith further teaches:
wherein no-leak quick connects fluidly and removably connect the water nipple assemblies to the reservoir tanks. (5+6+7, Fig 4, col 2 ln 12-19)
Regarding claim 14:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 1 and Willis further teaches:
wherein the computer process is configured to monitor water intake data (para0007, 0049)
and further configured to provide real-time water level and consumption feedback from the reservoir tanks. (para 0047, 0060, 0077)
Regarding claim 15:
Johnson as modified teaches:
A process for low flow water monitoring in agriculture using the system of claim 1. (see claim 1 above)
Regarding claim 16:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 15 and Herve further teaches:
comprising the step of installing the system for low flow water monitoring in the individual bird cage. (“In order to make all the cages independent, each of them has an independent water circuit 30 to which the sprinkling devices 17 are connected. Each independent circuit 30 is controlled by a piloting device 31 which manages the passage of the water in each circuit 30. This control device 31 can comprise, as shown, a programmer 32 which controls for each independent circuit 30 a solenoid valve 33. Thus, with such a control device 31, it is possible to make vary the duration and the flow rate of the water flow from one cage to another in order to adapt it to the different types of birds. This piloting device 31 also makes it possible to alternate the cleaning of the cages in order to obtain a sufficient withdrawal even if the general installation has only a low flow of water which would be insufficient if one started, at the same time, the cleaning of all cages.”)
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Willis in view of Veith and in view of Herve, as applied to claims 1,15-16 above, and further in view of Yoo et al. herein Yoo (US 20200085006 A1).
Regarding claim 21:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
further comprising a load cell or weighing sensor operatively associated with each reservoir tank and configured to measure the weight of water in the reservoir tank to determine water consumption of an individual bird, animal, or plant.
Yoo teaches:
further comprising weighing sensor operatively associated with each reservoir tank and configured to measure the weight of water in the reservoir tank to determine water consumption (Yoo: 86, Fig 4, para0061+0187+0204)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Johnson as modified such that it comprises a sensor as taught by Yoo to allow for user intervention in the event the water level is below a predetermined threshold (0187).
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Willis in view of Veith and in view of Herve, as applied to claims 1,15-16 above, and further in view of Simon (US 20180106656 A1).
Regarding claim 17:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 16 and Johnson as modified to comprise the individual bird cage further teaches:
comprising the steps of: supplying water to an individual bird, animal or plant in the individual bird cage from the reservoir tanks filled with water; (Johnson: col 2 ln 52- col 3 ln 5)
selectively adjusting the air pressure supplied to the reservoir tanks using the pressure regulation device (col 2 ln 55-col 3 ln 30)
Johnson as modified doesn’t teach:
and measuring water consumption of the individual bird, animal or plant by weighing the water in the reservoir tanks.
Simon teaches:
and measuring consumption by weighing water in the reservoir tanks. (Simon: para0001, 0016-19, 0022-0023)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Johnson as modified such that it measures consumption by weighing water in the reservoir tank as taught by Simon to provide for an accurate method to determining water volume in the reservoir tanks (0002-0004).
Regarding claim 19:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 17 and Willis further teaches:
further comprising the steps of providing real-time water level and consumption feedback using the computer processor in communication with the pressure regulation device. (para0047, 0060, 0077)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Johnson as modified such that it provides real-time water level and consumption feedback using the computer processor in communication with the pressure regulation device as taught by Willis to ensure that any irregularities or errors are detected in a timely fashion.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Willis in view of Veith in view of Herve in view of Simon, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hostetler (US 5184571 A).
Regarding claim 20:
Johnson as modified discloses claim 17 but doesn’t disclose:
Wherein the step of supplying water to the individual bird further comprises the step of supplying water at a water pressure of 0.5 PSI from the reservoir tanks to the one or more water nipple assemblies.
Hostetler discloses:
Wherein the reservoir tanks deliver a water pressure of 0.5 PSI to the one or more water nipple assemblies (col 6 ln 62-65)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the step of supplying water to the individual bird of Johnson as modified such that it comprises the step of supplying water at a water pressure of 0.5 PSI as disclosed by Hostetler to provide for low flow water delivery to prevent water waste.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Willis in view of Veith in view of Herve in view of Simon, as applied to claims 17 above, and further in view of Sinitsa (WO 2017136912 A1).
Regarding claim 18:
Johnson as modified discloses claim 17 but doesn’t disclose:
Further comprising the step of rearing broiler chicken in the individual bird cage.
Sinitsa discloses:
Further comprising the step of rearing broiler chicken. (“The utility model relates to cage systems for keeping and raising poultry, primarily broiler chickens.” )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process and individual bird cage of Johnson as modified such that it comprises the step of rearing broiler chicken as disclosed by Sinitsa to allow for controlled rearing of chicken to improve poultry raising.
Claim(s) 4-5,8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Willis in view of Veith and in view of Herve, as applied to claims 1,3,7 above, and further in view of Levno (WO 2018169418 A1).
Regarding claim 4:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 3 but doesn’t teach:
further comprising a pump to selectively adjust the water volume within the reservoir tanks in response real-time water level and consumption feedback.
Levno teaches:
further comprising a pump to selectively adjust the water volume within the reservoir tanks in response real-time water level and consumption feedback. (Fig 1-5, pg 5 ln 33- pg 6 ln 6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Johnson as modified to comprise a pump as taught by Levno to provide for an automated component to selectively adjust the water volume.
Regarding claim 5:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 1 but doesn’t teach:
wherein the reservoir tanks further comprise a water level sensor, an internal water volume sensor, a water level indicator device, or a load cell.
Levno further teaches:
Wherein the reservoir tanks further comprise a water level sensor (pg 6 ln 19-22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the reservoir tanks of Johnson as modified to comprise a water level sensor as taught by Levno to allow for water level to be monitored and regulated.
Regarding claim 8:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 7 but doesn’t teach:
Further comprising each of the reservoir tanks having a water volume or level sensor adapted to detect and provide water level readings within the reservoir tanks.
Levno further teaches:
Further comprising each of the reservoir tanks having a water volume or level sensor adapted to detect and provide water level readings within the reservoir tanks (pg 6 ln 19-22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the each of the reservoir tanks of Johnson as modified to comprise a water level sensor as taught by Levno to allow for water level to be monitored and regulated.
Regarding claim 9:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 8 and Levno further teaches:
wherein the processing component is further configured to receive water level readings from the water volume or level sensors in the reservoir tanks,(pg 4 ln 18-23)
the processing component further configured to process the water level readings to generate water level and consumption data and information, (page 4 ln 24-27)
and store the water level and consumption data and information in the memory component. (page 4 ln 26, 29-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Johnson as modified to comprise a processing component and memory component as taught by Levno to allow for water level to be monitored and regulated.
Regarding claim 10:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 9 and Johnson as modified by Herve further teaches:
One or more broiler chickens reared in the individual bird cage(Johnson: col 2 ln 47-51 modified to comprise the individual bird cage of Herve)
Johnson doesn’t teach but Levno further teaches:
wherein the processing component is adapted to process the water level and consumption data and information to monitor water intake (pg 4 ln 17-27)
and store the water intake in the memory component. (pg 4 ln 28-30)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Johnson as modified to comprise a processing component and memory component as taught by Levno to allow for water level to be monitored and regulated.
Regarding claim 11:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 10 and Levno further teaches:
further comprising a wireless communication component adapted to communicate with a user over a wireless network, wherein the water level and consumption data and information is collected locally via the processing component and provided to a computer over the wireless network via the communication component for remote viewing and analysis of the conditions by the user. (pg 5, ln -3, 13-27)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Willis in view of Veith in view of Herve in view of Levno, as applied to claims 8,9 above, and further in view of Simon.
Regarding claim 12:
Johnson as modified teaches claim 9 and Johnson as modified by Herve further teaches:
wherein the system for low flow water monitoring comprises a plurality of the pressure regulation devices (Johnson: 20)
having a plurality of corresponding reservoir tanks for the one or more broiler chickens reared in the individual bird cage. (Johnson: 12 modified to comprise the individual bird cage of Herve above)
Johnson as modified doesn’t teach:
reservoir tanks with water volume sensors to form a network of the water volume sensors, and wherein the water volume sensors are adapted to continuously monitor and provide feedback the water level and consumption data and information
Simon teaches:
a plurality of corresponding reservoir tanks with water volume sensors to form a network of the water volume sensors, and (see Simon para0019-0024)
wherein the water volume sensors are adapted to continuously monitor and provide feedback the water level and consumption data and information (see Simon Fig2-4, para0016-0018, 0022-023, claim 1)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Johnson as modified such it comprises volume sensors in the reservoir tanks as taught by Simon to provide for an accurate method to determining water volume in the reservoir tanks (0002-0004).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Willis in view of Veith and in view of Herve, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Hostetler (US 5184571 A).
Regarding claim 6:
Johnson as modified doesn’t disclose:
Wherein the reservoir tanks deliver a water pressure of 0.5 PSI to the one or more water nipple assemblies.
Hostetler discloses:
Wherein the reservoir tanks deliver a water pressure of 0.5 PSI to the one or more water nipple assemblies (col 6 ln 62-65)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the reservoir tanks of Johnson as modified such that they deliver a water pressure of 0.5 PSI as disclosed by Hostetler to provide for low flow water delivery to prevent water waste.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments with respects to the claim objections. The claim objections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments with respects to the drawing objections (see pg 7)
This is not found persuasive because it is noted that figures 1,2,3,7,and 10 do not show the claimed features. For example, a system operatable with a plant in the individual bird cage is not shown in any of the figures. The objections are maintained.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Johnson as modified does not disclose “a pressure regulation device removably connected to and in fluid communication with one or more water reservoir tanks, the pressure regulation device configured to supply air pressure to the reservoir tanks.” (see pg 7-10)
This is not found persuasive because it is respectfully noted that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The term “water reservoir tank” is defined by Merriam-Webster as “a receptacle or storage chamber, especially for liquids or gas”. Therefore, the drinker lines of Johnson read on the claimed language since they can function to store water and provide it in the system. As such Johnson alone discloses the limitations of: a pressure regulation device (20) connected to and in fluid communication with one or more water reservoir tanks(12), the pressure regulation device configured to supply air pressure to the reservoir tanks(36+32, col 3 ln 23-48, col 4 ln 26-38, “The control system 26 is able to remotely adjust the regulated relatively low water pressure delivered by the water pressure regulators 20 to the drinker lines 12.” And “ The valve assembly 30 also receives air at a regulated relatively lower pressure through a conduit 36 from an air pressure regulator 38 supplied with air from the supply 28 through a conduit 40. The air pressure regulator 38 can deliver regulated air pressure in the range for example of from zero to 10 inches W.C. A number of control air pressure conduits 42 extend from the valve assembly 30 to the water pressure regulators 20. One conduit 42 extends from each regulator control valve 32 to one of the water pressure regulators 20. Each regulator control valve 32 can deliver relatively lower pressure air from the air pressure regulator 38 to operate the associated water pressure regulator to supply relatively low pressure water for normal drinker operation.”)
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that there is no motivation to combine the cited prior art references (see pg 11-12)
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Johnson discloses a system for low water monitoring in agriculture but does not disclose the specifics of a) removably connecting the pressure regulation device to the reservoir tank. The combination with Willis is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because allowing the system the flexibility of being removably connected allows for the system to be retrofit into existing watering system and provides for the ability to replace the system or with minimal effort and at a low cost as taught by Willis itself. Further Johnson as modified doesn’t disclose b)removably connected nipple assemblies. The combination with Veith is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because allowing the system to comprise removably connected nipple assemblies allows for a detachable and leakproof connecting between the nipple and water reservoir as taught by Veith itself. Further Johnson as modified doesn’t disclose that the system is c)an individual bird cage low flow water monitoring system. However, Johnson suggests that the system can be applicable to other systems such as “over head cage bird system (col 2 ln 49-50). As such modifying the system of Johnson such that it was an individual bird cage low flow water monitoring system allows for the continued supply of water for both drinking as taught by Johnson and cleaning as taught by Herve.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching of individual cage, low-flow, computer-controlled water monitoring (see pg 12-14)
This is not found persuasive because it is respectfully noted that Johnson alone discloses a computer processor in communication with the pressure regulation device, (26, col 3 ln 24-30 ) the computer processor comprising a controller (44) configured to selectively adjust the air pressure supplied to the reservoir tanks in order to adjust water output volumes from the water nipple assemblies. (col 2 ln 65-col 3 ln 6 “For proper operation of the drinkers 14, they are supplied with water at a relatively low pressure in the range of, for example, 4 to 14 inches of water column (W.C.). In the drinker system 10, each of the drinker lines 12 is supplied with water by a dedicated water pressure regulator 20.” And “. The valve assembly 30 also receives air at a regulated relatively lower pressure through a conduit 36 from an air pressure regulator 38 supplied with air from the supply 28 through a conduit 40. The air pressure regulator 38 can deliver regulated air pressure in the range for example of from zero to 10 inches W.C. A number of control air pressure conduits 42 extend from the valve assembly 30 to the water pressure regulators 20. One conduit 42 extends from each regulator control valve 32 to one of the water pressure regulators 20. Each regulator control valve 32 can deliver relatively lower pressure air from the air pressure regulator 38 to operate the associated water pressure regulator to supply relatively low pressure water for normal drinker operation. Alternatively, each regulator control valve 32 can deliver relatively higher pressure air from the air supply 28 to operate the associated water pressure regulator to supply relatively high pressure water for a flushing operation”) As such, Johnson discloses that the computer processor 26 is in communication with the pressure regulation devices 26 and comprises a controller 44 that selectively adjusts the air pressure supplied to the reservoir tanks in order to adjust water output volumes from the water nipple assemblies.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching of Real-Time Water Level/Volume Sensors in Air-Pressurized Tanks. (see pg 14-15)
This is not found persuasive because it is respectfully noted that Johnson as modified in claim 1 discloses the system for low flow water monitoring in agriculture as seen above. Johnson further discloses a water source 16 fluidly connected to the air-pressurized tanks 12. Johnson doesn’t disclose a pump between the water source and tanks that is configured to selectively adjust the water volume in response to real-time water level and consumption feedback. Lenvo discloses the use of sensor that detects when water level raises or lowers beyond a certain threshold and activates a pump to supply water in response to the detected sensor data. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Johnson as modified to comprise such a pump operatable with sensors as taught by Lenvo to provide for an automated component to selectively adjust the water volume.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching of Wireless Communication for Individual Cage Water Monitoring. (see pg 14-16)
This is not found persuasive because it is respectfully noted that Johnson as modified in claim 1 discloses the system for low flow water monitoring in agriculture as seen above. Johnson further discloses a water source 16 fluidly connected to the air-pressurized tanks 12. Johnson doesn’t disclose a wireless communication component between the user and the water level monitoring system of Johnson. Lenvo discloses a wireless communication component that is adapted to communicate with a user over a wireless network to collect the water level consumption data collected by the sensor and send the data to a computer over the wireless network to allow for remove viewing and analysis by the user. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the system of Johnson as modified to comprise such remote monitoring to allow for water level to be monitored and regulated accordingly.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching of Measuring Water Consumption by Weighing Water in Air-Pressurized Tanks. (see pg 17-18)
This is not found persuasive because it is respectfully noted that the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. The term “weighing” is defined by Collins as “to carefully consider in order to reach an opinion, decision, or fact”. Therefore, the volume detection of Simon reads on the claimed language since the water level can be determined by “weighing” i.e. calculate the volume based on measuring pressure of the water in the reservoir tanks especially since the claim does not further limit by the use of a scale, load cell, or weighing sensor that specifically measures a weight of the water in the reservoir as now claimed in new claim 21. See rejection above in view of Yoo for claim 21.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching of Rearing Boiler Chickens in Individual Cages with the claimed invention. (see pg 18-19)
This is not found persuasive because it is respectfully noted that Johnson as modified in claim 1 discloses the system for low flow water monitoring in agriculture as seen above. Johnson further discloses poultry can be used in the system but doesn’t disclose broiler chickens in the individual bird cage. Sinitsa specifically discloses rearing broiler chicken and as such would be obvious to modify the process to allow for controlled rearing of chicken and improve poultry raising.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching of Real-Time Water Level and Consumption Feedback Using a Computer in the Claimed Context (see pg 19-21)
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). This is not found persuasive because it is respectfully noted that Johnson as modified in claim 1 discloses the system for low flow water monitoring in agriculture as seen above. Johnson as modified in claim 9 discloses a plurality of pressure regulation devices and corresponding reservoir tanks but does not disclose water volume sensors forming a network of water volume sensors to continuously and monitor and provide feedback related to the water level/consumption. Simon discloses a network of water volume sensors to continuously and monitor and provide feedback related to the water level/consumption (para0016-0024, claim 1). Modifying the system to comprise real-time water level and consumption feedback is obvious to accurately determine water volume in the reservoir tanks. As such, the combination of Johnson, Willis, Veith, Herve, Lenvo, and Simon disclose real-time water level and consumption feedback using a computer as claimed in claim 12.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that there is no teaching of “the reservoir tanks deliver a water pressure of about 0.5 PSI to the one or more water nipple assemblies” (see pg 21-22)
This is not found persuasive because it is respectfully noted that Johnson as modified in claim 1 discloses the air pressurizes water system for low flow water monitoring in agriculture as seen above. Johnson discloses low flow water flow from the nipples but does not recite a specific pressure (i.e. 0.5 PSI). However, Hosteler discloses that the pressure regulating devices flow water at 0.5 PSI to the water lines and out through the nipples. Thus, disclosing “the reservoir tanks deliver a water pressure of about 0.5 PSI to the one or more water nipple assemblies” as claimed. Modifying the system of Johnson as modified to comprise low water pressure of 0.5 PSI as disclosed by Hosteler is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since low flow (as originally disclosed by Johnson) prevents water waste.
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 SHADA M ALGHAILANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30am - 4:30pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached on 571-272-6891. 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.
/SHADA MOHAMED ALGHAILANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643