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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 08/19/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the rail" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1, 5, 6, and 8-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,638,718. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant invention are anticipated by U. S. Patent No 10,638,718. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8-12 of U.S. Patent No 10,638,718 fall entirely within the scope of claims 1-13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van den Berg EP 1336337 in view of Holmertz et al US 2016/0128298.
Regarding claim 1, Van den Berg discloses a system for treating dairy livestock having fore legs and hind legs comprising a ramp (14); livestock stalls (4) positioned along at least part of the ramp, wherein each stall is configured to contain one dairy livestock; at least one vertical upright teat cup holder comprising teat cups (10); a mobile unit (9) comprising equipment for treating livestock and a processor (12), the mobile unit configured to: travel between the fore legs and hind legs of the dairy livestock on the ramp; and use the equipment to perform at least one action related to a treatment of the dairy livestock (Van den Berg, Figure 1); and wherein the equipment includes an arm (22) configured to withdraw the teat cups from the vertical upright teat cup holder and connect them to the dairy livestock. Not disclosed is a flap for covering the teat cups. Holmertz teaches a flap (16a) covering teat cups (Holmertz, Figure 6b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the device to combine the flaps covering teat cups of Holmertz with the device of Van den Berg with a reasonable expectation of success as to prevent debris from falling into the cup while the mobile unit traveled to different livestock stalls.
Regarding claim 3, Van den Berg further discloses wherein the ramp is a parallel milking parlor ramp (Van den Berg, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 4, Van den Berg further discloses wherein the system includes two parallel ramps or more (Van den Berg, Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Van den Berg further discloses a parking area (20) configured to contain parked mobile units.
Regarding claim 6, Van den Berg further discloses at least one vertical upright teat cup holder is positioned in line with a space between the hind legs of said dairy livestock (Van den Berg, Figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, Van den Berg further discloses teat cups are connected to the main milk line such that the system does not include pressure valves for controlling pressure in the teat cups (in that pressure valves are not disclosed by Van den Berg).
Regarding claim 9, Van den Berg further discloses the arm is further configured (via 22) to remove the teat cups from the dairy livestock, after which they are returned to the vertical upright teat cup holder.
Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van den Berg CA 2484371 in view of Holmertz et al US 2016/0128298.
Regarding claim 1, Van den Berg ‘371 discloses a system for treating dairy livestock having fore legs and hind legs comprising a ramp (352); livestock stalls (361, 362) positioned along at least part of the ramp, wherein each stall is configured to contain one dairy livestock; at least one vertical upright teat cup holder (409) comprising teat cups (411); a mobile unit (419) comprising equipment for treating livestock and a processor (423a), the mobile unit configured to: travel between the fore legs and hind legs of the dairy livestock on the ramp; and use the equipment to perform at least one action related to a treatment of the dairy livestock (Van den Berg ‘371, page 10: lines 12-17); and wherein the equipment includes an arm (420) configured to withdraw the teat cups from the vertical upright teat cup holder and connect them to the dairy livestock. Not disclosed is a flap for covering the teat cups. Holmertz teaches a flap (16a) covering teat cups (Holmertz, Figure 6b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the device to combine the flaps covering teat cups of Holmertz with the device of Van den Berg ‘371 with a reasonable expectation of success as to prevent debris from falling into the cup while the mobile unit traveled to different livestock stalls.
Regarding claim 2, Van den Berg ‘371 further discloses the ramp is a rotary milking parlor ramp (Van den Berg ‘371, Figure 7).
Regarding claim 5, Van den Berg ‘371 further discloses a parking area (20) configured to contain parked mobile units.
Regarding claim 7, Van den Berg ‘371 further discloses a milking pit (408) adjacent to the ramp, wherein at least one vertical upright teat cup holder is positioned, at least partially, in the milking pit.
Regarding claim 8, Van den Berg ‘371 further discloses teat cups are connected to the main milk line such that the system does not include pressure valves for controlling pressure in the teat cups (in that pressure valves are not disclosed by Van den Berg ‘371).
Regarding claim 9, Van den Berg ‘371 is capable of performing the functional limitations of the claims.
Regarding claim 10, Van den Berg ‘371 further discloses a milking pit, wherein the mobile unit is configured such that it does not enter the milking pit or does not extend the arm into the milking pit (Van den Berg ‘371, page 10: lines 12-14).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van den Berg CA 2484371 in view of Holmertz et al US 2016/0128298, as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, and 7-10 above, and in further view of Peles WO 2006018845.
Regarding claim 13, Van den Berg ‘371 in view of Homertz discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose the teat cups comprising a double groove. Peles teaches teat cups comprising a double groove (Peles, Figures 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of Van den Berg ‘371 in view of Homertz so that the teat cups comprised a double groove as taught by Peles depending on where the pressure was intended to be applied to the teat cup and teat to avoid mastitis (Peles, page 8: lines 3-8, lines 22-321).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van den Berg EP 1336337 in view of Holmertz et al US 2016/0128298, as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 9 above, and in further view of Peles WO 2006018845.
Regarding claim 13, Van den Berg in view of Homertz discloses the device of claim 1 but fails to disclose the teat cups comprising a double groove. Peles teaches teat cups comprising a double groove (Peles, Figures 5-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the device of Van den Berg in view of Homertz so that the teat cups comprised a double groove as taught by Peles depending on where the pressure was intended to be applied to the teat cup and teat to avoid mastitis (Peles, page 8: lines 3-8, lines 22-321).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN C HAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-7881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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, Michener Joshua can be reached at 571.272.1467. 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.
/KRISTEN C HAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
