DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment to the claims filed 12 December 2024 has been entered. Claim(s) 18-19 is/are currently amended. Claim(s) 1-19 is/are pending.
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 ("BRI") 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 BRI 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(I), claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 13, 16-17 and claims dependent thereon is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, claim 13 and claims dependent thereon, "inhalant DO" and "exhalant DO" are indefinite as "DO" has not been defined. Claims 3 and 13 will be further discussed with the understanding "DO" refers to dissolved oxygen, e.g., with respect to claim 3, within the scope of, "wherein oxygen consumption or oxygen extraction data comprises inhalant dissolved oxygen (DO) and exhalant DO at the at least one gill opening."
Additionally, claims 3 and 13 encompass a single oxygen probe positioned at a gill opening being used, or configured, to measure both inhalant DO and exhalant DO at the least one gill opening. Applicant discloses, "Each set of gills may include one gill opening and one or more gill structures (e.g. gill filament) inside each gill opening, wherein the fish takes in water through its mouth, the water passes over the gill structures, and the water exits the fish's body through the gill openings" (pg. 7, lines 14-17); and "the measured dissolved oxygen levels in ambient water is comparable to dissolved oxygen levels of inhalant water (e.g. inhalant DO)" (pg. 8, lines 13-15). In view of the above, it is unclear how/in what manner a single oxygen probe positioned at a gill opening (i.e., where water exits the gill/fish body) is/can be used to measure inhalant DO, let alone measure both inhalant and exhalant DO.
Regarding claim 8 and claims dependent thereon, the limitation "further comprising a gill exhalant oxygen probe configured to measure a temperature data of exhalant water" is indefinite. It is unclear in what manner an oxygen probe is configured temperature data. For the purpose of this Office action, claim 8 will be further discussed with the understanding that the device comprises a gill exhalant oxygen probe configured to measure gill exhalant oxygen data, e.g., DO, of exhalant water.
Regarding claim 16 and claims dependent thereon, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations/parameters "inhalant DO," "exhalant DO," and FR in the claim. The limitation "which can be expressed by the following equation" is further unclear. It is unclear if the claim is being limited to calculating the rate of oxygen consumption (MO2) by the recited equation, or merely stating that MO2 calculated in any manner may be "expressed by" the recited equation.
Regarding claim 17 and claims dependent thereon, the limitation "comprising attaching a sutured tube to the at least one gill opening of the animal" is indefinite. Applicant discloses, "In particular, a narrow plastic tubing was sutured to the area right behind the gill and the oxygen and/or temperature probes were threaded through the tubing and positioned right inside the gill opening for the trials" (pg. 11, lines 21-24). Accordingly, the specification appears to indicate a tube is attached by suturing. However, the claim requires "attaching a sutured tube," as noted above. It is unclear if the limitation is intended to indicate the method comprises attaching, by suturing, a tube to the at least one gill opening of the animal, as apparently described in the specification, or indicate a state of a tube that is otherwise broadly attached, which appears more consistent with a plain reading of the above-noted limitation. Alternatively stated, it is unclear if "sutured" refers to the method of attachment, or refers describes the tube that is being attached.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steplewski (Estimating Metabolic Rate of Elasmobranchs by Measuring Oxygen Extraction at the Gills, cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Steplewski discloses/suggests a device configured to collect aquatic field metabolic rate data related to a water-breathing animal having at least one gill opening, the device comprising:
a plurality of sensors comprising at least one oxygen probe configured to measure oxygen consumption or oxygen extraction data at the at least one gill opening (pg. 4, PyroScience optical oxygen sensors, including at least one sensor used to measure oxygen content of gill exhalant); and
a controller configured to process and record metabolic rate data collected by the plurality of sensors (pg. 4, logging sensor data using software, wherein the controller is inherent processing means executing said software; determining oxygen extraction by subtracting the percent oxygen saturation of the water in the tank by the water flowing out of the gills of the animal; pg. 8, calculating metabolic rate based on oxygen extraction data; etc.).
Steplewski does not disclose the device is configured to collect at least metabolic rate data when the animal is in a natural environment. However, Steplewski expressly discloses and/or suggests this modification for the disclosed device/method. Specifically, Steplewski discloses next steps of the disclosed project is creating a biologging tag package that will be able to measure the amount of oxygen flowing out of the gills of a freely swimming elasmobranch, and to convert this number to a metabolic rate (pg. 18). Accordingly, Steplewski at least suggests incorporating the disclosed plurality of sensors into a new biologging tag package having at least means (e.g., programmed controller and/or processor) for converting the collected data into a metabolic rate (e.g., recording and processing sensor data in the manner noted above). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Steplewski with the device being configured to collect at least metabolic rate data when the animal is in a natural environment (e.g., being integrated into a biologging tag package) in order to enable measuring metabolic rate of an elasmobranch in the open ocean (pg. 19).
Regarding claim 2, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests oxygen consumption or oxygen extraction data comprises inhalant DO and exhalant DO at the at least one gill opening (pg. viii, differential values in oxygen content between ambient water and the gill exhalant were used to estimate the degree of oxygen extraction at the gills; pg. 4, determining how much oxygen the animal was extracting by subtracting the percent oxygen saturation of the water in the tank by the water flowing out of the gills of the animal).
Regarding claim 3, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the at least one oxygen probe comprises an ambient oxygen probe configured to measure dissolved oxygen levels in ambient water (pg. 4, one oxygen sensor in the water collects data on the oxygen content of ambient water).
Regarding claim 4, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the at least one oxygen probe comprises at least one gill exhalant oxygen probe configured to measure dissolved oxygen levels in exhalant water (pg. 4, one oxygen sensor placed at the gills of the elasmobranch to measure oxygen content of gill exhalant).
Regarding claim 5, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the at least one gill exhalant oxygen probe is inserted within up to 5 mm into the at least one gill opening (e.g., pg. 6, single point measurement approximately two millimeters inside the center of the gill).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steplewski in view of Svendsen et al. (Design and Setup of Intermittent-Flow Respirometry System for Aquatic Organisms).
Regarding claim 6, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, but does not disclose the at least one gill exhalant oxygen probe is configured to measure dissolved oxygen levels in exhalant water for a predetermined duration or frequency.
Svendsen et al. discloses/suggests a system comprising an oxygen probe configured to measure dissolved oxygen levels in water (pg. 32, oxygen probe measuring oxygen values), disclosing noise may be introduced due to an unstable oxygen probe and calculating an average oxygen value can help mitigate error (pg. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Steplewski with the at least one gill exhalant oxygen probe being configured to measure dissolved oxygen levels in exhalant water for a predetermined duration or frequency in order to enable calculating an average exhalant oxygen value, thereby mitigating error/noise due an unstable oxygen probe (Svendsen et al., pg. 32).
Claim(s) 7-8 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steplewski in view of Dowd et al. (Standard and Routine Metabolic Rates of Juvenile Sandbar Sharks (Carcharhinus plumbeus), Including the Effects of Body Mass and Acute Temperature Change).
Regarding claims 7-8, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and further discloses the device comprises a gill exhalant oxygen probe configured to measure dissolved oxygen levels in exhalant water (pg. 4, one oxygen sensor placed at the gills of the elasmobranch to measure oxygen content of gill exhalant), but does not disclose the device comprises an ambient temperature probe configured to measure temperature data of ambient water. However, Steplewski discloses metabolic rate is influenced by temperature (pgs. 2-3), and discloses temperature may be utilized in estimating whole animal metabolic rate (pg. 8).
Dowd et al. discloses measuring ambient data in a water environment by measuring ambient dissolved oxygen saturation via at least one ambient oxygen probe and measuring ambient temperature via at least one ambient temperature probe (pg. 325, water temperature and oxygen concentration (mg O2/L) content were recorded using a YSI 5739 polarographic electrode oxygen-temperature probe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Steplewski with an ambient temperature probe configured to measure temperature data of ambient water as taught/suggested by Dowd et al. in order to facilitate accounting for influencing factors when calculating metabolic rate in freely-swimming elasmobranchs (Steplewski, pg. 19); and/or facilitate determining increases in metabolic rate with temperature (Dowd et al., throughout document).
Regarding claim 12, Steplewski discloses/suggests a method for determining a metabolic rate of a water-breathing animal having at least one gill and located in a water environment (e.g., pg. 4, elasmobranchs in a saltwater tank; pg. 19, elasmobranch in open ocean; etc.), the method comprising:
inserting a plurality of sensors in or adjacent the at least one gill opening of the animal, the plurality of sensors comprising at least one gill exhalant oxygen probe (pg. 4, PyroScience optical oxygen sensors, including at least one sensor placed in/at six different locations at each gill, e.g., Fig. 1);
measuring aquatic field metabolic rate data of the animal via the plurality of sensors (pg. 4, collecting oxygen saturation data using the oxygen sensors and logging said data; pg. 8, oxygen extraction data; etc.);
measuring ambient data in the water environment via at least one ambient oxygen probe (pg. 4, one oxygen sensor in the water of the experimental tank collected data on the oxygen content of ambient water); and
estimating a whole animal metabolic rate from one or more of the collected aquatic field metabolic rate data or ambient data (pg. 8, calculating a metabolic rate from oxygen extraction data, temperature, etc.).
Steplewski discloses metabolic rate is influenced by temperature (pgs. 2-3), wherein temperature may be utilized in estimating whole animal metabolic rate (pg. 8), but does not expressly disclose the ambient data is measured via at least one ambient temperature probe. Steplewski further discloses/suggests providing the disclosed sensor(s) in a biologging tag package that will be able to measure the amount of oxygen flowing out of the gills of a freely swimming elasmobranch, and therefore be able to measure the metabolic rate of an elasmobranch in the open ocean (pg. 19).
Dowd et al. discloses measuring ambient data in a water environment by measuring ambient dissolved oxygen saturation via at least one ambient oxygen probe and measuring ambient temperature via at least one ambient temperature probe (pg. 325, water temperature and oxygen concentration (mg O2/L) content were recorded using a YSI 5739 polarographic electrode oxygen-temperature probe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Steplewski with measuring ambient data comprising measuring ambient dissolved oxygen saturation in the water environment using at least one ambient oxygen probe, and measuring ambient temperature in the water environment using at least one ambient temperature probe as taught/suggested by Dowd et al. in order to ensure (e.g., provide feedback for controlling) a tank temperature is held at a constant temperature (Steplewski, pgs. 2-3); to account for a factor(s) that influences metabolic rate in freely-swimming elasmobranchs (Steplewski, pg. 19); and/or facilitate determining increases in metabolic rate with temperature (Dowd et al., throughout document).
Regarding claim 13, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests measuring aquatic field metabolic rate data comprises measuring inhalant DO and exhalant DO at the at least one gill opening, via the at least one gill oxygen probe (pg. viii, differential values in oxygen content between ambient water and the gill exhalant were used to estimate the degree of oxygen extraction at the gills; pg. 4, determining how much oxygen the animal was extracting by subtracting the percent oxygen saturation of the water in the tank by the water flowing out of the gills of the animal).
Regarding claim 14, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests measuring ambient data comprises measuring ambient dissolved oxygen saturation, via the at least one ambient oxygen probe, in the water environment and measuring ambient temperature, via the at least one ambient temperature probe, in the water environment (see discussion of claim 12 above).
Regarding claim 15, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the plurality of sensors further comprises at least one sensor configured to measure a flow rate (FR) of water through the at least one gill opening (pgs. 7-8, GoPro and associated software used to measure the velocity at which the water was leaving the gills).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steplewski in view of Jewell (Tagging and Tracking Sharks: The How and the Why).
Regarding claims 9-10, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, but does not disclose the device (e.g., biologging tag package) further comprises a locating device configured to be releasably attached to the animal, the locating device being configured to track motion or location of the animal or the device and transmit the location of the animal or device to an external device.
Jewell discloses and/or suggests a biologging tag package comprising a locating device configured to be releasably attached to the animal (e.g., pgs. 10-11, PAT), the locating device being configured to track motion or location of the animal or the device and transmit the location of the animal or device to an external device (pgs. 10-11, transmitting collected data, including estimated daily position) and comprising a tri-axial accelerometer configured to collect, record, or transmit accelerometry data related to motion of the animal (pgs. 10-11, acceleration the tag experiences; pgs. 13-14, activity recorded by accelerometer may be 3-dimensional; etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Steplewski to comprise a locating device configured to be releasably attached to the animal, the locating device being configured to track motion or location of the animal or the device and transmit the location of the animal or device to an external device; and a tri-axial accelerometer configured to collect, record, or transmit accelerometry data related to motion of the animal as taught and/or suggested by Jewell in order to facilitate additionally collecting detailed location and motion data (Jewell, pgs. 9-14).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steplewski in view of Jewell as applied to claim(s) 10 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (Accelerometer Studies of Tiger Shark Swimming Behavior).
Regarding claim 11, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the limitations of claim 10, as discussed above, but does not disclose the accelerometry data comprises swimming speed.
Sato et al. discloses/suggests a biologging device/tag comprising a tri-axial accelerometer configured to collect, record, or transmit accelerometry data related to motion of the animal, wherein the accelerometry data comprises swimming speed (pg. 1, accelerometers recorded swimming speed, depth, temperature (at 1 s intervals), and tri-axial acceleration (at 1/32 s intervals, 32 Hz)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Steplewski with the accelerometry data comprising swimming speed as taught/suggested by Sato et al. in order to facilitate quantifying/further quantifying swimming performance and behavior (Sato et al., pg. 1).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steplewski in view of Dowd et al. as applied to claim(s) 14 above, and further in view of Cech Jr. (Techniques in Whole Animal Respiratory Physiology) and Svendsen et al.
Regarding claim 16, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, and further discloses estimating the whole animal metabolic rate from oxygenation extracted by at least one gill (e.g., pg. 16, extrapolating an oxygen extraction point measurement to a whole metabolic rate), but does not expressly disclose estimating the whole animal metabolic rate comprises calculating a respective rate of oxygen consumption over a predetermined duration by the at least one gill (MO2), which can be expressed by the claimed equation.
Cech Jr. et al. discloses/suggests techniques estimating metabolic rate by calculating a rate of oxygen consumption, which can be expressed by the claimed equation (pg. 850, Equation (6)). Svendsen et al. discloses/suggests a system comprising an oxygen probe configured to measure dissolved oxygen levels in water (pg. 32, oxygen probe measuring oxygen values), disclosing noise may be introduced due to an unstable oxygen probe and calculating an average oxygen value can help mitigate error (pg. 32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Steplewski with estimating the whole animal metabolic rate comprising calculating a respective rate of oxygen consumption over a pre-determined duration by the at least one gill (MO2), which can be expressed by the claimed equation, as taught/suggested by Cech Jr. et al. and Svendsen et al. in order to calculate oxygen consumption rate (Cech, Jr., pg. 850) based on an average exhalant oxygen value, thereby mitigating error/noise due an unstable oxygen probe (Svendsen et al., pg. 32).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steplewski in view of Dowd et al. as applied to claim(s) 12 above, and further in view of Wegner et al. (Oxygen utilization and the branchial pressure gradient during ram ventilation of the shortfin mako, Isurus oxyrinchus: is lamnid shark–tuna convergence constrained by elasmobranch gill morphology?).
Regarding claim 17, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above, but does not disclose attaching a sutured tube to the at least one gill opening of the animal, wherein the at least one gill exhalant oxygen probe is inserted into or through the sutured tube.
Wegner et al. discloses a method comprising attaching a tube to at least one gill opening of an animal (pg. 24, posterior-facing opening of cowling attached to a swimming shark) and inserting at least one gill exhalant oxygen probe into or through the attached tube (O2 sensor advanced into the posterior-facing opening of the cowling). Wegner et al. further discloses sensors may be inserted into a guide catheter attached to the animal (pg. 24, pressure transducers threaded into position through a guide catheter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Steplewski with attaching a tube to the at least one gill opening of the animal, wherein the at least one gill exhalant oxygen probe is inserted into or through the attached tube, as taught/suggested by Wegner et al. in order to facilitate properly positioning the probe for collecting a desired value (Wegner et al, pg. 24).
Steplewski as modified does not expressly disclose the tube is attached by suturing. However, at the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Steplewski with attaching the tube by suturing because Applicant has not disclosed that any particular attachment method, including suturing, provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. As no evidence has been provided to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the means for attaching a tube/probe guiding structure to the animal disclosed by Wegner et al. (or Steplewski as modified thereby) because either arrangement facilitates properly positioning a probe for collecting a desired value (Wegner et al, pg. 24).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steplewski in view of Dowd et al. as applied to claim(s) 12 above, and further in view of Jewell.
Regarding claims 18-19, Steplewski as modified discloses and/or suggests the limitations of claim 12, as discussed above, but does not disclose method comprises releasably attaching a locating device to the animal, the locating device being configured to track motion or location of the animal or the device and transmit the location of the animal or device to an external device. However, as noted above, Steplewski discloses/suggests providing the disclosed sensor(s) in a biologging tag package that will be able to measure the amount of oxygen flowing out of the gills of a freely swimming elasmobranch, and therefore be able to measure the metabolic rate of an elasmobranch in the open ocean (pg. 19).
Jewell discloses and/or suggests a biologging tag package comprising a locating device configured to be releasably attached to the animal (e.g., pgs. 10-11, PAT), the locating device being configured to track motion or location of the animal or the device and transmit the location of the animal or device to an external device (pgs. 10-11, transmitting collected data, including estimated daily position) and comprising a tri-axial accelerometer configured to collect, record, or transmit accelerometry data related to motion of the animal (pgs. 10-11, acceleration the tag experiences; pgs. 13-14, activity recorded by accelerometer may be 3-dimensional; etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Steplewski to comprise releasably attaching a locating device to the animal, the locating device being configured to track motion or location of the animal or the device and transmit the location of the animal or device to an external device and attaching a tri-axial accelerometer configured to collect, record, or transmit accelerometry data related to motion of the animal as taught/suggested by Jewell in order to facilitate additionally collecting detailed location and motion data (Jewell, pgs. 9-14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Meredith Weare whose telephone number is 571-270-3957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice to schedule an interview.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Tse Chen, can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/Meredith Weare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights