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 1-18 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 8/5/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: a bottom partition 65. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The figures do not appear to include element 65, a bottom partition, the examiner believes that the element number 64 that is directed to the bottom of the secondary profile in figure 3 is meant to be element 65.
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.
Claims 7, 8, and 18 introduce the limitation “conveyor means”, based on the applicant’s specification and figures this is intended to be a conveyor belt that runs through the longitudinal opening of the stringer.
Claims 7, 8, and 18 introduce the limitation “operating means”, the specification states that “These operating means 72 consist for example of two pulleys with horizontal axes, at least one of which is motorized. ”.
Claims 8, and 12 introduce the limitation “collection means”, the specification states “The collection means T comprise in particular a pit or a central outlet (very schematically shown in Fig. 4). These collection means T are installed at one at least of the two open ends of the slot R of the ground S.“.
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 1-18 are 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the longitudinal groove" in line 7 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 8, and 12, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 states “intended to be added on either side”, it is not clear if this is meant to be an optional limitation or if this is meant to be a required limitation.
Claim 8 states “at least one pair of side blades (11), intended to be added on either side of said stringer”, it is unclear to the examiner if these are meant to be a modification to the side strips introduced in claim one, or if they are meant to be a modification of the side strips.
Claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-18 are rejected due to their respective dependencies on claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bioret (PGPub #2021/0000064).
Regarding claim 1, Bioret teaches a stringer for a flooring, suitable for the ground of an enclosure for livestock, in particular cattle, said stringer (6) comprises a primary profile (6, and 63 as seen in figure 3), which comprises a central strip (63) and two side strips (61), said central strip (63), forming a rib intended to be housed in a complementary slot formed in the floor (6, 53, 63, and width A as seen in figure 3), having two opposite faces (63, 621, and 631 as seen in figure 3): - a concave, upper face (63, 621, and 631 as seen in figure 3), defining the longitudinal groove (63, 65, 621, and 631 as seen in figure 3) having a longitudinal opening intended to open out upward (63, 65, 621, and 631 as seen in figure 3), and - a convex, lower face (63, 621, and 631 as seen in figure 3), forming said rib (63, 621, and 631 as seen in figure 3), and said two side strips (61 as seen in figure 3), extending said central strip (61, and 63 as seen in figure 3) and extending on either side of said longitudinal opening (61, and 63 as seen in figure 3), having two opposite faces (61 as seen in figure 3): But does not teach that the stringer is made of an elastic material, and this embodiment of Bioret does not teach that the two opposite faces are - an upper surface, intended to form a resting surface for the animals, and - a lower surface, intended to rest on the ground, along said slot.
However, the embodiment of Bioret shown in figure 6 does teach that the two opposite faces are - an upper surface, intended to form a resting surface for the animals (5, 55, and 61 as seen in figure 6, and Paragraphs 236-239), and - a lower surface, intended to rest on the ground, along said slot (5, 61, and 63 as seen in figure 6, and Paragraphs 236-239). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the opposite faces have a top face that the animal can stand on and a bottom face against the floor because these are two embodiments of the same spacer of Bioret. The motivation for having the opposite faces have a top face that the animal can stand on and a bottom face against the floor is that it makes the stringers more easily available to help facilitate their placement and removal to help simplify the maintenance and placement of the flooring. But does not teach that the stringer is made of an elastic material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the stringer made of an elastic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. The motivation for having the stringer made of an elastic material is that it allows the stringer to deform under the weight of the animal and to rebound to its original shape which helps to improve the durability of the system.
Regarding claim 2, Bioret teaches the stringer for a flooring, according to claim 1, wherein said primary profile has a thickness from 3 to 30 mm (6, 62, 63, and width A as seen in figure 3, and Paragraph 88, this teaches that the groove can have a range of 15 to 50 mm which includes a possible range of 15 to 30 mm and the primary profile is located within the groove).
Regarding claim 3, Bioret teaches the stringer for a flooring, according to claim 1, wherein the side strips have a thickness that increases from the central strip (61 as seen in figures 3, and 6, as can be seen the thickness of the side strips increases at the distal ends away from the central strip).
Regarding claim 4, Bioret teaches the stringer for a flooring, according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach that the side strips have a width from 5 to 100 cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the side strips have a width from 5 to 100 cm, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the side strips have a width from 5 to 100 cm is that it helps to ensure that the ends of the side strips are sufficiently spaced from the groove to help to ensure that there is a strong connection between the stringer and ground.
Claims 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bioret (PGPub #2021/0000064) in view of Bioret (EP 3808173).
Regarding claim 8, Bioret teaches a system for collecting the excreta flowing on the ground of an enclosure for livestock, for example cattle, said collection system being wherein it comprises: (i) a flooring (5, and 6) that comprises: - at least one stringer according to claim 1 (6), (ii) conveyor means (7) for conveying the excreta within said longitudinal groove of said at least one primary profile (6, and 7 as seen in figures 1, and 3, and Paragraph 187), so as to generate a circulation of said excreta along said at least one longitudinal groove of said at least one primary profile and towards collection means (Paragraph 187), said conveyor means comprise a driving member that is associated with operating means (7, 71, and 72 as seen in figure 1, and Paragraph 192). But Bioret does not teach at least one pair of side blades, intended to be added on either side of said stringer and each having a downward slope towards said at least one longitudinal opening of the primary profile.
However, Bioret (173) does teach at least one pair of side blades (311), intended to be added on either side of said stringer and each having a downward slope towards said at least one longitudinal opening of the primary profile (32, and 311 as seen in figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a pair of side blades on the sides of the stringer that slope towards the stringer because Bioret and Bioret (173) are both systems that remove animal waste from enclosures using conveyor belts located in grooves in the floor. The motivation for having a pair of side blades on the sides of the stringer that slope towards the stringer is that it helps to encourage the waste to drain towards the groove to help with its removal.
Regarding claim 9, Bioret as modified by Bioret (173) teaches the collection system, according to claim 8, but Bioret does not teach that each side blade has a slope from 1 to 5 %. However, Bioret (173) does teach that each side blade has a slope from 1 to 5 % (The third to last paragraph of page 4 of the provided translation). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the slope of the side blades be 1 to 5% because Bioret and Bioret (173) are both systems that remove animal waste from enclosures using conveyor belts located in grooves in the floor. The motivation for having the slope of the side blades be 1 to 5% is that it helps to drain the waste while still allowing the animal to stand on the portion of the floor.
Regarding claim 10, Bioret as modified by Bioret (173) teaches the collection system, according to claim 8, but Bioret does not teach that each side blade has a width from 500 to 2000 mm. However, Bioret (173) does teach that each side blade has a width from 500 to 2000 mm (The third to last paragraph of page 4 of the provided translation). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the side blades have a width of 500 to 2000 mm because Bioret and Bioret (173) are both systems that remove animal waste from enclosures using conveyor belts located in grooves in the floor. The motivation for having the side blades have a width of 500 to 2000 mm is that it allows the blades to cover a large distance to help increase the amount of waste that can be drained.
Regarding claim 11, Bioret as modified by Bioret (173) teaches the collection system, according to claim 8, wherein said driving member (71 of Bioret) includes two superimposed parts in said at least one longitudinal groove (71, 711, and 712 as seen in figure 3 of Bioret): - an upper part (711 of Bioret), adapted to convey solid excreta in a first conveying direction (711, and Paragraph 203 of Bioret), while allowing the flowing of liquid excreta (711, and Paragraph 203 of Bioret), and - a lower part (712 of Bioret), adapted to convey liquid excreta flowing from said upper part (712, and Paragraph 204 of Bioret), in a second conveying direction (712, and Paragraph 204 of Bioret), which is opposite to said first direction (71 as seen in figure 1 of Bioret, as can be seen the driving member is a conveyor belt, and in conveyor belts the upper part inherently moves in the opposite direction of the lower part).
Regarding claim 12, Bioret as modified by Bioret (173) teaches an enclosure for livestock, for example cattle, wherein said enclosure includes: - a circulation corridor, having a longitudinal axis and fitted with a collection system according to claim 8 (3, 6, and 7 as seen in figure 1 of Bioret) - collection means for collecting excreta circulating along said at least one longitudinal groove of said primary profile (Paragraphs 187-189 of Bioret).
Regarding claim 13, Bioret as modified by Bioret (173) teaches the collection system, according to claim 8, wherein, wherein said primary profile has a thickness from 3 to 30 mm (6, 62, 63, and width A as seen in figure 3 of Bioret, and Paragraph 88, this teaches that the groove can have a range of 15 to 50 mm which includes a possible range of 15 to 30 mm and the primary profile is located within the groove).
Regarding claim 14, Bioret as modified by Bioret (173) teaches the collection system, according to claim 8, wherein, wherein the side strips have a thickness that increases from the central strip (61 as seen in figures 3, and 6 of Bioret, as can be seen the thickness of the side strips increases at the distal ends away from the central strip).
Regarding claim 15, Bioret as modified by Bioret (173) teaches the collection system, according to claim 8, but does not explicitly teach that the side strips have a width from 5 to 100 cm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the side strips have a width from 5 to 100 cm, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges until the desired effect is achieved involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for having the side strips have a width from 5 to 100 cm is that it helps to ensure that the ends of the side strips are sufficiently spaced from the groove to help to ensure that there is a strong connection between the stringer and ground.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, and 16-18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LAWRENCE GMOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-5083. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:00-5:00.
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.
/WILLIAM L GMOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights