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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12213455. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “position” should be revised to read -positioned-.
Claim 11 is objected to because it recites “an indicator mechanism placed on said at least one animal”. While there is an indicator mechanism described, the relationship of it being positioned on the animal is not discussed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
“At least one milking means” was configured to pertain to the milking stalls discussed in the disclosure.
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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 limitation “discontinuation means” 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 disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the recited function in the claim. 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.
Claims 2-11 are rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
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 1-3, 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kortekaas (US 20120204798 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, at least one milking discontinuation means 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).
Regarding claim 2: Kortekaas 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 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 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 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).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortekaas as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Thompson (US 20130319336 A1).
Regarding claim 4: Kortekaas discloses the limitations of claim 2 as shown above.
Kortekaas 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 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.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortekaas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rajkondawar (US 20120234245 A1).
Regarding claim 7: Kortekaas discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
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 8: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and 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: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 8 as shown above, and 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: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 7 as shown above, and 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kortekaas as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gray (US 20050145187 A1).
Regarding claim 11: Kortekaas 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of milking systems.
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