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
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 36-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen (US 2020/0359591A1) in view of Abramson (US 5046725).
Petersen discloses in reference to claim:
36. A method of using a heat lamp 12 to entice piglets 32 to a coverage area 14 on a floor of a farrowing pen away from a sow 26, the method comprising:
providing a heat lamp 12
selecting the coverage area 14 on the floor of the farrowing pen away from the sow 26; and
positioning the heat source 72 directly above the coverage area
Petersen teaches the heating element (72) may alternatively be a light-emitting diode, or a ceramic infrared heat element, and/or be of any desirable type, number, or construction of heat-generating source. Preferably, the heating element (72) is designed to be used with between 50-1200 watts of electricity, more preferably between 300-600 watts, and most preferably 350 watts. The heating element (72) is provided with a variable modulator, such as the thermostat (60) or an adjustable rheostat coupled to the heating element (72) to adjust the heat output of the heating element (72), preferably from 0 watts to 350 watts.
Regarding the new limitations that an opening of the heat lamp has dimensions substantially equal to the coverage area on the floor, it is noted that, as shown in Fig. 6,
PNG
media_image1.png
672
930
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Petersen discusses the desire for the lighting and heating to be directed substantially perpendicular to the floor in parallel reflections from the reflector.
Specifically, Petersen discloses:
[0035] The light assembly (48) is constructed so that a majority of the light emanating from the lighting elements (104), which comprises the heating element (72) and the LED array (86), is initially directed away from the floor (112) and toward the bottom face (98) of the curved plastic reflector base (96). The curved plastic reflector base (96) in turn is constructed and oriented to direct a majority of the light (108) emanating from the lighting elements (104) away from the sow area (20). FIGS. 1, 5, and 6. Preferably the curve (118) of the curved plastic reflector base (96) is constructed of dimensions sufficient to receive a majority of the non parallel light rays (108) from the lighting elements (104) and reflect those rays in a manner parallel to one another and downward at an angle normal to the floor (112) of the piglet area (14) to heat a predetermined portion of an object, such as a piglet (32), on the floor (112) of the piglet area (14) to a predetermined temperature. To maximize heat transfer from the parallel light rays to the piglets (32), it is desirable to position and configure the heating system (10) to direct the parallel light rays reflected off of the curved plastic reflector base (96) toward the piglets (32) in a manner that maximizes the amount of parallel light rays striking the piglets (32) at an angle as close to normal to the surface of the piglets (32) as possible. The wall (40) acts as an elongated shade to prevent light (108) from the lighting elements (104) from traveling downward directly onto the piglets (32), without first reflecting off of the curved plastic reflector base (96).
Since Petersen explicitly discloses the desire for the light to exit the heating lamp device normal to the floor and in parallel rays, it is to be understood by the skilled artisan that since the exiting radiation is in the form of parallel rays {neither intentionally spreading nor intentionally focusing} the opening of the heat lamp {Q as shown in fig. 6} has dimensions substantially equal to the coverage area on the floor {W as shown in Fig. 6}
Petersen does not explicitly teach wherein a heat source is centered at a focus of a parabolic reflective sheet with an aspect ratio of substantially ¼ and surrounding the parabolic reflective sheet with an outer sheet and forming an insulation gap between the outer sheet and the parabolic reflective sheet; nor specifically that the heat source is positioned at a height of at least four-hundred millimeters (400 mm) from the floor.
It, however, can be inferred by a person having ordinary knowledge of farrowing pens and from the teachings of Petersen , including at least figure 1, that the heat source is positioned at a height of at least four hundred millimeters above the floor since the average size of the sow and piglets as depicted in figure 1 would suggest the height of the wall 40 on which the heat source is positioned would be at least four-hundred millimeters (400 mm).
Abramson teaches a heat lamp for heating a coverage area on a floor, the heat lamp comprising:
a heat source 43 that emits infrared radiation; and a parabolic reflective sheet 20 with an aspect ratio of ¼ (see annotated figure below), wherein the heat source is centered at a focus (f) of the parabolic reflective sheet 20 to provide a substantially consistent “temperature” in an area on the floor directly beneath the parabolic reflective sheet. It is noted that although Abramson does not explicitly discuss the aspect ratio of the parabolic reflector being 1/4, it can be understood from the drawings and written description of Abramson as well as common knowledge of the physics behind the reflection of radiation by a parabolic surface that the device depicted in Abramson has an aspect ratio of substantially ¼ as defined by Applicant. Further note that an artisan having ordinary skill in the art would well understand the effect of the aspect ratio of the reflector on the dispersion of the radiant energy. Thus the aspect ratio of the reflector becomes an issue of optimization of the aspect ratio for the desired purpose. Given the consistent focus on uniform heating—(as is mentioned in Abramson, col.4, lines 14-23) in the radiant heating arena, one of skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide the Abramson device with the claimed aspect ratio of substantially 1/4. The normal desire of artisans to improve upon what is already generally known, in this case the physics behind the reflection of radiation by a parabolic surface, provides ample motivation to optimize variables such as the aspect ratio of a reflector for use in a known radiant heating device.
PNG
media_image2.png
736
1006
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to modify the Petersen method as discussed above to include the use of a heat source substantially as taught by Abramson in the method of heating the space dedicated to piglets since Petersen directly suggests other types of suitable heating sources can be substituted without detriment to the method of heating.
37. (New) The method of claim 36, wherein an opening of the heat lamp has dimensions substantially equal to the coverage area on the floor. See figure 1 showing the coverage area 14/36 being substantially equal to the dimensions of the heat source including the reflector.
38. (New) The method of claim 43, and further comprising heating the coverage area on the floor with the heat lamp such that the temperature at the coverage area is substantially consistent across its dimensions.
It is noted that one of skill in the art would infer from the disclosures of Petersen and Abramson a desire to provide a uniform heating effect to the piglet area so as to provide the best performance of the heating to the most piglets as possible.
39. (New) The method of claim 36, and further comprising positioning the heat lamp such that the coverage area of the heat lamp is warmer than it is near the sow to entice the piglets away from the sow to keep warm and away from the sow to prevent layons.
Petersen discloses The piglet area is provided with a heat lamp and/or heat mat to draw the piglets away from the sow to avoid injury or death associated with crushing.
40. (New) The method of claim 36, and further comprising directing substantially sixty-five percent (65%) of the energy from the heat source directly downward from the parabolic reflective sheet into the coverage area on the floor away from the sow.
The plastic reflector base (96) is provided with a parabolic cross-section, defining a curvature sufficient to reflect non-parallel light rays (108) emitting from the lighting elements (104), including the heating element (72) and the tube (76), downward toward the piglets (32) in parallel rays (110), normal to the floor (112) of the piglet area (14). Preferably, in operation, the bottom face (98) of the plastic reflector base (96) reflects at least 95% of mid-wavelength (3-8 μm), long-wavelength (8-15 μm), and far (15-1000 μm) infrared light.
Petersen can be said to inform a method of directing substantially all the heat source energy directly downward (in parallel reflected rays) to the coverage area 14/36 which is away from the sow.
41. (New) The method of claim 40, providing the heat lamp with an outer sheet 11 that surrounds the parabolic reflective sheet 20 and forms an insulation gap 40 between the parabolic reflective sheet and the insulation gap to create a pair of second openings (b) on opposite sides of the parabolic reflective sheet and wherein the heat lamp has a total emission area comprising dimensions of an opening of the parabolic reflective sheet and the pair of second openings, wherein the pair of second openings forms a heat amplifier to increase efficiency of the heat lamp such that more than sixty-five percent (65%) of the energy from the heat source reaches the coverage area on the floor away from the sows.
PNG
media_image2.png
736
1006
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
238
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The plastic reflector base (96) is provided with a parabolic cross-section, defining a curvature sufficient to reflect non-parallel light rays (108) emitting from the lighting elements (104), including the heating element (72) and the tube (76), downward toward the piglets (32) in parallel rays (110), normal to the floor (112) of the piglet area (14). Preferably, in operation, the bottom face (98) of the plastic reflector base (96) reflects at least 95% of mid-wavelength (3-8 μm), long-wavelength (8-15 μm), and far (15-1000 μm) infrared light.
Petersen can be said to inform a method of directing substantially all the heat source energy directly downward (in parallel reflected rays) to the coverage area 14/36 which is away from the sow.
42. (New) The method of claim 36, and further comprising operating the heat lamp in a range of 140 to 160 Watts, inclusive and any value in between, at 120 VAC.
Petersen discloses Preferably, the heating element (72) is designed to be used with between 50-1200 watts of electricity, more preferably between 300-600 watts, and most preferably 350 watts.
43. (New) The method of claim 36, and further comprising positioning the heat source of the heat lamp between four-hundred millimeters (400 mm) and one thousand millimeters (1000 mm) above the coverage area on the floor.
It can be inferred by a person having ordinary knowledge of farrowing pens and from the teachings of Petersen , including at least figure 1, that the heat source is positioned at a height of at least four hundred millimeters above the floor since the average size of the sow and piglets as depicted in figure 1 would suggest the height of the wall 40 on which the heat source is positioned would be at between four-hundred millimeters (400 mm) and (1000mm). Note that one of skill would know the average height of a sow to fall within the 400-1000 mm range and the construction of the farrowing pen of Petersen is inferred to be useful for the average sow.
44. (New) The method of claim 36, wherein the heat coming from the total emission area of the heat lamp is substantially equal to the heat arriving at the coverage area on the floor when the heat source of the heat lamp is positioned between four-hundred millimeters (400 mm) and one thousand millimeters (1000 mm) above the coverage area on the floor.
The plastic reflector base (96) is provided with a parabolic cross-section, defining a curvature sufficient to reflect non-parallel light rays (108) emitting from the lighting elements (104), including the heating element (72) and the tube (76), downward toward the piglets (32) in parallel rays (110), normal to the floor (112) of the piglet area (14). Preferably, in operation, the bottom face (98) of the plastic reflector base (96) reflects at least 95% of mid-wavelength (3-8 μm), long-wavelength (8-15 μm), and far (15-1000 μm) infrared light. Note that the disclosure of the parallel rays aimed at the floor and the refection of at least 95% of mid-wavelength (3-8 μm), long-wavelength (8-15 μm), and far (15-1000 μm) infrared light suggests to one of skill the heat coming from the total emission area of the heat lamp is substantially equal to the heat arriving at the coverage area on the floor, and further It can be inferred by a person having ordinary knowledge of farrowing pens and from the teachings of Petersen , including at least figure 1, that the heat source is positioned at a height of at least four hundred millimeters above the floor since the average size of the sow and piglets as depicted in figure 1 would suggest the height of the wall 40 on which the heat source is positioned would be at between four-hundred millimeters (400 mm) and (1000mm). Note that one of skill would know the average height of a sow to fall within the 400-1000 mm range and the construction of the farrowing pen of Petersen is inferred to be useful for the average sow.
45. (New) The method of claim 36, and further comprising providing a visual indication of a total emission area with an indicator light connected in parallel to the heat source. Note that Petersen discloses the provision of both an illuminating light and a IR heating lamp, both are reflected to exit the heating device in parallel rays that are perpendicular to the floor. The decision to provide the illumination light in parallel with the heat lamp is one of design choice that would have been obvious to one of skill as the benefits of parallel electrical connection are known to the skilled artisans.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-26, 28, 30-31 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the new limitations of claim amendments filed 1/16/2026. The new limitations are addressed above and not reiterated here.
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 THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc
Prosecution Insights