Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10-3-25 has been entered.
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
2. 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(s) 1, 3-7, 9, 12, 14-19, 23 and 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent No. 6,487,988 to Good et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0110430 to Badiou, further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,109,605 to Bachli and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,076,212 to Thompson.
Referring to claims 1 and 14, Good et al. discloses a system/method for encouraging movement of poultry disposed within a poultry enclosure, the system comprising, one or more movable visual cues – at 22-27, disposed along a wall of the poultry enclosure – see figure 1, a first movement mechanism – at 29-55, coupled to the one or more movable visual cues – see figures 1-9, the movement mechanism, causing the one or more movable visual cues to move to encourage the poultry within the enclosure to move away from the one or more movable visual cues – see for example figures 1-9 and column 4 lines 23-57. Good et al. further discloses an actuator – at 60-66, that initiates the movement mechanism causing the one or more movable visual cues to move – see for example figure 5 and column 6 lines 24-35. Good et al. does not disclose the poultry enclosure is moved/causing the poultry enclosure to move in a first direction. Badiou et al. does disclose and animal enclosure is moved in a first direction – see enclosure – at 10, moved via items 30-34 and 50-60 in figures 1-5. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. and add the enclosure being a mobile enclosure as disclosed by Badiou et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be moved into different positions and orientations as desired. Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al. further discloses the visual cues are moved in the direction the poultry enclosure is moving – see cues – at 22-27 of Good et al. movable in any direction as seen via items 29,30,40, in figures 1-9 and therefore when used in a moving enclosure – at 10 of Badiou et al., would be moved/at least capable of moving in the first direction being the direction the enclosure is moving – see figures 1-3 of Fair. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. and add the enclosure being a mobile enclosure as disclosed by Badiou et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be moved into different positions and orientations as desired. Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al. further discloses the actuator – at 50-60, 70, is configured to initiate the movement mechanism prior to and/or during movement of the mobile poultry enclosure – see at 60-66 in figure 5 and column 6 lines 7-67 of Good et al. and – see at items 50-60 and figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0092] and [0093] of Badiou et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. and add the enclosure being a mobile enclosure as disclosed by Badiou et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be moved into different positions and orientations as desired. Good as modified by Badiou et al. further discloses responsive to initiation of the movement mechanism – at 29-55 of Good et al., the poultry move away from a wall of the enclosure – see figures 1-9 and column 4 lines 23-57 of Good. Good et at al. as modified by Badiou et al. does not disclose the visual cue(s) is/are disposed along a back wall of the enclosure relative to a direction of movement of the mobile poultry enclosure such that the poultry move away from the back wall of the enclosure during operation of the device. Bachli does disclose the visual cues – at 25, are disposed on all four sides of the device – see at 24 in figure 3, such that animals will move away from the visual cues during operation of the device – see figure 3 and therefore when adding visual cues such as disclosed by Bachli, along the back wall of the device – at 12 of Good et al., would allow for the animals/poultry to move away from the back wall during operation of the device as seen in figure 3 of Bachli and figures 1-9 of Good et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al. and add the visual cues along any side of the device as disclosed by Bachli, so that when combined with the device of Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al. would provide for the visual cues to be disposed along the back wall of the device, so as to yield the predictable result of repelling the animals from any desired portion of the device as desired during use. Good et al. as modified by Badiou and Bachli further discloses the movement mechanism – at 26-29, causing the one or more movable visual cues – at 25, along the back wall of the mobile poultry enclosure – at 12 of Good et al., to move from side to side along the back wall of the mobile poultry enclosure – see figures 1-3 and column 4 lines 4-36 of Bachli and – see figures 1-9 of Good et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al. and add the visual cues along any side of the device as disclosed by Bachli, so that when combined with the device of Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al. would provide for the visual cues to be disposed along the back wall of the device, so as to yield the predictable result of repelling the animals from any desired portion of the device as desired during use. Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al. and Bachli further discloses the a first set of the one or more movable visual cues – at 22,25, are disposed along a back wall of the moveable poultry enclosure relative to a direction of movement of the mobile poultry enclosure – see disposed along each wall in figure 1 of Good et al., and the first set of the one or more movable visual cues – at 22,25, are disposed along a back wall of the moveable poultry enclosure and a second set of the one or more visual cues are disposed along a front wall of the moveable poultry enclosure relative to a direction of movement of the mobile poultry enclosure – see disposed along each wall in figure 1 of Good et al. Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al. and Bachli does not disclose a second movement mechanism coupled to the second set of movable visual cues, the second movement mechanism causing the second set of movable visual cues to move during movement of the mobile poultry enclosure to encourage the poultry within the enclosure to move away from the second set of movable visual cues in the direction the mobile poultry enclosure is moving and during initiation of the first movement mechanism the first set of visual cues moves while the second set of visual cues does not move and movement of the mobile poultry enclosure, and responsive to initiation of the second movement mechanism, the second set of movable visual cues moves while the first set does not and the poultry move away from the second wall of the mobile poultry enclosure and in the second direction of movement of the mobile poultry enclosure. Thompson does disclose a first movement mechanism – at 68, and a second movement mechanism – at 44, coupled to the second set of movable visual cues – at 30a or 30b – see figure 2, the second movement mechanism causing the second set of movable visual cues to move during movement of the mobile poultry enclosure to encourage the poultry within the enclosure to move away from the second set of movable visual cues in the direction the mobile poultry enclosure is moving – see figure 2 and when incorporated into the movable enclosure device of Good et al. as modified by Badiou and Bachli will be provide for encouraging the poultry to move away from the second set of visual cues and during initiation of the first movement mechanism – at 68 and the other of 144, the first set of visual cues moves – see figure 2. and responsive to initiation of the second movement mechanism – at 144, the second set of movable visual cues – at 30a or 30b, moves and the poultry move away from the second wall of the mobile poultry enclosure and in the second direction of movement of the mobile poultry enclosure – see figure 2 and when incorporated into the movable enclosure device of Good et al. as modified by Badiou. Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson does not disclose the first and second sets of visual cues move independently of each other so that one set can move while the other set does not move. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson and control the movement mechanisms individually so that the first and second sets of visual cues can move independently of one another, so as to yield the predictable result of providing better control of the movement of the visual cues so as to allow for more accurate control of the movement of the animals within the enclosure as desired. Further, the control systems detailed in the device/method of Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson are capable of providing for the independent controls of the movement mechanism as seen – in figure 5 and columns 6-7 of Good et al. – see paragraphs [0087]-[0088], see – at 30 of Bachli and see – figure 12 and columns 7-8 of Thompson. Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson further discloses a first set of visual cues disposed along a first back wall of the enclosure relative to a first direction of movement of the enclosure and a second set of visual cues along a second back wall of the enclosure relative to a second direction of movement of the enclosure – see paragraph [0091] of Badiou et al., detailing lighting visual cues on the walls are controlled to activate based on the direction of movement of the enclosure. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. and add the enclosure being a mobile enclosure as disclosed by Badiou et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be moved into different positions and orientations as desired.
Referring to claims 3 and 15, Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson further discloses the first and/or second movement mechanism moves repetitively causing the one or more movable visual cues to move in a random manner – see at 29-66 in figures 1-7 and column 6 lines 7-67 of Good et al.
Referring to claims 4 and 16, Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson further discloses the first and/or second movement mechanism comprises a motor – at 45 of Good et al.
Referring to claims 5 and 17, Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson further discloses the first and/or second movement mechanism further comprises, an arm – at 49a,49b, coupled to a rotating shaft of the motor – at 45 – see figure 2 of Good et al., and one or more cables – at 29, coupled to the arm – see figures 1-7 of Good et al.
Referring to claims 6 and 18, Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson further discloses the one or more cables – at 29, are coupled to one or more walls of the poultry enclosure – see coupled to the ceiling via 19,46,49 in figure 3 of Good et al.
Referring to claims 7 and 19, Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson further discloses the one or more cables – at 29, are coupled to one or more walls of the poultry enclosure via one or more flexible anchor linkages – at 47,48,49c in figure 3 of Good et al.
Referring to claim 9, Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson further discloses the actuator is configured to initiate the first and/or second movement mechanism during movement of the mobile poultry enclosure – see at 60-66 in figure 5 and column 6 lines 7-67 of Good et al. and – see at items 50-60 and figures 1-5 and paragraphs [0092] and [0093] of Badiou et al. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al. and Bachli and add the enclosure being a mobile enclosure as disclosed by Badiou et al., so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be moved into different positions and orientations as desired.
Referring to claims 12 and 23, Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson further discloses the one or more visual cues comprise one or more of a flag, poster, ribbon, banner, dangle, tassel, light, and/or brush – see banner and flag detailed in column 4 lines 42-57 of Good et al.
Referring to claims 25 and 26, Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson further discloses the movement mechanism causes the one or more movable visual cues to oscillate in a continuous manner during movement of the mobile enclosure – see connection of the visual cues – at 25 to item 29 in figure 8 of Good et al. and the visual cues – at 25 to item 24 in figure 3 of Bachli and see movement of the enclosure see enclosure – at 10, moved via items 30-34 and 50-60 in figures 1-5 of Badiou, in that the visual cues are suspended in a hanging configuration and therefore will have some oscillations during movement of the device during operation and the oscillations would be continuous during operation of the movement mechanisms.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,341,181 to Fair.
Referring to claims 8 and 20, Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson does not disclose a floorless mobile animal enclosure. Fair does disclose a floorless animal enclosure – at 10,12 – see figures 1-2. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al. Bachli and Thompson and add the enclosure being a floorless mobile enclosure as disclosed by Fair, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be more easily moved over uneven terrain into different positions and orientations as desired. Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli, Thompson and Fair does not disclose the enclosure is at least 90 feet in length and 25 feet wide. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli, Thompson and Fair and make the enclosure any desired size including the claimed at least 90 feet long and 25 feet wide, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for the device to be of sufficient size to house the desired quantity of animals as desired.
Claim(s) 13 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 4,304,194 to Boykin et al.
Referring to claims 13 and 24, Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson does not disclose one or more auditory cues disposed along a wall of the mobile poultry enclosure to move via the movement mechanism coupled to the one or more auditory cues. Boykin et al. does disclose one or more visual cues – at 18,64,64a, and one or more auditory cues – via item 60, disposed along a wall of the poultry enclosure – see figure 1, to move via the movement mechanism coupled to the one or more auditory cues – see at 20,22 in figure 1. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Good et al. as modified by Badiou et al., Bachli and Thompson and add the auditory cues of Boykin et al., so as to yield the predictable result of more efficiently urging the animals to move to the desired location.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 10-3-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 1 detailed in the last office action dated 6-3-25.
Applicant’s claim remarks/arguments dated 10-3-25 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 14 detailed in the last office action dated 6-3-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 14, the Good et al. reference US 6487988 discloses one or more movable visual cues – at 22-27, disposed along a wall of the poultry enclosure – see figure 1, a first movement mechanism – at 29-55, coupled to the one or more movable visual cues – see figures 1-9, the movement mechanism, causing the one or more movable visual cues to move to encourage the poultry within the enclosure to move away from the one or more movable visual cues – see for example figures 1-9 and column 4 lines 23-57. Further, the Thompson reference US 5076212 discloses a first movement mechanism – at 68, and a second movement mechanism – at 44, coupled to the second set of movable visual cues – at 30a or 30b – see figure 2, the second movement mechanism causing the second set of movable visual cues to move during movement of the mobile poultry enclosure to encourage the poultry within the enclosure to move away from the second set of movable visual cues in the direction the mobile poultry enclosure is moving – see figure 2 and when incorporated into the movable enclosure device of Good et al. as modified by the Badiou reference US 2019/0110430, and the Bachli reference US 4109605, will be provide for encouraging the poultry to move away from the second set of visual cues and during initiation of the first movement mechanism – at 68 and the other of 144, the first set of visual cues moves – see figure 2. and responsive to initiation of the second movement mechanism – at 144, the second set of movable visual cues – at 30a or 30b, moves and the poultry move away from the second wall of the mobile poultry enclosure and in the second direction of movement of the mobile poultry enclosure – see figure 2 and when incorporated into the movable enclosure device of Good et al. as modified by Badiou. Further, the Badiou reference discloses a first set of visual cues disposed along a first back wall of the enclosure relative to a first direction of movement of the enclosure and a second set of visual cues along a second back wall of the enclosure relative to a second direction of movement of the enclosure – see paragraph [0091] of Badiou et al., detailing lighting visual cues on the walls are controlled to activate based on the direction of movement of the enclosure. Therefore it would have been obvious to control movement of the visual cues along multiple walls of the enclosure as disclosed by Thompson and activate the visual cues only on the walls desired by the user to facilitate the desired movement of the poultry within the enclosure as disclosed by Badiou et al., so as to allow the user to control the movement of the poultry as desired to allow the poultry to be more easily moved to a desired location determined by the user. Therefore the combination of these references renders the claims obvious as detailed earlier in paragraph 2 of this office action.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 3-9, 12-13, 15-20 and 23-26, applicant relies upon the same arguments with respect to parent claims 1 and 14 discussed earlier.
Conclusion
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643