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 1-19 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 03/05/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17 appears to be missing a comma and should read –at an entrance of the cubicle, a mutual distance (L)--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19 all comprise the language “for example” and/or “preferably” which is indefinite and unclear as to whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Similarly, claim 14 recites “in particular” similarly to how “preferably” is used, again making it unclear if the following limitation is intended to be part of the claimed invention.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 14 all use the term “circa”. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “circa” appears to mean “about”, however the common understanding of the term is relevant to the usage of dates, and not values of length or width. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim 19 “provided with at least one substantially horizontal U-shaped profile to furnish two substantially horizontal limiters of two neighboring cubicles” it is unclear how the U-shaped profile is intended to “furnish two substantially horizontal limiters of two neighboring cubicles”, and this limitation is generally difficult to understand. It is unclear if applicant intended for the claim to read as though the stable has a U-shaped profile (as in a U-shaped arrangement of the cubicles), or if applicant is referring to the U-shaped limiters. It is unclear what “to furnish” is intended to accomplish in this limitation.
Dependent claims throughout refer to “A cubicle” in the preamble when referring back to an independent claim, which is indefinite as it is unclear if this is meant to be a different cubicle from the previously recited one.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 13-14, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (EP 1579760 A2) to Ally.
In regards to claim 1, Ally anticipates a cubicle for a cow (Ally; 10, 11, 12), provided with two substantially horizontal floating limiters to delimit a cow walk-in area (Ally; each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, etc), wherein a cow lying area (S) is available under the two limiters (Ally; within each cubicle, 10, 11, 12, see FIG 3 where a cow is laying down under the limiter 13B), wherein at least at an entrance of the cubicle a mutual distance between the limiters amounts to 105 cm at a maximum (Ally; claim 24; the free space between the two legs 15A, 15B, 15C, 16B, 16C, 16D which are portions of each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D are between 80-100cm).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
486
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
336
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Ally anticipates a cubicle according to claim 1, wherein at least one of said substantially horizontal limiters forms part of a substantially horizontally extending U-shaped profile (Ally; each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D having a U shape at its rearmost end, and also see FIG 3 where 13B extends horizontally), and in particular forms an elongate leg of the U-shaped profile, wherein the U-shaped profile preferably has a width (UB), measured at right angles to respective parallel legs, which is in the range of circa 25-85 cm, in particular 40-60 cm, for example a width (UB) of circa 50 cm (Ally as best understood; claim 24; the free space between the two legs 15A, 15B, 15C, 16B, 16C, 16D which are portions of each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D are between 80-100cm – where parallel legs are 80 cm apart).
In regards to claim 3, Ally anticipates a cubicle according to claim 1, wherein a width of a free space extending between the two substantially horizontal limiters is substantially constant (Ally; width of free space A1 annotated below between 13A and 13B is substantially constant).
PNG
media_image3.png
416
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 5, Ally anticipates a cubicle according to claim 1, wherein a width (Z) of a cow lying area which is under the two substantially horizontal limiters is greater than 130 cm and amounts to, for instance, circa 150 cm, for example a width in the range of 140-160 cm (Ally as best understood; claim 29 recites the distance between longitudinal center planes of two adjacent cubicles is 110-130cm, a ‘lying area’ being interpreted as an entire area beneath horizontal limiters where a cow may lay, and there being at least three cubicles 10, 11, 12 in FIG 2, indicates a lying area of at least double 110-130 cm or 220-260cm).
In regards to claim 7, Ally anticipates a cubicle according to claim 1, wherein the mutual distance (L) between the limiters amounts to 100 cm at a maximum at the entrance of the cubicle and preferably 95 cm at a maximum, in particular 90 cm at a maximum (Ally as best understood; claim 24; the free space between the two legs 15A, 15B, 15C, 16B, 16C, 16D which are portions of each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D are between 80-100cm – where parallel legs are 80 cm apart).
In regards to claim 9, Ally anticipates a cubicle according to claim 1, provided with a frame to couple a substantially horizontal limiter to a ground behind a cubicle end remote from the cubicle entrance (Ally; such as in FIG 3 where the frame is connected to 13B via 5, 17 to the ground, and behind a cubicle end remote from the entrance around 9).
In regards to claim 13, Ally anticipates a cubicle according to claim 1, wherein each of the limiters is pivotable from a first position to a second position (Ally; [0042] hinge to allow for the limiter to pivot).
In regards to claim 14, Ally anticipates a cubicle according to claim 1, wherein each substantially horizontal limiter includes an angle beta of circa 25 degrees at a maximum with a horizontal plane, in particular an angle beta of 15 degrees at a maximum, for example circa 11 degrees, at least, in an initial use position of the limiter (Ally as best understood; [0037] the angle with the horizontal being approximately 25 degrees).
In regards to claim 18, Ally anticipates a stable provided with at least one row of cubicles, which row of cubicles extends along a respective cow walk-through path, wherein at least a number of the cubicles of the row comprise a cubicle according to claim 1 (Ally; stable [0027] with the rows of cubicles, 10, 11, 12 adjacent to the path 9).
In regards to claim 19, Ally anticipates a stable according to claim 18, provided with at least one substantially horizontal U-shaped profile to furnish two substantially horizontal limiters of two neighboring cubicles (Ally; as best understood, each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D having a U-shaped profile at its lower end, see FIG 2), wherein each U-shaped profile preferably comprises two straight elongate legs and a horizontal or bent cross leg (Ally; each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D having a U shaped portion with a straight leg on either side and a curved cross leg between them, see FIG 2).
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(s) 4, 6, 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (EP 1579760 A2) to Ally.
In regards to claim 4, Ally teaches a cubicle according to claim 1, wherein the two substantially horizontal limiters each extend at a height (H), and being freely movable in height (Ally; Claim 12 partition being movable in height; also [0036]).
Ally fails to explicitly teach the height is of at least 50 cm above a lying surface of the cubicle, for example a height (H) in the range of circa 50-80 cm.
However, 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 height of the limiters of Ally such that they are at least 50 cm above a lying surface of a cubicle, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, there is no stated criticality for this particular dimension in the specification. Though the specification discusses a height above or at shoulder height of a cow, there is no criticality stated for this specific height or the range of 50-80cm. The motivation for changing the height to being at least 50 cm would have been to adjust the height based on the height of the animal.
In regards to claim 6, Ally teaches a cubicle according to claim 1, wherein the two substantially horizontal limiters are provided with substantially parallel, mutually facing cow guide edges, wherein the guide edges in particular extend parallel to each other (Ally as best understood; edges of each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D extend parallel to each other), from the entrance of the cubicle and are at said mutual distance of 105 cm at a maximum measured in a direction at right angles to a longitudinal direction of the guide edges (Ally as best understood; claim 24; the free space between the two legs 15A, 15B, 15C, 16B, 16C, 16D which are portions of each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D are between 80-100cm – where parallel legs are 80 cm apart).
Ally fails to explicitly teach the guide edges extend over a distance of at least 50 cm.
However, 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 length of the edges such that they extend at least 50 cm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, there is no stated criticality for this particular dimension in the specification. Though the specification discusses an increased length of guidance, there is no specific criticality as to why a dimension slightly smaller than 50cm would not be sufficient for its function. The motivation for changing the length of the guide would be to expand the length that the guide applies to the cubicle.
In regards to claim 8, Ally teaches a cubicle according to claim 1 wherein each limiter comprises a substantially horizontal elongate straight profile or profile part (Ally; such as for example each of 16A, 16B, 16C, 16D and 16A, 15B, 15C, 15D all having portions which are substantially straight).
Ally fails to explicitly teach the profile part preferably having a length of at least 50 cm, in particular 100 cm, for example a length in the range of 120-200 cm.
However, 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 length of the profile part such that they extend at least 50 cm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, there is no stated criticality for this particular dimension in the specification. Though the specification discusses an increased length of guidance, there is no specific criticality as to why a dimension slightly smaller than 50cm would not be sufficient for its function. The motivation for changing the length of the guide would be to expand the length that the guide applies to the cubicle and based on the length of the animal.
In regards to claim 16, Ally teaches a cubicle for a cow (Ally; 10, 11, 12), provided with two, substantially horizontal floating limiters to delimit a cow walk-in area (Ally; each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, etc), wherein a cow lying area (S) is available under the two limiters (Ally; within each cubicle, 10, 11, 12, see FIG 3 where a cow is laying down under the limiter 13B), wherein at least at an entrance of the cubicle a mutual distance (L) between the limiters amounts to 105 cm at a maximum (Ally; claim 24; the free space between the two legs 15A, 15B, 15C, 16B, 16C, 16D which are portions of each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D are between 80-100cm); wherein each substantially horizontal limiter comprises an elongate straight profile or profile part (Ally; such as for example each of 16A, 16B, 16C, 16D and 16A, 15B, 15C, 15D all having portions which are substantially straight), and is preferably part of a substantially horizontal U- shaped profile (Ally; U-shaped profile at the end portions of each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D).
Ally fails to explicitly each the profile part having a length of at least 100 cm.
However, 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 length of the profile part such that they extend at least 100 cm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, there is no stated criticality for this particular dimension in the specification. Though the specification discusses an increased length of guidance, there is no specific criticality as to why a dimension smaller than 100 cm would not be sufficient for its function, as the specification mentions a size of at least 50 cm also being used. The motivation for changing the length of the part would be to expand the length that the guide applies to the cubicle and based on the length of the animal.
Claim(s) 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (EP 1579760 A2) to Ally in view of (CA 3107999 A1) to Earls.
In regards to claim 10, Ally teaches a cubicle according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a walk-through barrier is provided at a proximal part of the limiters, wherein the walk- through barrier is configured to define a central free space.
Earls teaches a walk-through barrier is provided at a proximal part of the limiters, wherein the walk- through barrier is configured to define a central free space (Earls; 32, see FIGs 1 and 2 where 32 is connected to each of 14 at proximal end areas of the cubicle, defining a central free space between them).
PNG
media_image4.png
365
528
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
784
429
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 Ally such that it has barriers such as taught by Earls. The motivation for doing so would be to encourage the animal to straighten entry and promoting a straightened lying position.
In regards to claim 15, Ally teaches a cubicle for a cow, for example a cubicle according claim 1, provided with two substantially horizontal floating limiters to delimit a cow walk-in area (Ally; each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D), wherein a cow lying area is available under the two limiters (Ally; within each cubicle 10, 11, 12).
Ally fails to teach wherein a walk-through barrier is provided at a proximal part of the limiters, wherein the walk- through barrier is configured to define a central free space (W).
Earls teaches wherein a walk-through barrier is provided at a proximal part of the limiters, wherein the walk- through barrier is configured to define a central free space (W) (Earls; 32, see FIGs 1 and 2 where 32 is connected to each of 14 at proximal end areas of the cubicle, defining a central free space between them).
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 Ally such that it has barriers such as taught by Earls. The motivation for doing so would be to encourage the animal to straighten entry and promoting a straightened lying position.
Claim(s) 11-12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (EP 1579760 A2) to Ally in view of (CA 3107999 A1) to Earls and (US 20190387707 A1) to Fournier.
In regards to claim 11, Ally as modified by Earls teaches a cubicle according to claim 10, wherein the walk-through barrier comprises two mutually spaced apart, preferably at least partly spheroidal, floating barrier elements (Earls; each of 32, see FIG 1-2), wherein each of the two floating barrier elements is preferably at a higher level than a height of the two floating limiters of the cubicle (Earls; each of 32 being at a height higher than a height from the base of the cubicle to the lower part of the limiter).
Ally as modified by Earls fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between the two floating barrier elements is preferably greater than 15 cm, in particular greater than 20 cm, and is for example in the range of 15-40 cm, in particular 25-40 cm or 25-50 cm.
Fournier teaches wherein a distance between the two floating barrier elements is preferably greater than 15 cm, in particular greater than 20 cm, and is for example in the range of 15-40 cm, in particular 25-40 cm or 25-50 cm (Fournier as best understood; between each of 12,16 and 13, 17; the distance D is 20 to 30 cm [0066]).
PNG
media_image6.png
353
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 Ally as modified by Earls such that the floating barrier elements are greater than 15 cm as taught by Fournier. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a guidance for the head and neck portion of the animal to enter the cubicle and stand upright to lay down.
In regards to claim 12, Ally as modified by Earls and Fournier teach a cubicle according to claim 11, wherein each of the floating barrier elements is, from a first position, upwardly displaceable, for example relative to the limiters, preferably against a spring force and/or gravity, wherein both floating barrier elements are preferably pivotable from the first position away from each other (Earls; where each limiter has a fastener 48 which can be loosened to move or reposition each of 32, 34; therefore allowing the device to be pivoted about 14 and displaced upwardly and away from a neighboring 32 when being positioned on 14, against gravity).
In regards to claim 17, Ally teaches a cubicle for a cow (Ally; 10, 11, 12), provided with two floating limiters to delimit a cow walk-in area (Ally; each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D, etc), wherein a cow lying area (S) is available under the two limiters (Ally; within each cubicle, 10, 11, 12, see FIG 3 where a cow is laying down under the limiter 13B), wherein at least at an entrance of the cubicle a mutual distance (L) between the limiters amounts to 105 cm at a maximum (Ally; claim 24; the free space between the two legs 15A, 15B, 15C, 16B, 16C, 16D which are portions of each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D are between 80-100cm), wherein: -each limiter is a substantially horizontal limiter (Ally; see FIG 3 where 13B extends horizontally); and/or -each floating limiter extends at a height (H) of at least 50 cm above a lying surface of the cubicle; and/orat least one of said floating limiters forms part of a substantially horizontally extending U- shaped profile (Ally; each of 13A, 13B, 13C, 13D having a U shape at its rearmost end, and also see FIG 3 where 13B extends horizontally).
Ally fails to teach wherein a walk-through barrier is provided at a proximal part of the floating limiters, wherein the walk-through barrier is configured to define a central free space, wherein the walk-through barrier comprises two mutually spaced apart, at least partly spheroidal, floating barrier elements, wherein a distance between the two floating barrier elements is in the range of 15-40 cm, wherein each of the two floating barrier elements is at a higher level than a height of the two floating limiters of the cubicle.
Earls teaches wherein a walk-through barrier is provided at a proximal part of the floating limiters, wherein the walk-through barrier is configured to define a central free space (Earls; 32, see FIGs 1 and 2 where 32 is connected to each of 14 at proximal end areas of the cubicle, defining a central free space between them), wherein the walk-through barrier comprises two mutually spaced apart, at least partly spheroidal, floating barrier elements (Earls; each of 32 being spaced apart and being partly spheroidal), wherein each of the two floating barrier elements is at a higher level than a height of the two floating limiters of the cubicle (Earls; each of 32 being at a height higher than a height from the base of the cubicle to the lower part of the limiter).
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 Ally such that it has barriers such as taught by Earls. The motivation for doing so would be to encourage the animal to straighten entry and promoting a straightened lying position.
Ally as modified by Earls fails to explicitly teach wherein a distance between the two floating barrier elements is in the range of 15-40 cm.
Fournier teaches wherein a distance between the two floating barrier elements is in the range of 15-40 cm (Fournier as best understood; between each of 12,16 and 13, 17; the distance D is 20 to 30 cm [0066]).
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 Ally as modified by Earls such that the floating barrier elements are in a range of 15-40cm as taught by Fournier. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a guidance for the head and neck portion of the animal to enter the cubicle and stand upright to lay down.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3734059 A to Rodrigues teaches limiters on a spring bias.
US 20190223406 A1 to Brayer teaches a stall width between limiters as being less than 105 cm.
US 20100089337 A1 to Andringa teaches a limiting mechanism to guide a cow to laying down.
US 1207286 A to Ferris teaches stall widths, where there are standard widths under 105 cm (3ft, 3ft 3 inch).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights