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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/28/2026 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9-14, 16-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malacarne et al. (US 7,456,743, cited by applicant) in view of Knight et al. (US 2022/0292272, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 17, Malacarne teaches a method comprising: receiving at a controller (20, fig. 2) first data (dig B) from a first transceiver (4B) operating in a low frequency (col. 1, lines 65-67 and col. 3, lines 34-39); receiving at the controller second data (dig A) from a second transceiver (4A) operating in a high frequency (col. 3, lines 43-52); and the controller receives both digital data dig-A and dig-B for processing (col. 3, lines 50-60, col. 4, lines 19-25 and col. 5, lines 17-31).
Malacarne further teaches the system for processing and identifying livestock (col. 1, line 28-31) and the RFID system is complying with ISO standards, i.e. low, high and ultra-high frequency (col. 1, line 53 to col. 2, line 64 and col. 4, lines 19-47) but silent to determining or looking up an identity of an animal; outputting a single output that includes the identity of the animal; and operating in frequency of about 902 MHz and about 928 MHz as claimed.
However, Knight teaches determining or looking up an identity of an animal and outputting a single output that includes the identity of the animal (fig. 2, [0021]-[0025] and [0038]) and operating in frequency of about 902 MHz and about 928 MHz ([0073]) as claimed.
In view of Knight’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Malacarne by incorporating the teaching as taught by Knight so that the identity of the animal or livestock can be determined and identified. Moreover, using the high frequency of about 902 MHz and about 928 MHz as taught by Knight is just a matter of design option to select a particular range of frequency for operating.
Regarding claim 2, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claims as applied above. Malacarne further teaches wherein the first cattle data is received in a first format (col. 2, lines 13-25 and col. 4, line 60 to col. 5, line 3).
Regarding claim 3, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claims as applied above. Malacarne further teaches wherein the second cattle data is received in a second format, wherein the second format is different than the first format (col. 2, lines 13-25 and col. 4, line 60 to col. 5, line 3).
Regarding claim 4, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claims as applied above except for the first format and the second format as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Malacarne and Knight to have the first format and the second format as claimed since it is just a matter of implementing a particular format of the data string for the needs of the system.
Regarding claim 5, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claims as applied above. Both Malacarne and Knight further teach wherein the second format comprises a format consistent with ISO/IEC 18000-6C EPC (Malacarne: ultra-high frequency, col. 4, lines 31-39. Knight: [0059]).
Regarding claim 9, Malacarne teaches a system (figs. 2, 6 and 7) comprising: a controller (20); a first RFID transponder (5A-D) operating in a low frequency range; a first transceiver (4B) in communication with the first RFID transponder and in communication with the controller, wherein the first transceiver communicate first data (dig-B) to the controller in a first format; a second RFID transponder (5A-D) operating in ultra-high frequency range; a second transceiver (4A) in communication with the second RFID transponder and in communication with the controller, wherein the second transceiver communicates second data (dig-A) to the controller in a second format; the second format being different than the first format (col. 2, lines 13-25 and col. 3, line 30 to col. 5, line 3).
Malacarne further teaches the system for processing and identifying livestock (col. 1, line 28-31); and wherein the controller receives both digital data dig-A and dig-B for processing (col. 3, lines 50-60, col. 4, lines 19-25 and col. 5, lines 17-31) but silent to determining an identity of an animal; outputting a single output that includes the identity of the animal as claimed.
However, Knight teaches determining an identity of an animal and outputting a single output that includes the identity of the animal (fig. 2, [0021]-[0025] and [0038]) as claimed.
In view of Knight’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Malacarne by incorporating the teaching as taught by Knight so that the identity of the animal or livestock can be determined and identified.
Regarding claim 10, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Malacarne further teaches wherein the low frequency range comprises a frequency of about 134.2 kHz (col. 1, lines 65-66).
Regarding claim 11, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Malacarne further teaches the RFID system is complying with ISO standards, i.e. low, high and ultra-high frequency (col. 1, line 53 to col. 2, line 64 and col. 4, lines 19-47) but silent to operating in frequency of about 902 MHz and about 928 MHz.
However, Knight teaches operating in frequency of about 902 MHz and about 928 MHz ([0073]).
In view of Knight’s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Malacarne by incorporating the teaching as taught by Knight since it is just a matter of design option to select a particular range of frequency for operating.
Regarding claim 12, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above. Malacarne further teaches wherein the controller converts cattle data from the second format to the first format (col. 5, lines 31-37).
Regarding claim 13, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claims as applied above except for the first format as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Malacarne and Knight to have the first format and the second format as claimed since it is just a matter of implementing a particular format of the data string for the needs of the system.
Regarding claim 14, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claims as applied above. Both Malacarne and Knight further teach wherein the second format comprises a format consistent with ISO/IEC 18000-6C EPC (Malacarne: ultra-high frequency, col. 4, lines 31-39. Knight: [0059]).
Regarding claim 16, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claims as applied above. Both Malacarne and Knight further teach wherein the controller is coupled with a local database (Malacarne: host 20 which inherently includes storage or database, fig. 2. Knight: data store 18, fig. 4 and [0027]).
Regarding claim 18, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claims as applied above. Malacarne further teaches wherein the first cattle data is received at the first transceiver from a first RFID transponder (5D) (fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 34-37).
Regarding claim 20, Malacarne as modified by Knight teaches all subject matter claims as applied above except for the first format as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Malacarne and Knight to have the first format and the second format as claimed since it is just a matter of implementing a particular format of the data string for the needs of the system
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued to the rejection by arguing that combination of Malacarne and Knight fails to teach “determining an identity of an animal at the controller based on both the first cattle data and the second cattle data”. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Malacarne teaches the controller receives both dig-A and dig-B for processing to obtain data (col. 3, lines 50-60, col. 4, lines 19-25 and col. 5, lines 17-31). Malacarne further teaches obtaining data from the RFID can be used for identifying livestock (col. 1, lines 27-30). In addition, Knight teaches using RFID data for identifying livestock ([0021]-[0025] and [0038]). Therefore, it is believed the combination of Malacarne and Knight is proper and the rejections are still maintained.
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).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876