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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection. This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Official Notice
The examiner has previously taken Official Notice which has not been challenged in the Applicant’s Remarks. Therefore, it is Applicant Admitted Prior Art (see MPEP 2144.03.C.) that magnetic mechanisms are well known types of attachment mechanisms for providing a quick means of attachment and detachment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The disclosure as originally filed references tubular handles of the bed pad, but there is no reference to webbing handles of the bed pad.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss et al. (US 2010/0175633), hereinafter Krauss, in view of Handelman (US 4,843,662) and Yeung (US 7,210,426).
In re. claim 1, Krauss teaches a pet carrier device comprising: a main cavity for housing a small pet (fig. 4), the main cavity comprising a bed pad (50), the bed pad comprising a set of walls to form a rectangular shape (fig. 3), a window (30) made of breathable mesh (para [0014]) configured to dynamically open and close (figs. 1 and 4) by a main zip opening (20); a back flap (24) configured to unfurl into a pet pad configuration (figs. 1 and 4), wherein the back flap further comprises: a luggage flap (38) to receive a handle of a suitcase to slide through and secure the pet carrier in place (luggage flap provides the recited function).
Krauss fails to disclose webbing handles on a short sides of the bed pad, an odor elimination pocket to house an odor eliminating pocket; and a handle configured to adjust to a desired length and configuration of a user.
Handelman teaches webbing handles (24) on a short sides of the pad (figs. 1 and 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Krauss to incorporate the teachings of Handelman to have webbing handles on a short sides of the bed pad, for the predictable result of providing a means for carrying the bed pad.
Yeung teaches an odor elimination pocket (102) to house an odor eliminating element (air freshener) (col. 9, ln. 39-43).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Krauss as modified by Handelman to incorporate the teachings of Yeung to have an odor elimination pocket, for the predictable result of managing odors within the pet carrier device.
Yeung further teaches a handle (50) configured to adjust to a desired length and configuration of a user (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Krauss as modified by Handelman to incorporate the teachings of Yeung to have the recited handle, for the predictable result of providing a means for the user to carry the device around the shoulder.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Salahor (US 6,446,577).
In re. claim 2, Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung fails to disclose the window has a window curtain that attaches and detaches to the pet carrier through a magnetic mechanism.
Salahor teaches a window (35) has a window curtain (20) that attaches and detaches to the pet carrier through a mechanism (snap fasteners (30)) (fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung to incorporate the teachings of Salahor to have the window comprise a curtain flap that attaches and detaches to the pet carrier through a mechanism, in order to allow or prevent ventilation through the door and vent openings of the kennel (Salahor, col. 2, ln. 44-47).
Krauss as modified by Handelman, Yeung, and Salahor fails to disclose the mechanism is magnetic.
The examiner takes official notice that magnetic mechanisms are well known types of attachment mechanisms for providing a quick means of attachment and detachment.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Krauss as modified by Handelman, Yeung, and Salahor to have the mechanism as magnetic, for the purpose of providing a quicker means of attachment and detachment for the window flap.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2019/0313597) and Patton et al. (US 4,153,146).
In re. claims 3 and 4, Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung (see Krauss) teach the pet carrier of claim 1, wherein the pet carrier comprises a left or right side (12) (fig. 1), the left or right side comprising: a mesh window (16) (para [0013]).
Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung fails to disclose the left or right side opens and closes by a left or right zip opening; the zip opening configured to open and close the mesh window, and side pockets comprised of a snap mechanism to further secure the zip opening in a closed position.
Chen teaches the left or right side opens and closes by a left or right zip opening (143) (para [0031]); the zip opening configured to open and close the mesh window (figs. 2 and 4), and side pockets (142) (fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung to incorporate the teachings of Chen to have the left or right side open and close by a left or right zip opening, for the purpose of providing a stowable configuration of the pet carrier.
Further, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung to incorporate the teachings of Chen to have side pockets, for the user to store pet supplies, snacks and feed (Chen, para [0028]).
Krauss as modified by Handelman, Yeung, and Chen fail to disclose the side pockets comprise a snap mechanism to further secure the zip opening in a closed position.
Patton teaches the side panel (13) comprises a snap mechanism (29) to further secure the zip opening in a closed position (col. 2, ln. 44-61) (fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Krauss as modified by Handelman, Yeung, and Chen to incorporate the teachings of Patton to have the side pocket comprise a snap mechanism, to permit drawing down the projecting zipper ends against the respective ends panel and securing the zipper ends in position (Patton, col. 1, ln. 32-38).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Edmonds (US 11,399,504).
In re. claim 5, Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung fail to disclose the pet carrier comprises a rubber foot on the bottom of the pet carrier.
Edmonds teaches a pet carrier comprises a rubber foot (76a-76d) on the bottom of the pet carrier (fig. 6) (col. 9, ln. 9-24).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung to incorporate the teachings of Edmonds to have the pet carrier comprise a rubber foot on the bottom of the pet carrier, in order to reduce or dampen vibrations felt by the animal housed within.
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (US 11,678,642).
In re. claim 6, Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung fail to disclose the front of the pet carrier comprises two car seat buckles to lock the pet carrier in place for transportation in a car.
Lin teaches the front of the pet carrier comprises two car seat buckles (16) (fig. 1) to lock the pet carrier in place for transportation in a car (fig. 12).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified Krauss as modified by Handelman and Yeung to incorporate the teachings of Lin to have the front of the pet carrier comprise two car seat buckles, for the purpose of providing a carrier that is capable of passing crash testing within a vehicle, and that safely and securely protects the pet in vehicle collision and safely and securing restrains the pet to avoid any unwanted interference with the passengers of the vehicle and/or any safety or rescue personal, such as emergency medical responders providing medical attention to injured vehicle occupants, or any other person or persons entering the vehicle in any situation (Lin, col. 3, ln. 40-48).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 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 Christopher D. Hutchens whose telephone number is (571)270-5535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/C.D.H./
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3647
/Christopher D Hutchens/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647