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 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.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Kortekaas (US 20120204798 A1) in view of Rajkondawar (US 20120234245 A1).
Regarding claim 1: Kortekaas discloses a system for milking at least one animal within a milking parlor (abstract), said system comprising: at least one milking means configured for milking said at least one animal (milking device, para 29); and, a milking controller configured to discontinue said milking at such time as there has occurred at least one condition of: (a) an amount of milk removed from said animal is substantially equal to a predetermined amount, (b) said at least one animal has yielded a quantity of milk substantially equal to an average quantity from previous milkings, or (c) a milking flow rate of said milking has decreased by at least a predetermined amount (paras 12-13, para 36 describes the milk control device).
Kortekaas fails to teach at least one locating means configured to generate at least one location signal associated with said at least one animal.
However, Rajkondawar teaches at least one locating means (identification device 108) configured to generate at least one location signal associated with said at least one animal (paras 13, 18-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the identification collar tag as disclosed by Kortekaas with the locating system as taught by Kortekaas with a reasonable expectation of success because providing the location of the animal could be used to determine where an animal is within the milking parlor, so that the animal may be quickly retrieved in the event it is either within an undesired region or observed by sensors to be ill.
Regarding claim 2: Kortekaas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses at least one sensor for monitoring said milking (measuring device, para 28).
Regarding claim 3: Kortekaas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as shown above, and further discloses wherein said at least one sensor is a milk flow sensor configured to measure a flow rate of said milking (milk flow meter, para 28).
Regarding claim 5: Kortekaas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses at least one identification means configured to transmit at least one identification signal associated with said at least one animal (para 8 describes the dairy animal comprising a collar with a transponder, which is known in the art for providing signals, in order to identify the animal).
Regarding claim 6: Kortekaas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as shown above, and further discloses wherein said at least one identification signal includes information enabling identifying said at least one animal (para 8 describes the dairy animal comprising a collar with a transponder, which is known in the art for providing signals, in order to identify the animal).
Regarding claim 8: Kortekaas as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Rajkondawar further teaches wherein said at least one location signal includes information relating to a position of said at least one animal within said milking parlor (Rajkondawar paras 18-23).
Regarding claim 9: Kortekaas as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8 as shown above, and Rajkondawar further teaches wherein said position is at least one of n milking cells (Rajkondawar 104) within said milking parlor, n being an integer greater than one (Rajkondawar para 23, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10: Kortekaas as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and Rajkondawar further teaches wherein said at least one locating means (Rajkondawar identification devices 108) comprises at least one ultra-wide-band UWB transmitter and at least one UWB receiver, and wherein said at least one UWB transmitter is configured to be located inside said milking parlor and the at least one UWB receiver is configured to be located outside of said milking parlor, or vice versa (Rajkondawar para 13, discusses identification devices being inside or near milking parlor 102, discusses communication between ID devices 108 which inherently means that they behave as transmitters/receivers, and that communication can be done via UWB).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortekaas and Rajkondawar as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Thompson (US 20130319336 A1).
Regarding claim 4: Kortekaas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Kortekaas as modified fails to teach wherein said at least one sensor is position on one of: a milking robot, a milking stall, a cattle stall, or any combination thereof.
However, Thompson teaches wherein said at least one sensor is position on one of: a milking robot, a milking stall, a cattle stall, or any combination thereof (paras 57-59 discusses at least one sensor being installed within the milking stall).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the milking stall as disclosed by modified Kortekaas with the sensors as taught by Thompson with a reasonable expectation of success because providing sensors within the stalls would achieve the predictable result of having measurements of the cows taken when they enter or leave the stall, allowing for the health condition of the animal to be diagnosed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortekaas and Rajkondawar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gray (US 20050145187 A1).
Regarding claim 11: Kortekaas as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Kortekaas fails to teach an indicator mechanism placed on said at least one animal, configured to notify a user of said system that an intervention is needed for said at least one animal.
However, Gray teaches an indicator mechanism placed on said at least one animal, configured to notify a user of said system that an intervention is needed for said at least one animal (abstract, Fig. 5, ear tag can notify an owner if the ear tag is outside of a pre-defined range).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the collar as disclosed by Kortekaas with the alert system as taught by Gray with a reasonable expectation of success because providing an alert system in the collar would allow for an owner to determine whether an animal has exited a desired area, allowing for the owner to quickly retrieve the animal to position them within their designated region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 1 is patentable as the prior art of Kortekaas no longer anticipates the limitations. The Office respectfully disagrees, as the claim is rejected under 35 USC 103 over Kortekaas in view of Rajkondawar as seen above in claim 1, where Rajokndawar teaches the limitations that are not explicitly discussed in Kortekaas.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights