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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 19/751,950 filled on 01/21/2026.
Claims 10-16 are withdrawn and Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are presented for examination
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, Claims I-9 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 6 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2, 3 and 20, the phrase “the flexible member can rotate” should apparently be “the flexible member is configured to rotate”. The phrase “can” is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. Therefore, appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “sensor unit can detect” should apparently be “sensor unit [[can]]is configured to detect”. The phrase “can” is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. Therefore, appropriate correction is required.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawing is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. 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 “animal movement encouragement device” 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 6 cite the limitations "two or more operating settings”, which are vague because the specification and/or drawing fails to discloses particulars for these limitations.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite. Claim 2 recites the limitations “where the animal movement encouragement device includes a flexible member”, but the specification and drawing fails to disclose particulars for such limitations. Specification, in para.[0047], [0068], discloses “spinner assembly 120, and the spinner assembly 120 may include one or more flexible members 122.”, but there is no citation of that animal movement encouragement device includes flexible member. Therefore, claim 2 is also indefinite for “flexible member”. Additionally, specification, in para. [0091] cites that “navigation system 700 may be utilized with other types of animal movement encouragement devices, which may have low, medium, and high intensity settings similar to as described for the spinner assembly 120”, where there is no further definition and/or citation of intensity setting for the of spinner assembly 120.Therefore, “operating setting” in claims 1 and 6 are vague and claims are indefinite.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18 cites “relative location”, where the term relative renders the claim indefinite. The term relative is not defined by the claim, the specification doesn’t provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 cites “first flexible member” and “second flexible member” of the animal movement encouragement device, where in the specification, Para. [0047] discloses “The spinner assembly 120 may retain the flexible members 122 in a hub that attaches to a spinner motor 206”, and para, [0074], discloses “flexible members 112a and 122b”. Therefore, it is not clear whether the applicant is referring flexible members 122a and 122b to first and second flexible members of the animal movement encouragement device. In that case, how the spinner assembly 120 and the animal movement encouragement device, both includes the same flexible members. Therefore, the claim 4 is indefinite.
Claim 8 cites the phrase “the navigation device may produce sounds”, which not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. In order to overcome the rejection, the phrase should apparently be should apparently be “the navigation device [[may]] is configured to produce sounds”.
Claim 9 cites the phrase “the navigation device may emit”, which not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. In order to overcome the rejection, the phrase should apparently be should apparently be “the navigation device [[may]] is configured to emit”.
Claim 18 cites “a given setting” on line 2, where the “given setting” is vague because there is no particulars for given setting is defined in the specification for animal movement encouragement device. Specification, Para. [0012], cites “The controller sets the drive wheel to a speed based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device.”
Claim 20 cites “first flexible member” and “second flexible member” of the animal movement encouragement device, where in the specification, Para. [0047] discloses “The spinner assembly 120 may retain the flexible members 122 in a hub that attaches to a spinner motor 206”, and para, [0074], discloses “flexible members 112a and 122b”. Therefore, it is not clear whether the applicant is referring flexible members 122a and 122b to first and second flexible members of the animal movement encouragement device. In that case, how the spinner assembly 120 and the animal movement encouragement device, both includes the same flexible members. Therefore, the claim 20 is indefinite.
Claims 2-9 and 18-20 are also rejected by the virtue of their dependency on rejected base claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 cites the limitations "two or more operating setting” for the animal movement encouragement device, where the specification is not being specifically described within the specification “operating setting” for animal movement encouragement device. In the specification, in para. [0091], discloses “navigation system 700 may be utilized with other types of animal movement encouragement devices, which may have low, medium, and high intensity settings similar to as described for the spinner assembly 120”, where there is no further definition and/or citation of intensity setting for the of spinner assembly 120.
Claim 18 is also rejected for the phrase “given setting” for the animal movement encouragement device as the specifical fails to define the particulars for given setting. Therefore, claims 18 does not satisfy the written description requirement.
In claim 2, applicant recites the limitations “where the animal movement encouragement device includes a flexible member”, but the specification and drawing fails to show such limitations. Specification, in para.[0047], [0068], discloses “spinner assembly 120, and the spinner assembly 120 may include one or more flexible members 122.”, but there is no citation of that animal movement encouragement device includes flexible member. Therefore, claim does not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim 4 cites “first flexible member” and “second flexible members” for the animal movement encouragement device, where the specification and drawing fails to show such limitations. Specification, in para.[0047], [0068], discloses “spinner assembly 120, and the spinner assembly 120 may include one or more flexible members 122”, however, there is no citation of that animal movement encouragement device includes flexible member. Therefore, claim does not satisfy the written description requirement. Claim 20 is also rejected for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 8 cites the phrase “the navigation device may produce sounds”, where the specification fails to define which particulars of the navigation device produces sounds. Therefore, claim 8 does not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claim 9 cites the phrase “the navigation device may emit light”, where the specification fails to define which particulars of the navigation device, emits light. Therefore, claim 9 does not satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), by virtue of their dependency on the rejected base claim(s).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensor unit” in Claims 1, 6, 17; has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 17 are provisionary rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending application 19/207,760. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the copending application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. An analysis of the claims is follows in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in Instant Application No. 18/751,950 vs. Co-pending Application No. 19/207,760.
Claims of Instant Application No: 18/751,950 (Difference Emphasis in bold).
Co-pending Application No. 19/207,760 (Difference Emphasis in bold)
Claim 1. A navigation device for navigating an animal environment, the navigation device comprising:
Claim 1. A navigation device for navigating an animal environment, the navigation device comprising:
a chassis;
a chassis;
one or more drive wheels for propelling the navigation device in a forward path;
one or more drive wheels for propelling the navigation device;
at least one sensor unit for detecting animals;
at least one sensor unit for detecting animals and the environment, the at least one sensor unit configured to communicate with a navigation system to generate a set of waypoints to define a planned path for the navigation device; and
an animal movement encouragement device; and
a controller for controlling operation of the one or more drive wheels and the animal movement encouragement device;
wherein the animal movement encouragement device has at least two or more operating settings, and
wherein one of the two or more operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device.
a controller for controlling operation of the one or more drive wheels to move the navigation device along the planned path.
Claim 2. The navigation device of claim 1 further comprising:
an animal movement encouragement device,
wherein the animal movement encouragement device has at least two or more operating settings, and
wherein one of the two or more operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device.
17. A navigation device for navigating an animal environment, the navigation device comprising:
Claim 1. A navigation device for navigating an animal environment, the navigation device comprising:
a chassis;
a drive wheel;
a sensor unit for detecting animals; and
a chassis;
one or more drive wheels for propelling the navigation device;
at least one sensor unit for detecting animals and the environment, the at least one sensor unit configured to communicate with a navigation system to generate a set of waypoints to define a planned path for the navigation device; and
an animal movement encouragement device; and
a controller for controlling operation of the drive wheel and the animal movement encouragement device;
a controller for controlling operation of the one or more drive wheels to move the navigation device along the planned path.
Claim 2. The navigation device of claim 1 further comprising
an animal movement encouragement device,
wherein the animal movement encouragement device has at least two or more operating settings, and wherein one of the two or more operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device.
Examiner comments for Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994). For instance, the prior filed application 63/141,671 does not provide support for the claimed features. Therefore, the claims of the instant application is not receive priority date of the application number 63/141,671. The claimed feature “animal movement encouragement device”, “controlling operation of the animal movement encouragement device”, “operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal….”, “ are not disclosed in parent case 17/582, 835. Therefore, the instant application will also not receive the priority date of the prior filed application number 17/582, 835 for:
animal movement encouragement device;
controlling operation of the animal movement encouragement device;
operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
Claim Objections (having allowable subject matter)
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 112 (a), 35 U.S.C. 10, double patenting rejection, and claims/drawing/specification objections for informalities, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior art, Dolara (US 2016/0000048 A1, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Dolara) teaches a navigation device for navigating an animal environment (See Para. [0053]-[0054], “said equipment [i.e., navigation device] moves [i.e., navigation] according to establish trajectories and paths and ensure covering of the entire surface of said premises [i.e., animal environment]”), the navigation device comprising:
a chassis (See Fig. 6, where the wheel 27 is attached to a body construed as claimed chassis”);
one or more drive wheels for propelling the navigation device in a forward path (See Fig. 6, Para. [0096], discloses “wheels 27”, and see Para. [0040], [0053], discloses “wherein said equipment is adapted to move according to the commands of said control unit processed in cooperation with said guide means, so that said equipment covers the entire surface of said premises”, and see Para. [0073], [0110], discloses “forward movement of equipment 4 [i.e., navigation device]”, hence drive wheels for propelling the navigation device in a forward path );
at least one sensor unit for detecting animals (See Para. [0041],[0073], discloses “sensor for identifying dead animal”);
Nevertheless, Dolara fails to teach, an animal movement encouragement device; and
a controller for controlling operation of the one or more drive wheels and the animal movement encouragement device;
wherein the animal movement encouragement device has at least two or more operating settings, and wherein one of the two or more operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device.
Another closest prior art in the same field of endeavor, Xu et al. (US 2021/0076634 A1, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Xu) teaches, an animal movement encouragement device (See para. [0097], Fig. 14, discloses “the birds lifting device 33”); and
a controller for controlling operation of the one or more drive wheels and the animal movement encouragement device (Para. Para. [0095], “the lifting device 33 pushes the birds, dead or alive up to the top surface of the robot 3”, and see Fig. 9, Para. [0097], discloses “Eccentric wheel (rod) 331 drives the reciprocating plate 332 in a continuous rotatory motion, moves intermittent reciprocating plate 332 to the base plate 333 above, and moves back a certain distance, to achieve the animal moving upward”. Additionally, see para. [0105], “The power-driven bird lifting device 33 sends the live bird to the lateral conveyor 4.”
Xu further discloses in in Para. [0105], “the live birds delivered out of the lateral conveyor belt 4 falls directly on the longitudinal conveyor belt 53 and is transported to an outdoor collection point, which is manually or automatically loaded into a cages 62”).
However, the cited reference as discussed above fail to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “wherein the animal movement encouragement device has at least two or more operating settings, and wherein one of the two or more operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device” and in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-9 depends on claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-9 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency.
Regarding claim 17, Dolara (US 2016/0000048 A1, this reference is from IDS) (hereinafter Dolara) teaches a navigation device for navigating an animal environment (See Para. [0053]-[0054], “said equipment [i.e., navigation device] moves [i.e., navigation] according to establish trajectories and paths and ensure covering of the entire surface of said premises [i.e., animal environment]”), the navigation device comprising:
a chassis (See Fig. 6, where the wheel 27 is attached to a body construed as claimed chassis”);
a drive wheel (See Fig. 6, Para. [0096], discloses “wheels 27”);
a sensor unit for detecting animals (See Para. [0041],[0073], discloses “sensor for identifying dead animal”);
Nevertheless, Dolara fails to teach, an animal movement encouragement device; and
a controller for controlling operation of the drive wheel and the animal movement encouragement device;
wherein the controller sets the drive wheel to a speed based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device.
Another closest prior art in the same field of endeavor, Xu et al. (US 2021/0076634 A1, this reference is from IDS) teaches, an animal movement encouragement device (See para. [0097], Fig. 14, discloses “the birds lifting device 33”); and
a controller for controlling operation of the drive wheel and the animal movement encouragement device (Para. Para. [0095], “the lifting device 33 pushes the birds, dead or alive up to the top surface of the robot 3”, and see Fig. 9, Para. [0097], discloses “Eccentric wheel (rod) 331 drives the reciprocating plate 332 in a continuous rotatory motion, moves intermittent reciprocating plate 332 to the base plate 333 above, and moves back a certain distance, to achieve the animal moving upward”. Additionally, see para. [0105], “The power-driven bird lifting device 33 sends the live bird to the lateral conveyor 4.”
However, the cited reference as discussed above fail to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitations of “wherein the controller sets the drive wheel to a speed based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device” and in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 18-20 depends on claim 17. Therefore, claims 18-20 would be allowable by virtue of its dependency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657