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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 1 has been amended to now recite “showing, via a projector or display, a digitized, visual stimulus to the animals” such that the language matches language found in original claim 9, and therefore, it cannot be said that the process as claimed (claim 1) can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus (claim 9). This is found persuasive and the restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “collection device for automatically collecting microbiota, in vitro assays, neurochemicals, and/or short chain fatty acids from the range” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-9 recite “the animal”, which should be “the animals” to keep consistent that claim 1 first claims for “animals in ranged captivity” and claim 9 first claims for “animals”.
Claim 1 recites “effect senses”, which should be “affect senses” to use the grammatically correct term.
Claim 1 recites “via a project”, which should be “via a projector”.
Claim 9 recites “the animal encouraged to engage”, which should be “the animal is encouraged to engage”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0024 recites “to effect senses”, which it should be “to affect senses” to use the grammatically correct term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites “a collection device for automatically collecting microbiota, in vitro assays, neurochemicals, and/or short chain fatty acids from the range” but it is unclear how this is possible. Collecting microbiota, neurochemicals, and/or short chain fatty acids would require collecting biological samples from the animals. What are these biological samples? Is it urine, stool, blood, or another biological sample from the animals? An in vitro assay is a scientific test. Is it collecting tests or is it collecting samples for testing on an in vitro assay? How does the collection device collect these and how does it do it automatically? The specification does not detail or even mention the collection device.
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.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “automatic means for executing procedures that habituate the animal to more regularly engage in positive behaviors, to less regularly engage in negative behaviors, and to train the animal to be able to handle potential stresses.” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification only repeats the limitation without any structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
How would the invention accomplish “automatic means for executing procedures that habituate the animal to more regularly engage in positive behaviors, to less regularly engage in negative behaviors, and to train the animal to be able to handle potential stresses”? Is it a software, algorithm, or a mechanism to accomplish this limitation?
Dependent claim 10 fail to solve the deficiency.
Claim 10 recites “a collection device for automatically collecting microbiota, in vitro assays, neurochemicals, and/or short chain fatty acids from the range”. How the collection device is able to accomplish this limitation is unclear and indefinite due to the 112(a) issues surrounding the claim and therefore the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Animal Place (“Recovering Hen Loves Watching TV - Animal Place”).
Regarding claim 1, Animal Place teaches of method of providing synthetic free-range experiences to animals in ranged captivity (p. 2, the chicken lives in a person’s house, which is a range for the chicken to roam around), comprising:
showing, via a project or display (p. 1, display of the tablet), a digitized, visual stimulus to the animals to effect senses of the animal (seen on p. 1) such that the animal perceives engaging in and/or is encouraged to engage in a free-range activity or behavior (pp. 2-3, the chicken is entertained and engages in pecking at the screen, which is a free-range activity or behavior);
selecting the free-range behavior so as to:
encourage positive behaviors in the animal (the chicken is entertained and displaying positive behavior of not being bored and is pecking);
discourage negative behaviors in the animal (the chicken is discouraged from being bored); and/or expose the animal to potential stresses (p. 3, the chicken is exposed to potential stresses of predators, such as the crocodile); and
training the animal so as to increase a ratio of the positive behaviors to the negative behaviors by repeating the using and selecting steps (repeating the steps of entertaining the chicken would decrease the negative behavior of boredom, which would increase a ratio of positive behavior to the negative behavior).
Regarding claim 2, Animal Place teaches of claim 1, and wherein the animal is an avian (p. 1, chicken is an avian) and the free-range activity or behavior comprises (i) perching, (ii) nesting, (iii) incubating, (iv) scratching, (v) pecking, (vi) feeding, (vii) flocking, (viii) courting, (ix) roosting, (x) swimming, (xi) floating, (xii) flying, (xiii) diving, (xiv) scouting, or (xv) migrating (p. 3, of the options, the chicken pecked at the screen).
Regarding claim 4, Animal Place teaches of claim 1, and wherein the digitized, visual stimulus is two-dimensional (p. 1, the digitized visual stimulus is two-dimensional on the tablet).
Regarding claim 5, Animal Place teaches of claim 1, and wherein the digitized, visual stimulus is multichromatic (p. 1, the digitized, visual stimulus is multichromatic on the tablet).
Regarding claim 9, Animal Place teaches of a simulated range (p. 2, the chicken lives in a person’s house, which is a range for the chicken to roam around) comprising:
a physical enclosure (the person’s house is a physical enclosure);
animals (there can be multiple chickens);
a projector or display (tablet) for showing a digitized, visual stimulus to the animals (p. 1, the tablet is showing a digitized, visual stimulus to the animals); and a computerized storage unit including:
a collection of digital images or motion pictures (the tablet has a collection of digital images or motion pictures to show the chicken) that, when shown by the projector or display, can be perceived by the animal such that the animal is encouraged to engage in a free-range activity or behavior (pp. 2-3, the chicken is entertained and engages in pecking, which is a free-range activity or behavior); and
automatic means for executing procedures that habituate the animal to more regularly engage in positive behaviors (as best understood by the 112b rejection above, the tablet automatically plays the video to habituate the animal to be entertained, which is a positive behavior. Examiner notes that it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that tablets can automatically play images or videos such as in a playlist or on a video streaming site), to less regularly engage in negative behaviors (the chicken is less regularly engaging in boredom), and to train the animal to be able to handle potential stresses (p. 3, the chicken is trained to handle potential stresses, such as potential predators like a crocodile).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Animal Place in view of Kwon et al. (US 20170059939), hereinafter Kwon.
Regarding claim 3, Animal Place teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of wherein the animal is a domesticated mammal selected from the group consisting of (i) felines, (ii) canines, (iii) lupines, (iv) vulpines, (v) bovines, (vi) porcines, (vii) ovines, (vii) caprines, and (ix) equines.
Kwon teaches of wherein the animal is a domesticated mammal selected from the group consisting of (i) felines, (ii) canines, (iii) lupines, (iv) vulpines, (v) bovines, (vi) porcines, (vii) ovines, (vii) caprines, and (ix) equines (of the options, fig. 1, ¶0046, raising pets in the house, such as dogs, many times the dog also watches TV together with the human).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Animal Place to incorporate the teachings of Kwon of wherein the animal is a domesticated mammal selected from the group consisting of (i) felines, (ii) canines, (iii) lupines, (iv) vulpines, (v) bovines, (vi) porcines, (vii) ovines, (vii) caprines, and (ix) equines in order to promote positive behaviors and discourage negative behaviors in a variety of animal types.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Animal Place in view of Grajcar (US 20140159615).
Regarding claim 6, Animal Place teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of further comprising manipulating an environmental characteristic selected from the group consisting of: (i) temperature, (ii) humidity, (iii) air pressure, (iv) ambient noise level, (v) quantity of visible light, and (vi) terrain to exacerbate a perception of the animal.
Grajcar teaches of manipulating an environmental characteristic selected from the group consisting of: (i) temperature, (ii) humidity, (iii) air pressure, (iv) ambient noise level, (v) quantity of visible light, and (vi) terrain to exacerbate a perception of the animal (of the options, abstract, the quantity of visible light sources is adjusted to blue light at under 3 lumens for diurnal avians. ¶0003-0007, the light source is adjusted for avian growth and behavior).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Animal Place to incorporate the teachings of Grajcar of manipulating an environmental characteristic selected from the group consisting of: (i) temperature, (ii) humidity, (iii) air pressure, (iv) ambient noise level, (v) quantity of visible light, and (vi) terrain to exacerbate a perception of the animal in order to provide artificial light to the diurnal avians representative of moonlight to cause the occurrence of a predetermined characteristic visual spectral response of the diurnal avian as motivated by Grajcar in the abstract and to improve the growth of eggs and avian comfort as motivated by Grajcar in paragraphs 0006-0007.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Animal Place in view of Araujo (US 8578882).
Regarding claim 6, Animal Place teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of further comprising quantifying and recording the ratio over time.
Araujo teaches of further comprising quantifying and recording the ratio over time (fig. 11, col. 17 lines 14-45, trend data is provided on the animal’s behavior on at least one of the cognitive enrichment devices associated with at least one of the plurality of domesticated animals. The trend data can include statistical data. The trend data may be provided based on any set of parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Animal Place to incorporate the teachings of Araujo of further comprising quantifying and recording the ratio over time in order to changes of behavior over time, compare differences between parameters, and see any relationship between the parameters over time.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Animal Place in view of Vrabete et al. (EP 3225106), hereinafter Vrabete.
Regarding claim 8, Animal Place teaches of claim 1, but does not appear to teach of further comprising testing samples of biological byproducts and/or materials taken from the animal during said ranged captivity to determine and/or monitor a health of the animal.
Vrabete teaches of (fig. 2) testing samples of biological byproducts and/or materials taken from the animal during said ranged captivity to determine and/or monitor a health of the animal (¶0012, system 100 takes samples of blood, milk, urine, and stool of the livestock animal to determine livestock health. ¶0011, the livestock animal can be cattle, pigs, racing horses, chicken, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Animal Place to incorporate the teachings of Vrabete of testing samples of biological byproducts and/or materials taken from the animal during said ranged captivity to determine and/or monitor a health of the animal in order to monitor and manage the health of the animals as motivated by Vrabete in the abstract.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Animal Place in view of Greene et al. (WO 2009091886), hereinafter Greene.
Regarding claim 10, Animal Place teaches of claim 9, but does not appear to teach of further comprising a collection device for automatically collecting microbiota, in vitro assays, neurochemicals, and/or short chain fatty acids from the range.
Greene teaches of (figs. 3-4) a collection device (automated collection system 40) for automatically collecting microbiota, in vitro assays, neurochemicals, and/or short chain fatty acids from the range (abstract, the automated collection system automatically collects urine, fecal or combination urine/fecal, and excrement from the animal. Examiner notes that urine, fecal, and excrement from the animal contains microbiota, neurochemicals, short chain fatty acids, and samples used for in vitro assays).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Animal Place to incorporate the teachings of Greene of a collection device for automatically collecting microbiota, in vitro assays, neurochemicals, and/or short chain fatty acids from the range in order to automatically monitor the animal’s health as motivated by Greene in the abstract.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm EST.
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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647