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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) limtaitons drawn to mental processes/ organized human activity such as database organizing/ maintenance. Such limitations are performed using generic computer components applied to the environment to perform routine data gathering steps. For example, re the independent claim 12, the method recites limitations drawn to obtaining which are routine data gathering steps performed by generic computer components (visual reading device and tag reading device). The limitations of updating a data repository are merely mental steps/ organized human activity of updating data records performed using a generic computer components. There is not an improvement to the computer or underlying technology as generic components are merely applied to a particular usage environments. Clam 13 recites routine data gathering steps. Claim 14 is merely repeating the abstract idea steps. Claim 15 is drawn to generic computer components (RFID reader/ IR reader). Claims 16-20 is an intended use/ location of the abstract idea with limitations drawn to the materials not being significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 21 is repeating the abstract idea steps. Claim 22 is insignificant post solution activity, similar to displaying results and similar to concepts taught by Electric Power v. Alstom. Claim 23 is a corresponding computer readable medium claim and claims 1-11 are the corresponding system claims, and the reasons for rejection have been discussed above. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because it’s merely applying generic components to an abstract concept/ environment. Berkheimer evidence is provided in the art in the rejection below teachings RFID and visual reading and also in Harty et al. (US 20220284725) which teaches both RFID and cameras to confirm animals (paragraph [0210]+) and Baudisch et al. (US 20200367470) teaches both camera and RFID recognition of animals (paragraph [0041]+).
Appropriate correction is requested.
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.
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, 11-16, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canning et al. (US 12475739).
Canning et al. teaches a tag assignment system, comprising: one or more tag reading devices capable of reading tags attached to animals (RFID tag 360 is read by an RFID reader); one or more visual reading devices capable of visually identifying animals (330) ; and a processing circuitry (FIG. 1+);
wherein:
(a) the tag assignment system is communicatively connected to a data repository comprising one or more records (FIG. 1+ wherein the platform sends the livestock data), each of the records (i) being associated with a respective distinct animal of a plurality of animals (records are stored), and (ii) including a unique animal identifier associated with the respective distinct animal (unique ID of each enrolled animal is associated with the actual ID of the animal obtained from the RFID tag (col 8, lines 25+) ; and (b) the processing circuitry is configured to:
(i) obtain, utilizing a visual reading device of the visual reading devices, an ID reading of an animal identifier including at least the unique animal identifier uniquely identifying the given animal (col 8, lines 58+), and (ii) obtain a tag reading of a tag attached to the given animal from a tag reading device of the tag reading devices, wherein the tag reading including at least tag identification information uniquely identifying the second tag attached to the given animal (col 8, lines 58+); and
cause update of the data repository to assign the tag identification information to a given record of the records associated with the unique animal identifier of the given animal (col 8, lines 58+ and FIG. 8+ wherein updating and tracking is taught).
Though silent to explicitly reciting “substantially simultaneously” col 8, lines 58+ teaches RFID tag recording being physically before wherein the RFID reader is on the passage that would capture and be coincident with the images extracted. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to be substantially simultaneously done in order to coincide with the order of movement, for increased accuracy, of record keeping.
Re claim 2, a camera has been taught above, such as imaging device 110.
Re claim 3, though silent to deleting records of instances with non-corresponding data, the Examiner notes that prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to delete/ not record data that is inaccurate/ invalid so as to ensure reliability and accuracy, as part of generic/ routine data processing.
Re claim 4, an RFID tag 360 has been taught above.
Re claim 5, col 11, lines 1+ teaches a confined area such as a walkway or passage.
Re claim 11, though silent to error message due to malfunction, prior to the effective filing date it would have been obvious to do so to provide basic guidance to a user.
Re claim 12, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 1.
Re claim 13, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 2.
Re claim 14, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 3.
Re claim 15, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 4.
Re claim 16, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 5.
Re claim 22, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 11.
Re claim 23, the limitations have been discussed above, re claim 1.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Canning et al., as discussed above, in view of Flennert et al. (US 20190387711).
Re claims 6-8, as discussed above a walkway/ passage has been discussed above such as moving one after another or side by side in single lines. Therefore, prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious that such to occur at a sorting gate/ portion of a passage/ area defined by a reading range in order to have a location to track accurately, wherein a reading range is interpreted as implicit with reading technology. The use of a single line passage/ gate is an obvious expedient to increase accuracy of detection by limiting animals at such locations.
Nonetheless, Flennert et al. teaches one at a time pasting paragraph [0081]+ such as at a passage.
Prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings for accuracy purposes.
Re claim 9, though silent, prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use metal rails for an animal passage for strength/ durability as a preferred material for expected results. An RFID reader would generally be understood to not be in conductive contact with metal that may interfere, for accuracy of reading.
Re claim 10, though silent to repeating with a second reading device and ID reading device, the Examiner notes that Flennert et al. teaches additional antennas placed where animals pass/ dwell such as feeding stations, milking stations, barns, exits, entries, etc. (paragraph [0082]+).
Therefore, prior to the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings for performing tracking and registration of animals at different locations. Such teachings obviate the inclusion of the visual reading device at the additional locations for the expected results of accuracy and determination of animals at different locations to produce expected results.
Re claims 17-21, the limitations have been discussed above re claims 6-10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Re the Applicants argument about the 101 rejection that it is not an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the sensors are being used as generic computer components for routine data gathering operations as part of database/ inventory management/ creating/ tracking which is an abstract idea, with the generic computer components merely being applied in a particular environment. Re the Applicants argument re the 101 that it is a practical application because it is replacing manual or ineffective/ impossible manual work due to the tags being transferrable/ reusable, the Examiner notes that improvements to the abstract idea are still an abstract idea and do not provide a practical application.
Re the Applicants argument of the 103 rejection that Canning discloses obtaining an identify of an animal by reading an RFID but the claim recites reading tag information uniquely identifying the tag attached to the given animal, the Examiner notes that the unique information obtained by reading the RFID tag of Canning is interpreted as being tag identification information uniquely identifying the tag (as it is unique data for the tag and can be interpreted as uniquely identifying the tag). As the actual ID of the animal is read by Canning, Canning assigns it to a record associated with the unique animal identifier of the given animal which is obtained by the camera/ imaging device as in the rejection above, thus uniquely providing identification information of the tag/ identifying the tag, and the claim limitations do not preclude such an interpretation, as unique tag information is interpreted as information that uniquely identifies the tag. The claim does not recite a specific type of information, for example.
Re the argument that Canning fails to teach obtaining an ID reading of an animal identifier using a visual reading device, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The arbitrary unique ID is interpreted to read on an animal identifier obtained using a camera (visual reading device) and linked to the RFID animal data. The camera is interpreted as being a reading device that reads an identifier (physical animal properties) that uniquely identify the animal via the bounding boxes as taught by the prior art to uniquely identify.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Harty et al. (US 20220284725) which teaches both RFID and cameras to confirm animals (paragraph [0210]+) and Baudisch et al. (US 20200367470) teaches both camera and RFID recognition of animals (paragraph [0041]+).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL I WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2409. The examiner can normally be reached 7-9pm.
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.
/DANIEL I WALSH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876