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 .
Specification
The amendments to the specification dated December 12, 2025 are ok to enter.
Claim Interpretation - 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 1 and 3–9 recite a limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 recites:
1. Individually Ventilated Caging system (IVC system) for small animals comprising a Ventilation Unit comprising an initial supply chamber for taking external air inside the system for filtering and supplying to cages in IVC system and an exhaust chamber for exhausting used air collected from the cages in the IVC system; the supply chamber and the exhaust chamber are each provided with at least two filters for the incoming or outgoing air; wherein the IVC system comprises devices additional to the filters for disinfecting incoming air and/or disinfecting out-going air exhausted from the cages. Emphasis added.
The limitation—“devices additional to the filters for disinfecting incoming air and/or disinfecting out-going air exhausted from the cages”—invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because it recites the generic placeholder “devices” coupled with functional language “for disinfecting incoming air and/or disinfecting out-going air exhausted from the cages” without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts for performing the function.
Because the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), the structure, material or act for performing the function is the structure, material or act recited in the specification for performing the functions, and equivalents. The disclosure says that the devices additional to the filters for disinfecting incoming air and/or disinfecting out-going air comprises a UVC light, and/or one or more electrostatic air filters and/or an ionizer on supply and exhaust side. See Spec. p. 4, ll. 10–14. Therefore, the structure, material or act for performing the claimed function is a UVC light, and/or one or more electrostatic air filters and/or an ionizer on supply and exhaust side, and equivalents.
For dependent claim 2, the “devices additional to the filters for disinfecting incoming air and/or disinfecting out-going air” does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim recites structure for performing the functions.
For dependent claims 3–9, the “devices additional to the filters for disinfecting incoming air and/or disinfecting out-going air” limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because none of the claims recite structure for performing the functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
1. Individually Ventilated Caging system (IVC system) for small animals comprising a Ventilation Unit comprising an initial supply chamber for taking external air inside the system for filtering and supplying to cages in IVC system and an exhaust chamber for exhausting used air collected from the cages in the IVC system; the supply chamber and the exhaust chamber are each provided with at least two filters for the incoming or outgoing air; wherein the IVC system comprises devices additional to the filters for disinfecting incoming air and/or disinfecting out-going air exhausted from the cages. Emphasis added.
Claim 1 is indefinite because “small” is relative terminology that the disclosure fails to define and for which a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to ascertain the meaning of. See MPEP 2173.05(b). In other words, claim 1 is indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in art would not know what size qualifies an animal as being “small” because the disclosure fails to provide a definition of “small” and there is no standard measurement for “small animals” known in the art. This relative terminology creates confusion because it is unclear which animals are encompassed by “small animals.” A person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand if “small animals” includes only relatively small animals, such as mice and guinea pigs, or other larger animals, such as monkeys, which are “small” in comparison to other larger animals, such as elephants.
To overcome this rejection, claim 1 could be amended to read:
1. Individually Ventilated Caging system (IVC system) for
Claims 2–9 are indefinite because they depend from claim 1, and fail to provide a standard of what is meant by “small.” Note that claim 9 is indefinite even though it limits “small animals” to mice and guinea pigs. The claim is indefinite because mice and guinea pigs come in different sizes (e.g., baby mice are typically smaller than adult mice). Therefore, it is unclear how small the mice and guinea pigs must be to qualify as “small animals.”
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, 2, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semenuk, US 5,865,144 in view of Kleinberger et al., US 2019/0063763 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Semenuk teaches a caging system for laboratory animals, which reads on the claimed “Individually Ventilated Caging system.” See Semenuk col. 1, ll. 6–9. The caging system comprises an air supply 14 for purifying air that is recirculated through the cages 10 of the system. Id. at Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 14–26.
PNG
media_image1.png
1096
1444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Semenuk differs from claim 1 because it is silent as to the air supply 14 having all of the structural features of the claimed “Ventilation Unit.”
But Kleinberger teaches an air treatment device 100 for removing pathogens and contaminants from air recirculated in a confined space, such as a poultry farm. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0003], [0034]. The air treatment device 100 is beneficial because it has improved disinfecting performance compared to conventional air purification systems. Id. at [0009]. It would have been obvious to use the air treatment device 100 of Kleinberger as the air supply 14 in Semenuk to improve the air quality of the air circulated to the cages 10 in Semenuk.
PNG
media_image2.png
890
1448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With this modification, the air treatment device 100 of Kleinberger reads on the claimed “Ventilation Unit.” See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0034]. The air treatment device 100 comprises a post-UV chamber 134 for supplying filtered air. Id. at Fig. 1, [0035]. The post-UV chamber 134 reads on the “initial air supply chamber.” The air treatment device 100 also comprises a pre-treating chamber 133 for receiving used air. Id. The pre-treating chamber 133 reads on the “exhaust chamber.” The post-UV chamber 134 comprises two VOC-reducing filters 113. Id. at Figs. 1, 6, [0043]. The pre-treating chamber 133 comprises filters 115, 116. Id. Because the post-UV chamber 134 (the “initial air supply chamber”) and the pre-treating chamber 133 (the “exhaust chamber”) each comprise at least two filters (113, 115, 116), this reads on “each [of the supply chamber and the exhaust chamber are] provided with at least two filters for the incoming or outgoing air.”
Also, the air treatment device 100 comprises an ultraviolent lamp 109 in UV chamber 110 and an electrostatic filter (in series with the filter 115). See Kleinberger [0034], [0038]. The ultraviolent lamp 109 and the electrostatic filter read on the “devices additional to the filters for disinfecting incoming air and/or disinfecting out-going air exhausted from the cages.”
Regarding claim 2, Kleinberger teaches that the ultraviolent lamp 109 is a UVC light and that the electrostatic filter is an electrostatic air filter. See Kleinberger [0038], [0041].
Regarding claim 5, Kleinberger teaches that the air-treatment device 100 has an “upper half as a supply section,” which is the half of the air-treatment device 100 including UV chamber 110 and post-UV chamber 134. Id. The air-treatment device 100 also comprises a “lower half as exhaust section,” which is the half of the air-treatment device 100 including pre-treating chamber 133 and air-handling chamber 135. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0035].
The “supply section” comprises a UV-C lamp 109. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0041].
The “exhaust section” comprises an air mover 119, which reads on the “exhaust blower.” See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0035]. The “exhaust section” also comprises a HEPA filter 115 (the “exhaust side HEPA filter”) and an antimicrobial filter 116 (which is the “exhaust side pre-filter” because it is upstream of other components in the air treatment device 100). Id.
The air supply 14 of Semenuk (using the air treatment device 100 of Kleinberger) has at least two filtered air supply ports (connected to inlet ports 28) each connecting to separate rack units for holding a cage 10 in a supply distribution network. See Semenuk Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 14–34.
The air supply 14 of Semenuk also comprises at least one exhaust port (at the bottom of air supply 14, seen by the fluid arrows) for connecting to an exhaust distribution network of the rack 12 for holding the cages 10. See Semenuk Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 14–34. While Semenuk is silent as to the air supply 14 comprising multiple “air outlet ports,” it would have been obvious to provide an additional air outlet port with the air supply 14 in order to increase the amount of air that can be supplied to the air supply 14, while this would merely represent mere duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.04, subsection VI, B.
Note that the limitations describing that the “air supply ports” are labeled as “supply port no. 3 and 4” with the air outlet ports on the exhaust side labeled as “exhaust port no. 5 and no. 6” fail to further limit the scope of the claim because these limitations represent printed matter with there being no structural or functional relationship between the printed matter and the ports. See MPEP 2111.05.
Regarding claim 9, Semenuk teaches that the animal can be a rodent. See Semenuk col. 1, ll. 10–13. Note that the limitation “the small animals consist of mice and guinea pigs” fails to further limit the scope of the claim because the animals are not a positively recited structural element of the IVC system, as the system is “for small animals” (as opposed to the system comprising the animals). See MPEP 2115 (a claim is only limited by positively recited elements).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semenuk, US 5,865,144 in view of Kleinberger et al., US 2019/0063763 A1 in view of Worrilow, US 2012/0283508 A1 and in further view of Laguë et al., US 4,480,586.
Regarding claim 3, Kleinberger teaches that the air treatment device 100 (the “Ventilation Unit”) comprises an area downstream of air mover 119, which reads on the “supply section” and an area upstream of the air mover 119, which reads on the “exhaust section.” See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0035].
The area upstream of the air mover 119 (the “exhaust section”) comprises a HEPA filter because the particulate filter 115 in the “exhaust section” can comprise at least one HEPA filter. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0038].
The air treatment device 100 further comprises a UV-C light 109 to treated filtered air that is ultimately supplied through discharge end 123. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0041], [0044]. Also, Semenuk teaches that the air supply 14 (replaced with the air treatment device 100 of Kleinberger) comprises supply manifolds 18 (each having a “supply port”) to deliver filtered air to each cage 10 supplied on a rack 12. See Semenuk Figs. 1–2, col. 4, ll. 14–26. The rack 12 reads on the “Rack.” The supply manifolds 18 read on the “supply distribution network.” The hoses of the manifolds 18 reads on the “flexible or non-flexible pipe.” Id.
The caging system of Semenuk further comprises an “exhaust distribution network” of the rack 12 that connects the outlet port 50 to the manifold for collecting and returning dirty air to the air supply 14 (which is replaced with the air treatment device 100 of Kleinberger). See Semenuk Fig. 2, col. 5, ll. 17–36. The port at the bottom of the air supply 14 for receiving the dirty air, seen in Fig. 2, reads on the “exhaust port.” The “exhaust port” is interconnected with the “exhaust distribution network” through hosing, which reads on the “flexible or non flexible pipe.” Id. When air treatment device 100 of Kleinberger is used as the air supply 14 of Semenuk, the exhaust air brought back would be treated with the UV-C light 109 of Kleinberger and would be filtered through the HEPA filter 115. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0038], [0041].
Also, the air treatment device 100 of Kleinberger comprises a control panel for displaying different operational parameters. See Kleinberger [0037]. The control panel reads on the “Control Panel with display.”
Semenuk in view of Kleinberger differs from claim 3 because Kleinberger is silent as to the space downstream of the air mover 119 (the “supply section”) comprising a HEPA or ULPA filter.
But Worrilow teaches an air purification device comprising a final particulate filtration section 52 that traps substantially all remaining particulate matter in the air before it exits the air purification device through an outlet 8. See Worrilow Fig. 4, [0035]. The final particulate filtration section 52 comprises HEPA or ULPA filters 54, 56. Id. at Fig. 4, [0035]–[0036]. The HEPA or ULPA filters 54, 56 are beneficial because they ensure that substantially all remaining particulate matter is captured before the air exits the air purification device. Id. It would have been obvious for the section of the air purification device 100 of Kleinberger to comprise the HEPA or ULPA filters 54, 56 of Worrilow to ensure that substantially all particulate matter is captured before the air is expelled from the air purification device.
Semenuk in view of Kleinberger and Worrilow also differs from claim 3 because it is silent as to air being returned to the external environment through an outlet port of the air supply 14 of Semenuk (replaced with the air-treatment device 100 of Kleinberger) after the air is treated with the UV-C light and filtered through the HEPA filters.
But Laguë teaches an enclosure 1 containing trays 21 used to hold chickens, with a ventilation system used to circulate air through the enclosure. See Laguë Fig. 1, 10–38, col. 5, ll. 19–33. The ventilation system comprises a duct 49 that holds filters 43, 45. Id. at Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 58–66. The duct 49 also comprises a control door 47 for venting a portion of filtered air to the external environment after the air has passed through the filters 43, 45. Id. The control door 47 is beneficial because it ensures that a constant negative pressure is maintained inside the enclosure, which prevents contaminants from escaping from the enclosure when it is accessed by a worker. Id.
PNG
media_image3.png
768
629
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the air supply 14 of Semenuk (replaced with the air-treatment device 100 of Kleinberger) to comprise the control door 47 of Laguë (downstream of the filtration and UV mechanisms) to maintain a negative pressure inside the caging system. With this modification, the opening of the control door 47 would read on the “outlet port.”
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semenuk, US 5,865,144 in view of Kleinberger et al., US 2019/0063763 A1 in view of Worrilow, US 2012/0283508 A1 in view of Laguë et al., US 4,480,586 and in further view of Coiro et al., US 2007/0256643 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Semenuk teaches that the caging system comprises a rack 12 for holding the cages 10. See Semenuk Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 14–17. The rack 12 reads on the claimed “one or more Racks.” Each cage 10 would be supplied with UV-C light when the air treatment device 100 of Kleinberger is used as the air supply 14 of Semenuk because the air supply 14 provides air to all of the cages 10. Id. at col. 4, ll. 18–26. The cages 10 are supplied with filtered air through “additional supply ports” which are ports other than the two supply ports seen in Fig. 2.
Semenuk as modified differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the control panel being configured to display parameters selected from the group consisting of air changes per hour, positive or negative pressure modes, number of cages, temperature, relative humidity, ammonia and other environmental parameters.
But Coiro teaches a cage environment comprising a monitoring and control system with an interface that displays data including temperature and humidity levels. See Coiro [0027]. The monitoring and control system is beneficial because the information displayed allows a user to make decisions based on the data. Id. It would have been obvious for the caging system of Semenuk to include the monitoring and control system of Coiro in order to display information such as temperature and humidity levels within the caging system to provide this information to a user.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semenuk, US 5,865,144 in view of Kleinberger et al., US 2019/0063763 A1 in view of Jeong et al., US 2020/0061231 A1 and in further view of Laguë et al., US 4,480,586.
Regarding claim 6, Semenuk in view of Kleinberger teaches that the air supply 14 of Semenuk (using the air-treatment device 100 of Kleinberger) comprises an “air inlet” (at the bottom of the air supply 14) for taking external air for filtration and circulation. See Semenuk Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 18–34.
The air treatment device 100 of Kleinberger comprises an air mover 119 (the “supply blower”) that takes air from the external environment through the “air inlet” for filtration. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0035]. The air is passed through UV-chamber 110 for treatment with a UV-C light 109 and is then supplied to the cages 10 of Semenuk. Id. at Fig. 1, [0041].
Kleinberger is interpreted such that the UV-chamber 110 and the post-UV chamber 134 collectively read on the “initial supply chamber.” See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0035]. The UV-C light 109 reads on the “UV-C light.” Id. at [0041]. The UV-C light 109 would be above the filters 115, 116 when oriented in the same way as the air supply 14 of Semenuk. Id. at Fig. 1, [0035].
The air supply 14 of Semenuk comprises at least two air supply ports on a supply side (connected to inlet ports 28) for connecting with a rack 12 holding the cages 10. See Semenuk Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 27–34. This reads on “the Ventilator unit comprises an air supply port on supply side as supply port nos. 3 and 4 for connecting with the Rack that holds the IVC Cages.”
In the pre-treating chamber 133 of Kleinberger (the “exhaust chamber”), air is passed through particulate filter 115 which comprises multiple same or different type filters in series, including a HEPA filter. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0038]. Therefore, one of the filters in series reads on the “supply Pre-filter” and the HEPA filter reads on the “supply side HEPA.”
The filtered air then passes through the duct of the air mover 119 (the “supply blower”) and through the air mover and ultimately into the exit area of the air purification device 100 (the “final supply chamber”). See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0038].
The filtered air would then pass through the “supply ports” of Semenuk to a manifold 18 (the “supply distribution network”) of the rack 12 and eventually into the cages 10. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, col. 4, ll. 14–34.
Semenuk in view of Kleinberger differs from claim 6 because it is silent as to the pre-treating chamber 133 of Kleinberger (the “exhaust chamber”) comprising one or more UV-C lights. But the pre-treating chamber 133 comprises a HEPA filter as part of the particulate filter 115. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0038]. With this in mind, Jeong teaches an air purifier comprising a HEPA filter 130 that is irradiated with a UVC light source 150 to sterilize the HEPA filter. See Jeong Fig. 1, [0075]–[0076]. It would have been obvious to provide the UVC light source 150 of Jeong in the pre-treating chamber 133 of Kleinberger in order to sterilize the HEPA filter.
PNG
media_image4.png
616
589
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Semenuk as modified also differs from claim 6 because it is silent as to the air supply 14 of Semenuk (using the air purification device 100 of Kleinberger) comprising an outlet port for releasing air to the external environment. But Laguë teaches an enclosure 1 containing trays 21 used to hold chickens, with a ventilation system used to circulate air through the enclosure. See Laguë Fig. 1, 10–38, col. 5, ll. 19–33. The ventilation system comprises a duct 49 that holds filters 43, 45. Id. at Fig. 1, col. 5, ll. 58–66. The duct 49 also comprises a control door 47 for venting a portion of filtered air to the external environment after the air has passed through the filters 43, 45. Id. The control door 47 is beneficial because it ensures that a constant negative pressure is maintained inside the enclosure, which prevents contaminants from escaping from the enclosure when it is accessed by a worker. Id.
PNG
media_image3.png
768
629
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the air supply 14 of Semenuk (replaced with the air-treatment device 100 of Kleinberger) to comprise the control door 47 of Laguë (downstream of the filtration and UV mechanisms) to maintain a negative pressure inside the caging system. With this modification, the opening of the control door 47 would read on the “outlet port.”
With these modifications, air from the cages 10 in Semenuk would be exhausted, and introduced into the pre-treating chamber 133 of Kleinberger, would be filtered and treated with the UV-C light that irradiates the HEPA filter and the a portion of the treated air would be released to external environment through the control door 47.
Regarding claim 7, Kleinberger teaches that the wattage of the UV-C light 109 is selected to provide disinfection of the volume of air that is drawn through the UV chamber 110, because the UV light energy is for killing pathogens. See Kleinberger [0041]. Also, Jeong teaches that the wattage of the UVC light source 150 is selected to provide disinfection in the chamber holding the HEPA filter of Kleinberger, because the UVC light source 150 is provided for sterilizing the HEPA filter. See Jeong [0076].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Semenuk, US 5,865,144 in view of Kleinberger et al., US 2019/0063763 A1 in view of Lin, US 2012/0312245 A1 and in further view of Jeong et al., US 2020/0061231 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Semenuk as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as explained above.
Semenuk as modified differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to each cage 10 having an air supply valve or an air exhaust valve situated either on a cage bottom or a cage lid, with the lid and bottom connected together to form an airtight connection.
But Lin teaches a breeding cage for an experimental animal comprising a box body 2 (a “cage bottom”) and a cover body 3 (a “cage lid”), where the cover body 3 comprises an air intake valve 7 and an air vent valve 8. See Lin Fig. 1, [0020]. The breeding cage of Lin is beneficial because it is able to exactly achieve an effect of circulating air within the container. Id. at [0032].
PNG
media_image5.png
961
1005
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to use the breeding cage of Lin as the cages 10 in Semenuk in order to exactly achieve an effect of circulating air within the container, while this would also merely represent the simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
With this modification, air would pass through the manifold 18 of Semenuk (the “supply distribution network”) to the air intake valve 7 in the breeding cage of Lin. See Semenuk Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 14–34.
Filtered and UV-C light treated air (from the air-treatment device 100 of Kleinberger) would reach the inside of the cage 10 providing ventilation for the animal within the cage 10. See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0035], [0041].
Air inside the cage 10 would then be exhausted through the air vent valve 8 of Lin using the exhaust manifold 18 of Semenuk (the “exhaust distribution network”) to the exhaust opening at the bottom of the air supply 14 of Semenuk (the exhaust opening reads on the “exhaust port”), as seen by the fluid arrows in Fig. 2 of Semenuk. This movement would be due to suction created by the air mover 119 of the air treatment device 100 Kleinberger (the “exhaust blower”) because the air treatment device 100 would be used as the air supply 14 of Semenuk.
The exhaust air would first reach the pre-treating chamber 133 of Kleinberger (collectively the “exhaust chamber” at least for the interpretation of claim 8). See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0035]. While Kleinberger is silent as to the pre-treating chamber 133 being fitted with a UVC light, the pre-treating chamber 133 has a HEPA filter. Id. at [0038]. With this in mind, Jeong teaches an air purifier comprising a HEPA filter 130 that is irradiated with a UVC light source 150 to sterilize the HEPA filter. See Jeong Fig. 1, [0075]–[0076]. It would have been obvious to provide the UVC light source 150 of Jeong in the pre-treating chamber 133 of Kleinberger in order to sterilize the HEPA filter of particulate filter 115. As such, with this modification, the pre-treating chamber 133 of Kleinberger (the “exhaust chamber”) would be fitted with the UVC light source 150 of Jeong, a “pre-filter” (one of the filters of particulate filter 115 provided in series) and an “exhaust side HEPA” (one of the HEPA filters of particulate filter 115). See Kleinberger at Fig. 1, [0038], [0041].
The air would then pass through a duct of air mover 119 that feeds into a fan of the air mover 119 and to an outlet port of the air supply 14 of Semenuk (using the air-purification device 100 of Kleinberger). See Kleinberger Fig. 1, [0034]–[0035]; Semenuk Fig. 2, col. 4, ll. 14–34. The outlet port of the air supply 14 Semenuk (connected to inlet port 28 of the rack 12 of Semenuk) reads on the “exhaust port.” The air would eventually be released to the external environment, for instance when the lid of the cage 10 is opened.
Response to Arguments
Specification
The Examiner withdraws the previous objection to the specification.
Claim Objections
The Examiner withdraws the objections to claims 3, 5 and 8 in light of the amendments.
35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation
The Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation for the reasons stated above.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejections
The amendments to claims 3, 5–8 are sufficient to overcome the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of these claims.
The Examiner maintains that claims 1–9 are indefinite for the reasons stated above. With respect to these rejections, the Applicant argues that the limitation “small animals” in claim 1 does not render the claim indefinite, asserting that “small animals” is not relative but a very specific and defined term in the art, based on extrinsic evidence submitted by the Applicant. See Applicant Rem. filed December 12, 2025 (“Applicant Rem.”) 17. Specifically, the Applicant argues that “small animals” means rodents. Id. at 18–19.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “small animals” is indefinite because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not understand how small the animals must be to be considered “small.” The Examiner acknowledges that animals are conventionally used to test new drugs and treatments. But these animals vary in size, and include relatively small animals such as mice and guinea pigs, to relatively larger animals such as dogs and moneys, which are small in comparison to larger animals, such as elephants. Also, relatively small animals, such as mice, come in various sizes, with adult mice typically being larger than baby mice. Because the disclosure fails to provide a standard for measuring how small the animals must be to be considered “small,” with the state of the art failing to recognize a standard (as animals of various sizes are used in research), a person of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the size the animals must be to read on the “small animals” described in claim 1.
The extrinsic evidence presented by the Applicant fails to demonstrate that the term “small animals” has a precise definition in the art to mean “rodents.” Therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection. For instance, the NIH article cited on p. 18 of the Remarks describes small animals as being “predominantly rodents,” instead of “small animals” being understood in the art as being limited to rodents.
The Examiner notes that this is a relatively simple indefiniteness issue for the Applicant to overcome. The Examiner strongly encourages the Applicant to adopt the proposed amendment suggested by the Examiner to advance prosecution.
35 U.S.C. 103 Rejections
The Applicant fails to explain why the claims are non-obvious over the particular prior art references cited in the rejection. Therefore, the Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776