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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. NL2031552, filed on 04/12/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because it recites “The robot milking system according to claim 3,” in line 1. Examiner recommends correction to “The robot milking system according to claim 1,” for proper dependence.
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.
Claim 11, lines 1 & 2, recites “a milking means,” and is being interpreted under 112(f). The structure encompassed by “milking means” is not understood, as the specification fails to provide a definite standard for the meaning of the term.
3-prong analysis:
The claim limitation uses the term “means” for performing the claimed function; “a milking means”
The term “means” is modified by functional language, “milking”
The term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function; “milking means” is not modified by sufficient structure in claim 1
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 1-20 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 limitation “milking means,” recited in claim 1, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure does not specifically disclose or explain what the “milking means” is as it relates to the claims. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forsen (WO 0130134 A1, previously cited by Applicant 10/15/2026) in view of Birk (WO 0115517 A1, previously cited by Applicant 10/15/2026).
Regarding claim 1, Forsen discloses robot milking system comprising:
at least one milking box (milking station 1; Fig. 1);
milking means Figs. 4 and 5 show milking means);
a robot arm configured to connect the milking means to a milking animal (robot arm 28; Figs. 4 and 5);
an animal recognition device configured to automatically determine an identity of the milking animal (page 6, line 27 – page 7, line 4, “Hence, the sensing device 4 may be used for lengthways sensing of the position of an animal during a milking sequence and for preventing contamination of the milking equipment with urine and manure during milking. Fig. 2 shows schematically the embodiment in fig. 1, when an animal, in this case a long cow, has entered the milking station 1. Her presence has been detected by the photocell, the entry gate [not shown] has been closed and she has been identified by means of a rod reader and transponder [not shown]”);
a control system configured to control the robot milking system (page 3, lines 8-13, “For this purpose the robot arm is controlled by means of a sensing device, which is arranged to generate signals corresponding to the movements of the animal relative to said milking station. The signals will be fed to the control unit of the milking robot, which in turn will maneuver the robot arm correspondingly to the signals in order to cause the tube guide means to follow the movements of the animal”);
and a positioning aid configured to determine a position of the milking animal in the at least one milking box (manure plate 16; Figs. 2-5),
Forsen, however, fails to specifically disclose the positioning aid is movable by the control system between an inactive state away from the milking animal and an active state up against the milking animal, the positioning aid is in the active state at least when the milking means is connected to the milking animal, and the control system is configured to bring the positioning aid into the active state as a function of the identity determined by the animal recognition device.
Birk is in the field of milking and teaches the positioning aid is movable by the control system between an inactive state away from the milking animal and an active state up against the milking animal, the positioning aid is in the active state at least when the milking means is connected to the milking animal, and the control system is configured to bring the positioning aid into the active state as a function of the identity determined by the animal recognition device (Claim 1; page 8, lines 1-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of milking before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Forsen such that the positioning aid is movable by the control system between an inactive state away from the milking animal and an active state up against the milking animal, the positioning aid is in the active state at least when the milking means is connected to the milking animal, and the control system is configured to bring the positioning aid into the active state as a function of the identity determined by the animal recognition device, as taught by positioning control and identification systems of Birk. This would allow the system to automatically adjust the positioning aid in dependence on the identity and respective features of a specific animal. The modification would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 1, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches further comprising: an animal management system connected operatively to the control system, the animal management system including a data file with the identity of the milking animal and an indication relating to bringing the positioning aid into the active state (Birk, page 8, lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 4, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 3, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the animal management system is configured to automatically generate, on inclusion of a new milking animal, an indication for bringing the positioning aid into the active state for the new milking animal in the data file (Birk; page 3, lines 10-17, “Preferably, the control unit is adapted to control the at least one pneumatic cylinder in response to signalling from said animal identification means arranged to a particular animal, for making the adjusting means to position the particular animal in an individual position. Hereby is it possible to position the animal, according to the individual animal having an identification means, adapted for the specific animal, possibly in a collar around its neck. In this way said control unit is fed with information or ID signals from said animal identification means, that is information regarding a specific animal”).
Regarding claim 5, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 3, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the animal management system is configured to receive, from an operating person, instructions relating to the indication for the milking animal (Birk; page 3, lines 10-17).
Regarding claim 6, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 1, including wherein in the active state, the positioning aid presses with a pressing force against the milking animal (Forsen; page 6, lines 5-7, “A rounded top edge 23 of the manure plate 16 and the plate support arm 18 is intended to rest, with said light pressure, against the hindquarter of an animal during a milking sequence”), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the pressing force is from 10 to 300 N. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have provided the device with a pressing force of from 10 to 300 N, in order to provide enough force to gently bias the animal during milking. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 7, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 1.
Forsen discloses wherein the positioning aid comprises a swivellable or slidable component fastened to the at least one milking box (Figs. 4 and 5 show manure plate 16 swivels at a bottom end 20 pivotally linked to frame 21).
Regarding claim 8, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 7.
Forsen discloses wherein the positioning aid comprises a bracket (Figs. 4 and 5 show manure plate 16 has a bracket at bottom end 20).
Regarding claim 10, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 1.
Forsen discloses wherein the at least one milking box comprises an exit gate controllable by the control system, wherein the control system is configured to keep the positioning aid in the active state after milking the milking animal and after opening the exit gate (page 10, line 29 – page 11, line 2, “As soon as the milking sequence including aftertreatment is completed, the feed dispensing will cease and the manger 8 will return to its start position. The exit gate will be opened, the cow will leave the milking station and the manure plate will be set free to return to its start position. Now the milking station is ready for the next cow to be milked,” Figs. 1 and 2 show position of manure plate 16 is the same, both representing the position of the active state).
Regarding claim 11, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 1.
Forsen discloses wherein the positioning aid further comprises a sensor configured to determine the position of the milking animal in the at least one milking box (sensor 22; Figs. 1-5).
Regarding claim 12, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 6, including wherein in the active state, the positioning aid presses with a pressing force against the milking animal (Forsen; page 6, lines 5-7, “A rounded top edge 23 of the manure plate 16 and the plate support arm 18 is intended to rest, with said light pressure, against the hindquarter of an animal during a milking sequence”), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the pressing force is from 50 N to 150 N. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have provided the device with a pressing force of from 50 N to 150 N, in order to provide enough force to gently bias the animal during milking. Additionally, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 13, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 11.
Forsen discloses wherein the sensor comprises a rotation sensor configured to determine a rotation angle of the positioning aid (page 6, lines 15 and 16, “Further, the sensing device 4 may include a conventional geometric-type sensor 22 or an angle indicator”).
Regarding claim 14, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 4, and furthermore, the modified reference teaches wherein the animal management system is configured to receive, from an operating person, instructions relating to the indication for the milking animal (Birk; page 3, lines 10-17).
Regarding claim 16, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 3, including wherein in the active state, the positioning aid presses with a pressing force against the milking animal (Forsen; page 6, lines 5-7, “A rounded top edge 23 of the manure plate 16 and the plate support arm 18 is intended to rest, with said light pressure, against the hindquarter of an animal during a milking sequence”), however, the modified reference fails to specifically disclose wherein the pressing force is from 10 to 300 N. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have provided the device with a pressing force of from 10 to 300 N, in order to provide enough force to gently bias the animal during milking. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 20, Forsen in view of Birk discloses the device of claim 3.
Forsen discloses wherein the positioning aid comprises a swivellable or slidable component fastened to the at least one milking box (Figs. 4 and 5 show manure plate 16 swivels at a bottom end 20 pivotally linked to frame 21).
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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
For example, claim 1 is unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,538,892 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘892 patent includes the same structure of a “robot milking system, comprising: at least one milking box; milking means; a robot arm configured to connect the milking means to a milking animal; an animal recognition device configured to automatically determine an identity of the milking animal; a control system configured to control the robot milking system; and a positioning aid configured to determine a position of the milking animal in the at least one milking box, wherein: the positioning aid is movable by the control system between an inactive state away from the milking animal and an active state up against the milking animal, the positioning aid is in the active state at least when the milking means is connected to the milking animal, and the control system is configured to bring the positioning aid into the active state as a function of the identity determined by the animal recognition device” as recited in claim 1 of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, 15, and 17-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rewritten to overcome the double patenting rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding the control system recited in claim 2, the most relevant art is Forsen (WO 0130134 A1), as the art contains what could be considered a control system that brings the positioning aid into an active state. Forsen, however, fails to specifically disclose that the control system is configured to bring the positioning aid into the active state for a predetermined number of visits or for a predetermined number of days. Birk (WO 0115517 A1), similarly contains what could be considered a control system that brings the positioning aid into an active state, however, Birk also fails to specifically disclose or make obvious that the control system is configured to bring the positioning aid into the active state for a predetermined number of visits or for a predetermined number of days. The devices of Forsen and Birk are configured for systematic operation for an undefined number of animals, and there is no mention or motivation to limit the devices to only operate during a preset number of visits or days. Therefore, the prior art of record while teaching some aspects of the claimed invention fail to cure the deficiencies of each other in a manner that would render the claim obvious.
Regarding the positioning aid recited in claim 9, the most relevant art is Forsen (WO 0130134 A1), as the art contains what could be considered a bracket swivellable about a substantially horizontal axis. Forsen, however, fails to specifically disclose that in the inactive state the bracket is located above the milking animal, and in the active state the bracket presses against a caudal side of the milking animal. Birk (WO 0115517 A1), similarly contains what could be considered a bracket swivellable about a substantially horizontal axis, however, what could be considered the bracket of Birk corresponds to a feeding means, and not the positioning aid as claimed in claim 9. Birk also fails to specifically disclose that in the inactive state the bracket is located above the milking animal, and in the active state the bracket presses against a caudal side of the milking animal. Therefore, the prior art of record while teaching some aspects of the claimed invention fail to cure the deficiencies of each other in a manner that would render the claim obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Vrieze et al., US 7007632 B1, discusses a milking parlor stall shoulder bumper.
Foresman et al., US 9807972 B1, discusses a vision system with leg detection.
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
/MAGDALENA TOPOLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642
