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 .
This communication is responsive to the Application No. 19/207,760 filled on 05/14/2025.
Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8 cites the limitations “communicate an alert to a remote dispatch system if an error occurs…”, which is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. In order to give a patentable weight, the phrase “if” to be corrected as “when”. Approp5riate correction is required.
Claim 19 cites the limitations “communicate an alert to a remote dispatch system if the navigation device cannot reach the second adjacent waypoint in the secondary set of waypoints”, which is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. To give a patentable weight, the limitations may be re-written as “communicate an alert to a remote dispatch system [[if]]when the navigation device [[cannot]] does not reach the second adjacent waypoint in the secondary set of waypoints”. Approp5riate correction is required.
Drawing/Specification Objections
The drawing is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “animal movement encouragement device” as cited in claims 2, 12 and 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1-2 are provisionary rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 17 of co-pending application 18/751,950.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to make the claim limitations in the instant application broader by removing the specific language found in the co-pending application.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced co-pending application and would be covered by any patent granted on that co-pending application since the referenced co-pending application and the instant application are claiming common subject matter, as shown in Table 1. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. An analysis of the claims is follows in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Comparison of claims in Instant Application No. 19/207,760 vs. Co-pending Application No. 18/751,950.
Claims of Co-pending Application No: 18/751,950 (Difference Emphasis in bold).
Claims of instant Application No. 19/207,760 (Difference Emphasis in bold)
Claim 1. A navigation device for navigating an animal environment, the navigation device comprising:
Claim 1. A navigation device for navigating an animal environment, the navigation device comprising:
a chassis;
a chassis;
one or more drive wheels for propelling the navigation device in a forward path;
one or more drive wheels for propelling the navigation device;
at least one sensor unit for detecting animals;
at least one sensor unit for detecting animals and the environment, the at least one sensor unit configured to communicate with a navigation system to generate a set of waypoints to define a planned path for the navigation device; and
an animal movement encouragement device; and
a controller for controlling operation of the one or more drive wheels and the animal movement encouragement device;
a controller for controlling operation of the one or more drive wheels to move the navigation device along the planned path.
wherein the animal movement encouragement device has at least two or more operating settings, and wherein one of the two or more operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device.
Claim 2. The navigation device of claim 1 further comprising an animal movement encouragement device, wherein the animal movement encouragement device has at least two or more operating settings, and wherein one of the two or more operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device.
17. A navigation device for navigating an animal environment, the navigation device comprising:
Claim 1. A navigation device for navigating an animal environment, the navigation device comprising:
a chassis;
a drive wheel;
a sensor unit for detecting animals; and
a chassis;
one or more drive wheels for propelling the navigation device;
at least one sensor unit for detecting animals and the environment, the at least one sensor unit configured to communicate with a navigation system to generate a set of waypoints to define a planned path for the navigation device; and
an animal movement encouragement device; and
a controller for controlling operation of the drive wheel and the animal movement encouragement device;
a controller for controlling operation of the one or more drive wheels to move the navigation device along the planned path.
Claim 2. The navigation device of claim 1 further comprising an animal movement encouragement device, wherein the animal movement encouragement device has at least two or more operating settings, and wherein one of the two or more operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Nevertheless, the claims 1 and 17 of the Co-pending Application No: 18/751,950 does not explicitly disclose “generate a set of waypoints to define a planned path for the navigation device”.
However, Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) teaches, generate a set of waypoints (See Para. [0024], [0039], discloses “AGV 105 may be any vehicle capable of sensing the dynamic changing environment, and of navigating without any human intervention. The AGV includes a number of sensors including one or more vision sensors 110 for acquiring instant three-dimensional (3D) image of an environment around the AGV 105. In some embodiments, the 3D image may be a 360 degree field of view (FOV) of the environment (i.e., environmental FOV) that may provide information on presence of any objects in the vicinity of the AGV 105. Further, in some embodiments, the 3D image may be a frontal FOV of a navigation path (i.e., navigational FOV) of the AGV 10”, and/or see Para. [0039], “system 100 or navigation device 101, and a step of determining a set of plurality of planned trajectory waypoints”, and/or see Para. [0047]-[0050], [0065], Figs. 7-8, discloses “generating trajectory waypoints”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the co-pending application with waypoints planning as taught by Kumar in order to effectively navigate the animal feeding vehicle.
Examiner comments
Regarding claim priority, some the claimed features, such as “generate a set of waypoints to define a planned path…”, “detect a fiducial marker positioned on the gate to accurately determine a pose of the gate relative to the navigation device” in claim 16 of instant application is not disclosed in provisional application number 63/141,671 and/or application 17/582,835 and 18/751,950. Therefore, the feature is not given a claim priority of the application number 63/141,671. The claimed feature “animal movement encouragement device”, “controlling operation of the animal movement encouragement device”, “operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal….”, “wherein the planned path is through a gate, wherein visual indicators on the gate are used to determine a precise pose of the gate relative to the navigation device, wherein a secondary set of waypoints is generated that defines a local path through the gate”, “wherein at least one of the one or more sensor units is configured to detect a fiducial marker positioned on the gate to accurately determine a pose of the gate relative to the navigation device”, “wherein the navigation system is configured to communicate an alert to a remote dispatch system if the navigation device cannot reach the second adjacent waypoint in the secondary set of waypoints”, “a spray nozzle configured to spray a fluid as the navigation device moves along the planned path”, “monitors a level of fluid in the fluid storage tank, wherein the navigation system is configured to automatically direct the navigation device to a fluid refill station for refilling the fluid storage tank when the navigation system detects that the level of fluid in the fluid storage tank falls below a set threshold”, “the navigation system is configured to denote which areas the animal environment have been sprayed by the fluid”, “wherein the navigation system is configured to communicate an alert to a remote operator if an error occurs as the navigation device moves along the planned path”, “wherein controlling operation of the animal movement encouragement device is further adjusted based on a detected size of each animal”, are not disclosed in parent case 17/582, 835 and/or 18/751,950. Therefore, for the said above limitations, the instant application will not receive the claim priority of the parent case, application number 17/582, 835. Therefore, the effective filing date 05/14/2025 of the instant application is considered as the priority date of the instant application for the above claimed features.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “sensor unit” in Claims 1, 9 and 16; “navigation system” in claims 3-4, 6, 8, 17 and 19; has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder “means for” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the original specification, filed 05/14/2025, Para. [0059], cited “sensor unit s, such as , camera, LiDAR, proximity sensor, proximity switches, global positioning (GPS) sensor”. Therefore, the examiner interpreted the phrase “sensor unit” as one of the camera, LiDAR, proximity sensor, proximity switches, global positioning (GPS) sensor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Examiner's Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/ columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching
all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 9-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palsgaard et al. (US 2015/0149050 A1) (hereinafter Palsgaard) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) (hereinafter Kumar).
Claim 1. Palsgaard teaches a navigation device for navigating an animal environment (See Abstract, and/or Para. [0029], [0045], discloses “A motorized feeding vehicle comprise a navigation system and the feeding vehicle is navigated an area where the animals are accommodated), the navigation device comprising:
a chassis (See Para. [0004], “the feeding vehicle comprises a chassis”);
one or more drive wheels for propelling the navigation device (See Fig. 2A, Para. [0121], [0132], discloses “The motorized feeding vehicle 20 comprises four drive wheels, and a steering wheel 42 which controls the direction of the front wheels 36' to navigate very accurately”);
at least one sensor unit for detecting animals and the environment (See Para. [0130], “The motorized feeding vehicle 20 may also include an IR camera 54 for detecting the presence/location of an animal within the cage”), the at least one sensor unit configured to communicate with a navigation system to define a planned path for the navigation device (See Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the cages [i.e., planned path], and thereafter returning to the maintenance shed”, and see Para. [0048], “the proximity sensor will allow the motorized feeding vehicle to navigate along the passage”); and
a controller for controlling operation of the one or more drive wheels (See Para. [0046], “The power system may comprise an electrical motor or a combustion engine for driving a set of wheels. The steering system allows the motorized feeding vehicle to change direction by e.g. changing the direction of the wheels.”) to move the navigation device along the planned path (See Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the cages [i.e., planned path], and thereafter returning to the maintenance shed”).
Nevertheless, Palsgaard fails to explicitly spell out “sensor unit configured to communicate with a navigation system to generate a set of waypoints”.
However, Kumar teaches, generate a set of waypoints (See Para. [0024], [0039], discloses “AGV 105 may be any vehicle capable of sensing the dynamic changing environment, and of navigating without any human intervention. The AGV includes a number of sensors including one or more vision sensors 110 for acquiring instant three-dimensional (3D) image of an environment around the AGV 105. In some embodiments, the 3D image may be a 360 degree field of view (FOV) of the environment (i.e., environmental FOV) that may provide information on presence of any objects in the vicinity of the AGV 105. Further, in some embodiments, the 3D image may be a frontal FOV of a navigation path (i.e., navigational FOV) of the AGV 10”, and/or see Para. [0039], “system 100 or navigation device 101, and a tep of determining a set of plurality of planned trajectory waypoints”, and/or see Para. [0047]-[0050], [0065], Figs. 7-8, discloses “generating trajectory waypoints”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard with a system to generate waypoints based as taught by Kumar in order to suggest a velocity for given road segment.
Claim 2. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the navigation device of claim 1 further comprising an animal movement encouragement device, wherein the animal movement encouragement device has at least two or more operating settings, and wherein one of the two or more operating settings is automatically selected based on a relative location of an animal to the navigation device (See Palsgaard, Abstract, Para. [0033], [0043], [0048]-[0052], discloses “a first mode and second mode constituting an autonomous mode in which the control unit is controlling the power system, the steering system and the animal feeding system by comparing the recorded data with the first set of parameters, the second set of parameters, the third set of parameters and the fourth set of parameters. The animal feeding system may also be autonomously controlled by using the recorded fourth set of parameters together with the first, second, and third sets of parameters in order to provide the correct amount of food to the correct animal in the cage”).
Claim 3. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the navigation device of claim 1 further comprising a battery for powering a motor that drives the one or more drive wheels of the navigation device, wherein the navigation system monitors a charge level of the battery (See Palsgaard, Para. [0046], [0139], discloses “rechargeable battery to drive electric motor that drives a set of wheels”).
Claim 9. Palsgaard teaches a method of controlling a navigation device for navigating an animal environment (See Abstract, and/or Para. [0029], [0045], discloses “A motorized feeding vehicle comprise a navigation system and the feeding vehicle is navigated an area where the animals are accommodated), the method comprising:
processing input information from a sensor unit to determine a location of animals and obstacles in the animal environment (See Para. [0130], “The motorized feeding vehicle 20 may also include an IR camera 54 for detecting the presence/location of an animal within the cage”);
generating a map of the animal environment and the animals located therein (See Para. [0013], discloses in background art, “building map information”, and Para. [0037], “a satellite navigation system receiver for generating a first set of parameters constituting location information from a satellite navigation system”, and see Para. [0053], “The identification device may comprise information about the animal and of the location of the animal and/or cage within the building. Additional identification devices may be located at the entrance of the building and outside the building for providing location information only”, and/or see Para. [0130], “determining the number and the location of the animal(s) and the presence of any remaining feed in the cage”);
generating a planned path through the environment (See Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the cages [i.e., planned path], and thereafter returning to the maintenance shed”, and see Para. [0048], “the proximity sensor will allow the motorized feeding vehicle to navigate along the passage”); and
controlling movement of at least one drive wheel of the navigation device to direct the navigation device along the planned path wheels (See Para. [0046], “The power system may comprise an electrical motor or a combustion engine for driving a set of wheels. The steering system allows the motorized feeding vehicle to change direction by e.g. changing the direction of the wheels”, and See Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the cages [i.e., planned path], and thereafter returning to the maintenance shed).
Nevertheless, Palsgaard fails to explicitly spell out “generate a set of waypoints”.
However, Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) teaches, generate a set of waypoints (See Para. [0024], [0039], discloses “AGV 105 may be any vehicle capable of sensing the dynamic changing environment, and of navigating without any human intervention. The AGV includes a number of sensors including one or more vision sensors 110 for acquiring instant three-dimensional (3D) image of an environment around the AGV 105. In some embodiments, the 3D image may be a 360 degree field of view (FOV) of the environment (i.e., environmental FOV) that may provide information on presence of any objects in the vicinity of the AGV 105. Further, in some embodiments, the 3D image may be a frontal FOV of a navigation path (i.e., navigational FOV) of the AGV 10”, and/or see Para. [0039], “system 100 or navigation device 101, and a step of determining a set of plurality of planned trajectory waypoints”, and/or see Para. [0047]-[0050], [0065], Figs. 7-8, discloses “generating trajectory waypoints”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard with a system to generate waypoints based as taught by Kumar in order to suggest a velocity for given road segment.
Claim 10. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the method of claim 9 further comprising categorizing each animal into one of a plurality of zones based on each animal's relative location to the navigation device and the planned path of the navigation device through the environment (See Palsgaard, Para. [0130], discloses “determine location of the animal and categorized sick and non-sick animals”).
Claim 11. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the method of claim 10 further comprising further controlling movement of at least one drive wheel of the navigation device based on which zone of the plurality of zones that each animal is categorized into (See Palsgaard, Fig. 2A, Para. [0121], [0132], discloses “The motorized feeding vehicle 20 comprises four drive wheels, and a steering wheel 42 which controls the direction of the front wheels 36' to navigate very accurately”, and See Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the animal cages).
Claim 12. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the method of claim 11 further comprising controlling operation of an animal movement encouragement device of the navigation device based on which zone of the plurality of zones that each animal is categorized into (See Palsgaard, Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the animal cages, and Para. [0065], [0103], discloses “identifying sick and non-sick animals in the cases”).
Claim 14. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the planned path is through a gate, wherein visual indicators on the gate are used to determine a precise pose of the gate relative to the navigation device, wherein a secondary set of waypoints is generated that defines a local path through the gate (See Palsgaard, Para. [0065], “navigating outside the building and through small passages, e.g. through the entrance of the building”, and Para. [0120], “The feeding pipe 32 is swingable between the present contracted state allowing the motorized feeding vehicle 20 to pass though the entrance”, and/or see Para. [0134], “Once the entrance 26 has been cleared, the feeding pipe 32 may be extended automatically and the feeding started based on the data of the recorded fourth set of parameters”).
Claim 15. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the navigation device moves from a first waypoint to a second adjacent waypoint to travel along the planned path (See Palsgaard, Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the cages [i.e., planned path], and Kumar, Fig. 8, Para. [0049], discloses “sequence of waypoint along the planned path”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palsgaard et al. (US 2015/0149050 A1) (hereinafter Palsgaard) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) (hereinafter Kumar) and further in view of Ma et al. (CN113198040, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Ma).
Claim 4. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the navigation device of claim 3, but fails to teach wherein the navigation system is configured to automatically direct the navigation device to a charging station for charging the battery when the navigation system detects that the charge level of the battery falls below a set threshold.
However, Ma et al. (CN113198040, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Ma) teaches, wherein the navigation system is configured to automatically direct the navigation device to a charging station for charging the battery when the navigation system detects that the charge level of the battery falls below a set threshold (See Para. [n0020], [n0065]-[0067], “when the remaining power of the battery is less than 10%, the walking module is controlled to return to the autonomous charging station for charging”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard in view of the teaching of Kumar with navigating to robot to a charging station to recharge when the charging level is less than 10% [threshold level] as taught by Ma in order to effectively operate the robot and bring the robot back to the charging station as needed based on the remaining charge level.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palsgaard et al. (US 2015/0149050 A1) (hereinafter Palsgaard) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) (hereinafter Kumar) and further in view of Liu et al. (CN 215912938, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Liu).
Claim 5. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the navigation device of claim 1 further comprising a spray nozzle configured to spray as the navigation device moves along the planned path (See Palsgaard, Para. [0033], [0062], “an animal feeding system comprising a feed storage tank for storing animal feed and a feeding pipe [constitutes nozzle to dispense feeding products] to release the feed onto the cages”). Examiner notes that Palsgaard doesn’t explicitly spell out where a spray nozzle configured to spray a fluid as the navigation device moves along the planned path.
However, Liu et al. (CN 215912938, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Liu) teaches a spray nozzle configured to spray a fluid (See Para. [0022], “”spray nozzle to spray disinfect on dead ducks”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard in view of the teaching of Kumar with a nozzle configured to spray disinfect [i.e., liquid] on animals as taught by Liu in order to perform disinfection of the animals.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palsgaard et al. (US 2015/0149050 A1) (hereinafter Palsgaard) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) (hereinafter Kumar), Liu et al. (CN 215912938, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Liu) and further in view of Bart et al. (US 1,856,938 B1) (hereinafter Bart).
Claim 6. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar and Liu teaches the navigation device of claim 5 further comprising a fluid storage tank, wherein the navigation system monitors a level of fluid in the fluid storage tank, wherein the navigation system is configured to automatically direct the navigation device to a fluid refill station for refilling the fluid storage tank (See Palsgaard, Para. [0050], [0120], “The food storage tank of the animal feeding system may be filled at the maintenance shed”, and Liu teaches spraying disinfect [i.e., fluid]).
Nevertheless, the teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar and Liu fails to teach, monitors a level of fluid in the fluid storage tank, and detects the level of fluid in the fluid storage tank falls below a set threshold.
However, Bart et al. (US 1,856,938 B1) (hereinafter Bart) teaches, monitors a level of fluid in the fluid storage tank, and detects the level of fluid in the fluid storage tank falls below a set threshold (See col. 5, lines 44-48, discloses “The water tank 365 may include a sensor to detect the water level. When the water tank 365 is below a certain threshold, the rover 300 may return to the docking station to refill the water tank 365”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard in view of the teaching of Kumar with a sensor to detect water level [i.e., monitor fluid level] and detect that the water level falls below a threshold level as taught by Bart in order to return robotic vehicle at the filling station to refill water.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palsgaard et al. (US 2015/0149050 A1) (hereinafter Palsgaard) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) (hereinafter Kumar), Liu et al. (CN 215912938, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Liu) and further in view of Cote et al. (US 2024/0245015) (hereinafter Cote).
Claim 7. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar and Liu teaches the navigation device of claim 5, but fails to teach wherein the navigation system is configured to denote which areas the animal environment have been sprayed by the fluid.
However, Cote et al. (US 2024/0245015) discloses in Abstract, “An automated irrigation system for spraying water on aimed area of ground and determine a location that is unwatered.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard in view of the teaching of Kumar and Liu with a determination of watered and unwatered area as taught by Cote to incorporate the claimed invention in order to effective watering unwatered area.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palsgaard et al. (US 2015/0149050 A1) (hereinafter Palsgaard) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) (hereinafter Kumar) and further in view of LaFary et al. (US 2014/0350725 A1) (hereinafter LaFary).
Claim 8. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the navigation device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the navigation system is configured to communicate an alert to a remote operator if an error occurs as the navigation device moves along the planned path.
However, LaFary et al. (US 2014/0350725 A1) teaches wherein the navigation system is configured to communicate an alert to a remote operator if an error occurs as the navigation device moves along the planned path (See Para. [0048], “when the onboard navigation system 708 determines, via its internal path planning engine, that no path to the actual job location exists, it may optionally be programmed to send an error message back to the robot base controller 704, which reports the error condition out to a remote job management system”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard in view of the teaching of Kumar with an error reporting feature as taught by LaFary to incorporate the claimed invention in order to perform certain real world job operation remotely.
Claim 13 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palsgaard et al. (US 2015/0149050 A1) (hereinafter Palsgaard) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) (hereinafter Kumar) and further in view of Yang Hao (CN108791381, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Yang).
Claim 13. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar teaches the method of claim 12, but fails to teach, wherein controlling operation of the animal movement encouragement device is further adjusted based on a detected size of each animal.
However, Yang Hao (CN108791381, attached English translate NPL document is used for claim mapping) (hereinafter Yang) teaches wherein controlling operation of the animal movement encouragement device is further adjusted based on a detected size of each animal (See Para. [0017], “According to the size of the animal carcass, the foldable rack can be flexibly adjusted in position through a connecting rod. When the foldable rack is unfolded, the foldable transport rack and the basic transport rack are on the same horizontal plane, expanding the overall transport area of the transport rack and enabling the transport of larger animal carcasses”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard in view of the teaching of Kumar with an adjustment of the rack based on the size of the animal as taught by Yang in order to transport different size of animals.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palsgaard et al. (US 2015/0149050 A1) (hereinafter Palsgaard) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) (hereinafter Kumar) and further in view of Fong et al. (US 2014/0100693 A1) (hereinafter Fong).
Claim 16. Palsgaard teaches a navigation device for navigating an animal environment including a gate (See Para. [0048], [0053], [0056], discloses “entrance of the building [i.e., a gate in an animal environment], the navigation device comprising:
a chassis (See Para. [0004], “The motorized feeding vehicle may comprise a chassis”);
a drive wheel (See Fig. 2A, Para. [0121], [0132], discloses “The motorized feeding vehicle 20 comprises four drive wheels”);
one or more sensor units for detecting animals and the environment (See Para. [0130], “The motorized feeding vehicle 20 may also include an IR camera 54 for detecting the presence/location of an animal within the cage”), the one or more sensor units configured to communicate with a navigation system to define a planned global path for the navigation device that passes through an opening in the gate (See Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the cages [i.e., planned path], and thereafter returning to the maintenance shed”, and see Para. [0048], “the proximity sensor will allow the motorized feeding vehicle to navigate along the passage”, and see Para. [0056], “navigating through the entrance [i.e., gate] of the building); and
a controller for controlling operation of the drive wheel (See Para. [0046], “The power system may comprise an electrical motor or a combustion engine for driving a set of wheels. The steering system allows the motorized feeding vehicle to change direction by e.g. changing the direction of the wheels”) to move the navigation device along the planned global path (See Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the cages [i.e., planned path], and thereafter returning to the maintenance shed”);
Nevertheless, Palsgaard fails to explicitly spell out “sensor unit configured to communicate with a navigation system to generate a set of waypoints”.
However, Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) teaches, generate a set of waypoints (See Para. [0024], [0039], discloses “AGV 105 may be any vehicle capable of sensing the dynamic changing environment, and of navigating without any human intervention. The AGV includes a number of sensors including one or more vision sensors 110 for acquiring instant three-dimensional (3D) image of an environment around the AGV 105. In some embodiments, the 3D image may be a 360 degree field of view (FOV) of the environment (i.e., environmental FOV) that may provide information on presence of any objects in the vicinity of the AGV 105. Further, in some embodiments, the 3D image may be a frontal FOV of a navigation path (i.e., navigational FOV) of the AGV 10”, and/or see Para. [0039], “system 100 or navigation device 101, and a step of determining a set of plurality of planned trajectory waypoints”, and/or see Para. [0047]-[0050], [0065], Figs. 7-8, discloses “generating trajectory waypoints”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard with a system to generate waypoints based as taught by Kumar in order to suggest a velocity for given road segment.
Nevertheless, the teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar fails to teach, wherein at least one of the one or more sensor units is configured to detect a fiducial marker positioned on the gate to accurately determine a pose of the gate relative to the navigation device.
However, Fong et al. (US 2014/0100693 A1) teaches in para. [0025], “The fiducial markers 640A, 640B may be any feature that is configured to be used for pose detection”, and see Para. [0041], “the fiducial markers are observed by a camera” and/or Para. [0057], “the robot's fiducial markers are detected by the sensors”. Examiner notes that Fong teaches all requirement of the claimed invention, such as wherein at least one of the one or more sensor units is configured to detect a fiducial marker to accurately determine a pose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard in view of the teaching of Kumar with a feature of Fiducial marker as taught by Fong to deploy the claimed invention in order to identify pose of the entrance/gate.
Claim 17. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar and Fong teaches the navigation device of claim 16, wherein the navigation system uses the pose of the gate relative to the navigation device to generate a secondary set of waypoints that defines a local path through the gate, wherein the controller controls operation of the drive wheel to move the navigation device along the local path through the gate (See Palsgaard, Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the cages [i.e., planned path], and thereafter returning to the maintenance shed”, and see Para. [0048], “the proximity sensor will allow the motorized feeding vehicle to navigate along the passage”, and see Para. [0056], “navigating through the entrance [i.e., gate] of the building”. Additionally, see Kumar, Para. [0039], “system 100 or navigation device 101, and a step of determining a set of plurality of planned trajectory waypoints”, and/or see Para. [0047]-[0050], [0065], Figs. 7-8, discloses “generating trajectory waypoints”, and Fong, para. [0025], “The fiducial markers 640A, 640B may be any feature that is configured to be used for pose detection”). The examiner notes that the cited references discloses all required particulars to deploy the claim invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard with waypoint planning as taught by Kumar, and fiducial marker as taught by Fong to deploy the claimed invention in order to detect the pose of the entrance to more effectively navigate feeding vehicle through the gate.
Claim 18. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar and Fong teaches the navigation device of claim 17, wherein the navigation device moves from a first waypoint in the secondary set of waypoints to a second adjacent waypoint in the secondary set of waypoints to travel along the local path (See Palsgaard, Para. [0045], “The motorized feeding vehicle is navigated from the shed into the building, passing all of the cages [i.e., planned path], and Kumar, Fig. 8, Para. [0049], discloses “sequence of waypoint along the planned path”). The examiner notes that the cited references discloses all required particulars to deploy the claim invention, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard with waypoint planning as taught by Kumar, to deploy the claimed invention in order to more effectively navigate feeding vehicle through the waypoints.
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palsgaard et al. (US 2015/0149050 A1) (hereinafter Palsgaard) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2021/0096568 A1) (hereinafter Kumar), Fong et al. (US 2014/0100693 A1) (hereinafter Fong) and further in view of LaFary et al. (US 2014/0350725 A1) (hereinafter LaFary).
Claim 19. The teaching of Palsgaard as modified by the teaching of Kumar and Fong teaches the navigation device of claim 18, but fails to teach wherein the navigation system is configured to communicate an alert to a remote dispatch system if the navigation device cannot reach the second adjacent waypoint in the secondary set of waypoints.
However, LaFary et al. (US 2014/0350725 A1) teaches teach wherein the navigation system is configured to communicate an alert to a remote dispatch system if the navigation device cannot reach the second adjacent waypoint in the secondary set of waypoints (See Para. [0048], “when the onboard navigation system 708 determines, via its internal path planning engine, that no path to the actual job location exists, it may optionally be programmed to send an error message back to the robot base controller 704, which reports the error condition out to a remote job management system”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have modified the teaching of Palsgaard in view of the teaching of Kumar with an error reporting feature as taught by LaFary to incorporate the claimed invention in order to perform certain real world job operation remotely.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to B M M HANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0237. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY at 8:30AM-5:30PM.
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, Adam Mott can be reached at 5712705376. 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.
/B M M HANNAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights