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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-8, after preliminary amendment, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/30/2024, 8/6/2025, 2/3/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Invocation of 35 USC § 112(f)
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: a first location information acquisition unit that acquires; a second location information acquisition unit that acquires; an individual identification unit that associates and records, in claim 1; an appearance determination unit that executes; in claim 2; the appearance determination unit determines in claims 3-4.
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.
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.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim 8 does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because
Claim 8 recites: “A program that causes an information processing device to execute the processing of …”
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim recites a program that encompasses pure software, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0228129 A1, YAJIMA et al. (hereinafter YAJIMA).
As to claim 1, YAJIMA discloses an information processing device, comprising:
a first location information acquisition unit that acquires a captured image including an animal being bred within a predetermined breeding area (Abstract; Figs 1, 3, 10; pars 0008-0011, 0013, 0057, 0099, 0110, 0112, 0114, an image data acquisition unit capturing an image of a target livestock animal by cameras), and acquires, as first location information, a location of the animal within the breeding area, calculated based on the image of the animal in the captured image (Figs 1, 3; pars 0008-0009, 0143, 0159, determining a position of an animal in predetermined area (barn) based on images captured by camera(s));
a second location information acquisition unit that acquires, from a terminal device provided on the animal, identification information on the animal and second location information indicating the location of the animal within the breeding area (Figs 1, 3; pars 0014, 0057, 0059-0061, 0143, 0160, 196, 0215, 0223, acquires individual animals position information based on identification information from radio identification device attached on the animals); and
an individual identification unit that, in a case of determining that a difference between the first location information and the second location information is below or equal to a predetermined threshold, associates and records the first location information and the identification information related to the second location information (Figs 4, 17; pars 0010, 0114, 0214-0215, 0231-0236, when position captured by camaras and obtained from terminal attached on an animal being within a predetermined position range, then ID and position being registered and stored).
Although YAJIMA teaches above limitations in one or more embodiments, consider YAJIMA’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art to consider YAJIMA’s teachings as a whole to provide an animal monitoring and tracking device and system to obtain predictable performance and results.
As to claim 2, YAJIMA as modified discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an appearance determination unit that executes determination on preset appearance determination items regarding an appearance of the animal, based on the captured image of the animal, uses a determination result thereof as appearance information on the animal, acquires the first location information calculated from the image of the animal that is a target of the determination, and associates and records the identification information related to the first location information and the appearance information (Figs 36-37; pars 0450-0451, utilize position information, images captured at different times/locations to determine target animal’s weight, body size changes, etc. (e.g. predetermined terms for animal appearance parameters)).
As to claim 3, YAJIMA discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the appearance determination unit determines an appearance of the animal using a trained model that has been pre-trained with a relationship between an image acquired of the animal and appearance information that is the determination result for the preset appearance determination items (pars 0306-0307, 0334, 0427, machine learning model and algorithm being stored and utilized for training).
As to claim 4, YAJIMA discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the appearance determination unit determines an appearance of the animal, based on an image acquired of the animal and a preset criterion for determining a feature of the animal in the image related to the appearance determination items (Figs 5, 21-24, feature extraction; pars 0127, 0137-0138, 0159, 0177, satisfy predetermined condition/criterion).
As to claim 5, YAJIMA discloses the information processing device according to claim 1 where in the second location information is calculated based on a direction of arrival of radio waves transmitted from the terminal device provided on the animal (Fig 10; pars 0372, 0442).
As to claim 6, YAJIMA discloses the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the appearance information on each individual animal chronologically recorded by the appearance determination unit is used for predicting a point in time of at least one of disease, estrus, calving, growth, or weaning of the animal (par 0435, disease).
As to claim 7, it is a method claim necessitated claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 8, it recites a program executed to perform functions and features of claim 7. Claim 8 is rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of 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 responses, to fully consider the reference(s) 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights