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 .
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 ef 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 |.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 21-23, 25-37, 39-41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,871,725. Although the claims at
issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of
the instant application are coextensive in scope of the claims of the patent. Both pertain to an
attachment assembly with a base member, first and second sliders that are spring-loaded, a
mesh animal crate where the sliders are inserted into and opening in the mesh.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 21, “the first direction” should be --a second direction--
Claim 1, line 23, “the first direction” should be --the second direction--
Claim 29, line 3, “incudes” should be --includes--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 41, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 211,511 to Hendryx.
Regarding Claims 21 ad 28, Hendryx teaches an attachment assembly and method for coupling comprising: a mesh network of an animal crate, the mesh network comprising a plurality of openings (Hendryx Fig. 2 elements a are part of the mesh network, title “bird-cage”); an attachment device (Hendryx Fig. 4) comprising: a base member comprising a first face (Hendryx Fig. 2 element d side facing element B is the first face); a spring-loaded crate attachment member coupled to the base member proximate the first face and comprising a first slider piece (Hendryx Figs. 2 and 4 element h left side slides relative to elements f, d, and b these portions actually slide left and right by spring force as taught by Hendryx), and a second slider piece (Hendryx Figs. 2 and 4 element h right side slide relative to elements f, d, and b these portions actually slide left and right by spring force as taught by Hendryx) that are each slidable relative to the base member; and a channel provided between the base member and the spring-loaded crate attachment member (Hendryx Fig. 1 element a is in the channel); the spring-loaded crate attachment member configured to be operable to provide an insertion position and an attached position: in the insertion position, the first slider piece and the second slider piece are pressed together in a first direction such that an outermost perimeter of the first slider piece and second slider piece as viewed from a direction orthogonal to the first direction is smaller than a perimeter of one of the plurality of openings in the mesh network, such that the first slider piece and second slider piece are insertable through the one of the plurality of openings; and in the attached position the first slider piece and the second slider piece are extended away from each other in the first direction such that an outermost perimeter of the first slider piece and second slider piece as viewed from the direction orthogonal to the first direction is larger than the perimeter of the one of the plurality of openings in the mesh network, such that in the attached position (Hendryx Fig. 1 elements i, l, and h as inserted and the dotted line indicates insertion position), and (a) the base member is positioned on a first side of the mesh network (Hendryx Fig. 3), (b) at least a portion of the first slider piece and at least a portion of the second slider piece are positioned on a second side of the mesh network (Hendryx Fig. 1), and (c) the mesh network is received in the channel so as to provide releasable securement of the attachment device onto the mesh network, and the attachment device configured to be releasable from such securement, to the mesh network, by pressing the first slider piece and the second slider piece together to provide the insertion position.
Regarding Claim 23, Hendryx teaches wherein a width cross-section of each of the first slider piece and the second slider piece is greatest at an end of each of the first slider piece and the second slider piece located closest to the base member (Hendryx Fig. 1 element l is greater than element m and element l is closer to element d)
Regarding Claim 25, Hendryx teaches wherein the spring-loaded crate attachment member includes face (Hendryx Fig. 1 elements m, I, and l make a diamond shape, applicant doesn’t claim what side of the attachment member has the diamond shaped face and since elements m, l, and i have a thickness that satisfies being raised) that has a raised diamond shaped portion that fits within the one of the plurality of openings of the mesh network and contacts the perimeter of the mesh network that forms the one of the plurality of openings, when the attachment device is connected to the mesh network (Hendryx elements of the attachment contact the mesh opening Fig. 1)
Regarding Claim 26, Hendryx teaches at least a portion of the spring-loaded crate attachment member is arranged within an internal chamber of the base member (Hendryx Fig. 2 element b is internally located in base d).
Regarding Claim 27, Hendryx teaches the first slider piece and the second slider piece are each slidable along a plane parallel to the first face (Hendryx Fig. 1 and 2 element h and g slide parallel relative to element d).
Regarding Claim 41, Hendryx teaches the first face including a flat surface, and the first slider piece and the second slider piece are each slidable along such flat surface (Hendryx Fig. 2 the portion of element d that is parallel to element A is the first flat face; applicant doesn’t claim that the sliders and the first face are aligned one in front of the other, Hendryx satisfies the broad nature of the claim limitation since elements g slide along a face of d).
Regarding Claim 29, Hendryx teaches a shape of the spring-loaded crate attachment member matches a shape of at least one of the plurality of openings, and the method includes aligning the shape of the spring-loaded crate attachment member with the shape of the at least one of the plurality of openings during the inserting (Hendryx Fig. 1 and 4, the term “match” is not explicit enough to mean “is the same” and since the attachment member fits through the crate opening they match and satisfies the broad nature of the limitation).
Regarding Claim 30, Hendryx teaches inserting the spring-loaded crate attachment member when the at least one of the first slider piece or the second slider piece are in the insertion position through at least one of the plurality of openings until the base member abuts the mesh network (Hendryx Fig. 3 element d abuts element B).
Regarding Claim 31, Hendryx teaches a width cross-section of each of the first slider piece and the second slider piece is greatest at an end of each of the first slider piece and the second slider piece located closest to the base member (Hendryx element l is greater than element m and element l is closer to element d), and the method includes converting a force of a user pushing the spring-loaded crate attachment member against the mesh network into a force that causes the first slider piece and the second slider piece to move towards each other during insertion through the mesh network (Hendryx operation illustrated in Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 32, Hendryx teaches at least one channel is formed between the spring-loaded crate attachment member and the base member (Hendryx Fig.1 element a is in the claimed channel).
Regarding Claim 33, Hendryx teaches at least a portion of the spring-loaded crate attachment member is arranged within an internal chamber of the base member (Hendryx Fig.1 element b is internal to element d).
Regarding Claim 34, Hendryx teaches the first slider piece and the second slider piece are each slidable along a plane parallel to the first face (Hendryx Fig. 1 and 2 element h and g slide parallel relative to element d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 41, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 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.
The examiner maintains that applicant hasn't patentably distinguished over the prior art
of record.
Conclusion
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
10 March 2026