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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0144328 to Bonner et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,660,636 to Beckert.
Regarding Claim 1, Bonner teaches a system for warming an area of an animal cage comprising: a warming plate (Bonner #162 paragraph [0046]), wherein the plate housing (Bonner outer top surface of #162) is configured to receive an animal cage, a cage base of the animal cage being in contact with the warming plate (Bonner #26 and #122; Fig. 3 and 4).
Bonner teaches a warming plate (Bonner #162) and its position in an animal cage rack with the top housing of the warming plant i.e. top surface in contact with the cage bottom, but is silent on the structural make-up of the warming plate. In other words, Bonner is silent on the warming plate supported in a plate housing or coupled to a plate housing. However, Beckert teaches a plate housing comprises an upper housing (Beckert Fig. 3 #13) and a lower housing (Becket Fig. 3 #10; Bonner #84) and a spring (Beckert #25) positioned between the upper housing and the lower housing biasing the warming plate (Becket biases #15 against #13) against, the received base of the animal cage being in constant contact with the warming plate. Beckert teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to use a spring loaded within said plate housing to bias the warming plate against a desired surface (Beckert Fig. 3 #25 bias #15 to #13 and has housing #10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bonner with the teachings of Beckert before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for efficient heating, to reduce wear on the heating element, ease of maintenance as taught by Becket. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvements to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known warmer assembly with another to obtain predictable results.
Bonner as modified by Beckert is silent on a plurality of springs. However, the examiner takes official notice that the modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice involving the duplication of a known component performing the same intended function for a multiple effect [/n re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Bonner before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to applications to larger cages with a larger surface are to cover. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2, Bonner as modified teaches the plate housing includes a plate housing indention or opening (Beckert Fig.2 vertical side walls of #13 creates an indentation/opening that receives the warming plante#15) ), the warming plate is supported in said plate housing indention or opening.
Regarding Claim 8, Bonner as modified teaches the plate housing comprises a docking system (Bonner Fig. 2 #66a and #66b), said docking system configured to support the plate housing in a caging rack system (Bonner Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Bonner as modified teaches wherein the docking system comprises a first side flange (Bonner Fig. 2 #68a) extending from a first side of the plate housing and a second side flange (Bonner #68b) extending from a second side of the plate housing, the first side flange and the second side flange configured to support the plate housing on a respective first runner and second runner of the caging rack system (Bonner Fig. 2 #66a and #66b).
Regarding Claim 16, Bonner as modified teaches a rack (Bonner Fig. 1 and 7) for supporting the animal cage, the rack includes a suspended runner system (Bonner paragraph [0045] #122 and, fasteners, adhesives) for automatically locking the cage into the rack after the cage is inserted into the rack.
Regarding Claims 10 and 19, Bonner as modified teaches wherein a first runner activation member (Bonner right end of #86) is positioned at an end of the first runner and a second runner activation member (Bonner left end of #86) is positioned at an end of the second runner after insertion of the docking system onto the first runner and the second runner, the first runner activation member is positioned adjacent an end of the first flange and the second runner activation member is positioned adjacent an end of the second flange, wherein the first runner activation member and the second runner activation member in combination with the docking system retain the plate housing on the first runner and the second runner (Bonner paragraph [0042] “magnetic lock” and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claims 11 and 20, Bonner as modified teaches wherein the first runner activation member and the second runner activation member include a bias member (Bonner #88 right and left end; paragraph [0042] and Fig. 3), activating a top surface of the first runner activation member and a top surface of the second runner activation member releases the docking system from the first runner system and the second runner system to remove the plate housing from the caging rack system (Bonner Fig. 2 #74 slides out from the docking system).
Regarding Claim 12, Bonner as modified teaches comprising a heater power switch (Bonner paragraph [0009], [0018] for activating the warming plate and at least one heater active indicator, the at least one heater active indicator indicating when the warming plate is activated or not activated. (Bonner paragraph [0009] switch turns on heater and lights, the lights are the indicator; paragraph [0018] the control panel is the indicator; paragraph [0053]-[0054]; paragraph [0070] overtempt switch sensor).
Regarding Claim 4, Bonner as modified teaches the warming plate (Bonner #162) and the housing (Bonner perimeter opening of #74 and surface #84), but is silent on explicitly teaching wherein the warming plate is integral with the plate housing. However, the examiner takes official notice that making a known components integral is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize efficiency and/or manufacturing, [In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 967, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965)]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bonner before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for ease of handling and storage. The modification is merely application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 14, Bonner as modified appears to teach within the claimed range of wherein the warming plate has a contact area in the range of about 10 % to about 80% of a base area of the animal cage (Bonner Fig. 3 #162e), but is silent on explicitly teaching the claimed range of 10-80%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bonner before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a desired and efficient amount of heating in the cage. The modification is merely “obvious to try” choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation for optimal operation. Applicant does not provide any criticality within the specification for the claimed range. In addition, the modification is merely an obvious change in size of the warming plate performing the same intended function [/n re Rose, 220 459, 463, 105 USPQ 237, 240 (CCPA 1955)].
Regarding Claim 7, Bonner as modified is silent on explicitly teaching the warming plate is formed of metal. However, Beckert teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that metal is a known component of the warming plate (Beckert Fig. 3 #21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bonner with the teachings of Beckert before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to create a backing strip of the heater subassembly as taught by Beckert. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known warmer assembly with another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 13, Bonner as modified teaches a warming plate (Bonner #162), but is silent on explicitly teaching wherein the warming plate comprises at least one warming plate heating element positioned on a bottom surface of said warming plate. However, Beckert teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a warming plate with the heating element positioned on a bottom surface of the warming plate (Beckert #15 is on the bottom of #13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bonner with the teachings of Beckert before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for ease of replacement of parts and maintenance as taught by Beckert. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known heater with another to obtain predictable results and/or the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2004/0144328 to Bonner et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,660,636 to Beckert, as applied to claim 1 and 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2,002,380 to Gilbert et al.
Regarding Claim 3, Bonner as modified is silent on the warming plate incudes one or more protrusions for coupling the warming plate to the plate housing. However, Gilbert teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide one or more protrusions for coupling the warming plate to a plate housing (Gilbert Fig. 6 and 7 #28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Bonner with the teachings of Gilbert before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent displacement and shifting of the warming plate as taught by Gilbert. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Bonner teaches the general knowledge that it is known to place a warming plate beneath a cage base in an animal rack system (Bonner #162), but Bonner does not describe the structural construction of the warming plate. However, Beckert teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regarding to warming plates that it is known to place the heating element plate inside a housing that has a top and bottom. Beckert teaches it is known to bias the heating plate (Beckert Fig. 2 and 3 #15) via a spring (Beckert #25) towards the top of the housing which is in contact with the bottom of the animal cage. Applicant doesn’t claim that the heating plate is in direct contact with the cage bottom. Bonner as modified by Beckert teaches via assembly that Beckert heating plate #15 is pushed by the spring #25 in contact with the top of housing #13 of the warming plate and thus in contact with the cage bottom. The spring biases the heating plate in an upwards direction towards the bottom of the cage. The heating element #15 contacts top of housing #13 which contacts the bottom of the cage, as long as the cage is resting in position on the rack it will be in constant contact with the warming plate. Applicant hasn’t structurally claimed the features of the opening in the housing surrounding the warming plate and the structural relationship with the heating element that would place it into “direct” contact with the cage bottom. Applicant’s claim language does not structurally claim that the heating element is both within an upper housing and in direct contact with the cage bottom. Applicant’s claim language is not structurally explicit to patentably distinguish over the teachings of Bonner as modified by Beckert. Since the warming plate of Bonner rests on the surface of Bonner #84 via the assembly of the rack it satisfies the limitations of the docking system and rails as outlined in the above claim rejections. Applicant doesn’t provide a clear and explicit structural relationship between these features, the claims are to broad in nature.
Beckert provides the motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the warming plate configuration of Beckert to modify the teachings of Bonner. Beckert teaches that it is advantageous to place the warming plate in a protective surface to prevent the plate from getting worn out and for ease of maintenance. In this instance, the cage of Bonner would move over the top surface of the warming plate when it is placed in and out of the rack causing wear and tear, but with the warming plate of Beckert the heating element is protected from wear and tear and the housing is easily replaced if it occurs as taught by Beckert. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known warming plate for another to obtain predictable results and/or the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvements to yield predictable results.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn’t patentably distinguished over the prior art of record.
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 ANDREA M VALENTI whose telephone number is (571)272-6895. The examiner can normally be reached Available Monday and Tuesday only, eastern time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREA M VALENTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
02 December 2025