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
This action is in response to Amendments made on 8/4/2025, in which: claims 48 are amended, claims 1-47, 49 are cancelled and claims 50-52 are new.
Specification
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
The amendment filed 8/4/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: All subject matter disclosed on pages 15-19 of the specification (it appears an entire new claim set with claims 1-29 is being introduced).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 48, 50-52 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12, 34, 45 of U.S. Patent No. 11882810. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the subject matter of the instant invention is the same but is presented in broader form.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 48, 52 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Harada (US 10687509).
Regarding claim 48, Harada discloses a method for manufacturing an animal cage comprising the step of: removing material from a perforation section (150) of the cage (100) to form a plurality of apertures (112), wherein the apertures (112) are formed by removing material from an inside surface (inside of element 100) of the cage (100) to an outside surface (outside of element 100) of the cage (100) and wherein the material is removed by the material being drilled, milled or punched (Column 9, lines 7-24, punched, drilled, melted or otherwise created).
Regarding claim 52, Harada discloses wherein the cage (100) comprises a cage base (bottom of element 100), the cage base (bottom of element 100) including one or more walls (110) extending from a floor (floor of element 100), the perforation section (150) is positioned in the one or more walls (110) of the cage base (bottom of element 100).
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 48, 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conger (US 2011/0061600) in view of Harada (US 10687509).
Regarding claim 48, Conger discloses a method for manufacturing an animal cage comprising the step of: removing material from a perforation section (119) of the cage (101, 102) to form a plurality of apertures (119A), wherein the apertures (119A) are formed by removing material from an inside surface (inside of elements 101, 102) of the cage (101, 102) to an outside surface (outside of elements 101, 102) of the cage (101, 102), but does not expressly disclose wherein the material is removed by the material being drilled, milled or punched.
However, Harada discloses a similar method of manufacturing an animal cage by removing the material by being drilled, milled or punched (Column 9, lines 7-24, punched, drilled, melted or otherwise created).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Conger, by removing material by being drilled, milled or punched, as taught by Harada, for the purpose of providing apertures in the device for ventilation or electrical feedthrough.
Regarding claim 50, Conger discloses wherein the cage (101, 102) comprises a cage top (102), the cage top (102) including one or more walls (walls around the exterior of element 102 and around element 105) extending from a ceiling (surface of element 102, Fig. 3), the perforation section (107, Fig. 7A) is positioned in the ceiling (surface of element 102, Fig. 3) of the cage top (102).
Claims 48, 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (US 2016/0174519) in view of Harada (US 10687509).
Regarding claim 48, Chang discloses a method for manufacturing an animal cage comprising the step of: removing material from a perforation section (400) of the cage (100) to form a plurality of apertures (410, and apertures of 600), wherein the apertures (410, and apertures of 600) are formed by removing material from an inside surface (inside of element 100) of the cage (100) to an outside surface (outside of elements 100) of the cage (100), but does not expressly disclose wherein the material is removed by the material being drilled, milled or punched.
However, Harada discloses a similar method of manufacturing an animal cage by removing the material by being drilled, milled or punched (Column 9, lines 7-24, punched, drilled, melted or otherwise created).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention/application, to modify Chang, by removing material by being drilled, milled or punched, as taught by Harada, for the purpose of providing apertures in the device for ventilation or electrical feedthrough.
Regarding claim 51, Chang discloses wherein the cage (100) comprises a cage top (300), the cage top (300) including one or more walls (walls extending from the exterior portion of element 300 and walls of element 600) extending from a ceiling (surface of element 300), the perforation section (410, and apertures of 600) is positioned in the one or more walls (walls extending from the exterior portion of element 300 and walls of element 600) of the cage top (300).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants argument that Harada teaches away from the limitation of removing material from an inside surface to an outside surface of the cage, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Prior art Harada specifically discloses removing material from the cage body to form apertures (Column 9, lines 7-24, the apertures are punched, drilled, melted or otherwise created). The applicant appears to argue the criticality of removing the material from an inside surface to an outside surface, however, there is no evidence or record that would support the allegation of criticality of said step of removing material. The manner in which the apertures are created is merely a design choice and does not constitute an inventive concept as the apertures can be punched, drilled, melted or otherwise created in any position inside or outside the cage, and as such the claims stand rejected over Harada as stated above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 48, 50-52 over Conger in view of Harada and Chang in view of Harada 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 AARON M RODZIWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm.
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 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.
/AARON M RODZIWICZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/MONICA L PERRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644