DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
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 15,18-20,29,31,33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shargani (US 20160130836) in view of lby (US 4175576) and Denyer (US 5690377).
Regarding claim 15, Shargani teaches a cover for a poultry container for holding live poultry (the recitation of "for poultry container for holding live poultry" is merely intended use language and wherein the cover of Shargani is capable of being used to cover a poultry container), the cover comprising:
first and second guides (4) substantially parallel to one another;
first and second longitudinal supports (2) movably connected to the first and second guides; and
a flexible cover sheet (1) connected to the first and second longitudinal supports;
wherein the first and second guides are provided with holding locations for securely positioning the first and second longitudinal supports onto the first and second guides (supports 4 have holding locations for securely positioning elongated rods 2 on supports 4 via connection through connectors 9 and base 7; para [0080]; Fig. 1A; Also note that para [0080] states the connectors 9 are "capable of being fixably suspended from the support" and the connectors 9 can be suspended, fixed, from the supports 4 on each elongated rod);
wherein each of the first and second longitudinal support includes first and second brackets (9) located on opposed ends thereof, the first bracket encircles the first guide and the second bracket encircles the second guide, respectively (see Fig. 3), to suspend the flexible cover sheet between the first and second guides (Fig. 6), the first and second longitudinal supports being spaced apart from one another by a variable distance formed by a segment of the flexible cover sheet located therebetween (see Fig. 5A);
wherein the first and second longitudinal supports are independently actuated allowing the cover to open from both ends of the first and second guides (see Fig. 6, wherein the elongated rods 2 are independently actuated allowing the cover to open from both ends of the supports 4 since connectors 9 are slidably engaged with supports 4; para [0080]);
wherein the first and second guides are linear (see Fig. 6, wherein supports 4 are linear); and
wherein the first and second longitudinal supports extend perpendicularly from the first and second guides and are configured to support and hold the flexible cover sheet (Fig. 6).
However, Shargani is silent about guide bars and wherein the holding locations comprise predefined tactile barriers to provide feedback for fully opened, intermediate opened, and fully closed positions.
lby teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cover, the cover (tent; Fig. 7; Col. 1, lines 5-8) of Iby comprises guide bars (35; Fig. 1; Col. 4, para 2; Fig. 7, wherein curtain hooks 51 hang from the three parts of pole 35 to suspend a large piece of canvas 50; Col. 3, para 2). It would have been an obvious substitution of functional equivalents to substitute the supports of Shargani with guide bars as taught by lby, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results (both support structures would result in providing a sturdy horizontal support structure to which clips/connectors may attach and slide along to open and close a cover). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Denyer teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cover, the cover (cover sheet 40 for trailer body 11; Figs. 1 & 7; Abstract) of Denyer comprises holding locations with tactile barriers (43) formed on first and second guide cables (42; the barriers 43 are clamped onto the cables, thus, the barriers are formed on the cables and can be left there permanent if the user wishes to do so) to provide feedback for fully opened, intermediate opened, and fully closed positions position (cables 42 have the clamps 43 be attached thereon, which would provide feedback for fully opened, intermediate opened and fully closed positions, depending on the placement of the clamps, per a user's needs; Cols. 3-4, lines 65-67; Col. 4, lines 58-59); wherein the predefined tactile barriers comprise at least one of the following: ridges, bumps (based on the definition of “bump”, the barrier 43 would be considered a bump), chamfers, and bevels. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide tactile barriers in the form of bumps as taught by Denyer on the guide bars of Shargani, as modified by lby to provide feedback for fully opened, intermediate opened and fully closed positions as taught by Denyer, to the holding locations of the cover of Shargani as modified by lby in order to allow a user to control the movement and placement of the movable bows and thus the cover, as recognized by Denyer (Cols. 4-5, lines 57-4).
Regarding claim 18, Shargani as modified by Iby and Denyer teaches the poultry container cover according to claim 15, and further teaches wherein the flexible cover sheet is provided with openings (the material for canopy 1 of Shargani may be mesh, which has small openings; para [0093]).
Regarding claim 19, Shargani as modified by Iby and Denyer teaches the poultry container cover according to claim 15, and further teaches wherein the flexible cover sheet (of Shargani) is a net having a wire mesh structure (canopy 1 of Shargani may be of a mesh material including wire; para [0093]), such that adjustment of the first and second longitudinal supports away from one another stretches the flexible cover sheet (the canopy 1 of Shargani is flexible and allows for the canopy system to open and close when elongated rods 2 are moved away from the other elongated rods 2; para [0093]).
Regarding claim 20, Shargani as modified by Iby and Denyer teaches the poultry container cover according to claim 15, and further teaches wherein at least one of said first and second longitudinal supports (of Shargani) is immovably fixed (the user can have an option to immovably fix the supports to the guide bars by not removing the supports and/or the bars) to the first and second guide bars (as modified with Iby).
Regarding claim 29, Shargani as modified by Iby and Denyer teaches the poultry container cover according to claim 15, and further teaches wherein the flexible cover sheet is stretchable (canopy 1 of Shargani is flexible; para [0093]), such that adjustment of the first and second longitudinal supports away from one another stretches the flexible cover sheet (para [0080] of Shargani).
Regarding claim 31, Shargani as modified by Iby and Denyer teaches the poultry container cover according to claim 20, and further teaches wherein the at least one of said first and second longitudinal supports is immovably fixed (the user can have an option to immovably fix the supports to the guide bars by not removing the supports and/or the bars) but is silent about immovably fixed at a center of the first and second guide bars. It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to immovably fix at least one of the first and second longitudinal supports at a center of the first and second guides of Shargani as modified by Iby and Denyer, depending on the user’s preference to position the cover in partial opened position in the center area or ¼ of the way or ¾ of the way, etc. as desired.
Regarding claim 33, Shargani as modified by Iby and Denyer teaches the poultry container cover according to claim 15, and further teaches wherein the longitudinal supports (2 of Shargani) are in plane with the first and second guide bars (ref. 4 of Shargani as modified with Iby’s bars).
Claims 17, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shargani as modified by Iby and Denyer as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Schmeichel (US 8857887).
Regarding claim 17, Shargani as modified by Iby and Denyer teaches the poultry container cover according to claim 15, but is silent about wherein the holding locations of the first and second guide bars are defined with magnetic force.
Schmeichel teaches in the same field of endeavor of a cover, the cover (18) of Schmeichel comprises holding locations (locations of 26) of the first and second guide rails (32) s are defined with magnetic force (ferromagnetic material 26 of the side rails 32 magnetically connect to magnets 44 of cover 18; Fig. 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a magnetic force, as taught by Schmeichel, to the preferred holding locations on the guide bars of the cover of Shargani, as modified by lby & Denyer, in the event the user wishes to employ magnet fasteners as taught in Schmeichel as a functional equivalent fastening means to the clamps of Shargani as modified by Iby and Denyer, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
For claim 35, Shargani as modified by Iby, Denyer, and Schmeichel teaches the poultry container cover according to claim 17, but is silent about wherein each bracket includes an aperture holding a magnet, and each guide bar includes a strip carrying multiple magnets disposed within the guide bar.
In addition to the above, Schmeichel teaches a fastening means wherein an aperture (aperture where magnet 44 is placed therein in fig. 3) holding a magnet (44) on a side of the cover and a strip carrying multiple magnets (26 is ferromagnetic material which is considered magnet) disposed within the guide rail (32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fastening means of Shargani as modified by Iby, Denyer, and Schmeichel with having each bracket of Shargani as modified by Iby, Denyer, and Schmeichel includes an aperture holding a magnet as further taught Schmeichel, and each guide bar of Shargani as modified by Iby, Denyer, and Schmeichel includes a strip carrying multiple magnets as further taught by Schmeichel disposed within the guide bar of Shargani as modified by Iby, Denyer, and Schmeichel, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both types of fastening means such as clamps and/or magnets would allow fastening of the cover to the bars and brackets for closing/opening the cover). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claims 22-25,27,28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbroeck (US 5060596) in view of Shargani (as above), lby (as above) and Denyer (as above).
Regarding claim 22, Esbroeck teaches a poultry container for holding live poultry (compartment V of container 100; Fig. 1; Col. 1, lines 20-26) comprising:
a bottom wall, four side walls protruding from the bottom wall (see Fig. 1, wherein compartment V has a bottom wall (at corner points 21-24) and four side walls) and the cover (top face 70; Fig. 2a; Col. 3, para 5) for a poultry container (see Fig. 3f, wherein there are poultry within compartment 5), to which the cover is connected to the side walls at a distance from the bottom wall (see Fig. 3f, wherein the top face 70 is connected to the side walls at a distance from the bottom wall of compartment V).
However, Esbroeck is silent about the cover for a poultry container according to claim 15.
As explained in the above, Shargani modified by Iby and Denyer teaches the cover according to claim 15. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cover of Esbroeck with the cover according to claim 15 of Shargani modified by Iby and Denyer, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both types of cover would allow the user to enclose a container such as a poultry container so as to protect the objects or animals therein). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 23, Esbroeck as modified by Shargani, lby and Denyer teaches the poultry container for holding live poultry according to claim 22, and further teaches wherein the holding locations are located on the first and second guide bars at least at positions proximate to a corner adjoining two side walls of the poultry container and at one or more positions centrally between two side walls opposite one another (“proximate” is a broad term which can be any positions nearby or in the vicinity, thus, the holding locations of Esbroeck as modified by Shargani, lby and Denyer is are located on the first and second guide bars at least at positions proximate to a corner adjoining two side walls of the poultry container and at one or more positions centrally between two side walls opposite one another).
Regarding claim 24, Esbroeck as modified by Shargani, lby and Denyer teaches the poultry container for holding live poultry according to claim 22, and further teaches wherein the poultry container is provided with a door (half of bottom face 60 of Esbroeck and side face 61 form a door; Figs. 3a and 3f; Col. 3, para 5 of Esbroeck) arranged to form a section of the one of the side walls and a section of the bottom wall, which door is slidably connected with the rest of the poultry container (Esbroeck - door formed by half of bottom face 60 and side face 61 slides relative to the rest of compartment V; see Figs. 3d to 3e).
Regarding claim 25, Esbroeck as modified by Shargani, lby and Denyer teaches the poultry container for holding live poultry according to claim 24, and further teaches wherein the door is centrally located to one of the side walls to which the door is connected (Esbroeck - door formed by half of bottom face 60 and side face 61 is centrally located within side face 61 to which it is connected; Fig. 2a).
Regarding claim 27, Esbroeck teaches a poultry container assembly (100) for holding live poultry, comprising a plurality of stacked poultry containers (I, II, Ill, IV, V; Fig. 1) including a poultry container with a poultry container cover but is silent about the
poultry container with a poultry container cover according to claim 22.
As explained in the above, Shargani modified by Iby and Denyer teaches the cover according to claim 22. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the cover of Esbroeck with the cover according to claim 22 of Shargani modified by Iby and Denyer, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both types of cover would allow the user to enclose a container such as a poultry container so as to protect the objects or animals therein). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 28, Esbroeck as modified by Shargani, lby and Denyer teaches the poultry container assembly according to claim 27, and further teaches wherein the poultry container assembly includes a poultry container base (Esbroeck - container 100 includes a base at compartment 1; Fig. 1).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shargani (as above) in view of lby (as above), Denyer (as above) and Esbroeck (as above).
Regarding claim 30, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above. Not explained is the limitation of wherein a third longitudinal support includes first and second brackets immovably fixed to the first and second guide bars at or near an end portion of the first and second guide bars; and a poultry container for holding live poultry.
In addition to the above, Shargani as modified by Iby, and Denyer teaches wherein a third longitudinal support (see Fig. 6 of Shargani, wherein there are multiple elongated rods 2) includes first and second brackets (9) immovably fixed (the user can have an option to immovably fix the supports to the guide bars by not removing the supports and/or the bars) to the first and second guides at or near an end portion of the first and second guides (see Fig. 6 of Shargani).
However, Shargani as modified by Iby, and Denyer is silent about a poultry container for holding live poultry.
As stated in the above, Esbroeck teaches a poultry container for holding live poultry (container 100; Fig. 1; Col. 1, lines 20-26). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a container for holding live poultry, as taught by Esbroeck, to the cover of Shargani in view of lby and Denyer, in the event the user wishes to use the cover of Shargani in view of lby and Denyer to cover a container such as the one taught by Esbroeck so as to protect the items placed in the container, and with the flexibility of opening and closing the cover in various locations on the container as desired, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esbroeck (as above) in view of Shargani (as above), lby (as above), Bosseur {FR 2989863) and Denyer (as above).
Regarding claim 34, the limitations have been explained in the above, thus, please see above. Not explained is wherein the at least one stackable container comprises: a base container; and a top container; wherein the cover interfaces with the top container to hold live poultry, the top container being arranged for stacking upon the base container; wherein the base container comprises parallel sockets, the parallel sockets comprising openings for handling the poultry container assembly.
In addition to the above, Esbroeck as modified by Shargani, Iby, and Denyer teaches wherein the at least one stackable container (fig. 1) comprises: a base container (fig. 1 of Esbroeck, container I); and a top container (fig. 1 of Esbroeck, container V); wherein the cover interfaces with the top container to hold live poultry (as modified with Shargani, Iby, and Denyer, the cover will cover the top container to replace the cover in Esbroeck at the top), the top container being arranged for stacking upon the base container (as shown in fig. 1 of Esbroeck).
However, Esbroeck as modified by Shargani, Iby, and Denyer is silent about wherein the base container comprises parallel sockets, the parallel sockets comprising openings for handling the poultry container assembly.
Bosseur teaches a poultry container assembly (chick container 1; Page 1, first two lines of Description Fig. 3), wherein the base container (see lowermost container in Fig. 3) comprises parallel sockets (two sleeves 12 which includes eyelets; Fig. 3), the parallel sockets comprising openings for handling the poultry container assembly (sleeves 12 comprise openings in which blade of a forklift are inserted for moving the assembly; Page 3, last 6 lines from the bottom of the page; Figs. 7-8). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide parallel sockets comprising openings, as taught by Bosseur, to the base container of Esbroeck as modified by Shargani, lby, and Denyer, since the sleeves allow the assembly to be safely, without sliding, moved via forklift, as recognized by Bosseur (Page 3, lines 2-5) and as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued the following:
The rejection mailed on May 6, 2024, relies on cable clamps (43, 61, 62) of Denyer to disclose or suggest tactile barriers. However, as amended, the tactile barriers are required to be "formed on the first and second guide bars." As observed in Figure 2A of the present application, the tactile barriers (e.g., beveled notches 6) are part of the guide bars, rather than a separate cable clamp for attaching to a cable (53, Denyer) or cable wire (4, Shargani).
As stated in the above rejection, when the clamp as taught by Denyer is placed on the guide bars (as modified Shargani with Iby), the clamp is formed on the guide bars. In addition, the clamp of Denyer meets the definition of a bump, thus, it can be considered as a bump for the tactile barrier. Note that the clamp can also be considered as ridges because it does protrude upward like ridges. Thus, applicant’s added limitation did not overcome the clamp of Denyer.
Furthermore, the amended claims require the predefined tactile barriers to be formed as ridges, bumps, chamfers, or bevels on the first and second guide bars. The cable wires (4) of Shargani are free of such tactile barriers, and Denyer also does not teach or suggest any ridge, bump, chamfer, or bevel formed on its cable (53).
As stated in the above, the clamp of Denyer meets the definition of a bump, thus, it can be considered as a bump for the tactile barrier. Note that the clamp can also be considered as ridges because it does protrude upward like ridges. Thus, applicant’s added limitation did not overcome the clamp of Denyer.
For the teaching of guide bars, the rejection relies on telescoping tubes (35) of Iby; however, the Applicant respectfully submits that one skilled in the art would not be motivated to replace or modify the cable wires (4) of Shargani to feature the claimed tactile barriers, as such tactile barriers would not be simply substituted into telescoping tubes that can be "completely telescoped into each other." (Jby, col. 2, 11. 40-47).
Cables and rods are functional equivalent in the art of cover or curtain because both provide a frame or support for the cover, and they are interchangeably used all the time in the cover or curtain or canopy art. In addition, one can certain use the clamps for tactile barriers as taught by Denyer and place them on the guide bars of Iby so that the cover can be immovably fixed at various positions on the guide bars. Just because the tubes in Iby are telescopic does not mean that a clamp/tactile barrier cannot be placed thereon. The clamp will just clamp the outside surface of the tubes because once telescopic is locked in, the tubes do not have to move in and out anymore so the clamp can mount thereon. Thus, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant submits that, although dependent claim 35 is patentable over the cited prior art based on dependency from claim 15, the combined teachings of Shargani, Denyer, Iby, Schmeichel, Esbroeck, Cramaro, and Bosseur fail to disclose or suggest guide bars having an internal magnet strip that cooperates with magnet-receiving apertures in the brackets to establish discrete, repeatable holding positions for the longitudinal supports.
As stated in the above rejection, Schmeichel teaches a fastening means wherein an aperture (aperture where magnet 44 is placed therein in fig. 3) holding a magnet (44) on a side of the cover and a strip carrying multiple magnets (26 is ferromagnetic material which is considered magnet) disposed within the guide rail (32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the fastening means of Shargani as modified by Iby, Denyer, and Schmeichel with having each bracket of Shargani as modified by Iby, Denyer, and Schmeichel includes an aperture holding a magnet as further taught Schmeichel, and each guide bar of Shargani as modified by Iby, Denyer, and Schmeichel includes a strip carrying multiple magnets as further taught by Schmeichel disposed within the guide bar of Shargani as modified by Iby, Denyer, and Schmeichel, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (both types of fastening means such as clamps and/or magnets would allow fastening of the cover to the bars and brackets for closing/opening the cover). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a cover:
JP S6050879 U Title Not Available
CA 1250869 A teaches tarpaulin cover
CA 1250870 A teaches bow connector device for tarpaulin cover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights