DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fullerton et al (US Patent 3799115).
Regarding claim 1, Fullerton et al teach a drive system or motor 32, a movable partition or gate 42-44, a controller or circuit (unnumbered), see column 5, para 4, and column 6, para 1 and 2, and a sizing partition 14-16, see figure 1. The size of the opening 15 can be adjusted via limit switches 113 and 114.
Regarding claim 2, the sizing partition is adjustable via limit switches that control the sliding door 16. See column 6, para 3.
Regarding claim 3, the sizing partition opening can be adjusted, see discussion above, and the Applicant is only functional claiming different sized animals, and as such, this cannot be relied upon for patentability.
Regarding claim 4, see column 2, second to the last paragraph, the movable partition or gate 42-44 moves the livestock towards the exit 15.
Regarding claim 5, the movable partition can be moved towards the exit 15 and reset to a starting position. See the discussion column 6, para 2 and 3. The motor which drives the gate can be reversed, thus resetting the gate to a starting position.
Regarding claim 6, as seen in figure 6, the lower add on portion of the gate can be lifted or rotated.
As for claims 7-9, the retracted position is when the scraper frame (unnumbered, see figure 6) is in the vertical position, and the retracted position is when the scraper frame is rotated rearwards. See column 4, para 2 for discussion of the extending and retraction.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fullerton et al (US Patent 3799115).
Regarding claims 10-13, Fullerton et al does not teach a plurality of movable gates, however, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the apparatus of Fullerton et al, with a plurality of moveable partitions, in that, it further divides up the livestock holding area to divide up the livestock according to weight, age or gender.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the sizing partition 16 is adjusted as a result of limit switches 114 which allows the door opening 15 to be reduced or increased thus accommodating different sized animals, although the animal is only functionally claimed in the claims.
Regarding claim 16, the gate 42-44 or first portion also includes an add on feature of a scraper frame (unnumbered, shown in figure 6) or second portion which rotates from a vertical position to a rearwardly extended position. The claim language only functionally claims the animal and therefore the hypothetically size of the animal, and given the size variation of animals, the scraper frame is able to be lifted above the livestock.
Regarding claim 17, the movable partition is able to be reset to the start position after stopping adjacent to the exit or opening 15. See column 6, para 2 and 3.
Regarding claim 18, see the discussion of claim 16 above.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Fullerton et al do not teach a plurality of movable partitions being individually controlled. See discussion above for claim 13. Fullerton et al teaches the associated circuitry to control the forward and reverse movement of the movable partition. And, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to further modify the movement control circuitry of Fullerton et al with the control circuitry for each plurality of movable partitions, in order to management the livestock throughout the corral.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD T. PRICE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-6892. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3:30PM.
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, Peter M. Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/RICHARD T PRICE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643