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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/13/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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, 3-6, 9 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klaas (US 2024/0284876 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Klaas discloses a livestock animal management system (e.g. [0036, 0075]), comprising:
a livestock shed with a livestock space for livestock animals (e.g. Fig. 1& [0032]),
a feed fence (e.g. Fig. 1: 34) provided in the livestock shed with a plurality of feed fence positions (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0034]: head locks), where the livestock animals are able to eat animal feed through the feed fence (e.g. Fig. 1: feed 32),
a livestock animal locating system which is configured for determining and monitoring positions of the livestock animals in the livestock shed (e.g. [0039]: RTLS), and
a control device (e.g. Fig. 3 & [0073, 0076]: 20, 100 which is connected to the livestock animal locating system and is configured for receiving and processing said positions (e.g. Figs. 3-4 & [0079]),
wherein the control device is configured for generating an animal alarm
(e.g. [0030, 0062, 0065]: alarm or alert that animals not entering feed zone often enough or staying at a position on the feed table long enough) if a position of at least one of the livestock animals remains at least within a distance threshold of one of the feed fence positions for at least a predetermined time threshold (e.g. [0050, 0052, 0054]: evaluate eating behavior or health of animals based on how much time the animals spent in feed zone and/or feed table; 1) in the case for alarm about how often animals entering feed zone, the predetermined time threshold could be corresponding to any time as long as the animals entering the feed zone, thus, the number of time animals entering the feed zone could be determined; 2) in the case for alarm or alert about how long animals staying at feed table, the predetermined time threshold could be 30 min or less; alarm or alert will be generated after comparing the number of time animals entering the feed zone or duration of animals eating at feed table with a normal baseline that defines eating criteria of the animals).
Regarding claim 3, Klaas discloses the time threshold depends on a time since a most recent feed provision event (e.g. [0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Klaas discloses an automatic feeding system for dispensing feed at the feed fence (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0036, 0067-0069]: robot 1), wherein the feeding system is configured to transmit a time of a feed provision event (e.g. [0067, 0069, 0075]: keep track of all events including feed schedule) to said control device (e.g. [0036]: livestock management system 20).
Regarding claim 5, Klaas discloses the feed provision event comprises providing fresh feed at the feed fence or pushing back previously dispensed feed (e.g. [0066, 0069]).
Regarding claim 6, Klaas discloses the livestock animal locating system comprises a camera system having at least one camera for repeatedly recording images of at least a part of the livestock shed including the feed fence, and an image- processing device for processing the images and identifying one or more animals in said images (e.g. [0080]: camera).
Regarding claim 9, discloses the control device is configured for emitting a lock alarm (not clearly define what “lock alarm” is; thus, broadly interpreted as alarm) if the positions of a plurality of the livestock animals remain at least within the distance threshold of a respective one of the feed fence positions for at least the predetermined time threshold (e.g. [0030, 0062, 0065]: alarm or alert is sent when number of times animals entering feed zone and/or duration of staying on feed table not normal, and the number of times and duration are determined based on whether animals enter the feed zone and/or on feed table for a predetermined time; alarm/alert are sent when one or all of behavior of the animals deviate from normal condition).
Regarding claim 11, discloses the control device is configured for emitting a lock alarm (not clearly define what “lock alarm” is; thus, broadly interpreted as alarm) if the positions of all of the livestock animals remain at least within the distance threshold of a respective one of the feed fence positions for at least the predetermined time threshold (e.g. [0030, 0062, 0065]: alarm or alert is sent when number of times animals entering feed zone and/or duration of staying on feed table not normal, and the number of times and duration are determined based on whether animals enter the feed zone and/or on feed table for a predetermined time; alarm/alert are sent when one or all of behavior of the animals deviate from normal condition).
Regarding claim 12, Klaas discloses the least one autonomously navigating vehicle is in the livestock space (e.g. Fig. 1 & [0069]: feed robot 1 moving along the feed table to push feed and deliver fresh feed).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaas (US 2024/0284876 A1) in view of Fournier (US 2024/0023515 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Klaas fails to disclose, but Fournier teaches the feed fence positions are individually and/or integrally lockable (e.g. Abstract & Fig. 3 & [0060]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Klaas with the teachings of Fournier to utilize a mechanical lock to allow animal to gain access to a feed position during feed time so to allow animal to eat at a natural posture and reduce the risk of injuring and strangling (e.g. [0004, 0081])
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaas (US 2024/0284876 A1) in view of Biffert et al. (US 2022/0192152 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Klaas fails to disclose, but Biffert teaches the image-processing device is furthermore configured for identifying a deviation from an upright position of a livestock animal (e.g. [0139, 0117, 0162]: standing or lying on ground) in an image (e.g. [0117]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Klaas with the teachings of Biffert to activate camera to monitor environment near the animal so as to detect and/or identify and/or confirm alarm/alert situation.
Regarding claim 8, discloses the control device is configured for generating a fall alarm if said deviation is present for at least a fall threshold (e.g. [0087, 0137]: determine whether animal is standing and/or lying on ground based on orientation and elevation).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klaas (US 2024/0284876 A1) in view of Bae (KR 2022009519 A) (hereinafter rejection rely on provided equivalent English machine translation).
Regarding claim 10, discloses at least one autonomously navigating vehicle in the livestock shed wherein the control device is configured to instruct said vehicle, when an animal alarm (e.g. p. 5 & p. 7: collision detection signal, signal detected by second distance sensor 150 regarding distance between body 110 of robot 10 and feed area f), fall alarm or lock alarm is generated, to maintain at least a predetermined distance to a respective feed fence position.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Klaas with the teachings of Bae to maintain a distance between feed robot and feeding area so as to avoid collision.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAM WAN MA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3693. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/KAM WAN MA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights