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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first action on the merits of application 19/578,004 filed on March 25, 2026. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The appendix to the specification is objected to under 37 C.F.R. § 1.52(e). An appendix is contemplated for material such as a table or computer program listing. The submitted appendix is instead a consumer instruction and setup guide containing narrative operating instructions, warnings, and illustrations. See MPEP § 608.01(a).
Applicant is required to either: (1) cancel the appendix and the corresponding statement that the appendix is incorporated by reference, as well as any other references to the appendix in the specification; or (2) amend the specification to present any disclosure relied upon for patentability in the appropriate portions of the specification, and submit any necessary drawings in compliance with 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.81 and 1.84. Any amendment must comply with 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(f).
Additionally, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0001], it appears the date “25 May 2025” should read as --25 March 2025--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
They contain scanned photographs (e.g., Fig. 16, 18b, 34, 35) that obscure details of the invention due to the resolution and artifacts caused by scanning.
The drawings are not proper black and white drawings (e.g., Fig. 3, 10, 12, 25), as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.84 and MPEP § 608, requiring solid and clear black lines for the purposes of reproduction. In the present case, the aforementioned figures can easily be replaced with black and white line drawings to better illustrate the subject matter such that all the details are easily reproducible in the printed patent. As such, the grayscale drawings are not accepted.
Some of the drawings appear to be overlapping (e.g., 1-2, 11-12, 23-24, 34-35). One view must not be placed upon another or within the outline of another. Such overlap may lead to issues with reproduction in the printed patent. See MPEP § 608.02(V), “Arrangement of Views”.
Additionally, the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “106” in Fig. 22.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In each of claims 2-18, Applicant is suggested to amend the preamble “A poultry feeder according to…” to --The poultry feeder according to…-- to further clarify correspondence to the “poultry feeder” of the preceding claim(s).
In claim 3, line 3, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “said plurality of doors” to --said plurality of movable doors-- to further clarify correspondence to the “plurality of movable doors” introduced in claim 2.
In claim 8, line 2, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “that can be driven by the motor” to --configured to be driven by the motor-- to further clarify the scope of the claim.
In claim 12, line 3, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “the feeder’s location” to --the location of the feeder-- to improve readability of the claim.
In claim 17, line 1, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “the feed store” to --the store-- in order to further clarify correspondence to the “store” introduced in claim 1.
In claim 20, line 18, Applicant is suggested to amend the phrase “the feeder’s location” to --the location of the feeder-- to improve readability of the claim.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “by means of a worm drive” in claim 8, line 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 2-18 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 2, lines 1-2, recites the limitation “wherein the store comprises a plurality of feeding ports and a plurality of moveable doors”. However, claim 1, lines 2 and 3, introduce “a feeding port” and “a door”, respectively. It is currently unclear whether the “plurality of feeding ports” and the “plurality of moveable doors” encompasses the same previously recited “feeding port” and “door”, respectively, or whether the limitation refers to different elements. As such, the number and arrangement of feeding ports and doors is also unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Claims 3-18 are similarly rejected by virtue of dependency upon claim 2.
Claim 7, line 3, recites “a spider-like body”. The phrasing "-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "-like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). With the phrase “spider-like”, it is unclear what aspect of a spider a body of a device must have in order to read upon the claimed “spider-like body”. As such, the structure of the body is unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 13, lines 2 and 3, recites “to open the doors” and “to close the doors”, respectively. However, neither claim 13 nor any of the claims on which claim 13 is dependent recite wherein a plurality of doors is present. It is thus currently unclear as to which “doors” claim 13 refers. As such, the functionality of the processor is unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite. Claim 14, line 2, similarly recites “the doors” and does not have dependency on any previous recitation of a plurality of doors and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 14, lines 1-2, recites “wherein the processor is operable to automatically open/close the doors”. However, it is unclear whether the term “open/close” indicates that the processor must be capable of automatically opening and closing the doors or automatically opening or closing the doors. In this context, it is unclear what the punctuation “/” indicates. As such, the functionality of the processor is unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim 15, lines 1-2, recites “a level sensor, such as an optical or sonic level sensor”. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). With the phrase “such as”, it is unclear what types of sensors may be used in order to read upon the claimed “level sensor”. As such, the structure of the level sensor is unclear, and the scope of the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (CN 112219754 A), hereinafter Guo.
Regarding claim 19, Guo discloses a poultry feeder (title) comprising: a store (feed pipe 8) for feed (fig. 3, feed pipe 8 is capable of holding feed), said store comprising a plurality of feeding ports (bulk material ports 9) for enabling poultry to access feed provided in said store (fig. 3, ports 9 allow feed to fall therethrough such that poultry can access it), and a plurality of doors (shielding baffles 12), each said door being moveable between a first position where a said feeding port with which said door is associated (fig. 3, baffles 12 may be broadly associated with ports 9 in any manner desired) is open and a second position where the feeding port with which said door is associated is closed by the door (see section “Detailed ways”, second paragraph, shielding baffles 12 are capable of pivoting to open and close ports 9 relative to an outside environment), the feeder further comprising a motor (motors 22), an elevator linkage assembly (comprises at least moving ring 14 and tie rods 13) that couples the motor to the doors (fig. 3-4), and a control system (central control box 25) operable to control the motor to move the elevator linkage assembly to substantially simultaneously move the plurality of doors between said first and second positions to open and close the feeding ports in the store (see section “Detailed ways”, second paragraph, central control box 25 controls motors 22, which drive moving ring 14 and tie rods 13 to simultaneously move shielding baffles 12 between open and closed positions, thereby opening and closing ports 9 relative to an outside environment).
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(s) 1-9, 11-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pell et al. (US 2024/0334900 A1), hereinafter Pell, in view of Guo et al. (CN 112219754 A), hereinafter Guo.
Regarding claim 1, Pell discloses a poultry feeder (animal feeder system 100) comprising:
a store (reservoir assembly 200) for feed (para [0054], assembly 200 is capable of holding feed), said store comprising a feeding port (feed outlet 242) for enabling poultry to access feed provided in said store (para [0075], feed outlet 242 allows feed to fall therethrough such that poultry can access it), and a door (gate 462) moveable between a first position where said feeding port is open (fig. 8B) and a second position where the feeding port is closed by the door (fig. 8A), the feeder further comprising an actuator (linear actuator 420 of actuator assembly 400) that is coupled to said door (fig. 6A), and a control system (“feed controller” para [0080]) operable to control the actuator to move the door between said first and second positions to open and close the feeding port in the store (para [0069], “actuator assembly 400 that is configured to move the feed gates 461-464 from the closed position…to the open position…based on a control signal from the feed controller”).
Pell does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the actuator is a motor.
However, Guo is in the field of poultry feeders (title) and teaches wherein the actuator is a motor (motors 22; see section “Detailed ways”, second paragraph, “The central control box 25 controls the two sets of motors 22 to turn on…The group of shielding baffles 12 rotate upwards synchronously”).
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 poultry feeder with actuator and control system of Pell to have made the actuator a motor as taught by Guo with a reasonable expectation of success to utilize well understood mechanisms in the art to effectively and precisely control movement of the feeder doors.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the store (from Pell, reservoir assembly 200) comprises a plurality of feeding ports (from Pell, feed outlets 242-245) and a plurality of moveable doors (from Pell, gates 461-464), each said port being closable by a said door (from Pell, fig. 8A-8B), said feeder further comprising an elevator linkage assembly (from Pell, comprises at least arms 451-454) coupling the motor (from Pell, linear actuator 420 of actuator assembly 400) to each of said plurality of moveable doors (from Pell, fig. 6A; para [0069]).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 2, and further discloses wherein said control system (from Pell, “feed controller” para [0080]) is operable to control the motor (from Pell, linear actuator 420 of actuator assembly 400) to operate the elevator linkage assembly (from Pell, comprises at least arms 451-454) to move substantially simultaneously all of said plurality of doors between said first and second positions to open and close the feeding ports in the store (from Pell, fig. 4A and 6A; para [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 3, further comprising first and second limit switches (from Guo, contact switches 31) that are each configured to signal the control system (from Guo, central control box 25) to cease operation of the motor (from Guo, motors 22) if actuated (from Guo, see section “Summary of the invention”, fourth paragraph, “The two sets of contact switches can transmit the contact signal into the central control box. The central control box controls to turn off the two sets of motors”).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 4, and further discloses wherein said first limit switch (from Guo, contact switch 31 on top of first fixing ring 11) is associated with a position of the elevator linkage assembly (from Guo, comprises moving ring 14 and tie rods 13) in which the doors (from Guo, shielding baffles 12) coupled to the elevator linkage assembly are closed (from Guo, see section “Summary of the invention”, fourth paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 4, and further discloses wherein said second limit switch (from Guo, contact switch 31 on bottom of second fixing ring 15) is associated with a position of the elevator linkage assembly (from Guo, comprises moving ring 14 and tie rods 13) in which the doors (from Guo, shielding baffles 12) coupled to the elevator linkage assembly are open (from Guo, see section “Summary of the invention”, fourth paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 2, and further discloses wherein said elevator linkage assembly (from Pell, comprises at least arms 451-454) comprises a central hub (from Pell, central ring connecting arms 451-454 to linear actuator 420; fig. 4A) and a plurality of arms (from Pell, arms 451-454), one for each said door (from Pell, gates 461-464; fig. 4A), that extend radially outwardly from said central hub to form a spider-like body (from Pell, fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 7, and further discloses wherein said motor (from Pell, linear actuator 420 of actuator assembly 400) is coupled to said elevator linkage assembly (from Pell, comprises at least arms 451-454) by means of a worm drive that can be driven by the motor to raise and lower the central hub of said elevator linkage assembly (from Pell, para [0069], linear actuator may be replaced by, for example, a worm drive actuator).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 7, and further discloses wherein an end region of each arm (from Pell, arms 451-454) remote from said central hub (from Pell, central ring connecting arms 451-454, fig. 4A) is pivotally coupled to a linkage (from Pell, pivot mechanism 451a-454a) that connects the arm to a said door (from Pell, gates 461-464; fig. 4B and 5B).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 1, and further discloses wherein said control system (from Pell, “feed controller” para [0081]) comprises a processor (from Pell, “processor” para [0081]), and a communications interface (from Pell, “transceivers and/or antennas” para [0081]) for the receipt of instructions and/or the output of data (from Pell, para [0081], processor of feed controller can receive user inputs via transceivers and/or antennas), said processor being configured to execute software to control operation of the feeder (from Pell, para [0081]).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 11, and further discloses wherein said control system (from Pell, “feed controller” para [0083]) comprises a light sensor (from Pell, “photovoltaic light sensor” para [0083]) operable to generate light level signals representative of ambient light levels at the feeder's location (from Pell, para [0083]).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 12, and further discloses wherein said processor (from Pell, “feed controller” having “processor” para [0081] and [0083]) is operable to automatically control the motor (from Pell, linear actuator 420 of actuator assembly 400) to open the doors (from Pell, gates 461-464) of the feeder at a desired ambient light level and to close the doors at a desired ambient light level based on light level signals received from the light sensor (from Pell, para [0081] and [0083]).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 11, and further discloses wherein the processor (from Pell, “processor” para [0081]) is operable to automatically open/close the doors (from Pell, gates 461-464) at any one or more of: preset times/days/dates, for preset time intervals, at preset light levels, in response to manual operation of a user interface, and in response to instructions received wirelessly from a computing device (from Pell, para [0081], processor is capable of opening and/or closing gates 461-464 “in response to one or more user inputs and/or sensor inputs from the sensor assembly”).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 2, and further discloses wherein the feed store (from Pell, reservoir assembly 200) comprises a hopper (from Pell, housing 220) for receiving a supply of feed (from Pell, para [0056], housing 220 is capable of holding feed), a funnel (from Pell, planar surfaces 331-334) in fluid communication with the hopper for the receipt of feed from the hopper (from Pell, fig. 5B), and a base (from Pell, planar surfaces 341-344) in which the funnel is located (from Pell, fig. 5B, planar surfaces 331-334 are located circumferentially inside of planar surfaces 341-344), the base co-operating with the funnel to define a plurality of feed areas (from Pell, feed channels 300a-300d), each said feed area being associated with and accessible via a said feeding port (from Pell, feed outlets 242-245; fig. 5B).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pell et al. (US 2024/0334900 A1), hereinafter Pell, in view of Guo et al. (CN 112219754 A), hereinafter Guo, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Buzzard et al. (US 2023/0270078 A1), hereafter Buzzard.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose further comprising a level sensor, such as an optical or sonic level sensor, that is operable to output level sensor signals that vary according to the amount of feed within the feeder, said processor being configured to receive said level sensor signals and, based on said level sensor signals, generate an indication of the amount of feed within the feeder.
However, Buzzard is in the field of bird feeders (title; abstract) and teaches further comprising a level sensor (feed sensor arrangement 65), such as an optical or sonic level sensor (para [0095], sensor arrangement 65 may comprise “luminosity sensors”), that is operable to output level sensor signals that vary according to the amount of feed within the feeder (bird feed receptacle 21), said processor (controller 700) being configured to receive said level sensor signals and, based on said level sensor signals, generate an indication of the amount of feed within the feeder (para [0095], controller 700 is capable of indicating a low bird feed level based on feed level data from sensor arrangement 65).
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 poultry feeder with processor of Pell as modified to incorporate the teachings of a level sensor as taught by Buzzard with a reasonable expectation of success to notify users when a level of feed in the feeder is low so that the feeder can be refilled when needed without requiring a user to regularly, manually check feed levels.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Pell et al. (US 2024/0334900 A1), hereinafter Pell, in view of Guo et al. (CN 112219754 A), hereinafter Guo, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Brown et al. (US 2013/0099524 A1), hereinafter Brown.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue(s) identified above, Pell as modified discloses a poultry feeder according to Claim 11, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the processor is configured to implement crush detector functionality to reduce the likelihood of poultry being caught in a closing door by monitoring a drive current drawn by the motor and ceasing operation of the motor to close the door in the event that the drive current should spike.
However, Brown is in the field of door operating mechanisms (title; abstract) and teaches wherein the processor (“door controller” para [0050]) is configured to implement crush detector functionality (functionality of “Pinch Sensor” system, para [0050]) to reduce the likelihood of poultry being caught in a closing door (door 101) by monitoring a drive current (“current” para [0050]) drawn by the motor (“hydraulic pump motor” para [0050]) and ceasing operation of the motor to close the door in the event that the drive current should spike (para [0050]).
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 poultry feeder with processor and motor of Pell as modified to incorporate the teachings of crush detector functionality as taught by Brown with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent crushing of poultry or human users when interacting with the feeder, thereby increasing overall safety of the feeder.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (CN 112219754 A), hereinafter Guo, in view of Pell et al. (US 2024/0334900 A1), hereinafter Pell.
Regarding claim 20, Guo discloses a poultry feeder (title) comprising:
a store (feed pipe 8) for feed (fig. 3, feed pipe 8 is capable of holding feed), said store comprising a plurality of feeding ports (bulk material ports 9) for enabling poultry to access feed provided in said store (fig. 3, ports 9 allow feed to fall therethrough such that poultry can access it), and
a plurality of doors (shielding baffles 12), each said door being pivotable between a first position where a said feeding port with which said door is associated (fig. 3, baffles 12 may be broadly associated with ports 9 in any manner desired) is open and a second position where the feeding port with which said door is associated is closed by the door (see section “Detailed ways”, second paragraph, shielding baffles 12 are capable of pivoting to open and close ports 9 relative to an outside environment),
the feeder further comprising:
a motor (motors 22),
an elevator linkage assembly (comprises at least moving ring 14 and tie rods 13) configured to couple the motor to the doors (fig. 3-4), and
a control system (central control box 25) operable to control the motor to move the elevator linkage assembly to substantially simultaneously move the plurality of doors between said first and second positions to open and close the feeding ports in the store (see section “Detailed ways”, second paragraph, central control box 25 controls motors 22, which drive moving ring 14 and tie rods 13 to simultaneously move shielding baffles 12 between open and closed positions, thereby opening and closing ports 9 relative to an outside environment).
Guo does not appear to specifically disclose said control system comprising:
a processor that is configured to execute software to control operation of the feeder, and
a light sensor operable to generate light level signals representative of ambient light levels at the feeder's location, said processor being operable to automatically control the motor to open the doors of the feeder at a desired ambient light level and to close the doors at a desired ambient light level in response to the light level signals received from the light sensor.
However, Pell is in the field of poultry feeders (title; abstract) and teaches said control system (“feed controller” para [0080]) comprising:
a processor (“processor” para [0081]) that is configured to execute software to control operation of the feeder (para [0081]), and
a light sensor (“photovoltaic light sensor” para [0083]) operable to generate light level signals representative of ambient light levels at the feeder's location (para [0083]), said processor being operable to automatically control the motor (linear actuator 420 of actuator assembly 400) to open the doors (gates 461-464) of the feeder (animal feeder system 100) at a desired ambient light level and to close the doors at a desired ambient light level in response to the light level signals received from the light sensor (para [0081] and [0083]).
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 poultry feeder with control system of Guo to incorporate the teachings of a processor and light sensor as taught by Pell with a reasonable expectation of success to automatically provide feed to poultry according to a time of day, thereby promoting a more natural poultry feeding cycle.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claims 1, 19, and 20.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA M HUEBNER whose telephone number is (703)756-4560. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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.
/E.M.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
