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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because:
Individual elements of the apparatus are not legible or visible within fig. 1, 4, 6A-12H, & 16C; new drawing should be presented as line drawings and have clear reference characters to support the description.
Fig. 13A, 14A-15C, & 16B, are not legible as presented.
Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the elongated slot, implanted sleep transmitters, a plurality of controllably movable arms within a single enclosure of a plurality, and the seated and non-seated positions of the guide rail must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-27 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.
Claims 1 & 13 recite the limitation "the top of the enclosure cage" in line 3 of the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-12 & 14-20 fail to remedy such deficiency
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the floor cage" in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-12 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the motor" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the sleep deprivation protocol" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the arm" in lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cage floor" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the controlled sweep duration and controlled pauses" in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 fails to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the maximum speed" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8, 18, & 24 each recite the limitation "the maximum speed at which the bar sweeps the entire cage is within 3 seconds" however, 3 seconds is not a measurement of speed. Which renders the claim indefinite because, it is not made apparent what is the maximum speed being encompassed by the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the bar" in line 1 of the claim There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the entire cage" in the 2nd line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the controlled pauses" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10, 19, & 25 recite term “standardized” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite. The term “standardized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, the cage and subsequently the claim have been rendered indefinite.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the width" in line 8 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 14-20 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the floor cage" in lines 8-9 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 14-20 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "projection into its respective cage through its elongated," in lines 4-5. Which renders the claim indefinite because, “its elongated” is not a complete statement in the context of the claim leading to a question of which element is being reference. This situation appears to be a typographical error and the limitation will be interpreted as projection into its respective cage through its elongated slot.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the top of the cage" in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 22-27 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the width" in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 22-27 fail to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the floor cage" in line 14 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 22-27 fail to remedy such deficiency.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 6, 7, & 9 as currently present respectively depend upon themselves, as such the preamble reciting dependency fails to further limit the claim. Claim 8 fails to remedy such deficiency.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1-5, 12-13, & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al., the Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 109699506 A; herein Zhou in view of Geraschenko, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0255586 A1; herein Ger.
Re claim 1, as best understood, Zhou discloses a methodology for inducing sleep loss in animal test subjects, comprising:
providing an animal enclosure cage (3; the standard feeding cage, fig. 1 & 2-4) with a lid (fig. 3 & para 15, the top of the cage) and an elongated slot along a side of the enclosure cage (para 26, “a side of the standard feeding cage 3 near the guide rail 1 is provided with a long slot”);
mounting a controllably movable arm (2; the sleep stripping device, fig. 1 & 2-4) adjacent to the cage (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11, 15-16, & 26, the metal sleep stripping rod is controlled by the motor and guide rail assembly which is located adjacent the side of the cage that is facing the guide rod);
positioning the movable arm for projection into the cage through the elongated slot so that at least a portion of the arm is movable adjacent to a floor of the cage (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11 & 15-16, the rod projects through the long slot to allow it to be driven along the bottom of the cage); and
controllably moving the movable arm along the cage floor so that an animal test subject in the cage is periodically moved to deprive sleep of the animal test subject (para 11, 14-16, & 26, the rod is driven along the bottom of the cage at a set motion parameter to realize sleep deprivation of the animal).
Zhou fails to disclose the lid being removable and forming an elongated slot along a top of the enclosure cage. However, Ger discloses an animal enclosure cage (14; the animal cage, fig. 1-5 & 7-10) with a removable lid (10; the support member, fig. 1-5 & 7-10 & para 29, wherein the attachment means are bolts, as shown in fig. 1-2, thus allowing the support to be removed when necessary) forming a slot (12; the opening, fig. 1 & 7-8) along a top of the enclosure cage (fig. 1 & 7-8);
mounting a movable arm (20; the arm, fig. 1-5 & 7-10) adjacent to the cage (fig. 1-5 & 7-10 and para 29, 31, & 34-36, the arm is located adjacent the cage and rotates therein); and
positioning the movable arm for projection into the cage through the slot so that at least a portion of the arm is movable adjacent to a floor of the cage (fig. 3-5 & 7-10, the arm projects through the support member via the opening that receives the rotating member of the arm).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the lid being removable and forming an elongated slot along a top of the enclosure cage however, Ger discloses a removable lid with a general slot for allowing a portion of a moving arm to operate therethrough. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the removable lid and L/U/etc.-shaped interface for interacting with an animal extending therethrough as taught by Ger to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by further enclosing the animal and preventing burrowing through the long slot. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 2, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 1, Zhou as modified by Ger further discloses wherein the movable arm comprises an L-shaped arm (Ger; fig. 1-3) having at least a portion thereof which is positioned to extend along a width of the cage floor (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11 & 15-16, the rod projects through the long slot to allow it to be driven along the entire bottom of the cage in order to disturb the mouse).
Re claim 3, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 1, Zhou further discloses wherein the movable arm is mounted on a guide rail (1; the guide rail, fig. 1 & 2-4) adjacent to the cage (fig. 1 & 2-4), and a controllable motor is attached to the arm for controllably driving the arm relative to the guide rail (para 11, 15-16, & 26, the motor is in connection with the stripping rods and controlled by the industrial control device according to a set motion parameter).
Re claim 4, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 3, Zhou further discloses programmably controlling the motor according to a sleep deprivation protocol to which an animal test subject in the cage is subjected (para 11, 14-16, & 26, the industrial control device allows a parameter or mode to be set/programmed and adjusted according to experimental depravation needs of the animal).
Re claim 5, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 4, Zhou further discloses wherein the animal test subject has food and water available in the cage (fig. 2-4, via the food and water supported by the feeding cage).
The combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the sleep deprivation protocol is no longer than six hours and the animal test subject has food and water that is explicitly available at all times in the cage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to limit the experimental period in order to prevent lasting effects and to continuously feed and nourish the animal being experimented on in order to reduce other factors of fatigue, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 12, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 4, Zhou as modified by Ger further discloses providing a plurality of respective animal enclosure cages (fig. 1 & 2-4) each with removable lids (see the rejection of claim 1) with elongated slots (para 26, the long slot of each respective cage) along the tops of the respective enclosure cages (see the rejection of claim 1), and each with controllably movable arms positioned for projection into its respective cage through its elongated slot (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11 & 15-16, the rod projects through the long slot to allow it to be driven along the bottom of the cage); and controllably moving in synchronization all of the movable arms along their respective cage floors so that an animal test subject in each respective cage is periodically moved to deprive sleep of the animal test subject (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 10 & 14-17, the sets of simulations modeling of the sleep deprivation within each of the cages), so that a corresponding plurality of animal test subjects in the respective plurality of cages may each be simultaneously subjected to the same sleep deprivation protocol (para 10 & 14-17, the animal being experimented on within the respective cage and the cycle and frequency of each arm is the same in each group).
Re claim 13, as best understood, Zhou discloses a system for inducing sleep loss in animal test subjects, comprising:
a lid (fig. 3 & para 15, the top of the cage) configured to fit on a preexisting animal enclosure cage (3; the standard feeding cage, fig. 1 & 2-4), with an elongated slot formed along the side of the enclosure cage (para 26, “a side of the standard feeding cage 3 near the guide rail 1 is provided with a long slot”);
a guide rail (1; the guide rail, fig. 1 & 2-4) situated adjacent to the cage (fig. 1 & 2-4);
a movable arm (2; the sleep stripping device, fig. 1 & 2-4) received on the guide rail for movement there along (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 15-16 & 26, the stripping device/rod is fixed to the guide rail thus allowing a motor to drive the rod to reciprocate along the bottom of the cage); and
a controllable motor for controllably driving the arm relative to the guide rail (para 11, 15-16, & 26, the motor is in connection with the stripping rods and controlled by the industrial control device according to a set motion parameter);
the movable arm having at least a portion thereof which is positioned to extend through the elongated slot and along the width of the cage floor while the arm is received on the guide rail (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11 & 15-16, the rod projects from the guide rail through the long slot thus allowing it to be driven along the entire bottom of the cage in order to disturb the mouse), so that controllably moving the arm through operation of the controllable motor moves the movable arm along the cage floor so that an animal test subject in the cage is periodically moved to deprive sleep of the animal test subject (para 11, 14-16, & 26, the rod is driven along the bottom of the cage at a set motion parameter to realize sleep deprivation of the animal).
Zhou fails to disclose the lid being removable and forming an elongated slot along a top of the enclosure cage and the moveable arm being L-shaped. However, Ger discloses a removable lid (10; the support member, fig. 1-5 & 7-10 & para 29, wherein the attachment means are bolts, as shown in fig. 1-2, thus allowing the support to be removed when necessary) configured to fit on a preexisting animal enclosure cage (14; the animal cage, fig. 1-5 & 7-10), with a slot (12; the opening, fig. 1 & 7-8) along a top of the enclosure cage (fig. 1 & 7-8);
a movable arm (20; the arm, fig. 1-5 & 7-10);
wherein the movable arm is an L-shaped arm (fig. 1-3) having at least a portion thereof which is positioned to extend through the slot and along the width of the cage floor (fig. 3-5 & 7-10, the arm projects through the support member via the opening that receives the rotating member of the arm).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the lid being removable and forming an elongated slot along a top of the enclosure cage and the moveable arm being L-shaped however, Ger discloses similar features. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the removable lid and L-shaped interface for interacting with an animal extending therethrough as taught by Ger to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by further enclosing the animal and preventing burrowing through the long slot. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 21, as best understood, Zhou discloses an automated system for inducing sleep loss in rodent test subjects according to a programmed sleep deprivation protocol, comprising:
a rodent enclosure cage (3; the standard feeding cage, fig. 1 & 2-4);
a lid (fig. 3 & para 15, the top of the cage) configured to fit on the cage (again see fig. 3 & para 15), with an elongated slot formed along a side of the cage (para 26, “a side of the standard feeding cage 3 near the guide rail 1 is provided with a long slot”);
a guide rail (1; the guide rail, fig. 1 & 2-4) supported adjacent to the cage (fig. 1 & 2-4);
a movable sweep arm (2; the sleep stripping device, fig. 1 & 2-4) received on the guide rail for movement back and forth along the rail (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 15-16 & 26, the stripping device/rod is fixed to the guide rail thus allowing a motor to drive the rod to reciprocate along the bottom of the cage);
a controllable motor for controllably driving the sweep arm relative to the guide rail (para 11, 15-16, & 26, the motor is in connection with the stripping rods and controlled by the industrial control device according to a set motion parameter); and
a programmable motor controller for controlling operation of the motor according to a programmed sleep deprivation protocol (para 11, 14-16, & 26, the industrial control device allows a parameter or mode to be set/programmed and adjusted according to experimental depravation needs of the animal);
wherein the sweep arm has a base portion positioned to extend through the elongated slot and along a width of the cage floor while the arm is received on the guide rail (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11 & 15-16, the section that extends through the slot and within the cage), so that controllably moving the arm through operation of the controllable motor moves the movable arm along the cage floor so that a rodent test subject in the cage is periodically moved to deprive sleep of the rodent test subject according to the programmed sleep deprivation protocol (para 11, 14-16, & 26, the rod is driven along the bottom of the cage at a set motion parameter to realize sleep deprivation of the animal).
Zhou fails to disclose the lid being removable, with an elongated slot formed along the top of the cage, wherein the sweep arm is L-shaped. However, Ger discloses a rodent enclosure cage (14; the animal cage, fig. 1-5 & 7-10);
a removable lid configured to fit on the cage (10; the support member, fig. 1-5 & 7-10 & para 29, wherein the attachment means are bolts, as shown in fig. 1-2, thus allowing the support to be removed when necessary), with a slot (12; the opening, fig. 1 & 7-8) formed along the top of the cage (fig. 1 & 7-8);
a movable sweep arm (20; the arm, fig. 1-5 & 7-10), wherein the sweep arm is L-shaped (fig. 1-3) with a base portion thereof positioned to extend through the slot and along a width of the cage floor (fig. 3-5 & 7-10, the portion of the arm that projects through the support member via the opening that receives the rotating member of the arm).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the lid being removable, with an elongated slot formed along the top of the cage, wherein the sweep arm is L-shaped however, Ger discloses such features. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the removable lid and L-shaped interface for interacting with an animal extending therethrough as taught by Ger to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by further enclosing the animal and preventing burrowing through the long slot. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claims 6-9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Ger as applied to claim 4 above, in further view of Harkness et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,603,462 B2; herein Hark and He et al., the Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 113546272 A; herein He.
Re claim 6, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 4, Zhou further discloses wherein the motor is programmed according to the sleep deprivation protocol (para 11, 14-16, & 26, the industrial control device allows a parameter or mode to be set/programmed and adjusted according to experimental depravation needs of the animal) to sweep a portion of the arm along the cage floor (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11 & 15-16, the rod projects from the guide rail through the long slot thus allowing it to be driven along the entire bottom of the cage in order to disturb the mouse) over a controlled sweep duration (para 14, via the cycle and frequency adjustments) and with a controlled pause between sweeps (para 16, when the rod is driven intermittently at the selected frequency).
The combination of Zhou and Ger fails to disclose wherein the motor comprises a DC servo motor. However, Hark discloses a sleep loss methodology wherein a motor comprises a DC motor (col 7-8; 65-7, the agitator’s trolley is powered by a DC motor).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the motor comprises a DC servo motor however, Hark discloses a DC powered motor. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of utilizing a DC powered motor to promote sleep loss in small animals taught by Hark to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by supplying power to the motor without exerting such a force to cause harm. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, and Hark fails to disclose wherein the motor comprises a servo motor. However, He discloses a sleep loss methodology wherein the motor comprises a servo motor (para 20-21, 24, 31, 72-73, 76, & 81, the sleep jammer is driven by a servo motor to disrupt sleep of an animal).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the motor comprises a servo motor however, He discloses such a motor. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor of the sleep disruption device by utilizing a simple substitution of the known generic motor taught by the prior art for the servo motor from He in order to obtain the predictable result of a sleep interference rod that is drivable along the bottom of the enclosure. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Re claim 7, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, and He discloses the invention of claim 6, Zhou further discloses further discloses wherein the controlled sweep duration and controlled pauses are variable in time (para 14, via the cycle and frequency adjustments).
Additionally, He discloses controlled sweep duration and controlled pauses that are variable in time (para 20-21 & 24, wherein the rotation speed, speed control, and operating time are all adjustable variables).
Re claim 8, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, and He discloses the invention of claim 7, the combination discloses a variable/adjustable speed at which the bar sweeps the entire cage (Zhou; para 14, via the cycle adjustments).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, and He discloses the claimed invention except for wherein a maximum speed at which the bar sweeps the entire cage has a duration of 3 seconds however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to set a frequency no greater than 0.33 Hz or a duration of 3 seconds so as to not crush the features of the small animal between the bottom wall and the sleep stripping rod, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Re claim 9, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, and He discloses the invention of claim 8, Zhou further discloses wherein the controlled pauses are set to vary in time (para 14, via the cycle adjustments).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, and He discloses the claimed invention except for the time being expicitly variable between 0 seconds and 5 minutes however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the controlled pauses be variable between 0 seconds and 5 minutes in order to intermittently disturb the small animal since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Ger as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Hark.
Re claim 10, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 1, Zhou further discloses wherein: the cage comprises a transparent standardized cage (para 13, 15, & 28, the standard cages are primarily transparent) for observing test rats or test mice (para 11 & 14, the experimental equipment is intended for testing and observation of mice or rats).
Zhou as modified by Ger fails to disclose the methodology further includes receiving and recording EEG/EMG telemetrically in test animals that have been implanted with sleep transmitters. However, Hark discloses receiving and recording EEG/EMG telemetrically in test animals that have been implanted with sleep transmitters (col 5; 57-67, col 10; 14-41 & 42-67, wherein the implants read EEG and EMG data of the rodents under observation).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the methodology further includes receiving and recording EEG/EMG telemetrically in test animals that have been implanted with sleep transmitters however, Hark discloses such technology. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the implants and collection of EEG and EMG data taught by Hark to the method of the prior art to yield the predictable result of the collection of pertinent experimental data. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 11, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination of Zhou and Ger fails to disclose a user that explicitly controllably starting, stopping, and selectively interrupting the sleep deprivation protocol by controlling the motor operation. However, Hark discloses a user controllably starting (col 9; 16-21, the commencement of the agitator by the user), stopping (col 9; 23-24, the movement is stopped by the user), and selectively interrupting the sleep deprivation protocol by controlling the motor operation (col 9; 16-24, the operation is executed and stopped at the will of the user with an appropriate button).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a user that explicitly controllably starting, stopping, and selectively interrupting the sleep deprivation protocol by controlling the motor operation however, Hark discloses such an interface, programing, and operation thereof. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the interface programing taught by Hark to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the experimenter an interface to control the operation of the equipment. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Ger as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Hark, He, and Krinitsky et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0185976 A1; herein Krin.
Re claim 14, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 13, Zhou further discloses a programable control device for controlling the motor according to a sleep deprivation protocol to which an animal test subject in the cage is subjected (para 11, 15-17, & 26, the industrial control device drives the motor according to the set parameters “to meet the modeling needs of different sleep deprivation types” within experimentation).
The combination of Zhou and Ger fails to disclose wherein the motor comprises a DC servo motor and wherein the control device is a logic control board. However, Hark discloses a DC motor (col 7-8; 65-7, the agitator’s trolley is powered by a DC motor).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the motor comprises a DC servo motor and wherein the control device is a programmable logic control board however, Hark discloses a DC powered motor. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of utilizing a DC powered motor to promote sleep loss in small animals taught by Hark to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by supplying power to the motor without exerting such a force to cause harm. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, and Hark fails to disclose wherein the motor comprises a servo motor and wherein the control device is a programmable logic control board. However, He discloses a servo motor (para 20-21, 24, 31, 72-73, 76, & 81, the sleep jammer is driven by a servo motor to disrupt sleep of an animal).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the motor comprises a servo motor and wherein the control device is a programmable logic control board however, He discloses such a motor. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor of the sleep disruption device by utilizing a simple substitution of the known generic motor taught by the prior art for the servo motor from He in order to obtain the predictable result of a sleep interference rod that is drivable along the bottom of the enclosure. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, and He fails to disclose wherein the control device is a programmable logic control board. However, Krin discloses a system comprising a motor and a programmable logic control board for controlling the motor (para 139, the rotation of the motor is executed by the PLC located on the circuit board).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the control device is a programmable logic control board however, Krin discloses utilizing a PLC for motor function. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of utilizing a PLC for motor function taught by Krin to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing for efficient programing and execution of automation of the sleep deprivation protocol. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Re claim 15, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, He, and Krin discloses the invention of claim 14, Zhou as modified further discloses wherein the sleep deprivation protocol can be varied (para 14, via the cycle and frequency adjustments) and the animal test subject has food and water available in the cage (fig. 2-4, via the food and water supported by the feeding cage).
Re claim 16, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, He, and Krin discloses the invention of claim 15, Zhou as modified further discloses wherein the sleep deprivation protocol comprises the DC servo motor being programmed to sweep a portion of the arm along the cage floor (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11 & 15-16, the rod projects from the guide rail through the long slot thus allowing it to be driven along the entire bottom of the cage in order to disturb the mouse) over a controlled sweep duration (para 14, via the cycle and frequency adjustments) and with a controlled pause between sweeps (para 16, when the rod is driven intermittently at the selected frequency).
Re claim 17, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, He, and Krin discloses the invention of claim 16, Zhou further discloses further discloses wherein the controlled sweep duration and controlled pauses are variable in time (para 14, via the cycle and frequency adjustments).
Re claim 18, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, He, and Krin discloses the invention of claim 17, Zhou as modified above further discloses wherein: the controlled pauses are set to vary in time (para 14, via the cycle adjustments).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, He, and Krin discloses the claimed invention except for the time being expicitly variable between 0 seconds and 5 minutes and the maximum speed at which the bar sweeps the entire cage is within a duration of 3 seconds however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the controlled pauses be variable between 0 seconds and 5 minutes in order to intermittently disturb the small animal since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to set a frequency no greater than 0.33 Hz or a duration of 3 seconds so as to not crush the features of the small animal between the bottom wall and the sleep stripping rod, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Ger as applied to claim 13 above, in further view of Hark.
Re claim 19, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 13, Zhou further discloses wherein: the preexisting animal enclosure cage comprises a transparent standardized cage (para 13, 15, & 28, the standard cages are primarily transparent) for observing test rats or test mice (para 11 & 14, the experimental equipment is intended for testing and observation of mice or rats).
Zhou as modified by Ger fails to disclose the system further including receiving and recording EEG/EMG telemetrically in test animals that have been implanted with sleep transmitters. However, Hark discloses receiving and recording EEG/EMG telemetrically in test animals that have been implanted with sleep transmitters (col 5; 57-67, col 10; 14-41 & 42-67, wherein the implants read EEG and EMG data of the rodents under observation).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the methodology further includes receiving and recording EEG/EMG telemetrically in test animals that have been implanted with sleep transmitters however, Hark discloses such technology. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the implants and collection of EEG and EMG data taught by Hark to the method of the prior art to yield the predictable result of the collection of pertinent experimental data. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Ger, Hark, He, and Kirn as applied to claim 14 above, in further view of Zhu, the Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 206182066 U; herein Zhu.
Re claim 20, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, He, and Kirn discloses the invention of claim 14, Zhou as modified further discloses a plurality of respective animal enclosure cages (fig. 1 & 2-4) each with removable lids (see the rejection of claim 13) with elongated slots (para 26, the long slot of each respective cage) along the tops of the respective enclosure cages (see the rejection of claim 13), and each with controllably movable arms positioned for projection into its respective cage through its elongated slot (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11 & 15-16, the rod projects through the long slot to allow it to be driven along the bottom of the cage); and wherein the programmable logic control board (see the rejection of claim 14) is connected for simultaneously controlling in synchronization each of the arms according to the sleep deprivation protocol so that an animal test subject in each respective cage is periodically moved to deprive sleep of the animal test subject (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 10 & 14-17, the sets of simulations modeling of the sleep deprivation within each of the cages), so that a corresponding plurality of animal test subjects in the respective plurality of cages may each be simultaneously subjected to the same sleep deprivation protocol (para 10 & 14-17, the animal being experimented on within the respective cage and the cycle and frequency of each arm is the same in each group).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, He, and Kirn fails to disclose respective controllable motors for controllably driving each arm relative to its guide rail. However, Zhu discloses a system for inducing sleep loss comprising an animal enclosure cage (6; the system cage, fig. 1), with a controllably movable arm (9; the sweep lever, fig. 1) positioned therein, and an individual motor (4; the drive motor, fig. 1) for controllably driving its arm relative to a guide rail thereof (11; the guide rod, fig. 1).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose respective controllable motors for controllably driving each arm relative to its guide rail however, Zhu discloses an individual system with individual controls. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of utilizing a single motor system for an individual disturbance arm taught by Zhu to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing each individual arm to be independently controlled and maintained. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Ger as applied to claim 21 above, in further view of Hark and He.
Re claim 22, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 21, Zhou as modified by Ger further discloses the sleep deprivation protocol is varied (para 14, via the cycle and frequency adjustments) during which the rodent test subject has food and water available in the cage (fig. 2-4, via the food and water supported by the feeding cage), and the protocol causes the arm base portion to sweep along the cage floor (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11 & 15-16, the rod projects from the guide rail through the long slot thus allowing it to be driven along the entire bottom of the cage in order to disturb the mouse) over a controlled sweep duration (para 14, via the cycle and frequency adjustments) and with a controlled pause between sweeps (para 16, when the rod is driven intermittently at the selected frequency).
The combination of Zhou and Ger fails to disclose wherein: the motor comprises a DC servo motor, wherein the rodent test subject has food and water available at all times. However, Hark discloses an automated system for inducing sleep loss comprising a DC motor (col 7-8; 65-7, the agitator’s trolley is powered by a DC motor).; and a rodent test subject has food and water available at all times (col 5; 25-36 & col 9-10; 45-4, wherein the rodent has access to food and water throughout the duration of experimentation).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein: the motor comprises a DC servo motor, wherein the rodent test subject has food and water available at all times however, Hark discloses a DC powered motor and supplying food and water at all times. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of providing food and water at all times and a DC powered motor as are taught by Hark to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by reducing other factors of sleep disturbance and by supplying power to the motor without exerting such a force to cause harm. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, and Hark fails to disclose wherein: the motor comprises a servo motor. He discloses an automated sleep loss system wherein the motor comprises a servo motor (para 20-21, 24, 31, 72-73, 76, & 81, the sleep jammer is driven by a servo motor to disrupt sleep of an animal).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the motor comprises a servo motor however, He discloses such a motor. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the motor of the sleep disruption device by utilizing a simple substitution of the known generic motor taught by the prior art for the servo motor from He in order to obtain the predictable result of a sleep interference rod that is drivable along the bottom of the enclosure. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Re claim 23, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, and He discloses the invention of claim 22, Zhou further discloses further discloses wherein the controlled sweep duration and controlled pauses are variable in time (para 14, via the cycle and frequency adjustments).
Additionally, He discloses controlled sweep duration and controlled pauses that are variable in time (para 20-21 & 24, wherein the rotation speed, speed control, and operating time are all adjustable variables).
Re claim 24, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, and He discloses the invention of claim 23, Zhou as modified above further discloses wherein: the controlled pauses are set to vary in time (para 14, via the cycle adjustments).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, and He discloses the claimed invention except for the time being expicitly variable between 0 seconds and 5 minutes and the maximum speed at which the bar sweeps the entire cage is within a duration of 3 seconds however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the controlled pauses be variable between 0 seconds and 5 minutes in order to intermittently disturb the small animal since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to set a frequency no greater than 0.33 Hz or a duration of 3 seconds so as to not crush the features of the small animal between the bottom wall and the sleep stripping rod, since it has been held that that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable supports a case of obviousness when the general conditions of the claim are met by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Ger as applied to claim 21 above, in further view of Hark.
Re claim 25, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 21 Zhou further discloses wherein the rodent enclosure cage comprises a transparent standardized cage (para 13, 15, & 28, the standard cages are primarily transparent) for observing test rodents (para 11 & 14, the experimental equipment is intended for testing and observation of mice or rats).
Zhou as modified by Ger fails to disclose the system further including receiving and recording EEG/EMG telemetrically in rodent test subjects that have been implanted with sleep transmitters. However, Hark discloses receiving and recording EEG/EMG telemetrically in test animals that have been implanted with sleep transmitters (col 5; 57-67, col 10; 14-41 & 42-67, wherein the implants read EEG and EMG data of the rodents under observation).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the methodology further includes receiving and recording EEG/EMG telemetrically in test animals that have been implanted with sleep transmitters however, Hark discloses such technology. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the implants and collection of EEG and EMG data taught by Hark to the method of the prior art to yield the predictable result of the collection of pertinent experimental data. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claim 26 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Ger, and Hark as applied to claim 25 above, in further view of Bao et al., the Chinese Patent Publication No. 111789036 A; herein Bao and Zhu.
Re claim 26, as best understood, the combination of Zhou, Ger, and Hark discloses the invention of claim 25, Zhou as modified further discloses a plurality of respective rodent enclosure cages (fig. 1 & 2-4) each with removable lids (see the rejection of claim 21) with elongated slots (para 26, the long slot of each respective cage) along the tops of the respective enclosure cages (see the rejection of claim 13), and each with a movable sweep arm received on a guide rail positioned for projection into its respective cage through its elongated slot (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 11 & 15-16, the rod projects from the guide rail through the long slot to allow it to be driven along the bottom of the cage); and wherein the programmable motor controller is connected for simultaneously controlling in synchronization each of the arms according to the sleep deprivation protocol so that an animal test subject in each respective cage is periodically moved to deprive sleep of the animal test subject (fig. 1 & 2-4 and para 10 & 14-17, the sets of simulations modeling of the sleep deprivation within each of the cages), so that a corresponding plurality of animal test subjects in the respective plurality of cages may each be simultaneously subjected to the same sleep deprivation protocol (para 10 & 14-17, the animal being experimented on within the respective cage and the cycle and frequency of each arm is the same in each group).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, and Hark discloses the claimed invention except for each enclosure cage having movable sweep arms received on guide rails and respective controllable motors for controllably driving each arm relative to its guide rail. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have each movable sweep arm on its own guide rail so each section can be individually maintained, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various separable elements is generally an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
The combination of Zhou, Ger, and Hark fails to disclose each enclosure cage having movable sweep arms and respective controllable motors for controllably driving each arm relative to its guide rail. However, Bao discloses an enclosure cage having movable sweep arms (5 & 8; the first and second deflector rods, fig. 1-2 & 4).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose each enclosure cage having movable sweep arms and respective controllable motors for controllably driving each arm relative to its guide rail however, Bao discloses an enclosure cage with a plurality of sweep arms therein. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of a plurality of sweep arms as taught by Bao to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by executing certain protocol that requires multiple arms. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
The combination of Zhou, Ger, Hark, and Bao fails to disclose and respective controllable motors for controllably driving each arm relative to its guide rail. However, Zhu discloses a system for inducing sleep loss comprising an animal enclosure cage (6; the system cage, fig. 1), with a controllably movable arm (9; the sweep lever, fig. 1) positioned therein, and an individual motor (4; the drive motor, fig. 1) for controllably driving its arm relative to a guide rail thereof (11; the guide rod, fig. 1).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose respective controllable motors for controllably driving each arm relative to its guide rail however, Zhu discloses an individual system with individual controls. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of utilizing a single motor system for an individual disturbance arm taught by Zhu to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing each individual arm to be independently controlled and maintained. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou in view of Ger as applied to claim 21 above, in further view of Kissinger et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,062,224 A; herein Kiss.
Re claim 27, as best understood, the combination of Zhou and Ger discloses the invention of claim 21, Zhou as modified further discloses wherein the guide rail has a seated position with the base portion of the sweep arm positioned to extend through the elongated slot and along the width of the cage floor (fig. 1 & 2-4 and the rejection of claim 21).
The combination fails to disclose wherein the guide rail is pivotally supported to be pivoted to a non-seated position for placement of the associated cage, and then pivoted into a seated position. However, Kiss discloses a system for rodents comprising a sweep arm (38; the counter balanced arm, fig. 1, 4, & 6), wherein the arm has a guide (68; the pivot, fig. 4) with a pivotally supported segment to be pivoted to a non-seated position (fig. 1, 4, & 6 and col 15-16; 54-8, wherein the arm is not holding anything the pivot allows for the arm to rotate out of the enclosure space) for placement of the associated cage (as seen in fig. 1 & 4), and then pivoted into a seated position with a base portion of the sweep arm (fig. 1 & 4-4A, the distal end of the arm) positioned to extend along the width of the cage floor (as seen in fig. 1 & 4).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the guide rail is pivotally supported to be pivoted to a non-seated position for placement of the associated cage, and then pivoted into a seated position however, Kiss discloses a similar arrangement. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the known technique of the seated and not seat positioning taught by Kiss to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the arm to rotate in and out of the enclosure, such that the rodent is less likely to interfere with or get hurt outside of testing periods during which factors have already been mitigated. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0265731 A1 which discloses a rotation sleep disturbance chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights