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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-19 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
An information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 11/10/2025 and reviewed by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 12 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 12 recites the phrase "and/or" in lines 12, 16, 20, and 23. This renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear whether both components or either one of the components is required. For purposes of examination, the phrase is being understood as “or”. Further clarification is required.
Appropriate correction is required. Accordingly, the invention has been examined as best understood.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(2) as being anticipated by Cattaneo et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150296736).
In regard to claim 1, Cattaneo et al. discloses a controller for monitoring pressure levels in a milking plant, which controller is configured to: obtain at least one pressure signal from at least one pressure sensor device in the milking plant during pressurization of the milking plant, the at least one pressure signal representing a function of time defining at least one measured pressure signature describing how a pressure level is developed over time in at least one component of the milking plant (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035], where the controller is configured to: obtain at least one pressure signal from at least one pressure sensor device in the milking plant during pressurization of the milking plant (“continuous measurement of the pressure in the vacuum line of the milking system”), the at least one pressure signal representing a function of time defining at least one measured pressure signature (“recording and storing pressure-measurement data as a function of time and construction of a related plot”) describing how a pressure level is developed over time in at least one component of the milking plant), compare the at least one measured pressure signature to at least one reference pressure signature for said at least one component, which at least one reference pressure signature represents at least one pressure signal obtained from the at least one pressure sensor device during pressurization of the milking plant when the milking plant is tuned to fulfil at least one quality condition with respect to said at least one component (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035], where the controller is configured to: compare the at least one measured pressure signature to at least one reference pressure signature for said at least one component (“comparison and processing of the acquired data and the pre-set values”), which at least one reference pressure signature represents at least one pressure signal obtained from the at least one pressure sensor device during pressurization of the milking plant (“correlation of the values of the pressure fluctuations recorded in the moments immediately preceding or following the variation to be analysed and classification of the event in progress”) when the milking plant is tuned to fulfil at least one quality condition with respect to said at least one component), and generate at least one alarm if at least one of the at least one measured pressure signature deviates from the at least one reference pressure signature by more than a tolerable margin (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035], where the controller is configured to: generate at least one alarm if at least one of the at least one measured pressure signature deviates from the at least one reference pressure signature by more than a tolerable margin (“generation of alarms and transmission of information to the operator and management interfaces if the event is blocking or requires operator intervention”)).
In regard to claim 2, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the at least one reference pressure signature and the at least one measured pressure signature are registered in an idle state when neither a milking session is ongoing in the milking plant, nor a cleaning procedure is being performed in the milking plant (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035], [0046], and [0109], where the at least one reference pressure signature and the at least one measured pressure signature are registered in an idle state (“identifying and classifying, among the operational events in progress in the system, the step of “awaiting milking” in which the system is in operation, with all the milking units of the station in rest position”) when neither a milking session is ongoing in the milking plant, nor a cleaning procedure is being performed in the milking plant).
In regard to claim 5, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the milking plant comprises multiple pressure sensor devices which each is configured to produce a respective pressure signal representing a respective function of time defining a respective measured pressure signature describing how the pressure level is developed over time in a respective component of the milking plant (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0036], where “method of this invention, implemented by a processor or computer, is based on the continuous, or instantaneous, measurement of pressure (depression) values in the vacuum line, made by pressure sensors with high resolution and high sampling frequency”).
In regard to claim 6, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 5, wherein, for each of said respective components of the milking plant, the controller is configured to compare a respective measured pressure signature to a respective reference pressure signature for the component in question, which respective reference pressure signature represents a pressure signal obtained from the component in question when the milking plant is tuned to fulfil at least one quality condition with respect to that component (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0036], where “the intensity and duration of fluctuations produced in the moments immediately preceding and following pressure variations in progress. Variations of the pressure plot over time are processed and correlated with the pressure fluctuations recorded in the moments immediately before and after the same variations being analysed and traced to certain activities that take place in the system of milking and classified and coded in events”).
In regard to claim 7, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 6, wherein at least two of said respective components of the milking plant are of different types (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0036] and [0114], where at least two of said respective components of the milking plant are of different types (“arranged on one or more main vacuum 22 or milk pipes… further pressure sensors 16 arranged on the washing device or on the milk line, allow the master controller 12 to process and assess the optimal degree of turbulence and speed of the washing solutions”)).
In regard to claim 8, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 5, wherein, if the measured pressure signature for a particular one of said multiple components deviates from the reference pressure signature by more than the tolerable margin for said particular one component, the controller is configured to generate the at least one alarm such that said particular one component is identified by the at least one alarm (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0036] and [0114], where the pressure sensors on different types of components are monitored to perform the method of the invention which includes generating an alarm).
In regard to claim 13, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 5 being configured to register a respective acceptable status for each of said at least one component for which the at least one measured pressure signature lies within the tolerable margin from the at least one reference pressure signature for the component in question (Figs. 1-2, Abstract, and Paragraphs [0025-0036], where “comparison and processing of data acquired and stored with pre-set values and classification of milking events” is performed for all components which have pressure sensors associated with them).
In regard to claim 14, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 13, wherein, for each of said at least one component for which the at least one measured pressure signature lies within the tolerable margin from the at least one reference pressure signature, the controller is further configured to: obtain the at least one pressure signal from the at least one pressure sensor device during repeated occasions when the milking plant is pressurized, and record at least one trend for the at least one measured pressure signature, which at least one trend represents how the at least one measured pressure signature develops throughout the repeated occasions when the milking plant is pressurized (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035], [0046], and [0109], where pressure is measured continuously in milking, idle, and cleaning cycles for each component which has an associated pressure sensor, as described by the method of the invention).
In regard to claim 15, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to obtain the at least one pressure signal from the at least one pressure sensor device while the milking plant is pressurized after completing a cleaning procedure in respect of the at least one component for which the at least one measured pressure signature describes how the pressure level is developed over time, and before a milking session is initiated (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035], [0046], and [0109], where pressure is measured continuously in milking, idle, and cleaning cycles for each component which has an associated pressure sensor, as described by the method of the invention).
In regard to claim 16, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the pressurization of the milking plant is defined to comprise measurement period extending: from a starting time instance when a vacuum pump is started, which vacuum pump is configured to provide a system pressure in the milking plant, to a finishing time instance after a point time when the milking plant is pressurized when being tuned to fulfil the at least one quality condition with respect to said at least one component (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035], [0046], and [0109], where pressure is measured continuously in milking, idle, and cleaning cycles for each component which has an associated pressure sensor, as described by the method of the invention).
In regard to claim 17, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to cause the particular one component identified by the at least one alarm to be disabled (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035] and [0109], where the controller is configured to cause the particular one component identified by the at least one alarm to be disabled (“the master controller 12 is able to… stop the pump 20 itself”)).
In regard to claim 18, Cattaneo et al. discloses a computer-implemented method for monitoring pressure levels in a milking plant, which method is performed in a processing unit of a controller, the method comprising: obtaining at least one pressure signal from at least one pressure sensor device in the milking plant during pressurization of the milking plant, the at least one pressure signal representing a function of time defining at least one measured pressure signature describing how a pressure level is developed over time in at least one component of the milking plant (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0036], obtaining at least one pressure signal from at least one pressure sensor device in the milking plant during pressurization of the milking plant (“continuous measurement of the pressure in the vacuum line of the milking system”), the at least one pressure signal representing a function of time defining at least one measured pressure signature describing how a pressure level is developed over time in at least one component of the milking plant (“recording and storing pressure-measurement data as a function of time and construction of a related plot”)), comparing the at least one measured pressure signature to at least one reference pressure signature for said at least one component, which at least one reference pressure signature represents at least one pressure signal obtained from the at least one pressure sensor device during pressurization of the milking plant when the milking plant is tuned to fulfil at least one quality condition with respect to said at least one component (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0036], comparing the at least one measured pressure signature to at least one reference pressure signature for said at least one component (“comparison and processing of the acquired data and the pre-set values”), which at least one reference pressure signature represents at least one pressure signal obtained from the at least one pressure sensor device during pressurization of the milking plant (“correlation of the values of the pressure fluctuations recorded in the moments immediately preceding or following the variation to be analysed and classification of the event in progress”) when the milking plant is tuned to fulfil at least one quality condition with respect to said at least one component), and generating at least one alarm if at least one of the at least one measured pressure signature deviates from the at least one reference pressure signature by more than a tolerable margin (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0036], generating at least one alarm (“generation of alarms and transmission of information to the operator and management interfaces if the event is blocking or requires operator intervention”) if at least one of the at least one measured pressure signature deviates from the at least one reference pressure signature by more than a tolerable margin).
In regard to claim 19, Cattaneo et al. discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured for storing a computer program, the computer program comprising commands which cause a processing unit to execute the method according to claim 18 (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0036], commands which cause a processing unit to execute the method (“a computer for the control of the milking operations of automated systems of this invention”)).
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.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattaneo et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150296736) in view of Han et al. (CN 114689236).
In regard to claim 3, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 1. Cattaneo et al. is silent on wherein the tolerable margin comprises a first threshold pressure level that must be reached before a first time limit, which first pressure threshold level is below a steady-state pressure level of the reference pressure signature, and which first time limit lies within a first acceptance period after a point in time when the reference pressure signature is at the steady-state pressure level. Han et al. discloses wherein the tolerable margin comprises a first threshold pressure level that must be reached before a first time limit, which first pressure threshold level is below a steady-state pressure level of the reference pressure signature, and which first time limit lies within a first acceptance period after a point in time when the reference pressure signature is at the steady-state pressure level (). Cattaneo et al. and Han et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include monitoring system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Cattaneo et al. such that the tolerable margin comprises a first threshold pressure level that must be reached before a first time limit, which first pressure threshold level is below a steady-state pressure level of the reference pressure signature, and which first time limit lies within a first acceptance period after a point in time when the reference pressure signature is at the steady-state pressure level in view of Han et al. The motivation would have been to ensure that there are pressure tolerances built into the system to prevent false alarms.
In regard to claim 4, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 1. Cattaneo et al. is silent on the tolerable margin comprises a second pressure threshold level above a steady-state pressure level of the reference pressure signature, which second pressure threshold level must not be reached earlier than a second time limit before a point in time when the reference pressure signature is at the steady-state pressure level. Han et al. discloses the tolerable margin comprises a second pressure threshold level above a steady-state pressure level of the reference pressure signature, which second pressure threshold level must not be reached earlier than a second time limit before a point in time when the reference pressure signature is at the steady-state pressure level (). Cattaneo et al. and Han et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include monitoring system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Cattaneo et al. such that the tolerable margin comprises a second pressure threshold level above a steady-state pressure level of the reference pressure signature, which second pressure threshold level must not be reached earlier than a second time limit before a point in time when the reference pressure signature is at the steady-state pressure level in view of Han et al. The motivation would have been to ensure that there are pressure tolerances built into the system to prevent false alarms
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattaneo et al. (U.S. Pub. 20150296736).
In regard to claim 9, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 5, wherein said multiple components of the milking plant comprise two or more milking points, at least two of the multiple pressure sensor devices are configured to register a respective pressure signal defining a respective measured pressure signature describing how the pressure level is developed over time in a respective milk conduit of said two or more milking points when (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0036] and [0114], where “install additional pressure sensors 16, with high measurement frequency and high resolution, suitably arranged on one or more main vacuum 22 or milk pipes, in order to further increase the level of detail and encoding of events”), in each teatcup of each of said two or more milking points a respective teatcup opening is blocked to prevent air to be sucked in while not being attached to an animal (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0036], [0046], and [0109], where “said awaiting milking step is detected in progress in the system, the algorithm sends a control signal to the vacuum generation and regulation devices, so as to adjust the vacuum to a minimum depression level” and “commanding, if necessary, the stop the pump 20 itself”). Cattaneo et al. is silent on the controller is configured to generate the at least one alarm such the at least one alarm identifies a particular one of the two or more milking points if the pressure signature describing how the pressure level is developed over time in the milk conduit of said identified milking point deviates from the reference pressure signature for said particular one of the two or more milking points by more than the tolerable margin. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Cattaneo et al. to have the controller be configured to generate the at least one alarm such the at least one alarm identifies a particular one of the two or more milking points if the pressure signature describing how the pressure level is developed over time in the milk conduit of said identified milking point deviates from the reference pressure signature for said particular one of the two or more milking points by more than the tolerable margin, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the device of Cattaneo et al. (see Paragraph [0038], “characteristic of said algorithm is that of classifying, on the basis of a signal from the central/common, general vacuum, of operational events that occur at the level of the individual milking station”). The motivation would have been to capture more detailed data regarding each individual milking station, for the user to analyze and act on, accordingly.
In regard to claim 10, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 5, wherein said multiple components of the milking plant comprise: an air intake adapted to allow air from the atmosphere into a milk line (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035], [0046], [0109], and [0114], where there is at least an air intake (at teat cup, where air enters the cup) adapted to allow air from the atmosphere into a milk line). Cattaneo et al. is silent on at least one of the multiple pressure sensor devices is configured to register a pressure signal defining a measured pressure signature describing how the pressure level is developed over time in the air intake, and the controller is configured to generate the at least one alarm such the at least one alarm identifies the air intake if the pressure signature describing how the pressure level is developed over time in the air intake deviates from the reference pressure signature for the air intake by more than the tolerable margin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a pressure sensor measuring the air intake, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation would have been to capture more detailed data regarding each individual milking station, for the user to analyze and act on, accordingly.
In regard to claim 11, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 5, wherein said multiple components of the milking plant comprise at least two pulsator devices (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035], [0046], [0109], and [0114] where there is at least two pulsator devices (at least one at each station 32)). Cattaneo et al. is silent on a respective one of the multiple pressure sensor devices is configured to register a respective pressure signal defining a respective measured pressure signature describing how the pressure level is developed over time in a respective one of at the least two pulsator devices, which respective pressure signal is registered while the milking plant is in an idle state when neither milking nor cleaning is in progress, atmospheric pressure prevails in its teatcups, and the pulsator devices are activated during a measurement period, and the controller is configured to generate the at least one alarm such that the at least one alarm identifies a particular one of the at least two pulsator devices, if the pressure signature describing how the pressure level is developed over time in the identified pulsator device deviates from the reference pressure signature for the identified pulsator device by more than the tolerable margin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have pressure sensors measuring the least two pulsator devices, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation would have been to capture more detailed data regarding each individual milking station, for the user to analyze and act on, accordingly.
In regard to claim 12, Cattaneo et al. discloses the controller according to claim 5, wherein said multiple components of the milking plant comprise at least one of: a receiver tank (Figs. 1-2 and Paragraphs [0025-0035], [0106], and [0114] where there is a receiving tank 30). Cattaneo et al. is silent on a respective one of the multiple pressure sensor devices is configured to register a respective pressure signal defining a respective measured pressure signature describing how the pressure level is developed over time in the outlet of the milk line into the receiver tank, the controller is configured to generate the at least one alarm such the at least one alarm identifies the outlet of the milk line into the receiver tank, if the pressure signature describing how the pressure level is developed over time in the outlet of the milk line into the receiver tank deviates from the reference pressure signature for the outlet of the milk line into the receiver tank by more than the tolerable margin. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a pressure sensor measuring the outlet of the milk line into the receiver tank, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. The motivation would have been to capture more detailed data regarding each individual milking station, for the user to analyze and act on, accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, for the full list of prior art made of record. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of milking devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
