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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended submitted claim 30-32 and 39 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Inventions I (claims 1-3, 5, 7 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, and Invention II (30-32 and 39) are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as determine a location or relative location of the second mobile device based on the one or more received RF signals utilizing an RF mesh positioning technique. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 30-32 and 39 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 05/26/2026.
Claims 1, 14, 30, 31 have been amended.
Claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 21, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 33-38 have been previously cancelled.
Claim 30-32 and 39 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25 and 26 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arbel (US 2018/0146645).
Regarding claim 1: Arbel disclose a system for determining the location of a number of animals in a group of animals (abstract, ¶0005-0006), comprising
a first number of first mobile devices forming anchor devices, each configured to be attached to an animal of a first subgroup of the group of animals (Fig. 1a, item 20 “central data collection device” , Fig. 2a, ¶0023, ¶0026-0028), each first mobile device comprising
a satellite positioning unit for detecting a precise location of the first mobile device (Fig. 2a, item 22, ¶0026: GPS device), and
a first radio frequency (RF) unit for transmitting an RF signal (Fig. 2a, item 28, ¶0026), and a
first controller for controlling the operation of the satellite positioning unit and the first RF unit (Fig. 2a, item 24),
a second number of second mobile devices forming roaming devices, each configured to be attached an animal of a second subgroup of the group of animals Fig. 1a, item 20 “simple central data collection device” , Fig. 2a, ¶0023, ¶0026-0028), each second mobile device comprising
a second radio frequency (RF) unit for receiving one or more RF signals transmitted by the first number of first mobile devices (Fig. 2a, item 28, ¶0026), and
a second controller configured to determine a location or relative location of the second mobile device based on the one or more received RF signals utilizing an RF mesh positioning technique (Fig. 2a, item 24, ¶0026).
Regarding claim 2: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the low power RF signal comprises information associated with the precise location of the associated first mobile device.(¶0040, 0042)
Regarding claim 3: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the first controller is configured to cause the first RF unit to transmit the low power RF signal in accordance with a sequence order assigned for each first mobile device, thereby allowing each first mobile device, by its first controller, to transmit the associated low power RF signal in turn and/or wherein the second controller is configured to cause the second RF unit to listen for low power RF signals in accordance with the sequence order of each first mobile device.(¶0040: the sensors in the collars or ear tags on the animals collect information frequently, for example, every 30 seconds (sequence order), and the data is stored in the memory of the data collection device. As stated above, this information is transmitted over the in-herd wireless communication system to a mobile hub collar or local terminal, periodically during the day, for example, every four minutes (sequence order), or whenever the animal passes within range of a mobile hub data collection device or a terminal.)
Regarding claim 5: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the RF mesh positioning technique is based on triangulation and/or by determining the received signal strength (RSS), and/or the Angle of Arrival (AoA), and/or Angle of Departure (AoD) of the RF signal. (¶0042)
Regarding claim 7: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the first number of first RF units and the second number of second RF units are configured to form a low power RF partial or full mesh network. (¶0027, 0040)
Regarding claim 8: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 7, wherein the satellite positioning unit is a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) unit, a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, era GLONASS unit, or an assisted GPS unit arranged to receive Almanac and Ephemeris data using a Long Range Wide Area Network (LoRaW AN) communications protocol from a remote stationary device (¶0042).
Regarding claim 10: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 8, each first mobile device further comprises a first transceiver arranged to transmit and/or receive said Almanac and Ephmeris data to/from another first mobile device, and/or wherein the first transceiver is configured to transmit/receive information using a LORaWAN, Bluetooth, or Zigbee protocol, and/or the first transceiver is further arranged to receive a precise location of a remote stationary GNSS receiver or external device with a known location. (¶0026-0027)
Regarding claim 13: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 10, wherein the second radio frequency (RF) unit is further configured to: determine its location in relation to the precise location of the remote stationary GNSS receiver based on the one or more received RF signals utilizing an RF mesh positioning technique (¶0027, ¶0040, ¶0042).
Regarding claim 14: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first number of first mobile devices and/or at least one of the second number of second mobile devices further comprises at least one of the following: a motion detector, an orientation detector, an audio sensor, a temperature sensor, a heart rate monitor, and/or a solar panel for providing power to at least one of: the respective satellite positioning unit, the first RF unit, the second RF unit, the first controller, or the second controller.(¶0026)
Regarding claim 17: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the first controller is further configured to: activate the satellite positioning device only during a determined first recurring time period, and control the first radio frequency (RF) unit to transmit a low power RF signal during a predetermined second time period subsequent to the first time period.(¶0009, ¶0038)
Regarding claim 18: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 17, wherein the first controller or second controller is further configured to: access information from the motion detector or orientation detector, and determine a temporary location of the associated first mobile device or second mobile device with reference to a previously determined location of the associated first or second mobile device using a dead reckoning technique based on the accessed information continuously, at regular time intervals, or when prompted by a user via a graphical user interface.(¶0033-0035)
Regarding claim 19: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 1, wherein the first mobile device and/or the second mobile device pertains to at least one of: an ear tag configured to be attached to an ear of the associated animal, a collar configured to be attached around the neck of the associated animal, a pedometer, and a bracelet.(Figs 2b-c, ¶0028)
Regarding claim 20: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 1, further comprising
a remote device for receiving data from the first mobile device(s) and/or the second mobile device(s), and
a graphical user interface configured to:
present the received data, and/or control operation parameters of the first mobile device(s) and/or second mobile device(s). (Fig. 1a, item 14, 16, ¶0041)
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.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbel (US 2018/0146645) in view of Vazhenin et al. (US 2019/0025401).
Regarding claim 22: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein each first mobile device of the first number of first mobile devices is selected based on an anchor selection sequence carried out locally by the first controller or externally on a cloud-based service device.
In analogous art regarding communication systems, Vazhenin disclose wherein each first mobile device of the first number of first mobile devices (guided station) is selected based on an anchor selection (guiding station) sequence carried out locally by the first controller or externally on a cloud-based service device. (¶0010).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein each first mobile device of the first number of first mobile devices is selected based on an anchor selection sequence carried out locally by the first controller or externally on a cloud-based service device, as disclose by Vazhenin, to the system of Arbel. The motivation is to provide an easier and more effective way to connect all the system into one single network hence making the system more reliable.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbel (US 2018/0146645) in view of Shpak (US 2023/0017758).
Regarding claim 25: Arbel disclose the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein one or more first devices and/or one or more second mobile devices comprise(s) a respective antenna array having at least a first antenna and a second antenna spaced apart by a known spacing, and/or at least one wavetrap acting as a signal filter.
In analogous art regarding communication systems, Shpak disclose wherein one or more first devices and/or one or more second mobile devices comprise(s) a respective antenna array having at least a first antenna and a second antenna spaced apart by a known spacing, and/or at least one wavetrap acting as a signal filter (¶0036).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to include the feature of wherein one or more first devices and/or one or more second mobile devices comprise(s) a respective antenna array having at least a first antenna and a second antenna spaced apart by a known spacing, and/or at least one wavetrap acting as a signal filter, as disclose by Shpak, to the system of Arbel The motivation is to improve signal reliability.
Regarding claim 26: The combination of Arbel and Shpak disclose the system according to claim 25, but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the at least one first antenna and at least one second antenna is a dipole antenna; or the at least one first antenna and at least one second antenna are uni-directional and/or co- linearly arranged; and/or the at least one first antenna and at least one second antenna are arranged at or proximate an edge of a printed circuit board of the first mobile device and/or second mobile device. However it does disclose antenna located proximate to the corner edge of the device (Shpak: Fig. 3A, Notice Antenna located on the corners of the device). Therefore, Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to the one of the ordinary skill in the art to rearrange the at least one first antenna and at least one second antenna is a dipole antenna; or the at least one first antenna and at least one second antenna are uni-directional and/or co- linearly arranged; and/or the at least one first antenna and at least one second antenna are arranged at or proximate an edge of a printed circuit board of the first mobile device and/or second mobile device since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argue that the prior art does not teach a second controller configured to determine a location or relative location of the second mobile device based on the one or more received RF signals utilizing an RF mesh positioning technique because the second controller belongs to the second mobile device and the prior art determine location on a server remotely ad not on the second mobile device as the second mobile device is merely a simple data collection device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees: Even thou the second mobile device could be used as a simple data collection devices, it also disclose a plurality sensor which includes an optional GPS device that record various details of position, posture and physical parameters of the livestock. (¶0026).
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 OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, Davetta Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/OMAR CASILLASHERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights