DETAILED ACTION
This final office action is in response to amendments filed on 10/1/25.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-5, 7, 9-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tindal et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2022/0117191 [Tindal]1, in view of Betts-Lacroix et al., US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0042692 [Betts-Lacroix].
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 14, Tindal discloses a system to remotely monitor and control vivarium devices comprising:
one or a plurality of monitored devices [a collection device or micro-environment monitor monitors an animal cage using a sensor array, paragraphs 0037 and 0060];
the monitored devices communicate data to database to form collected data [sensor array data is sent from the micro-environment monitor to a computing environment data store that collects the sensor array data, paragraphs 0037, 0042, 0046 and 0060-0061]; and
a web application interface accesses the collected data from the database [an analysis service, a notification service, a reporting service and other applications access the data in the data store, paragraphs 0042-0043];
wherein accessed collected data is used to aid in continuously monitoring or maintaining a consistent environment within a vivarium [reports and notifications on cage and animal conditions based on the collected sensor array data are provided to client devices, paragraphs 0042, 0044, 0049 and 0073-0074].
Tindal does not disclose that the sensor array data communicated from the micro-environment monitor to the data store is real time data. Like Tindal, Betts-Lacroix discloses a vivarium in which data from monitored devices is communicated to remote computer systems for recordation and analysis. Specifically, Betts-Lacroix discloses communicating vivarium sensor data in real time to a remote computing device to allow for continuous real time analysis to be performed on the data [paragraphs 0007, 0008 and 0062-0066]. Since the vivarium sensor data is provided in real time, one of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the communications would take place using push communications from the vivarium to the remote computing device. Since it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to communicate real time sensor data from vivarium devices to remote computing devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the Betts-Lacroix teachings to the Tindal system by including functionality for pushing real time vivarium sensor array data from the micro-environment monitor to the computing environment data store in order to allow for vivarium data monitoring in which abnormalities or hazards may be detected and mitigated with less delay.
Regarding claim 2, Tindal further discloses that the monitored devices are connected to a network with a wireless interface [wireless networks, paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 3, Tindal further discloses that the wireless interface is a bidirectional wireless interface selected from Bluetooth, infrared radiation (IR) wireless, RF wireless links, cellular links, PCS links, and wireless TCP/IP interfaces [the Internet, intranets, extranets, wide area networks (WANs), local area networks (LANs), wired networks, wireless networks, near-field communication (NFC), or other suitable networks, etc., or any combination of two or more such networks, such as satellite networks, cable networks, Ethernet networks, and other types of networks, paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 4, Tindal further discloses that the monitored devices are connected to a network with an ethernet interface [Ethernet networks, paragraph 0040].
Regarding claim 7, Tindal further discloses that the data is one or more of temperature, humidity, blower speed, pressure, light color or intensity, and air quality [temperature, humidity, motion detection, and light intensity, paragraph 0046].
Regarding claims 9, 11, 18 and 19, Tindal discloses that the web application interface may be a computer web browser executing on a client computing device [a client browser application executing on a client device, such as a smartphone, is used to access collected data from the computing environment that includes the database, paragraph 0049]. Tindal and Betts-Lacroix do not disclose that a website accesses data in the data store and provides the data from the data store to the computer web browser. Examiner takes official notice that websites were conventionally used in networked computer systems to access stored data and communicate the data to client devices using computer web browsers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a conventional computer website to access the stored data and provide it to the client web browser in Tindal and Betts-Lacroix.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, Tindal further discloses triggering a centralized alarm or an alert at a website accessing the collected data which is received at the database [variations in environmental data from expected values may be reported to users to allow mitigation, paragraphs 0071-0073].
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Tindal further discloses that statistics and reports are automatically generated by the website using the collected data [generate and render user interfaces and reports to clients, paragraphs 0042-0044 and 0073].
Regarding claim 13, Tindal further discloses that the plurality of monitored devices are organized in groups [identify one or more cages that are in use, paragraph 0072].
Regarding claim 20, Tindal further discloses that the monitored devices are connected to a network with a wireless interface [wireless networks, paragraph 0040] and the monitored devices are organized in groups [identify one or more cages that are in use, paragraph 0072].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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
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 PAUL B YANCHUS III whose telephone number is (571)272-3678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Thomas Lee can be reached at (571) 272-3667. 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.
/PAUL B YANCHUS III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115 January 9, 2026
1 Tindal was cited in the 10/10/24 IDS.