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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/02/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1, 3-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheshire (US 2004/0025801, as cited in previous 892) in view of Renforth (US 2014/0252791, as cited in previous 892), and King (GB 2473863 A), hereinafter referred to as Cheshire, Renforth, and King, respectively.
Regarding claim 1:
Cheshire discloses a dog kennel partition (formed from Fig 7.130,140,110) comprising
A dog kennel partition wall (formed from Fig 7.130,140) having a top end (Fig 7.130) and a bottom end (Fig 7.140);
A separation floor (Fig 7.110) extending perpendicularly from the removable dog kennel partition wall (see Fig 7);
wherein the separation floor is provided below the top end and above the bottom end of the removeable dog kennel partition wall (see Fig 7), dividing the removeable dog kennel partition wall into an upper portion (Fig 7.130) and a lower portion (Fig 7.140);
An opening (Fig 7.144);
wherein the opening is provided at the lower portion of the removable dog kennel partition wall (see Fig 7);
A flap;
wherein the flap has a first end and a second end;
wherein the first end of the flap is attached to the removable dog kennel partition wall; and wherein the flap covers the opening (¶0065; ¶0060).
Although Cheshire seems to make optional the panels 130, 140, & 110 which form the dog kennel partition, by using “can” language (see ¶0063), Cheshire fails to specifically disclose that the partition wall is removable, and that it includes:
a first foot;
wherein the first foot is attached to the top end;
a second foot;
wherein the second foot is attached to the bottom end;
Further, Cheshire fails to disclose a tether attached between the dog kennel removable partition wall and the second end of the flap, the tether configured to restrict the flap from opening beyond a predetermined angle.
Renforth, however, discloses a removable partition wall for animals (Fig 5.104; removable – see abstract) with a top end and a bottom end (see annotated Fig 5 below); a first foot (Fig 5.172A), wherein the first foot is attached to the top end (see Fig 5); and a second foot (Fig 5.172B), wherein the second foot is attached to the bottom end (see Fig 5);
PNG
media_image1.png
811
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the partition wall of Cheshire, so as to add adjustable compression feet to the top and bottom ends of the partition wall, as in Renforth, thereby making the wall specifically removable, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to provide the user with greater control over the configuration of the animal house, so as to best fit the size and preferences of the animal for which the house is prepared, and to provide a stable connection between the wall and the animal house. Moreover, as disclosed in Renforth, the compression feet are adjustable, so as to be able to function in different sized spaces (¶0056); this would increase the adaptability of the wall, allowing pet owners to use the wall in various environments. Finally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179, and the substitution of one attachment mechanism for another known attachment mechanism would yield predictable results and be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
King discloses a partition wall (fence panel of mesh 16/18 with frame 10, Fig 3) with an opening (aperture 12, Fig 3), a flap covering the opening (panel 14, Fig 3), and a tether attached between the wall and the second end of the flap, the tether configured to restrict the flap from opening beyond a predetermined angle (Pg 2, line 36 – Pg 3, line 3; see Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a tether locking/securing mechanism to the flap of Cheshire, as in King, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification so as to simply and selectively restrict/allow access between compartments in the cat house, as desired, based on the cats being housed therein; for example, providing the tether mechanism to keep the flaps between compartments shut may be useful in keeping separate two animals who do not get along, or a younger animal from an older animal, so as to ensure the animals’ safety.
Regarding claim 3:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and Renforth further discloses wherein a plurality of compression feet is provided (Fig 5.172A/B,176A/B).
Regarding claim 4:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 3 above and Renforth further discloses wherein the plurality of compression feet is configured to compress against an interior of a dog kennel (Statement of intended use: the compression feet of Renforth are structurally capable of compressing against an interior of a dog kennel, see Fig 5 & ¶0058; see MPEP 2114(II)).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 3 above and Renforth further discloses wherein each compression foot within the plurality of compression feet is adjustable (adjustable in position via adjustment of rods that attach them to the partition wall – pulling 172A up or pushing 172B down, for instance; see Fig 6A-D; ¶0056-0059).
Regarding Claim 12:
Cheshire discloses a dog kennel (‘dog’ relates to an intended use of the kennel, see MPEP 2114(II), the kennel of Cheshire being capable of being used to house a dog) comprising:
A kennel having an interior (kennel is general outer structure formed from walls Fig 7.60,70,80,90, and side mounted doors Fig 1.12,22,32,42)
A dog kennel partition wall (formed from Fig 7.130,140) having a top end (Fig 7.130) and a bottom end (Fig 7.140);
wherein the top end is configured to attach to a top surface of the interior (see Fig 7 for attachment);
wherein the bottom end is configured to attach to a bottom surface of the interior (see Fig 7);
A separation floor (Fig 7.110) extending perpendicularly from the dog kennel partition wall to a side surface of the interior (see Fig 7);
Wherein the separation floor is provided below the top end and above the bottom end of the dog kennel partition wall (see Fig 7), dividing the dog kennel partition wall into an upper portion (Fig 7.130) and a lower portion (Fig 7.140);
An opening (Fig 7.144);
Wherein the opening is provided at the lower portion of the removable dog kennel partition wall (see Fig 7);
a flap;
wherein the flap has a first end and a second end;
wherein the first end of the flap is attached to the removable dog kennel partition wall; and wherein the flap has a first surface covering the opening and a second opposing surface (¶0065; ¶0060; both sides/surfaces, front and back, of a standard flap would overly/cover the opening since the surfaces would overly each other).
Although Cheshire seems to make optional the panels 130, 140, & 110 which form the dog kennel partition wall, by using “can” language (see ¶0063), Cheshire fails to specifically disclose that the partition wall is removable, and fails to disclose a tether, wherein the tether is attached between the dog kennel partition wall and the second end of the first surface of the flap, the tether configured to restrict the flap from opening beyond a predetermined angle.
Renforth, however, discloses a removable partition wall for animals (Fig 5.104; removable – see abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have modified the partition wall of Cheshire, so as to add adjustable compression feet to the top and bottom ends of the partition wall, as in Renforth, thereby making the wall specifically removable, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so as to provide the user with greater control over the configuration of the animal house, so as to best fit the size and preferences of the animal for which the house is prepared, and to provide a stable connection between the wall and the animal house. Moreover, as disclosed in Renforth, the compression feet are adjustable, so as to be able to function in different sized spaces (¶0056); this would increase the adaptability of the wall, allowing pet owners to use the wall in various environments. Finally, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179, and the substitution of one attachment mechanism for another known attachment mechanism would yield predictable results and be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
King discloses a partition wall (fence panel of mesh 16/18 with frame 10, Fig 3) with an opening (aperture 12, Fig 3), a flap covering the opening (panel 14, Fig 3), and a tether attached between the wall and the second end of the first surface of the flap, the tether configured to restrict the flap from opening beyond a predetermined angle (Pg 2, line 36 – Pg 3, line 3; see Fig 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a tether locking/securing mechanism to the flap of Cheshire, as in King, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification so as to simply and selectively restrict/allow access between compartments in the cat house, as desired, based on the cats being housed therein; for example, providing the tether mechanism to keep the flaps between compartments shut may be useful in keeping separate two animals who do not get along, or a younger animal from an older animal, so as to ensure the animals’ safety.
Regarding claim 13:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 12 above and Renforth further discloses wherein a plurality of compression feet is provided on the top end and the bottom end (Fig 5.172A/B,176A/B).
Regarding claim 14:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 13 above and Renforth further discloses wherein the plurality of compression feet is configured to compress against the interior of a dog kennel (Statement of intended use: the compression feet of Renforth are structurally capable of compressing against an interior of a dog kennel, see Fig 5 & ¶0058; see MPEP 2114(II)).
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 15:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 13 above and Renforth further discloses wherein each compression foot within the plurality of compression feet is adjustable (adjustable in position via adjustment of rods that attach them to the partition wall – pulling 172A up or pushing 172B down, for instance; see Fig 6A-D; ¶0056-0059).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, and 12-15 would be allowable if amended as follows:
Claim 1, last three lines:
a tether attached between the dog kennel removable partition wall and the second end of the flap, wherein the tether is configured to restrict the flap from opening beyond a predetermined angle while simultaneously allowing a dog partial access past the removable dog kennel partition wall.
Claim 12, last three lines:
wherein the tether is attached between the dog kennel removable partition wall and the second end of the first surface of the flap, wherein the tether is configured to restrict the flap from opening beyond a predetermined angle while simultaneously allowing a dog partial access past the removable dog kennel partition wall.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record (applied above) is Cheshire (US 2004/0025801), Renforth (US 20140252791), and King (GB 2473863 A), which, combined, teach a removable dog kennel partition wall as presently claimed. However, the prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of the applicant' s claimed invention. Specifically, although King discloses a tether for a dog flap configured to restrict the flap from opening beyond a predetermined angle, King fails to disclose that the tether is configured to restrict opening beyond a predetermined angle while simultaneously allowing a dog partial access past the removable dog kennel partition wall given the tether of King is used to secure/lock the flap in a closed position, preventing animal access through the opening; adding the tether of King to Cheshire, then adjusting the tether characteristics so as to provide partial access to the animal would not result in obvious improvements to the device of Cheshire.
This statement is not intended to necessarily state all the reasons for allowance or all the details why the claims are allowed and has not been written to specifically or impliedly state that all the reasons for allowance are set forth (MPEP 1302.14).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/02/2026 with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/B.V.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642