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 Objections
Claims 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 4 recites the limitation “angled downward up to from the side wall up to 45 degrees.” Examiner recommends revision to “angled downward from the side wall up to 45 degrees.”
Claim 7 recites the limitation “cylinder; and,” in line 8. Examiner recommends revision to “cylinder; and” to remove comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the teat surface” in line 3. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation. Examiner recommends revision to “a teat surface” or “the bovine teats.”
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neal et al. (US 10945406 B2), hereinafter Neal.
Regarding claim 1, Neal discloses an apparatus for treating different size bovine teats, comprising:
a handpiece having a proximal end and a distal end (treatment apparatus 100; Fig. 1);
a teat receiving body attached to the distal end of the handpiece (teat enclosure assembly 10; Fig. 1);
a spray cylinder removably positioned within the teat receiving body (inner shell 60; Figs. 2 and 3), the spray cylinder comprising:
a central bore configured to receive a teat (Figs. 2 and 3 show an inner side surface 68 configured to receive a teat),
a top opening and a bottom opening (open top 63, open bottom 65; Fig. 2),
at least one raceway formed between the spray cylinder and the teat receiving body (annular cavity 78; Fig. 6A), and
a plurality of nozzles aligned with the raceway (orifices 81, 82, 83; Fig. 6A);
wherein the spray cylinder is exchangeable with other spray cylinders having different bore diameters to accommodate teats of varying sizes (Fig. 3 shows inner shell 60 is removable, thus can be exchanged with other spray cylinders).
Regarding claim 3, Neal discloses the device of claim 1.
Neal discloses wherein the spray cylinder includes O-rings positioned above and below each raceway to isolate fluid flow and prevent leakage (O-ring seals 71, 73; Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 4, Neal discloses the device of claim 1.
Neal discloses wherein the nozzles are angled downward up to from the side wall up to 45 degrees (downward angle 97, 96; Fig. 6A; Col. 9, lines 32-34, “the orifices may be oriented along an orifice axis at downward angles of between about 10 degrees and about 50 degrees”).
Regarding claim 5, Neal discloses the device of claim 1.
Neal discloses wherein the teat receiving body includes vertically aligned ports that register with corresponding ports on the handpiece to deliver fluids to the raceways (Fig. 9A shows fitting 29 is vertically aligned with inlet port 27; Col. 7, lines 32-38, “Other conduit arrangements are contemplated. In an alternative embodiment, the second conduit 130 may be connected to the teat enclosure assembly 10 through additional ports in valve 125. Alternatively, the second conduit 130 may be connected to the teat enclosure assembly 10 through a second hand operated valve [not shown]”).
Regarding claim 6, Neal discloses the device of claim 1.
Neal discloses further comprising a deflection cap attached to the lower end of the teat receiving body to concentrate and direct fluid flow toward hard-to-reach areas or deflect away from a user holding the handpiece (Fig. 6A shows bottom edge 23 extends past lower edge 66 of inner shell 60 that is configured to deflect fluid away from a user).
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal (US 10945406 B2) in view of Eriksson et al. (WO 9927775 A1), hereinafter Eriksson.
Regarding claim 2, Neal discloses the device of claim 1, however, Neal fails to specifically disclose wherein the spray cylinder includes multiple raceways, each configured to deliver a different fluid selected from high-pressure air, a pre-dip solution, and a post-dip solution.
Eriksson is in the field of teat cleaning and teaches wherein the spray cylinder includes multiple raceways, each configured to deliver a different fluid selected from high-pressure air, a pre-dip solution, and a post-dip solution (Fig. 4 shows multiple protuberances 77 that delivers air in spray cylinder separate from cleaning means 59 which delivers cleaning fluid).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of teat cleaning before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Neal such that the spray cylinder includes multiple raceways, each configured to deliver a different fluid selected from high-pressure air, a pre-dip solution, and a post-dip solution, as taught by the multiple raceways of Eriksson. The multiple raceways would allow for the delivery of separate fluids to the teat, which would aid in cleaning. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal (US 10945406 B2), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jin (WO 2017071535 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Neal discloses a method for treating different size bovine teats, comprising:
selecting a spray cylinder having a bore diameter corresponding to a teat size to be treated (Figs. 9A-9C show bore of inner shell 609 corresponds to a teat size of teat 2);
attaching the spray cylinder to a handpiece (teat enclosure assembly 10; Fig. 1);
aligning fluid delivery ports on the spray cylinder with corresponding ports on the handpiece (Fig. 9A shows fitting 29 is aligned with inlet port 27; Col. 7, lines 32-38);
delivering water, high-pressure air, a pre-dip solution, or a post-dip solution through a raceway and nozzles formed in the spray cylinder (Col. 10, lines 11-19, “The disinfectant material in the disinfectant liquid completes the teat cleaning task by killing any pathogens on the surface of the teat 2 that will be enclosed subsequently in a milking machine cup, thereby preventing bacteria from contaminating the milk, or infecting the teat 2 and causing mastitis. Suitable disinfectant materials include, but are not limited to, ozonated water [i.e., ozone gas dissolved in water], iodine, chlorine dioxide, hydrogen peroxide, or sodium hypochlorite solutions”); and,
removing the spray cylinder (Fig. 3)
Neal, however, fails to specifically disclose and replacing it with another spray cylinder to accommodate a different teat size.
Jin is in the field of teat cleaning and teaches replacing the spray cylinder with another spray cylinder to accommodate a different teat size (Figs. 1-3 show two spray cylinders, the bath cup being smaller than the cleaning bucket, which replaces the cleaning bucket for insertion of the teat separate from cleaning bucket usage).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of teat cleaning before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Neal to include replacing the spray cylinder with another spray cylinder to accommodate a different teat size, as taught by multiple cylinders of Jin. The additional cylinder in the form of the bath cup would provide the added benefit of further protecting the nipple from infection after milking. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, Neal in view of Jin discloses the method of claim 7.
Neal discloses wherein the spray cylinder includes at least one raceway (annular cavity 78; Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 9, Neal in view of Jin discloses the method of claim 7.
Neal discloses further comprising sealing the raceways using O-rings to prevent cross-contamination between fluids (O-ring seals 71, 73; Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 10, Neal in view of Jin discloses the method of claim 7, however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the spray cylinder is selected from a set of spray cylinders having bore diameters ranging from 20 mm to 40 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Neal in view of Jin such that the spray cylinder is selected from a set of spray cylinders having bore diameters ranging from 20 mm to 40 mm in order to accommodate a range of teat sizes. Additionally, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding claim 11, Neal in view of Jin discloses the method of claim 7.
Neal discloses further comprising activating a programmable logic controller to control the timing and sequence of fluid delivery to the spray cylinder (Col. 13, lines 33-39, “It is further noted that the duration and flow rates of liquid disinfectant and air to the washing and stimulation apparatus is straightforward to control with a programmable logic controller, whether the apparatus is operated robotically or manually by a dairy worker. Thus consistent favorable sanitation and stimulation results can be achieved with the apparatus”).
Regarding claim 12, Neal in view of Jin discloses the method of claim 7.
Neal discloses wherein the spray cylinder includes nozzles aimed radially and downward to ensure full coverage of the teat surface (orifices 81, 82, 83; Fig. 6A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Mlsna et al., US 9648842 B1, discusses an externally monitored and controlled milking applicator.
Dole, US 8622026 B1, discusses a system and method for cleaning teats of a milk-producing animal and monitoring teat cleaning procedures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SPENCER THOMAS CALLAWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3512. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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, Joshua Huson can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/S.T.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights