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 status
This action is in response to applicant filed on 09/20/2024.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30 and 32 have been amended.
Claims 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 21, 24, 27, 28, 29 and 33-38 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31 and 32 are pending for examination.
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 1-3, 5, 7 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26 and 31 is 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.
The term “low” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is low power from one person to another can vary greatly and hence no boundaries can be established in what is being protected by claims consequently, rendering the claims indefinite. For the purpose of examination, if anything is being done to promote energy efficiency, it will consider a low power system. For example, if the system if transmitting periodically and not constantly, that is considered to promote energy efficiency and hence the system is a low power system. The rest of the claims depended on claim 1 are also rejected in view of said dependency.
The term “substantially” in claim 31 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is substantially linear from one person to another can vary greatly and hence no boundaries can be established in what is being protected by claims consequently, rendering the claims indefinite.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 a low power 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 such as an accelerometer or gyroscope, an orientation detector such as a magnetometer, an audio sensor such as a microphone, 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.
Claim(s) 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arbel (US 2018/0146645)
Regarding claim 30: Ying disclose a device for determining the location (¶0027) the device comprising:
a printed circuit board (PCB) (¶0034: ‘a carrier substrate 15, here also referred to as a PCB’); and
an antenna array comprising one or more antennas (¶0030: ‘at least two adjacent chip antenna elements 20 and in the patch antenna element 30’,¶ 0042),
wherein the two or more antennas (¶0030, “at least two adjacent chip antenna elements 20 and in the patch antenna element 30°) are positioned at or proximate to a first edge of the PCB (¶0034-0035).
The limitation “and optionally one or more wavetrap(s)” has been considered but as an optional feature, the prior art does not need to teach it in order to meet the claim.
Ying does not disclose the features 'an animal’ and ‘configured to be attached'. However, it does teaches a device for use in electronic devices for obtaining positioning (¶0002, ¶0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to use the system for locating animal, since the patented structure disclose all the structural limitations of the claims. Selecting a specific use (such as obtain position of animals) would amount to a recitation of the intended use of the patented invention, without resulting in any structural difference between the claimed invention and the structure disclosed by Ying, and therefore fails to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 31: Ying disclose the device of claim 30, wherein the one or more antennas of the antenna array are arranged in a linear, or at least substantially linear axis.(¶0005)
Regarding claim 32: Ying disclose the device of claim 30, wherein the device comprises one or more second antenna(s) and/or one or more third antenna(s), and wherein:
the one or more second antenna(s) comprise GNSS antennas(s) and/or the one or more third antenna(s) are configured to use a LoRaWAN, Bluetooth, or Zigbee protocol; and/or
the one or more second antennas are positioned on the PCB at or proximate to a second edge of the PCB, wherein the second edge is opposite the first edge (¶0035).
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record cited in the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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