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 .
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 Objections
Claims 5 - 19 and 23 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only, and cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 5 - 19 and 23 have not been further treated on the merits.
Claims 1 - 4 and 20 - 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 - 4 and 20 - 22 are objected to because an article is missing as the first word in each claim.
Claim 1 is objected to because “determine” in the 5th paragraph should recite “determining”.
Claim 20 is objected to because “determine” in the 6th paragraph should recite “determining”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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. In particular “means of motion analysis” in claims 1 and 20 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1 - 4 and 20 - 22 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, 2, 20, and 22 are indefinite because the phrase "such as" (4th paragraph in claim 1; 1st and 4th paragraphs in claim 20) renders it unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3 - 4 and 21 are indefinite by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 - 4 and 20 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a mental-process type abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a method of monitoring a locomotor system of an animal.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites limitations directed towards:
‘detecting, in a plurality of the images of the sequence the animal by recognizing in each image of the plurality of images a body of the animal’,
‘selecting a subset of consecutive images from the sequence of images such as to form a video clip comprising the subset of consecutive images, wherein the video clip is representative of a fragment of the video’,
‘determining using the time stamps of two or more images from the subset of consecutive images, a velocity of the animal’, and
‘classifying a motion of the animal from the video clip as being indicative of an abnormality in the locomotor system’.
As drafted, each these limitations amount to nothing more than steps that can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. For example a human can perform each of the steps by thinking about images acquired by the camera, and/or with the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites additional elements as follows:
The preamble sets forth that the method uses a ‘motion analysis system comprising a camera configured for monitoring at least a part of a pathway wherein the animal travels, wherein the camera is operatively connected to a computing device and a data storage of the analysis system’. However, the camera is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than a generic structure for mere pre-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations directed towards the configuration of the camera to ‘monitor at least a part of a pathway wherein the animal travels’ and being ‘operatively connected to the computing device’ merely limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or describe features of extra-solution activity.
The claim further sets forth that the ‘computing device comprises a processor and the computing device is communicatively connected to the data storage’, and recites that the processor performs the mental steps. However, the computing device and components thereof are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. The limitations thus comprise no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception.
The claim recites a step of “receiving, by the processor from the camera, a sequence of images of the animal moving along the pathway the sequence of images forming a video of the moving animal, wherein each image of the sequence of images is associated with a time stamp comprising timing data indicative of a moment of capturing the image by the camera”, which is extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering).
The claim also recites that the processor uses a machine learning data processing model to perform the classifying step. However, the model is recited at a high level of generality and thus amounts to no more than further instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer.
The claim recites a step of “providing an outcome of said step of classifying as classification data at an output of the machine learning data processing model”, which is extra-solution activity (i.e., data output).
The claim recites a step of “providing, by the processor as an outcome of the method, an output signal dependent on the classification data being indicative of the abnormality in the locomotor system in the animal”, which is extra-solution activity (i.e., data output).
The claim also recites “wherein the output signal is further dependent on the velocity of the animal”, which merely limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
Therefore, the recited additional elements do not, either individually or as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations are directed towards hardware for and/or steps of extra-solution activity, instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer, and/or limiting the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 20:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a motion analysis system.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites limitations directed towards:
‘detecting, in a plurality of the images of the sequence the animal by recognizing in each image of the plurality of images a body of the animal’,
‘selecting a subset of consecutive images from the sequence of images such as to form a video clip comprising the subset of consecutive images, wherein the video clip is representative of a fragment of the video’, and
‘determining using the time stamps of two or more images from the subset of consecutive images, a velocity of the animal’.
As drafted, each these limitations amount to nothing more than steps that can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. For example a human can perform each of the steps by thinking about images acquired by the camera, and/or with the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites additional elements as follows:
The claim sets forth that the system comprises ‘a camera configured for monitoring at least a part of a pathway wherein the animal travels …., wherein the camera is operatively connected to the computing device and the data storage’. However, the camera is recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to no more than a generic structure for mere pre-solution activity of data gathering (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations directed towards the configuration of the camera to ‘monitor at least a part of a pathway wherein the animal travels’ and being ‘operatively connected to the computing device’ merely limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use and/or describe features of extra-solution activity.
The claim sets forth that the system comprises ‘a computing device, and a data storage communicatively connected to the computing device, … wherein the computing device comprises a processor’, and recites that the processor controls the system and performs the mental steps. However, the computing device and components thereof are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. The limitations thus comprise no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception.
The claim recites a step of “receiving, by the processor from the camera, a sequence of images of the animal moving along the pathway the sequence of images forming a video of the moving animal, wherein each image of the sequence of images is associated with a time stamp comprising timing data indicative of a moment of capturing the image by the camera”, which is extra-solution activity (i.e., data gathering).
The claim also recites limitations directed towards providing the video clip to a machine learning data processing model and “providing at an output of the machine learning data processing model an outcome of said classification as classification data”, both of which are extra-solution activity (i.e., data input/output).
The claim further recites that “the machine learning data processing model is trained to classify a motion of the animal from the video clip as being indicative of the abnormality in the locomotor system”, which merely limits the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
The claim recites a step of “providing, by the processor as an outcome of the method, an output signal indicative of an occurrence of the abnormality in the locomotor system in the animal, wherein the output signal is based on the classification data and on the velocity of the animal”, which is extra-solution activity (i.e., data output).
Therefore, the recited additional elements do not, either individually or as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations are directed towards hardware for and/or steps of extra-solution activity, instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer, and/or limiting the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims:
Claim 2 recites additional limitations directed towards various determinations that read on mental steps. The limitations setting forth that the processor/machine learning data processing model performs the mental steps are instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer. The limitations characterizing the classification data merely limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
Claim 3 recites additional limitations directed towards evaluating the classification data based on the velocity of the animal, which reads on a mental step.
Claim 4 recites additional limitations directed towards selecting or discarding the classification data, which reads on a mental step. The limitations characterizing the classification data merely limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
Claim 21 recites additional limitations directed towards the system further comprising a one or more radio frequency identification reader stations for communicating with one or more radio frequency identification transceivers, which is generic hardware for extra-solution activity. The claim further recites “receiving, by the processor from at least one of the radio frequency identification transceivers, an identification signal comprising identification data”, which is extra-solution activity. The claim also recites limitations directed towards associating the identification data with the animal, which reads on a mental step. The limitations setting forth that the processor performs the mental step are instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer.
Claim 22 recites additional limitations directed towards the camera being positioned above the pathway, which merely limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use.
Therefore, the additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered separately and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 - 4 and 20 - 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Hertem et al. (“Implementation of an automatic 3D vision monitor for dairy cow locomotion in a commercial farm”, BIOSYSTEMS ENGINEERING, vol. 173, 9 September 2017 (2017-09-09), pages 166-175; of record) in view of Blais-Morin (US 2017/0098304).
Regarding claims 1 and 20, Van Hertem shows a system for, and method of, monitoring a locomotor system of an animal by means of motion analysis, using image processing in a motion analysis system (“ … 3D vision system for automatic locomotion monitoring implemented in a commercial dairy farm … video analysis …”, abstract), the motion analysis system comprising a camera configured for monitoring at least a part of a pathway wherein the animal travels (3D image camera … top-down perspective … corridor…”, sect. 2.2 and fig. 2), wherein the camera is operatively connected to a computing device and a data storage of the analysis system, and wherein the computing device comprises a processor and wherein the computing device is communicatively connected to the data storage (sect. 2.2, second paragraph), the method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by the processor from the camera, a sequence of images of the animal moving along the pathway the sequence of images forming a video of the moving animal (“… Cow identification triggered the recording of the video … recording automatically stopped when a new cow was identified or if the photocell laser-beam of the RFID-unit was cut”, sect. 2.2, first paragraph), wherein each image of the sequence of images is associated with a time stamp comprising timing data indicative of a moment of capturing the image by the camera (“Video recordings were made at 30 frames per second (fps). … recorded videos were named after the timestamp at saving”, sect. 2.2);
detecting, by the processor, in a plurality of the images of the sequence the animal by recognizing in each image of the plurality of images a body of the animal (“Automatic video pre-processing was necessary to identify freely walking cows in the recorded images … For extracting animal based measures relevant for lameness detection, the full cow body (head to tail) needed to be segmented in the video… The algorithm automatically segmented the cow body in the images”, sect. 2.3);
selecting, by the processor, a subset of consecutive images from the sequence of images such as to form a video clip comprising the subset of consecutive images, wherein the video clip is representative of a fragment of the video (“All videos pass through a filtering procedure that discards unsuitable videos", sect. 4, 3rd par., the selected video clips are the "scored videos" in Fig. 4; the discarded videos are the "filtered videos" in Fig. 4);
determine, by the processor, using two or more images from the subset of consecutive images, a velocity of the animal (“The filter criteria were based on … cow walking speed (not running and not stopping)”, sect. 4, 3rd par.);
classifying, by the processor using a machine learning data processing model (“fully automatic computer vision system”, sect. 1, last par.; sect. 4, 1st sentence), a motion of the animal from the video clip as being indicative of an abnormality in the locomotor system, and providing an outcome of said step of classifying as classification data at an output of the machine learning data processing model (i.e., the machine learning data processing model comprises six binary classifiers that use different kinds of features, see Table 5 and Sect. 2.3; the model was trained by obtaining reference locomotion scores from trained observers, see Sect. 2.4, and optimising the discrimination threshold of each binary classifier by maximising the respective area under the ROC curve, see Sect. 2.5.1; each of the binary classifiers is thus trained to classify the abnormality of the locomotor system, wherein an abnormality is defined as a locomotion score less than two, see sect. 2.4, last paragraph: "For model development and evaluation, a binary reference is necessary. Therefore a cut-off threshold was used to divide the dataset into … non-lame (LS = [1, 2]) and lame (LS = [3, 4, 5]”); and
providing, by the processor as an outcome of the method, an output signal dependent on the classification data being indicative of the abnormality in the locomotor system in the animal (“…The Area Under the ROG-curve (AUG) values for binary lameness classification … show that the best classifier for lameness is the curvature angle of back around hip joints …, followed closely by BPM …”, sect. 3, last par.), wherein the output signal is further dependent on the velocity of the animal (i.e., if the velocity of the animal did not pass the walking speed filter, then no output signal was generated, see Fig. 4 and the third paragraph of Sect. 4).
The system comprises the camera and computing device.
Van Hertem does not explicitly provide that the velocity is determined using the timestamps of the two or more images.
Blais-Morin, in applicant’s field of endeavor of video analysis (CPC group G06T2207/10016), discloses camera-based speed estimation. Blais-Morin teaches velocity that is determined using timestamps of the two or more images (“subtraction between timestamps is done and yields time spans between frames as required for speed estimation”, [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Van Hertem to have the velocity be determined using the timestamps of the two or more images, as taught by Blais-Morin, in order to optimize the filter criteria of Van Hertem based on specific velocities, since the walking speed influences the number of frames discarded due to imperfect segmentation, as discussed by Van Hertem (see Van Hertem: sect. 4, 3rd par.)
Regarding claim 2, the combined invention of Van Hertem and Blais-Morin discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Van Hertem further shows determining, by the processor using the machine learning data processing model, whether or not the abnormality in the locomotor system occurs, wherein the classification data is a Boolean (i.e., binary, sect. 2.5.1) classifier indicative of the outcome of the classification.
Regarding claim 3, the combined invention of Van Hertem and Blais-Morin discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Van Hertem further shows the step of providing the output signal comprises a step of evaluating the classification data based on the velocity of the animal, as the frames are filtered based on the velocity (sect. 4, 3rd par.).
Regarding claim 4, the combined invention of Van Hertem and Blais-Morin discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Van Hertem further shows selecting or discarding the classification data based on the velocity of the animal being above or below a predetermined threshold, wherein the classification data is selected if the velocity is above the threshold, and wherein the classification data is discarded if the velocity is below the threshold (sect. 4, 3rd par.).
Regarding claim 21, the combined invention of Van Hertem and Blais-Morin discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Van Hertem further shows the system further comprises one or more radio frequency identification reader stations for communicating with one or more radio frequency identification transceivers, wherein the processor is further configured for processing instructions that enable the system to perform the steps of: receiving, by the processor from at least one of the radio frequency identification transceivers, an identification signal comprising identification data; and associating, by the processor, the identification data with the animal (“… radio-frequency identification (RFID)-antenna … Cow identification …”, sect. 2.2).
Regarding claim 22, the combined invention of Van Hertem and Blais-Morin discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Van Hertem further shows the camera is positioned above the pathway, such as to obtain image of the animal from above (“… camera was installed in top-down perspective …”, sect. 2.2 and fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIE R DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571)272-2714. 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.
/AMELIE R DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights