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 1-5, 7-12, 15-22, and 25 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 9/16/2025 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: Computing device 122 introduced in lines 4-5 of page 14 of the specification. Sides 106A-106D introduced in lines 19-20 of page 15 of the specification. Movement direction 106M introduce in line 30 of page 15 of the specification. Image analyser 204 introduce in line 11 of page 22 of the specification.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Element 150 shown in figure 1A< and element 351 shown in figure 3B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 specification introduces elements 122, 106A-106D, 106M, and 204 which do not appear to be shown in the figures, and the figures include elements 150, and 351 which do not appear to be listed in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: The last line of claim 9 ends in a semicolon when it should end with a period. 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.
Claim 11 is 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.
It is not clear from the current wording of claim 11 if the footbath structure is intended to be a required portion of the system or not. The claims do not ever introduce the footbath as an explicit element of the system, claim 1 simply states that images can be taken of the animal leaving the footbath but does not require that the footbath itself is part of the system, and claim 11 further defines the structure of the footbath while also not stating that the footbath is a required structure of the system. The examiner believes that the limitations of claim 11 are intended to be elements of the system and the footbath and the specific structure introduced in claim 11 will be treated as a required portion of the system.
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, 10, 16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallen Sandgren (PGPub #2017/0265449) in view of Herborn et al. (PGPub #2022/0125021).
Regarding claim 1, Hallen Sandgren teaches a system for determining a condition of at least one foot of an animal, the system comprising: an image input configured to obtain one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38), wherein a portion of each of the one or more images depicts at least one foot of the animal exiting a footbath (Paragraphs 2, 11, and 38, the camera system is capable of being placed in a manner that is allows it to capture images of the foot as it is exiting the footbath, as this claim is currently written the footbath is not a required structure of the system); and an image analyser comprising an algorithm configured to determine the condition of the at least one foot of the animal based on the one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38). But does not explicitly teach that the algorithm is a machine learning algorithm.
However, Herborn does teach that the algorithm is a machine learning algorithm (Paragraphs 53, and 93). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the algorithm be a machine learning algorithm because Hallen Sandgren and Herborn are both animal welfare systems that use algorithms to process images from cameras. The motivation for having the algorithm be a machine learning algorithm is that it helps to improve the power and efficiency of the algorithm.
Regarding claim 2, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the machine learning algorithm is configured to: perform image recognition on the obtained one or more images to identify the at least one foot of the animal in each of the one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren); and, determine the condition of the at least one foot of the animal based on the identified at least one foot of the animal in the at one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren).
Regarding claim 3, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn teaches the system of claim 2 wherein: the machine learning algorithm is configured to: perform image recognition on the obtained one or more images to identify the at least one foot of the animal in each of the one or more images by identifying the portion of each of the one or more image which depicts at least one foot of the animal exiting the footbath (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren, this teaches that the system is able to detect the presence of a hoof illness which inherently requires identifying the hoof in the image).
Regarding claim 4, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the machine learning algorithm comprises an object detection algorithm (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren).
Regarding claim 10, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the image input is a port configured to receive one or more images obtained from a camera (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren, this teaches that the images from the camera are sent to the computer which inherently requires a port to connect the elements).
Regarding claim 16, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the condition is digital dermatitis of cattle (Paragraph 11 of Hallen Sandgren).
Regarding claim 25, Hallen Sandgren teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a programmable processor, cause the processor to: determine with an algorithm a condition of at least one foot of an animal based on one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38) by; performing image recognition on the one or more images to identify the at least one foot of the animal in each of the one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38); and, determining the condition of the at least one foot of the animal based on the identified at least one foot of the animal in the at one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38). But does not explicitly teach that the algorithm is a machine learning algorithm.
However, Herborn does teach that the algorithm is a machine learning algorithm (Paragraphs 53, and 93). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the algorithm be a machine learning algorithm because Hallen Sandgren and Herborn are both animal welfare systems that use algorithms to process images from cameras. The motivation for having the algorithm be a machine learning algorithm is that it helps to improve the power and efficiency of the algorithm.
Claims 5, 7, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallen Sandgren (PGPub #2017/0265449) as modified by Herborn et al. (PGPub #2022/0125021) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eineren et al. (PGPub #2015/0302241).
Regarding claim 5, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the image input is a camera (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren), and wherein: the camera receives light for obtaining an image (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren, cameras inherently require receiving light in order to take an image), but does not teach that the light is via a window; and, wherein the system comprises: a window clearing assembly configured to clear the window.
However, Eineren does teach that the light is via a window (Paragraphs 40, and 109); and, wherein the system comprises: a window clearing assembly configured to clear the window (Paragraph 109). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light be received through a window that can have a clearing assembly because Hallen Sandgren and Eineren are both camera systems used to assess the well-being of animals. The motivation for having the light be received through a window that can have a clearing assembly is that it helps to protect the camera and allow it to continually receive clear images of the animal.
Regarding claim 7, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn and Eineren teaches the system of claim 5; but Hallen Sandgren does not teach that the window clearing assembly comprises at least one of: a movable member configured to wipe the window to thereby clear the window; the window clearing assembly comprises an air blower configured to blow air on the window to thereby clear the window. However, Eineren does teach that the window clearing assembly comprises at least one of: a movable member configured to wipe the window to thereby clear the window; the window clearing assembly comprises an air blower configured to blow air on the window to thereby clear the window (Paragraph 109). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the clearing assembly be an air blower because Hallen Sandgren and Eineren are both camera systems used to assess the wellbeing of animals. The motivation for having the clearing assembly be an air blower is that it allows the system to blow debris off the window to keep a clear field for the camera.
Regarding claim 12, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn teaches the system of claim 1, comprising: an identification system for the animals (The abstract of Hallen Sandgren); and wherein the system is configured to generate an associated condition wherein the associated condition comprises a condition and an associated identifier (Paragraph 8 of Hallen Sandgren), the system further comprising: a dispenser (24 of Hallen Sandgren) configured to dispense a substance into the footbath (Paragraph 39 of Hallen Sandgren), wherein the dispenser is configured to dispense the substance into the footbath based on the associated identifier (Paragraphs 8, 28, and 39 of Hallen Sandgren), wherein the dispenser is configured to: dispense a given amount of the substance into the footbath based on the associated identifier (Paragraphs 8, 28, and 39 of Hallen Sandgren). But does not explicitly teach that the identification system is an identifier reader configured to read an identifier from an identifier tag disposed on the animal.
However, Eineren does teach that the identification system is an identifier reader configured to read an identifier from an identifier tag disposed on the animal (Paragraphs 61, 62, and 68). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the identification system be an identifier tag reader because Hallen Sandgren and Eineren are both camera systems used to assess the wellbeing of animals. The motivation for having the identification system be an identifier tag reader is that it allows each animal to be individually tagged and allows the system to know which animal is approaching the system.
Regarding claim 15, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn and Eineren teaches the system of claim 12, the system further comprising: a gate (28 of Hallen Sandgrem) for separating animals (Paragraph 47 of Hallen Sandgrem), wherein the gate is switchable between a first position and a second position (Paragraph 47 of Hallen Sandgrem), wherein: the first position permits an animal to access a first region and prevents the animal to access a second region (Paragraph 47 of Hallen Sandgrem); and, the second position permits the animal to access a second region and prevents the animal to access a first region (Paragraph 47 of Hallen Sandgrem); and, the gate is configured to receive the identifier (Paragraph 47 of Hallen Sandgrem); the gate is switchable between the first position and the second position based on the associated identifier (Paragraph 47 of Hallen Sandgrem, this teaches that the system and gate can control the access to the treatment stall based on the identity of the animal).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallen Sandgren (PGPub #2017/0265449) as modified by Herborn et al. (PGPub #2022/0125021), and Eineren et al. (PGPub #2015/0302241) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Hori et al. (PGPub #2022/0248641).
Regarding claim 8, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn and Eineren teaches the system of claim 5; but does not teach a sensor configured to generate a signal in the event that an animal is sensed by the sensor within a sensing region of the sensor, wherein the camera is configured to obtain an image in response to the signal. However, Hori does teach a sensor (10) configured to generate a signal in the event that an animal is sensed by the sensor within a sensing region of the sensor (Paragraph 85), wherein the camera is configured to obtain an image in response to the signal (Paragraph 85). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sensor that activates the camera when it detects an animal in the sensors range because Hallen Sandgren and Hori are both animal well-being systems that uses cameras to help monitor the animals. The motivation for having a sensor that activates the camera when it detects an animal in the sensors range is that it allows the camera to only be activated and recording images when an animal is present which helps save data.
Claims 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallen Sandgren (PGPub #2017/0265449) as modified by Herborn et al. (PGPub #2022/0125021), and Eineren et al. (PGPub #2015/0302241) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Lu et al. (CN 115396576 A).
Regarding claim 8, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn and Eineren teaches the system of claim 5; but does not teach a sensor configured to generate a signal in the event that an animal is sensed by the sensor within a sensing region of the sensor, wherein the camera is configured to obtain an image in response to the signal. However, Lu does teach a sensor (9-3) configured to generate a signal in the event that an animal is sensed by the sensor within a sensing region of the sensor (The last paragraph of page 5, and the first paragraph of page 6 of the provided translation) wherein the camera is configured to obtain an image in response to the signal (The last paragraph of page 5, and the first paragraph of page 6 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 a sensor that activates the camera when it detects an animal in the sensors range because Hallen Sandgren and Lu are both animal well-being systems that uses cameras to help monitor the animals. The motivation for having a sensor that activates the camera when it detects an animal in the sensors range is that it allows the camera to only be activated and recording images when an animal is present which helps save data.
Regarding claim 9, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn and Eineren teaches the system of claim 5; but does not teach a data collection apparatus including: a first sensor configured to generate a first signal in the event that an animal is sensed by the first sensor within a first sensing region of the first sensor; and, a second sensor configured to generate a second signal in the event that an animal is sensed by the second sensor within a second sensing region of the second sensor; wherein the camera is configured to: start obtaining images in response to the first signal; cease obtaining images in response to the second signal. However, Lu does teach a data collection apparatus including: a first sensor (9-3) configured to generate a first signal in the event that an animal is sensed by the first sensor within a first sensing region of the first sensor (The last paragraph of page 5, and the first paragraph of page 6 of the provided translation); and, a second sensor (9-1) configured to generate a second signal in the event that an animal is sensed by the second sensor within a second sensing region of the second sensor (The last paragraph of page 5, and the first paragraph of page 6 of the provided translation); wherein the camera is configured to: start obtaining images in response to the first signal (The last paragraph of page 5, and the first paragraph of page 6 of the provided translation); cease obtaining images in response to the second signal (The last paragraph of page 5, and the first paragraph of page 6, and claims 4, and 6 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 a pair of sensors that can signal when an animal is sensed and have the camera record images when the animal is between the sensors because Hallen Sandgren and Lu are both animal well-being systems that uses cameras to help monitor the animals. The motivation for having a pair of sensors that can signal when an animal is sensed and have the camera record images when the animal is between the sensors is that it allows the system to record images of the animal as it moves through the system to help capture a greater picture of the animal while also only operating the camera when an animal is present.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallen Sandgren (PGPub #2017/0265449) as modified by Herborn et al. (PGPub #2022/0125021) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nyberg (PGPub #2013/0263787).
Regarding claim 11, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Herborn teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the footbath comprises: an entrance side wherein an animal steps over the entrance side to enter the footbath (27 as seen in figure 2 of Hallen Sandgren, as can be seen the animal can enter and step into the footbath); and, an exit side wherein an animal steps over the exit side to exit the footbath (27 as seen in figure 2 of Hallen Sandgren, as can be seen the animal can exit and step out of the footbath), and wherein the exit side is disposed opposite the entrance side so that during use the animal moves in movement direction (27 as seen in figure 2 of Hallen Sandgren), wherein the movement direction is defined from the entrance side towards the exit side (27 as seen in figure 2 of Hallen Sandgren); and, wherein a camera is disposed in the stall structure of the footbath and arranged to view in the movement direction (3, 21, and 27 as seen in figure 2, and Paragraph 11 of Hallen Sandgren, the camera can be moved to view in the movement direction), but does not teach that the camera is disposed at the exit side of the stall structure.
However, Nyberg does teach that the camera is disposed at the exit side of the stall structure (Paragraphs 32, and 52). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a camera at the exit of the stall structure because Hallen Sandgren and Nyberg are both animal stall structures with cameras. The motivation for having a camera at the exit of the stall structure is that it can help to track the animals as they leave the stall structure.
Claims 17-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallen Sandgren (PGPub #2017/0265449) in view of Herborn et al. (PGPub #2022/0125021), and Nyberg (PGPub #2013/0263787).
Regarding claim 17, Hallen Sandgrem teaches a method for determining a condition of at least one foot of an animal, the method comprising: obtaining one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38), wherein a portion of each of the one or more images depicts at least one foot of the animal (Paragraphs 2, 11, and 38); and determining with an algorithm the condition of the at least one foot of the animal based on the one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38), wherein there is a footbath at the end of the stall structure (3, and 27 as seen in figure 2, and Paragraph 2). But does not explicitly teach that the images are from the animal exiting the stall structure, and that the algorithm is a machine learning algorithm.
However, Nyberg does teach that the images are from the animal exiting the stall structure (Paragraphs 32, and 52, this teaches that the camera can be placed at the exit which would result in the images showing the animal leaving the stall structure). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the images show the animals leaving the stall structure because Hallen Sandgren and Nyberg are both animal stall structures with cameras. The motivation for having the images show the animals leaving the stall structure is that it can help to provide a complete image of the animal as it moves through the system. But Nyberg does not teach that the algorithm is a machine learning algorithm.
However, Herborn does teach that the algorithm is a machine learning algorithm (Paragraphs 53, and 93). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the algorithm be a machine learning algorithm because Hallen Sandgren and Herborn are both animal welfare systems that use algorithms to process images from cameras. The motivation for having the algorithm be a machine learning algorithm is that it helps to improve the power and efficiency of the algorithm.
Regarding claim 18, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Nyberg and Herborn teaches the method of claim 17, wherein: determining with a machine learning algorithm the condition of the at least one foot of the animal based on the one or more images comprises (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren): performing image recognition on the obtained one or more images to identify the at least one foot of the animal in each of the one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren); and, determining the condition of the at least one foot of the animal based on the identified at least one foot of the animal in the at one or more images (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren, this teaches that the system is able to detect the presence of a hoof illness which inherently requires identifying the hoof in the image).
Regarding claim 19, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Nyberg and Herborn teaches the method claim 18 wherein:performing image recognition on the obtained one or more images to identify the at least one foot of the animal in each of the one or more images comprises: performing image recognition on the obtained one or more images to identify the at least one foot of the animal in each of the one or more images by identifying the portion of each of the one or more image which depicts at least one foot of the animal exiting the footbath (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren, this teaches that the system is able to detect the presence of a hoof illness which inherently requires identifying the hoof in the image).
Regarding claim 20, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Nyberg and Herborn teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the machine learning algorithm comprises an object detection algorithm (Paragraphs 11, and 38 of Hallen Sandgren).
Regarding claim 22, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Nyberg and Herborn teaches the method of claim 17, comprising: identifying an animal (The abstract, and Paragraph 8 of Hallen Sandgren); associating the identified animal and the condition (Paragraph 8 of Hallen Sandgren), further comprising at least one of dispensing a substance into the footbath based on an identity of the animal (Paragraphs 8, 28, and 39 of Hallen Sandgren); operating a gate for separating animals based on the identity of the animal (Paragraph 47 of Hallen Sandgrem).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hallen Sandgren (PGPub #2017/0265449) as modified by Herborn et al. (PGPub #2022/0125021), and Nyberg (PGPub #2013/0263787) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hori et al. (PGPub #2022/0248641).
Regarding claim 22, Hallen Sandgren as modified by Nyberg and Herborn teaches the method of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach sensing an animal; and, obtaining an image in response to sensing the animal. However, Hori does teach sensing an animal (Paragraph 85); and, obtaining an image in response to sensing the animal (Paragraph 85). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sensor that activates the camera when it detects an animal because Hallen Sandgren and Hori are both animal well-being systems that uses cameras to help monitor the animals. The motivation for having a sensor that activates the camera when it detects an animal is that it allows the camera to only be activated and recording images when an animal is present which helps save data.
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