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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4-18, and 20-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,375,695 in view of Berckmans et al. (WO 2020127448), hereinafter Berckmans.
Regarding claim 1, ‘695 teaches of a system for delivering a sequence of one or more soaking sprays at a station only when a first animal is present at the station and wherein the station is provided with a pressurized pipe supplying a liquid for the soaking spray, the system comprising:
a. a valve configured to be coupled to the pipe and operable for controlling delivery of the soaking spray;
b. a nozzle coupled to the valve, the nozzle configured to deliver the soaking spray of the liquid from the pipe to the animal;
c. a control circuit coupled to the valve, the control circuit operable to determine the sequence of the soaking spray;
d. an animal sensor coupled to the control circuit and configured to detect the presence of the first animal at the station; and
e. an environmental sensor providing at least one signal to the control circuit, wherein the soaking spray is delivered to the animal at the station in the sequence, wherein the sequence for the soaking spray is determined at least in part by the at least one signal from the environmental sensor (claim 1).
‘695 does not appear to teach of the control circuit coupled to at least one status LED for indicating a status relating to the system.
Berckmans teaches of the control circuit coupled to at least one status LED for indicating a status relating to the system (fig. 1, p. 9 lines 33-36 and p. 11 lines 16-28, the one or more multicolor light emitting means for monitoring the status of a livestock facility can be LEDs 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘695 to incorporate the teachings of Barckmans of the control circuit coupled to at least one status LED for indicating a status relating to the system in order to see the status of the system and see if the system is malfunctioning or ready for operation such that the user would know if they should act on any malfunctions.
Regarding claim 3, ‘695 as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the status LED is operable to indicate that the system is ready for the animal to arrive for a soaking spray at the station.
Berckmans teaches of wherein the status LED is operable to indicate that the system is ready for operation (p. 11 lines 16-28, the LED can be a color to indicate that the device is online and the status is ok).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘695 to incorporate the teachings of Berckmans of wherein the status LED is operable to indicate that the system is ready for operation, which in relation to the station of ‘695 is ready for the animal to arrive for a soaking spray at the station, in order to notify the user that the system is functional and is ready for its specific operation.
‘695 as modified teaches of claim 1, and teaches of claims 4-18, and 20-21 (claims 4-18 and 20-21 of ‘695).
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,375,695 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kuzara (US 4532892).
Regarding claim 2, ‘695 as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the status LED is operable to indicate that the animal is present at the station.
Kuzara teaches of wherein the status is operable to indicate that the animal is present at the station (col. 9 lines 19-55, cow identification process by the computer 20 indicate that the animal is present or not present at the feeding station 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘695 to incorporate the teachings of Kuzara of wherein the status LED is operable to indicate that the animal is present at the station in order to notify the user and the system that an animal is present and ready for the station’s operation.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,375,695 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Miller et al. (US 20200410218), hereinafter Miller, and Kuzara (US 4532892).
Regarding claim 19, ‘695 as modified teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the status LED is operable to indicate that the system has completed an on-cycle for the soaking spray and the animal is present.
Miller teaches of wherein the status LED is operable to indicate that the system has completed an operation (¶0069, The script indicates its successful execution by turning on the BLUE color of the status LED; ¶0054, The status LED is programmed to indicate any change in system 19 state almost instantly.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘695 to incorporate the teachings of Miller of wherein the status LED is operable to indicate that the system has completed an operation or any status or change in the system, which in the case of ‘695 is an on-cycle for the soaking spray, in order to notify the user on the operation of the system and allow the user to know if the system is operational or needs to have a malfunction fixed.
Kuzara teaches of the animal is present (col. 9 lines 19-55, cow identification process by the computer 20 indicate that the animal is present or not present at the feeding station 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘695 to incorporate the teachings of Kuzara of the animal is present in order to notify the user and the system that an animal is present and ready for the station’s operation.
Claims 22-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,375,695 in view of Kuzara (US 4532892) and Berckmans (WO 2020127448).
Regarding claim 22, ‘695 teaches of a network of controlled piping coupled to a plurality of stations, the network configured for selectively delivering a soaking spray at each station, the network configured for operating under control of one or more signals developed adjacent the stations to deliver the soaking spray to one or more animals, the network comprising:
a. a plurality of nozzles, at least one nozzle at each station, each nozzle configured to be coupled to the pipe and to deliver the soaking spray from the pipe to the animal;
b. a plurality of valves, each valve operably coupled to the piping and to at least one nozzle, each valve configured for controlling delivery of the soaking spray at one of the stations;
c. a control circuit coupled to the plurality of valves;
d. a plurality of animal sensors coupled to the control circuit, at least one sensor at each station, each animal sensor configured to detect the presence of one of the animals at the station; and
e. at least one environmental sensor providing at least one signal to the control circuit, the environmental sensor configured to be positioned in the vicinity of at least one of the stations, the soaking spray is delivered to the animal at the station in a sequence determined at least in part by the at least one signal from the environmental sensor (claim 22).
‘695 does not appear to teach of the control circuit coupled to at least one status LED at each station for indicating a status relating to the station.
Kuzara teaches of the control circuit coupled to at least one status indicator at each station for indicating a status relating to the station (col. 9 lines 19-55, cow identification process by the computer 20 indicate that the animal is present or not present at the feeding station 8; col. 4 lines 37-53, can monitor each adjacent feeding stations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘695 to incorporate the teachings of Kuzara of the control circuit coupled to at least one status indicator at each station for indicating a status relating to the station in order to notify the user and the system if the system is functional or has a problem that the user to fix the malfunction.
Berckmans teaches of the control circuit coupled to at least one status LED for indicating a status relating to the station (fig. 1, p. 9 lines 33-36 and p. 11 lines 16-28, the one or more multicolor light emitting means for monitoring the status of a livestock facility can be LEDs 105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified ‘695 to incorporate the teachings of Berckmans of the status indicator to be a status LED in order to use a light system that is energy efficient and has a long-life span.
‘695 as modified teaches of claim 22, and teaches of claims 23-24 (claims 23-24 of ‘695).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647