Detailed Action
Preliminary Amendment
1. Entry of applicant’s preliminary amendment dated 6-17-25 into the application file is acknowledged.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Italy on 6-18-24. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the patent application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is written as a claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a counting system/method for counting poultry. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because can be considered as a judicial exception since the claims relate to a mental process that can be observed via the human mind. For example with respect to claims 1-2, 13 and 15, the acquisition group limitation and processing apparatus having an identification unit, tracking unit, counting unit and output unit can be done manually by a human observing when the conveyor belt has some or has no chickens, the human mind after identifying chickens on the conveyor belt can then track and count how many chickens are on the track where the chickens are on the track and output the tracked and counted chickens and then based upon the perceived count can determine how many birds are loaded onto the cage. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the conveyor belt and cage as claimed in claims 1 ,13, and 15 do not amount to significantly more as they are well understood routine and conventional devices for loading chickens in the prior art as seen in applicant’s originally filed specification in the prior art section of page 1 of applicant’s originally filed specification and in the summary section on page 2 of applicant’s originally filed specification detailing the well known routine and conventional techniques of loading chickens and as seen in the conveyors and cages/containers shown in the prior art references cited later in this office action. Further with respect to claim 2, the claim does not amount to significantly more as the neural network can be considered the brain of the human observer.
Claim Interpretation
5. 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.
Regarding claim 1, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed acquisition group and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the acquisition group is detailed as according to an embodiment of the present invention, the acquisition group 150 comprises at least one image acquisition device (for example, a camera or a video camera), identified by means of the reference number 150(1), directed so as to capture at least one portion of the loading conveyor belt 135. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the portion of the loading conveyor belt 135 captured by the image acquisition device 150(1), and therefore the subject of the images I(t(0)), I(t(1)), …, I(t(i)), …, I(t(n)), comprises at least a portion of the loading conveyor belt 135, preferably a central portion of the loading conveyor belt 135. In the case where the image acquisition device 150(1) is a camera, the images I(t(0)) I(t(1)), …, I(t(i)), I(t(n)) are images acquired during respective time instants t(0), t(1), …, t(i), …, t(n), while in the case where the image acquisition device 150(1) is a video camera, the images I(t(0)) I(t(1)), …, I(t(i)), I(t(n)) are photograms (frames) of a video acquired by the video camera, corresponding to respective time instants t(0), t(1), …, t(i), …, t(n).
According to an embodiment of the present invention, the acquisition group 150 may also comprise at least one illuminating device, identified by means of the reference number 150(2) and configured to illuminate the portion of the loading conveyor belt 135 captured by the image acquisition device 150(1). In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the image acquisition device 150(1) is an infrared camera or video camera, and the illuminating device 150(2) is an infrared illuminating device. In this way, advantageously it is possible to obtain images I(t(i)) of the birds which are loaded inside the cage 101 without disturbing the animals with light which is visible to the naked eye as seen in page 11 line 19 to page 12 line 10. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed identification unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the identification unit is detailed as according to an embodiment of the present invention, said identification unit comprises an object detection unit which implements a neural network model trained to optimize the ability of said neutral network model to recognize the poultry presence in images in page 3 line 31 to page 4 line 2 of applicant’s originally filed specification and detailed as according to an embodiment of the present invention, said identification unit comprises an object detection unit configured to calculate, for each poultry presence identified in an image, coordinates of a corresponding bounding box indicating a position and a space occupied by said poultry presence in said image in page 4 lines 19-23 of applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed tracking unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the tracking unit is detailed as according to an embodiment of the present invention, said tracking unit implements a tracking algorithm configured to calculate each poultry track corresponding to a bird based on the evolution over time of the coordinates of the bounding boxes calculated for the presence of said bird in the images of said image sequence in page 4 lines 24-28 of applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed counting unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the counting unit is detailed as according to an embodiment of the present invention, said counting unit is configured to update a counter whenever the coordinates of a bounding box of a poultry track have reached or exceeded threshold values indicating that the corresponding bird has reached the cage in page 4 lines 29-32 of applicant’s originally filed specification. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed output unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the output unit is detailed as the processing apparatus comprises an output unit for outputting the calculated count for control of the caging machine in page 3 lines 29-30 of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claims 2 and 5, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed object detection unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the object detection unit is detailed as according to an embodiment of the present invention, said identification unit comprises an object detection unit which implements a neural network model trained to optimize the ability of said neutral network model to recognize the poultry presence in images in page 3 line 31 to page 3 line 2 of applicant’s originally filed specification and is further detailed as according to an embodiment of the present invention, said identification unit comprises an object detection unit configured to calculate, for each poultry presence identified in an image, coordinates of a corresponding bounding box indicating a position and a space occupied by said poultry presence in said image in page 4 lines 19-23 of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Regarding claim 11, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed illuminating device and as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure the illuminating device is detailed as according to an embodiment of the present invention, said camera or video camera is an infrared camera or video camera, and said illuminating device is an infrared illuminating device as seen in page 5 lines 19-21.
Regarding claim 14, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit and as seen in applicant’s originally filed specification the control unit is detailed as according to an embodiment of the present invention, the caging machine further comprises a control unit in communication with the output unit of the counting system, wherein said control device is configured to stop the conveyor belt or to direct the conveyor belt towards another cage when the calculated count has reached a value corresponding to a predefined target value of poultry in page 5 lines 28-33 and further detailed as according to an embodiment of the present invention, operation of the caging machine 100 (which comprises, among other things, movement of the conveyor belts 112, 118, 135, raising/lowering of the caging group 130 and extension/inclination of the loading conveyor belt 135) is controlled by one (or more) electronic/electromechanical control units (for example coupled to one or more hydraulic units), which are denoted overall by the reference number 138 in page 9 lines 22-28 of applicant’s originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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 1-15 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 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed acquisition group as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 and the phrase “for example” in page 11 line 20 of applicant’s originally filed specification makes it unclear as to whether other types of acquisition devices are being contemplated by the claim. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed identification unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 and it is unclear to what structure is being considered as the claimed identification unit in that there is no specific structure detailed that implements the neural network and no specific structure to perform the calculations detailed in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed tracking unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 and it is unclear to what structure is being considered as the claimed tracking unit in that there is no specific structure detailed that implements the tracking algorithm as detailed in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed counting unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 and it is unclear to what structure is being considered as the claimed counting unit in that there is no specific structure that updates the counter as detailed in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Further, applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed grouping unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 and it is unclear to what structure is being considered the claimed grouping unit in that applicant has not detailed any specific structure related to the grouping unit as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. Further, claim 1 lacks antecedent basis for “the presence” in line 8.
Claim 2 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the object detection unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 and it is unclear to what structure is considered as the claimed object detection unit in that there is no specific structure detailed that implements the neural network and performs the disclosed calculating as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "image flip" in line 5, “image rotation” in line 6, “image scaling” in line 7, “image translation” in line 8, “image saturation variation” in line 9, “image hue variation” in line 10 and “image brightness variation” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 5 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the object detection unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 and it is unclear to what structure is considered as the claimed object detection unit in that there is no specific structure detailed that implements the neural network and performs the disclosed calculating as seen in applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the evolution" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 unclear to how the camera or video camera captures the conveyor belt.
Claim 14 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. Applicant invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the control unit as detailed earlier in paragraph 4 and the phrase 6“for example” in page 9 line 26 of applicant’s originally filed disclosure renders the claim indefinite in that it is unclear to whether other types of control units than those disclosed are being contemplated by the claim. Further, claim 14 lacks antecedent basis for “said control device” in line 3 and therefore it is unclear as to whether the control device detailed in line 3 is the same or different than the control unit detailed in line 2 of the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the presence" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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) 1 and 4-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP Patent No. 2579188 to Weekers in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,660,147 to Wills et al.
Referring to claims 1, 13 and 15, Weekers discloses a counting system/method for counting poultry in a machine configured to convey poultry on a conveyor belt – at 4, in order to introduce them into a box – see at 15 in figure 1, the counting system comprising, an acquisition group – at 11, for acquiring a sequence of images of a same portion of the conveyor belt – at 4, during successive time instants – see figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0006]-[0009], [0030]-[0033], a processing apparatus – at 12, comprising, an identification unit – at 12, configured to process the sequence of images in order to identify the presence of the poultry in each image – see paragraphs [0006]-[0009], [0030]-[0033], a tracking unit – at 12, configured to calculate poultry tracks based on the identified poultry presence, each poultry track indicating the path followed by a respective bird along the conveyor belt – see paragraphs [0006]-[0009], [0030]-[0033], a counting unit – at 12, configured to calculate a count indicating the number of birds that have reached the cage on the basis of the calculated tracks – see paragraphs [0006]-[0009], [0030]-[0033], an output unit – at 12, for outputting the calculated count for control of the caging machine – see paragraphs [0030]-[0033]. With respect to claim 1, Weekers does not disclose the identification unit, tracking unit, counting unit and output unit are four separate units. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Weekers and have each of the four claimed units as separate units, so as to yield the predictable result of performing the operation of these units in any desired sequence as desired. With respect to claims 1 and 15, Weekers further does not disclose the poultry containers are cages. Wills et al. does disclose a poultry counting system using poultry containers that are cages – see at 108,109 and column 10 lines 56-64. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Weekers and use any suitable poultry container including the cages as disclosed by Wills et al., so as to yield the predictable result of easily grouping and moving the poultry as desired. With respect to claim 1, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis of the claimed acquisition group, item 11 of Weekers is a video camera consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure. With respect to claim 1, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed identification unit, item 12 of Weekers provides similar function to applicant’s claimed identification unit as seen in paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0030]-[0033] and therefore is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s claimed identification unit. With respect to claim 1, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed tracking unit, item 12 of Weekers provides similar function to applicant’s claimed identification unit as seen in paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0030]-[0033] and therefore is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s claimed tracking unit. With respect to claim 1, regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed counting unit, item 12 of Weekers provides similar function to applicant’s claimed identification unit as seen in paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0030]-[0033] and therefore is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s claimed counting unit. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed output unit, item 12 of Weekers provides similar function to applicant’s claimed identification unit as seen in paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0030]-[0033] and therefore is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s claimed output unit.
Referring to claim 4, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. further discloses the identification unit and the tracking unit are configured to operate asynchronously and independently to each other – see paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0030]-[0033] of Weekers where the identification and tracking are separate functions that are not required to be performed simultaneously.
Referring to claim 5, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. further discloses the identification unit comprises an object detection unit – at 12, configured to calculate for each poultry presence identified in an image coordinates of a corresponding bounding box indicating a position and space occupied by the poultry presence in the image – see paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0030]-[0033] of Weekers where image coordinates of poultry are determined via items 11,12. Weekers as modified by Wills et al. does not disclose the object detection unit is a separate unit from the tracking, counting and output units. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Weekers and have each of the claimed units as separate units, so as to yield the predictable result of performing the operation of these units in any desired sequence as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed object detection unit items 11,12 of Weekers perform a similar function to applicant’s disclosed object detection unit as seen in paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0030]-[0033] of Weekers, and therefore is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s claimed object detection unit.
Referring to claim 6, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. further discloses the tracking unit is configured to calculate each poultry track corresponding to a bird based on the evolution over time of the coordinates of the bounding boxes calculated for the presence of the bird in the images of the image sequence – see paragraph [0008] of Weekers detailing tracking via image data. Weekers as modified by Wills et al. does not disclose using a tracking algorithm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Weekers as modified by Wills et al. and use any suitable tracking means including the claimed tracking algorithm, so as to yield the predictable result of accurately identifying the position and location of the poultry during operation.
Referring to claim 7, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. further discloses the counting unit is configured to update a counter whenever the coordinates of a bounding box of a poultry track have reached or exceeded threshold values – see pattern recognition in paragraph [0008] of Weekers indicating that the corresponding bird has reached the cage – see paragraphs [0006]-[0009] and [0030]-[0033] of Weekers.
Referring to claim 8, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. further discloses the threshold values correspond to, coordinates of a line in the image, or coordinates of a bidimensional region in the image – see at least a bidimensional region of an image given the image is bidimensional as seen in paragraphs [0006]-[0008] of Weekers et al.
Referring to claim 9, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. further discloses the acquisition group – at 11, and the processing apparatus – at 12, are part of a single embedded hardware unit – at 10 – see figures 1-2 of Weekers.
Referring to claim 10, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. further discloses a buffer configured to temporarily store one or more images of the sequence of images, the identification unit being configured to process one of the images stored in the buffer to identify the presence of the poultry – see paragraphs [0006]-[0008] and [0030]-[0033] of Weekers detailing comparing image to previously captured images and therefore there would be a storage device/component.
Referring to claim 11, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. further discloses the acquisition group – at 11, comprises a camera or video camera – at 11, which captures the portion of the conveyor belt – at 4 – see camera and video camera in paragraph [0007] of Weekers. Weekers as modified by Wills et al. does not disclose an illuminating device for illuminating the portion of the conveyor belt. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Weekers as modified by Wills et al. and add an illumination device as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of acquiring more detailed images via the claimed camera/video camera as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed illuminating device it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a functional equivalent to applicant’s disclosed infrared illuminating device, so as to yield the predictable result of acquiring more detailed images as desired.
Referring to claim 12, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. further discloses the camera or video camera is an infrared camera or video camera – see paragraph [0007] of Weekers. Weekers as modified by Wills et al. does not disclose the illuminating device is an infrared illuminating device. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Weekers as modified by Wills et al. and add an infrared illumination device as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of acquiring more detailed images via the claimed camera/video camera as desired.
Referring to claim 14, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. further discloses a control unit – at the microprocessor detailed in column 9 line 43 to column 10 line 5 of Wills et al., in communication with the output unit of the counting system – at 74, wherein the control device is configured to stop the conveyor belt – at 12, or to direct the conveyor belt – at 12, towards a further cage – at 108, when the calculated count has reached a value corresponding to a predefined target value of poultry – see figures 25-33 and column 9 line 43 to column 11 line 64 of Wills et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Weekers as modified by Wills et al. and add the control unit of Wills et al., so as to yield the predictable result of automatically controlling operation of the conveyor belt as desire so as to process larger numbers of poultry as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed control unit, the microprocessor as disclosed by Wills et al. is an electrical controller consistent with applicant’s originally filed disclosure.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weekers as modified by Wills et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN Patent No. 115937791 to Liu et al.
Referring to claim 2, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. does not disclose the identification unit comprises an object detection unit that implements a neural network model trained to optimize the ability of said neural network model to recognize the poultry presence in
images. Liu et al. does disclose the identification unit comprises an object detection unit – at 9,10, that implements a neural network model trained to optimize the ability of said neural network model to recognize the poultry presence in images – see paragraphs [0052]-[0087] of the English translation provided by applicant. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Weekers as modified by Wills et al. and add the neural network of Liu et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more quickly and accurately counting the poultry during operation as desired. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) means plus function analysis with respect to the claimed object detection unit items 9,10 of Liu et al. perform a similar function to applicant’s disclosed object detection unit as seen in paragraphs [0052]-[0087] of Liu et al., and therefore is at least a functional equivalent to applicant’s claimed object detection unit.
Referring to claim 3, Weekers as modified by Wills et al. and Liu et al. further discloses the neural network model is trained with a set of training images comprising training images depicting poultry – see paragraphs [0052]-[0087] of Liu et al., and wherein at least a portion of the training images depicting poultry have been subjected to one or more of the following data augmenting operations, image flip, image rotation, image scaling, image translation, image saturation variation – see density evaluation in paragraphs [0052]-[0087] of Liu et al., image hue variation, image brightness variation. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Weekers as modified by Wills et al. and add the neural network of Liu et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more quickly and accurately counting the poultry during operation as desired.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect tot poultry counting devices in general:
U.S. Pat. No. 3,110,388 to Elliott et al. – shows poultry counting device
U.S. Pat. No. 3,805,743 to Crowder – shows poultry counting device
U.S. Pat. No. 4,201,156 to Kahler – shows poultry counting device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,101,767 to Williams et al. – shows poultry counting device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,325,820 to Briggs et al. – shows poultry counting device
U.S. Pat. No. 5,699,755 to Wills et al. – shows poultry counting device
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights