DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a final rejection on the merits.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 16-18, 22 have been amended, Claims 6-7, 11, 19, 23-26 have been canceled, Claim 27 has added, and Claims 4-5, 8-10, 12-15, 20-21 remain as previously presented.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1 Line 3, the limitation “the home cage comprising a home cage lid” should read “each respective home cage comprising a respective home cage lid” to keep the limitations consistent throughout the claim.
In Claim 1 Line 16, the limitation “the home cage lid” should read “the respective home cage lid” to keep the limitations consistent throughout the claim.
In Claim 16 Line 3, the limitation “the home cage comprising a home cage lid” should read “each respective home cage comprising a respective home cage lid” to keep the limitations consistent throughout the claim.
In Claim 16 Line 17, the limitation “the home cage lid” should read “the respective home cage lid” to keep the limitations consistent throughout the claim.
In Claim 27, the limitations “the home cage lid” should read “the respective home cage lid” to keep the limitations consistent throughout the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12-14, 16-18, 20-22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cañis et al. (WO 2015189454 A1) in view of Nowak (US 20160112649 A1), Zinsmeyer et al. (US 5926441 A), and Masopust (US 5199381 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Cañis teaches an apparatus comprising: at least two access control devices (automatic feed dispensers 1 [shown in Fig. 7]; Abstract states how dispensers 1 are designed to control access to the food in feed container 2.), each to be associated with a respective home cage (Fig. 7 shows that each of the at least two access control devices 1 is associated with a respective home cage 22.), each respective home cage (22) comprising a respective home cage lid (shown in Fig. 6; Each home cage 22 comprises a respective wired lid home cage.), the at least two access control devices comprising a server access control device to be associated with a server home cage (Fig. 7 shows a system 21 of dispensers 1. One of these dispensers 1 is capable of serving as a server access control device associated with a server home cage 22. See Pg. 4) and at least one client access control device to be associated with a client home cage (Fig. 7 shows a system 21 of dispensers 1. The remainder of these dispensers 1 are capable of serving as client access control devices to be associated with client home cages 22. See Pg. 4), each of the at least two access control devices comprising:
A movable barrier (Grid 4; Fig. 5 shows that grid 4 is part of food container 2. Fig. 5 further shows that food container 2 rotates along axis 9.1.) and a controller housing (See Figs. 2.1-2.3 and 3; Container 2 comprises a controller housing, which houses controlling circuit 13.),
Wherein the movable barrier (4) is configured to be positioned in the respective home cage (22) between a storage area and a living area (Fig. 6 shows that grid 4 is positioned in a home cage 22 between a food storage area [container 2] and a living area [the inside of cage 22 shown in Fig. 6].) and configured to be movable between an access position where there is unrestricted access to an item in the storage area from the living area and a restricted position where the access is denied (Fig. 5 and Pg. 4 show/state that grid 4 moves between an access position [where the access opening 3 and grid 4 align with an opening in housing 6] where there is unrestricted access to the food contained inside food container 2 from the living area and a restricted position [where the grid 4 and access opening 3 face side 5.2 of housing 6] where access to food is denied.); and
Wherein the movable barrier is moved between the access position and the restricted position in response to access signals (Pg. 4 states that control unit 19 is connected to the electronic circuit 13 of each dispenser 1 via antenna 14. Pg. 4 further states that electronic circuit 13 controls the operation of motor-reducer assembly 10, and that the motor assembly 10 produces the rotation of container 2 [which includes movable barrier 4]. Therefore, grid 4 is capable of being moved between the access and restricted position in response to the access signals of control unit 19.).
However, the system of Cañis fails to explicitly state that the server access control device comprises a server controller and the at least one client access control device comprises a client controller in signal communication with the server controller, wherein the server controller is configured to deliver the access signals according to an access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller by an operator, wherein the server controller comprises the access schedule, and wherein the client controller comprises a client access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller which is received from the server controller via the signal communication, and wherein the client controller is configured to deliver the access signals according to the client access schedule.
Nowak teaches a server control device comprising a server controller (200) and at least one client control device comprises a client controller (202) in signal communication with the server controller (¶77-78 state that the client controller 202 performs operations based on the time value received from the server controller 200. Therefore, the client controller is in signal communication with the server controller.), wherein the server controller is configured to deliver the access signals according to an access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller by an operator (¶77 states that server controller 200 comprises a master timing module 302 that sends time value surrounding the initiation of capture, the pausation of capture, and the termination of capture to the client timing module 702 of client controllers 202. ¶65 further states that the user interface module 204 of server controller 200 may receive an indication from a user to capture content as well as a time value including a start time and an end time. Therefore, server controller 200 is capable of delivering access signals [that allow for the capture] according to an access schedule based on the data [time value] entered into the server controller 200 by an operator.), wherein the server controller (200) comprises the access schedule (¶65 states that the time value including a start time and end time is entered into user interface module 204 of server controller 200.), and wherein the client controller (202) comprises a client access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller which is received from the server controller via the signal communication (¶64 states that client controller 202 comprises a client timing module 702 configured to be synchronized with the master timing module 302 of server controller 200 based on the time value. ¶65 further states the user interface module 204 of server controller 200 may receive a time value including a start time and an end time. Therefore, client controller 202 comprises a client access schedule based on the data [time value] entered into the server controller 200 [via user interface module 204] which is received from the server controller 200 via the signal communication [between master timing module 302 and client timing module 702].), and wherein the client controller (202) is configured to deliver the access signals according to the client access schedule (¶65 states that client controllers 202 may be configured to deliver access signals [to start content capture] at the start time according to the client access schedule received from the user interface module 204 of server controller 200.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cañis to have the server access control device comprise a server controller and the at least one client access control device comprise a client controller in signal communication with the server controller, wherein the server controller is configured to deliver the access signals according to an access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller by an operator, wherein the server controller comprises the access schedule, and wherein the client controller comprises a client access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller which is received from the server controller via the signal communication, and wherein the client controller is configured to deliver the access signals according to the client access schedule as taught by Nowak with reasonable expectation of success to allow the user to efficiently control client devices via the server device.
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak also fails to explicitly state that the access schedule comprises times of the day when the movable barrier is to be moved.
Zinsmeyer teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an animal feeder with a sun-synchronized timer.), the system of Zinsmeyer teaches a controller (30) configured to deliver access signals according to an access schedule, wherein the access schedule comprises times of the day when a moveable barrier (5) is to be moved (Claim 1 states that controller 30 comprises a time settable system for setting the time of day and duration of time when moveable barrier 5 is to be rotated to dispense feed.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak to have the access schedule comprise times of the day when the movable barrier is to be moved as taught by Zinsmeyer with reasonable expectation of success to provide an access schedule that can be adjusted based on the sunrise and sunset times (Zinsmeyer, Column 1 Lines 45-50).
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak and Zinsmeyer teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the controller housing and the movable barrier are configured to be assembled to each other with the home cage lid disposed between the controller housing and the movable barrier. Masopust teaches an apparatus (shown in Fig. 2) wherein a controller housing (6; Fig. 2 shows that housing 6 is capable of housing a switch controller 12.) and a barrier (21) are configured to be assembled to each other with a lid (8) disposed between the controller housing (6) and the barrier [21] (shown in Fig. 2; Controller housing 6 and barrier 21 are assembled to each other with a lid 8 disposed between them.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the controller housing and the movable barrier of the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak and Zinsmeyer be configured to be assembled to each other with the home cage lid disposed between the controller housing and the movable barrier as taught by Masopust with reasonable expectation of success to better maximize space, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 2, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Cañis further teaches that each access control device further comprises a movable barrier housing (casing 6) inside which the movable barrier is disposed (Fig. 5 shows that grid 4 is disposed inside casing 6.), wherein the movable barrier is configured to rotate between the access position and the restricted position (Fig. 5 shows that container 2 [which includes grid 4] rotates between an access position [where the access opening 3 and grid 4 align with an opening in housing 6] and a restricted position [where the grid 4 and access opening 3 face side 5.2 of housing 6].).
Regarding Claim 3, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
Cañis further teaches that the at least two access control devices (1) are in the respective home cages (22; Fig. 7 shows that each of the at least two control access devices 1 are provided in a home cage 22.) having a storage area (food storage area 2; Fig. 5 shows that the at least two control access devices 1 located in the home cages 22 comprise a food storage area 2.), the storage area is disposed inside the movable barrier (Fig. 5 shows that the food storage area of food container 2 is located inside movable barrier 4.), wherein in the access position a housing opening in the movable barrier housing and a movable barrier opening in the movable barrier align to provide the unrestricted access (Fig. 5 shows that in the access position, a housing opening 8 in the housing 6 and the access opening 3 in grid 4 align which provides unrestricted access to the food inside container 2.), and in the restricted position the housing opening and the movable barrier opening do not align (Pg. 4 states that in a restricted position, container 2 is rotated so that access opening 3 faces side 5.2 of housing 6. This means that housing opening 8 and movable barrier opening 3 do not align when in a restricted position.).
Regarding Claim 8, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust further teaches that when the server controller comprises the access schedule, the server controller controls in the server access control device and in the at least one client access control device when the movable barrier is moved to the access position and a duration the movable barrier remains in the access position (Due to the modifications of Nowak and Zinsmeyer described above, the server access control device of the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Curwen would be provided with a server controller 200 configured to deliver access signals according to an access schedule. Since Pg. 4 of Cañis state that control unit 19 delivers access signals to container 2 [which includes movable barrier 4] so that container 2 rotates between an opening and a closed position, the access schedule of the server controller of the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust would control when the movable barrier 4 of both the server access control device and the at least one client access control device is moved to the access position and would be capable of controlling a duration the movable barrier remains in the access position.).
Regarding Claim 9, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Nowak further teaches a server control device comprising an input device (204) in signal communication with the server controller (200) and into which the operator enters the data (¶65 states the user interface module 204 of server controller 200 may receive a time value including a start time and an end time from a user. Therefore, user interface module 204 is an input device in signal connection with server controller 200 and into which a user may enter data.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust to have the server access control device further comprise an input device in signal communication with the server controller and into which the operator enters the data as taught by Nowak with reasonable expectation of success to allow the user the means to easily set up and control the access schedule.
Regarding Claim 10, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust further teaches (references to Nowak) that the server controller (200) comprises a wireless controller (¶74 states that server controller 200 comprises a communications module 206 configured for wireless transmission.).
Regarding Claim 12, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust further teaches (references to Nowak) that the apparatus is configured to keep the client access schedule in the client controller synchronized with the access schedule in the server controller (¶64 states that client controller 202 comprises a client timing module 702 configured to be synchronized with the master timing module 302 of server controller 200 based on the time value. ¶65 further states the user interface module 204 of server controller 200 may receive a time value including a start time and an end time. Therefore, due to the modification of Nowak, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust to keep the client access schedule in the client controller synchronized with the access schedule in the server controller.).
Regarding Claim 13, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust further teaches (references to Nowak) that the server controller (200) comprises a wireless controller (¶74 states that server controller 200 comprises a communications module 206 configured for wireless transmission.) and the client controller (202) comprises a wireless controller (¶76 states that client controller 202 comprises a communication module 602 configured for wireless transmission.), and wherein the signal communication comprises wireless signal communication (¶76 states that server controller 200 and client controller are in communication via wireless signal.).
Regarding Claim 14, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust further teaches (references to Nowak) that server controller (200) comprises a server controller time clock (302), wherein the client controller (202) comprises a client controller time clock (702), and wherein the apparatus is configured to synchronize the client controller time clock with the server controller time clock (¶64 states that client controller 202 comprises a client timing module 702 configured to be synchronized with the master timing module 302 of server controller 200 based on the time value.).
Regarding Claim 16, Cañis teaches an apparatus comprising: at least two access control devices (automatic feed dispensers 1 [shown in Fig. 7]; Abstract states how dispensers 1 are designed to control access to the food in feed container 2.), each to be associated with a respective home cage (Fig. 7 shows that each of the at least two access control devices 1 is associated with a respective home cage 22.), each respective home cage (22) comprising a respective home cage lid (shown in Fig. 6; Each home cage 22 comprises a respective wired lid home cage.), the at least two access control devices comprising a server access control device to be associated with a server home cage (Fig. 7 shows a system 21 of dispensers 1. One of these dispensers 1 is capable of serving as a server access control device associated with a server home cage 22. See Pg. 4) and at least one client access control device to be associated with a client home cage (Fig. 7 shows a system 21 of dispensers 1. The remainder of these dispensers 1 are capable of serving as client access control devices to be associated with client home cages 22. See Pg. 4), each of the at least two access control devices comprising:
A movable barrier (Grid 4; Fig. 5 shows that grid 4 is part of food container 2. Fig. 5 further shows that food container 2 rotates along axis 9.1.) and a controller housing (See Figs. 2.1-2.3 and 3; Container 2 comprises a controller housing, which houses controlling circuit 13.),
Wherein the movable barrier (4) is configured to be positioned in the respective home cage (22) between a storage area and a living area (Fig. 6 shows that grid 4 is positioned in a home cage 22 between a food storage area [container 2] and a living area [the inside of cage 22 shown in Fig. 6].) and configured to be movable between an access position where there is unrestricted access to an item in the storage area from the living area and a restricted position where the access is denied (Fig. 5 and Pg. 4 show/state that grid 4 moves between an access position [where the access opening 3 and grid 4 align with an opening in housing 6] where there is unrestricted access to the food contained inside food container 2 from the living area and a restricted position [where the grid 4 and access opening 3 face side 5.2 of housing 6] where access to food is denied.); and
Wherein the movable barrier is moved between the access position and the restricted position in response to access signals (Pg. 4 states that control unit 19 is connected to the electronic circuit 13 of each dispenser 1 via antenna 14. Pg. 4 further states that electronic circuit 13 controls the operation of motor-reducer assembly 10, and that the motor assembly 10 produces the rotation of container 2 [which includes movable barrier 4]. Therefore, grid 4 is capable of being moved between the access and restricted position in response to the access signals of control unit 19.).
However, the system of Cañis fails to explicitly state that the server access control device comprises a server controller and the at least one client access control device comprises a client controller in signal communication with the server controller, wherein the server controller is configured to deliver the access signals according to an access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller by an operator, wherein the server controller comprises the access schedule, and wherein the client controller comprises a client access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller which is received from the server controller via the signal communication, and wherein the client controller is configured to deliver the access signals according to the client access schedule.
Nowak teaches a server control device comprising a server controller (200) and at least one client control device comprises a client controller (202) in signal communication with the server controller (¶77-78 state that the client controller 202 performs operations based on the time value received from the server controller 200. Therefore, the client controller is in signal communication with the server controller.), wherein the server controller is configured to deliver the access signals according to an access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller by an operator (Functional Recitation: ¶77 states that server controller 200 comprises a master timing module 302 that sends time value surrounding the initiation of capture, the pausation of capture, and the termination of capture to the client timing module 702 of client controllers 202. ¶65 further states that the user interface module 204 of server controller 200 may receive an indication from a user to capture content as well as a time value including a start time and an end time. Therefore, server controller 200 is capable of delivering access signals [that allow for the capture] according to an access schedule based on the data [time value] entered into the server controller 200 by an operator.), wherein the server controller (200) comprises the access schedule (¶65 states that the time value including a start time and end time is entered into user interface module 204 of server controller 200.), and wherein the client controller (202) comprises a client access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller which is received from the server controller via the signal communication (¶64 states that client controller 202 comprises a client timing module 702 configured to be synchronized with the master timing module 302 of server controller 200 based on the time value. ¶65 further states the user interface module 204 of server controller 200 may receive a time value including a start time and an end time. Therefore, client controller 202 comprises a client access schedule based on the data [time value] entered into the server controller 200 [via user interface module 204] which is received from the server controller 200 via the signal communication [between master timing module 302 and client timing module 702].), and wherein the client controller (202) is configured to deliver the access signals according to the client access schedule (¶65 states that client controllers 202 may be configured to deliver access signals [to start content capture] at the start time according to the client access schedule received from the user interface module 204 of server controller 200.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cañis to have the server access control device comprise a server controller and the at least one client access control device comprise a client controller in signal communication with the server controller, wherein the server controller is configured to deliver the access signals according to an access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller by an operator, wherein the server controller comprises the access schedule, and wherein the client controller comprises a client access schedule based on the data entered into the server controller which is received from the server controller via the signal communication, and wherein the client controller is configured to deliver the access signals according to the client access schedule as taught by Nowak with reasonable expectation of success to allow the user to efficiently control client devices via the server device.
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak also fails to explicitly state that the access schedule comprises times of the day when the movable barrier is to be moved.
Zinsmeyer teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an animal feeder with a sun-synchronized timer.), the system of Zinsmeyer teaches a controller (30) configured to deliver access signals according to an access schedule, wherein the access schedule comprises times of the day when a moveable barrier (5) is to be moved (Claim 1 states that controller 30 comprises a time settable system for setting the time of day and duration of time when moveable barrier 5 is to be rotated to dispense feed.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak to have the access schedule comprise times of the day when the movable barrier is to be moved as taught by Zinsmeyer with reasonable expectation of success to provide an access schedule that can be adjusted based on the sunrise and sunset times (Zinsmeyer, Column 1 Lines 45-50).
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak and Zinsmeyer teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the controller housing and the movable barrier are configured so that when assembled to each other the controller housing and the movable barrier sandwich the home cage lid therebetween. Masopust teaches an apparatus (shown in Fig. 2) wherein a controller housing (6; Fig. 2 shows that housing 6 is capable of housing a switch controller 12.) and a barrier (21) are configured so that when assembled to each other, the controller housing (6) and the barrier (21) sandwich a lid (8) therebetween (shown in Fig. 2; When controller housing 6 and barrier 21 are assembled to each other, the controller housing 6 and the barrier 21 sandwich a lid 8 therebetween.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the controller housing and the movable barrier of the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak and Zinsmeyer be configured so that when assembled to each other the controller housing and the movable barrier sandwich the home cage lid therebetween as taught by Masopust with reasonable expectation of success to better maximize space, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 17, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 16.
Cañis further teaches that each access control device further comprises a movable barrier housing (casing 6) inside which the movable barrier is disposed (Fig. 5 shows that grid 4 is disposed inside casing 6.), wherein the movable barrier is configured to rotate between the access position and the restricted position (Fig. 5 shows that container 2 [which includes grid 4] rotates between an access position [where the access opening 3 and grid 4 align with an opening in housing 6] and a restricted position [where the grid 4 and access opening 3 face side 5.2 of housing 6].).
Regarding Claim 18, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 16.
Cañis further teaches that the at least two access control devices (1) are in the respective home cages (22; Fig. 7 shows that each of the at least two control access devices 1 are provided in a home cage 22.) comprising the storage area (food storage area 2; Fig. 5 shows that the at least two control access devices 1 located in the home cages 22 comprise a food storage area 2.), the storage area is disposed inside the movable barrier (Fig. 5 shows that the food storage area of food container 2 is located inside movable barrier 4.), wherein in the access position a housing opening in the movable barrier housing and a movable barrier opening in the movable barrier align to provide the unrestricted access (Fig. 5 shows that in the access position, a housing opening 8 in the housing 6 and the access opening 3 in grid 4 align which provides unrestricted access to the food inside container 2.), and in the restricted position the housing opening and the movable barrier opening do not align (Pg. 4 states that in a restricted position, container 2 is rotated so that access opening 3 faces side 5.2 of housing 6. This means that housing opening 8 and movable barrier opening 3 do not align when in a restricted position.).
Regarding Claim 20, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 16.
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust further teaches (references to Nowak) that the server controller (200) comprises a wireless controller (¶74 states that server controller 200 comprises a communications module 206 configured for wireless transmission.) and the client controller (202) comprises a wireless controller (¶76 states that client controller 202 comprises a communication module 602 configured for wireless transmission.), and wherein the signal communication comprises wireless signal communication (¶76 states that server controller 200 and client controller are in communication via wireless signal.).
Regarding Claim 21, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Zinsmeyer further teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an animal feeder with a sun-synchronized timer.) a controller (30) configured to deliver access signals according to an access schedule, wherein the access schedule further comprises a calendar (Claim 1 states that controller 30 comprises a time settable system for setting the time of day and duration of time when moveable barrier 5 is to be rotated to dispense feed. Column 1 Lines 40-45 further states that controller 30 is programmed to have a daily calendar.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust to have the access schedule further comprise a calendar as taught by Zinsmeyer with reasonable expectation of success to provide an access schedule that can be adjusted based on the specific sunrise and sunset times of any given day (Zinsmeyer, Column 1 Lines 45-50).
Regarding Claim 22, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Cañis further teaches that the movable barrier housing (6) comprises the two hooks (See Annotated Fig. 6 below; Casing 6 comprises two bent pieces set apart from each other for holding casing 6. Therefore, these two bent pieces serve as hooks [Source: “Hook.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hook. Accessed 27 Mar. 2025.].), and wherein the two hooks are configured to suspend the entire movable barrier and the entire storage area below an underside of the respective home cage lid (shown in Fig. 6; Hooks suspend the moveable barrier 4 and the storage area 2 below the underside of the home cage lid.).
PNG
media_image1.png
426
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 6
Regarding Claim 27, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Masopust further teaches that the controller housing (6) and the barrier (21) are configured such that when assembled to each other a stack is formed in which the controller housing (6) is disposed above the lid (8), the barrier (21) is disposed below the lid (8), and the lid (8) is disposed in a gap between the controller housing and the barrier (See Fig. 2; Controller housing 6 is disposed above the lid 8, the barrier 21 is disposed below lid 8, and lid 8 is disposed in a gap between the controller housing 6 and the barrier 21. In total, the controller housing 6 and barrier 21 when assembled to each other form a stack.). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the controller housing and the movable barrier of the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust be configured such that when assembled to each other a stack is formed in which the controller housing is disposed above the home cage lid, the movable barrier is disposed below the home cage lid, and the home cage lid is disposed in a gap between the controller housing and the movable barrier as taught by Masopust with reasonable expectation of success to better maximize space, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cañis et al. (WO 2015189454 A1) as modified by Nowak (US 20160112649 A1), Zinsmeyer et al. (US 5926441 A), and Masopust (US 5199381 A) as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Murphy et al. (US 20120160176 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
Cañis further teaches that each access control device comprises a motor-reducer assembly (10) operatively connected to the movable barrier (Pg. 4 states that the motor assembly 10 produces the rotation of container 2 [which includes grid 4].) in signal communication with the controller (Pg. 4 states that control unit 19 is connected to the electronic circuit 13 of each dispenser 1 via antenna 14. Pg. 4 further states that electronic circuit 13 controls the operation of motor-reducer assembly 10.) and configured to move the movable barrier between the access position and the restricted position in response to the access signals (Because control unit 19 is connected to circuit 13 which controls the operation of the motor assembly 10 which rotates container 2 and grid 4, control unit 19 is capable of moving grid 4 between the access position and the restricted position in response to the access signals [as shown in Fig. 5].).
However, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust fails to explicitly state that the motor-reducing assembly is a servomotor or a stepper motor.
Murphy teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a treat dispensing system comprising a user controller.), the system of Murphy teaches a treat dispenser (10) comprising a stepper motor (18; ¶51 states that advancer 18 may be a stepper motor) configured to move a movable barrier between an access position and a restricted position in response to the access signals (¶51 states that stepper motor 18 moves treat advancer 15 between an access position [where treat storage area 17 aligns with divider aperture 14a] and a restricted position [where treat storage area 17 does not align with divider aperture 14a].). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust to have the motor-reducing assembly be a servomotor or a stepper motor as taught by Murphy with reasonable expectation of success because stepper motors offer precise positioning and repeatability of movement.
Regarding Claim 5, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, Masopust, and Murphy, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 4.
The system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, Masopust, and Murphy further teaches that the servomotor or the stepper motor rotates the movable barrier between the access position and the restricted position (Due to the modification by Murphy, the motor assembly 10 of Cañis would be substituted by a stepper motor. Stepper motor is capable of rotating container 2 [which includes grid 4] between the access and the restricted position.).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cañis et al. (WO 2015189454 A1) as modified by Nowak (US 20160112649 A1), Zinsmeyer et al. (US 5926441 A), and Masopust (US 5199381 A) as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Sahasrabudhe et al. (US 20220320892 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
However, the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust fails to explicitly state that the server controller comprises a battery backup configured to supply power to the server controller time clock during a loss of external power.
Sahasrabudhe teaches a controller (130) comprising a battery backup (back-up power supply 134) configured to supply power to a server controller time clock (clock 139) during a loss of external power (¶31 states that back-up power supply 134 provides power to clock 139 when there’s a loss of external power from battery 170/main power supply 132.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Cañis as modified by Nowak, Zinsmeyer, and Masopust to have the server controller comprise a battery backup configured to supply power to the server controller time clock during a loss of external power as taught by Sahasrabudhe with reasonable expectation of success to provide a constant, optimal, and on-going power provision to the controllers and their clocks.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 16 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sheaffer (US 5975024 A) and (US 5950567 A) teaches a dosage feeder for a cage.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights