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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/29/2025 pertaining to Jenkins and Balto have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments made against Jenkins.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
With regard to the arguments made against Balto.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-11 are 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.
Claim 10 states a dependency to claim 7 which was cancelled. Claim 11 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 § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 8, 12, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jenkins, U.S. Patent No. 5,220,882 A, herein Jenk.
Re claim 1, Jenk discloses a veterinary enclosure system for an animal (col 1; 18-34, the invention is intended for housing an animal in a veterinary environment);
the veterinary enclosure system comprising an animal housing (10; the cage, fig. 1-2) wherein the or each housing comprises at least one moveable door (26; the door, fig. 1-3),
wherein the door is moveable between a closed position (best seen, fig. 2) covering an opening into the housing (fig. 1 & 3, the opening formed by the frame) and an open position allowing access to the inside of the housing (best seen, fig. 1);
wherein the or each door comprises at least one ventilation aperture (the openings of the two gas ports and the plurality of apertures, fig. 1-3 best seen as 40, 42 & 48); and the veterinary enclosure system further comprises a plurality of attachment members
(44, 46, 50; the gas hoses and cover plates) each for removably attaching one of a range of veterinary accessories (col 3; 8-17, the attachment of the gas hoses and cover plates allow the selected gas to be maintained within the housing or vented out therefrom) to the or each housing without preventing movement of the door between the closed and the open position (fig. 1-3 and col 3; 20-22, the door is enabled to open/close freely),
wherein in the open position, the or each attachment member does not obstruct the opening to the inside of the enclosure (again see fig. 1-3 and col 3; 20-22); and
wherein each attachment member comprises
ii) an elongate fastener (44 & 46; the gas hoses, fig. 2), which is securable through a ventilation aperture (40 & 42; the gas ports, fig. 1-3) to the moveable door (best seen in fig. 2); and
iv) an accessory holder (52; the U-shaped channel member, fig. 2-3) comprising a sealing sheet (50; the cover plates, fig. 2-3); and
v) an accessory holder (40 & 42; the gas ports, fig. 1-3) comprising at least one pipe connected (fig. 2, wherein the gas hoses are connected thereto).
Re claim 8, Jenk discloses the invention of claim 1, Jenk further discloses wherein the attachment member (44/46) comprises a fastener (40/42; the ports, fig. 1-3) and wherein the fastener is secured through the ventilation aperture to the moveable door by a securing means on the opposite face of the door to the accessory mounted thereon (fig. 1, the ports extend through the depth of the door).
Re claim 12, Jenk discloses the invention of claim 1, Jenk further discloses wherein the sealing sheet is a transparent acrylic sheet for sealing the ventilation hole of a door (fig. 2 and col 3; 12-18, the cover plates are formed of acrylic that has some degree of transparency to show the apertures; 48 and are designed to seal each vent).
Re claim 20, Jenk discloses the invention of claim 1, Jenk further discloses wherein the is substantially rectangular (fig. 1-3) and comprises one or more truncated corners (col 3; 20-22, the edges of the door are truncated to allow 180° rotation of the door about the hinge).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4-6, 16-17, & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balto, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0100426 A1 in view of Kissinger et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,062,224 A; herein Kiss.
Re claim 1, Balto discloses a veterinary enclosure system (10; the animal treatment/confinement device, fig. 1 & 3) for an animal (60; the cat, fig. 3);
the veterinary enclosure system comprising an animal housing (para 11, the housing formed by the panels) wherein the housing comprises at least one moveable door (22 & 24; the closure panels, fig. 1 & 3),
wherein each door is moveable between a closed position covering an opening into the housing and an open position allowing access to the inside of the housing (fig. 1 & 3 and para 11-12 & 18-21, the closure panels open and close such that the animal may be treated with the fluid);
at least one ventilation aperture (28 & 40; the window and top opening, fig. 1 & 3); and the veterinary enclosure system further comprises a plurality of attachment members (34 & 36; the syringe cradle & fluid container support, fig. 1-3) each for removably attaching one of a range of veterinary accessories (fig. 1-3 and para 15-16, the syringe or fluid container maybe attached or removed from the cradle/support respectively) to the housing without preventing movement of the or each door between the closed and the open position (fig. 1-3 and para 15 & 17-20, the cradle and support both allow for the device to function as intended without closure panels being impeded),
wherein in the open position, the or each attachment member does not obstruct the opening to the inside of the enclosure (again see fig. 1-3 and para 17-20); and
wherein each attachment member comprises any of:
i) at least one hook (36; fluid container support, fig. 1-3); and
iii) an accessory holder (34; the syringe cradle, fig. 1-3) comprising a clamp (para 16 & fig. 1-3, the arms of the bracket act to clamp the syringe)
Balto fails to explicitly disclose wherein each door comprises at least one ventilation aperture and wherein the accessory holder acts to support and infusion pump. However, Balto does disclose utilizing multiple windows so the animal can see the outside environment (para 13 & 21, where the windows allow air to pass through, the screen or plastic bars).
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 applying windows to the surfaces of the confinement device as suggested by Balto to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing the animal to be aware of its surroundings (para 13). See MPEP 2143 I. (C) & (G).
The modification of Balto fails to disclose wherein the accessory holder acts to support and infusion pump. However, Kiss discloses an accessory holder (fig. 1 & 12, the support table; 36) to support an infusion pump (40, 42, 44, & 198; the syringe pump, fig. 1 & 12).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the accessory holder acts to support and infusion pump however, Kiss discloses a holder for such an infusion pump. 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 a syringe pump as taught by Kiss to the syringe cradle of the prior art to yield the predictable result of medicating the animal at a constant rate. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 4, the modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the invention of claim 1, Balto further discloses wherein the hook comprises a first horizontal arm protruding from the animal housing (fig. 1, the upside-down u-shape of the post that extends horizontally from the vertical post to the hook) and a second vertical arm substantially perpendicular to the first arm (fig. 1, the vertical section extending beyond the upside-down u-shaped section).
Re claim 5, the modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the invention of claim 1, Balto further discloses wherein the attachment member comprises at least one hook (36; the fluid container support, fig. 1-3) and further comprises a detachable vertical support arm (para 14, a fastener of a screw, bolt, and/or bracket would allow the post to be removed from the side panel) comprising a connector at a first end and a holder at a distal end thereof (para 14, on the side panel or under the bottom panel).
Re claim 6, the modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the invention of claim 1, Kiss as applied to Balto further discloses at least one control panel (204; the controller, fig. 12) wherein each attachment member is attachable to the control panel (see the rejection of claim 1, the attachment members are connected to the syringe pump and controller thereof via the length of the pole; 32).
Re claim 16, the modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the invention of claim 1. The modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the housing and/or the door are made of toughened safety glass. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize toughened safety glass to prevent animal from braking the enclosure while still allowing a veterinarian to observe the animal within, since it has been held that selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 17, the modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the invention of claim 1. The modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the or each housing has a width of between about 600mm and 1200mm; and/or a depth of between about 500mm and 900mm; and/or a height of between about 400mm and 1100mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have whatever dimension is suitable for a small animal, since it has been held that such a modification would only involve a mere change in size which is generally recognized as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Re claim 19, the modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the invention of claim 1,
Balto further discloses at least one base plinth (para 15, the base is weighted) and a base further comprising two adjustable feet (38; the extendable braces, fig. 1).
The modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the claimed invention except for four adjustable feet. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to an additional pair of feet, since it has been held that a mere duplication of essential working parts is generally held as an obvious modification. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenk as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Driver, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 201/0135311 A1, herein Drive.
Re claim 9, Jenk discloses the invention of claim 8, Jenk fails to disclose wherein the fastener comprises a threaded bolt and a threaded nut. However, Drive discloses an animal containment system and a fastener that comprises a threaded bolt and a threaded nut for securing a tube (para 32, the threaded section and the oppositely threaded nut).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the fastener comprises a threaded bolt and a threaded nut however, Drive discloses such a fastening mechanism. 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 hose attachment method by utilizing a simple substitution of the known press fit taught by the prior art for the secure threaded arrangement from Drive in order to obtain the predictable result of a sealed line. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenk as applied to claim 1 above in view of Drive.
Re claim 10, as best understood, Jenk discloses the invention of claim 1, Jenk further discloses wherein the attachment member further comprises a pair of substantially annular rings (fig. 2, the hose with concentric annular rings), wherein each of the first and second substantially annular rings comprises a concentric circular aperture therein (fig. 2, the chamber of the hose).
Jenk fails to disclose wherein the pair of substantially annular rings are removably connected by the fastener. However, Drive discloses wherein the pair of substantially annular rings are removably connected by the fastener (para 23, the washers are removed along with the threaded sections).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the pair of substantially annular rings are removably connected by the fastener however, Drive discloses such a fastening mechanism. 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 hose attachment method by utilizing a simple substitution of the known press fit taught by the prior art for the secure threaded arrangement from Drive in order to obtain the predictable result of a sealed line. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Re claim 11, as best understood, the combination of Jenk and Drive discloses the invention of claim 10, Jenk as modified by Drive further discloses wherein the first annular ring comprises a substantially cylindrical protrusion and the second annular ring comprises an annular protrusion (fig. 1-3, the ports and hoses are cylindrical and annular).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balto in view of Kiss as applied to claim 6 above, in further view of Weiss et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0181014 A1, herein Weiss.
Re claim 14, the modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the invention of claim 6, the modification fails to disclose wherein the control panel comprises any one or more of: a heating control for controlling the temperature within the housing; a lighting control for controlling the light emitted within the housing; a ventilation control for controlling the ventilation to the housing. However, Weiss discloses wherein the or each control panel comprises a lighting control for controlling the light emitted within the housing (para 50, the LED associated with the system positioned within the cage to indicate a warning).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein the control panel comprises any one or more of: a heating control for controlling the temperature within the housing; a lighting control for controlling the light emitted within the housing; a ventilation control for controlling the ventilation to the housing however, Wiess discloses such a control panel. 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 lighting arraignment and controls thereof as taught by Wiess to the animal housing of the prior art to yield the predictable result of functional warning ligths. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 15, the modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the invention of claim 6, the modification fails to disclose a plurality of animal housings and a plurality of control panels, wherein each control panel is configured to control conditions within a single housing. However, Wiess discloses a plurality of animal housings and a plurality of control panels (fig. 1 & 4), wherein each control panel is configured to control conditions within a single housing (para 50, the system controls the LEDs in each cage for a warning about an individual animal).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a plurality of animal housings and a plurality of control panels, wherein each control panel is configured to control conditions within a single housing however, Wiess discloses such a system. 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 plurality of animal housings with a plurality of control panels as taught by Wiess to improve the similar device disclosed by the prior art in the same way by allowing a plurality of animal to be medicated within a single facility. See MPEP 2143 I. (C).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenk as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of White et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0026819 A1, herein White.
Re claim 18, Jenk discloses the invention of claim 1, Jenk fails to disclose a removable divider. However, White discloses a removable divider (16; the one or more dividers, fig. 1-2 and para 26, the dividers are adjustably positioned).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a removable divider however, White discloses such a divider. 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 divider system taught by White to the enclosures of the prior art to yield the predictable result of an adjustable volume within the enclosures. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balto in view of Kiss as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of White et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0026819 A1, herein White.
Re claim 18, the modification of Balto and Kiss discloses the invention of claim 1, the modification fails to disclose a removable divider. However, White discloses a removable divider (16; the one or more dividers, fig. 1-2 and para 26, the dividers are adjustably positioned).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose a removable divider however, White discloses such a divider. 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 divider system taught by White to the enclosures of the prior art to yield the predictable result of an adjustable volume within the enclosures. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
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 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