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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-7 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US #11,134,221) in view of Berckmans et al. (PGPub #2016/0050888).
Regarding claim 1, Brown teaches a monitoring apparatus for use with a computer device for monitoring activity of an animal in a cage (10, 24a, 26, 28, and 69 as seen in figure 2, the camera system is capable of being placed beside a cage to monitor the animals in the cage) , the apparatus comprising: a camera unit (12) arranged to be supported in proximity to the cage (12, and 14, the camera system is capable of being placed in proximity to a cage), the camera unit including (i) a camera arranged to capture images of the cage with the animal therein (Column 4, lines 21-55), and (ii) a data transmission module arranged to transmit the image data as a time-series of captured images to the computer device (Column 3, lines 32-62, this teaches that the camera can transmit the video, which is a time-series of images, to a remote computing device over a network to allow the remote computing device to analyze the images); and a memory storing programming instructions arranged to be executed by the computer device (Column 3, lines 32-62) so as to be configured to: process the time-series of captured images by applying a deep learning algorithm to the captured images to identify the animal in each image (Column 3, lines 32-62, Column 4, line 56-Column 5, line 8, and Column 8, lines 9-44); identify a location of the animal in each image (Column 5, lines 9-31); and compare the captured images to one another to determine one or more movements of the animal relative cage over time (Column 8, line 22-Column 9, line 2). But Brown does not teach that the location of the animal is identified relative to the cage.
However, Berckmans does teach that the location of the animal is identified relative to the cage (The cage and feeder as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 15, this teaches that the system uses the images from the camera to determine the animals position relative to feeder and the feeder is a static object in the cage so the analyzed images give the position of the animal relative to the whole cage). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the location of the animal be identified relative to the cage because Brown and Berckmans are both camera system that capture images of animals to determine their location. The motivation for having the location of the animal be identified relative to the cage is that it can help to inform the system if the animals are gathering around the feeder which can indicate that they need feeding.
Regarding claim 2, Brown as modified by Berckmans teaches the monitoring apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the programming instructions are arranged to be executed by the computer device such that the computer device calculates a movement metric representing the one or more movements of the animal and generates a graphical display which represents the calculated movement metric (Column 13, line 6-Column 14, line 18, and Claim 19 of Brown).
Regarding claim 4, Brown as modified by Berckmans teaches the monitoring apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the computer device is located remotely from the camera unit and wherein the data transmission module of the camera unit is arranged to transmit the image data to the computer device over a communications network (10, 26, 28, and 69 as seen in figure 2, and Column 3, lines 32-62 of Brown).
Regarding claim 5, Brown as modified by Berckmans teaches the monitoring apparatus according to claim 4 wherein the computer device comprises a remote server (Column 11, lines 9-15 of Brown), the programming instructions being arranged to be executed by the computer device such that the remote server is arranged to transmit the one or more movements of the animal determined by the remote server over the communications network to a user device which is separate from the remote server and the camera unit (10, 24a, 26, 28, and 69 as seen in figure 2, and Column 3, lines 32-62, and Column 8, line 45-Column 9, line 2 of Brown).
Regarding claim 7, Brown as modified by Berckmans teaches the monitoring apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the camera unit is arranged to transmit the captured images to the computer device in real-time (Column 3, lines 32-62, and Column 8, lines 9-44 of Brown) and wherein the programming instructions are arranged to be executed by the computer device such that the computer device processes the captured images in real-time (Column 3, lines 32-62, Column 4, line 56-Column 5, line 8, and Column 8, lines 9-44 of Brown) and records the determined one or more movements in a log that can be subsequent recalled by a user (Column 8, line 45-Column 9, line 2 , and Column 16, lines 11-36 of Brown).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US #11,134,221) as modified by Berckmans et al. (PGPub #2016/0050888) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Benjamin et al. (PGPub #2023/0276773).
Regarding claim 3, Brown as modified by Berckmans teaches the monitoring apparatus according to claim 1 but does not teach that the programming instructions are arranged to be executed by the computer device such that the computer device compares said one or more movements to an irregular movement criterium and generates an alert to the user if the one or more movements meets the irregular movement criterium. However, Benjamin does teach that the programming instructions are arranged to be executed by the computer device such that the computer device compares said one or more movements to an irregular movement criterium and generates an alert to the user if the one or more movements meets the irregular movement criterium (Paragraphs 60, and 64). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system compare the motion of the animal to an irregular motion value and alert the user if the movement is determined to be irregular because Brown and Benjamin are both animal motion monitoring systems. The motivation for having the system compare the motion of the animal to an irregular motion value and alert the user if the movement is determined to be irregular is that it can allow the system to quickly let the user know if there is an animal that is unwell or is in need of attention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US #11,134,221) as modified by Berckmans et al. (PGPub #2016/0050888) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hardi et al. (PGPub #2013/0092099).
Regarding claim 6, Brown as modified by Berckmans teaches the monitoring apparatus according to claim 1 but does not teach that the camera unit includes one or more light sensors arranged to measure light conditions and wherein the camera unit is arranged to adjust at least one performance characteristic of the camera in response to the light conditions measured by the one or more light sensors. However, Hardi does teach that the camera unit includes one or more light sensors arranged to measure light conditions (Paragraph 52, this teaches that the system has an ambient light sensor) and wherein the camera unit is arranged to adjust at least one performance characteristic of the camera in response to the light conditions measured by the one or more light sensors (Paragraph 52, this teaches that system activates the night vision sensing based on sensed low light conditions). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a light sensor that changes the cameras performance based upon the sensed light conditions because Brown and Hardi are both systems that use cameras to monitor animals. The motivation for having a light sensor that changes the cameras performance based upon the sensed light conditions is that it helps to ensure that the camera is able to capture the best image possible for a given light level.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647