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 Amendments
The Amendment filed 04/06/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2,9-15 remain pending in the application. The status indicators of claims 4-6,16-17 must be changed from “Original” to --canceled--.
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.
Claim(s) 1,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. herein Brown (US 5881676 A).
Regarding claim 1:
Brown discloses:
A rodent enrichment device comprising: (abstract and figs 1-2, 8b when used with the embodiment of fig 1-2, can be used with a rodent)
an at least one exercise compartment for a rodent to engage in exercise; (31, col 4 ln 55-59, fig 2)
the exercise compartment comprising a first access point, (right steps between 30+31, fig 2)
and a running wheel, wherein: (32, fig 2)
the running wheel is connected to the exercise compartment; (32 connected to 31, fig 2)
and the first access point allows the rodent to enter and exit the exercise compartment; (see how the access proximate to 31 allows the rodent to enter and exit the exercise compartment)
and an at least one nesting compartment, connected to the at least one exercise compartment, for the rodent to perform nesting behaviors, (30, col 4 ln 55, connected to 31 for rodent to nest in)
the at least one nesting compartment comprising a loft floor (numeral 25 on left of fig 2)
and a second access point, (see access to 30, left steps between 30+31)
wherein the loft floor is elevated from a base floor of the rodent enrichment device. (25 is elevated from base floor of 14)
Regarding claim 9:
Brown further discloses:
wherein the at least one nesting compartment comprises an another access point that allows the rodent to enter and exit the at least one nesting compartment. (see access to 30, left steps between 30+31)
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(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Gabriel (US 20040231611 A1).
Regarding claim 2:
Brown discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the loft floor of the at least one nesting compartment comprises evenly spaced holes.
Gabriel discloses:
wherein the loft floor of the at least one nesting compartment comprises evenly spaced holes. (86 floor comprises 88, Fig 13, para0077)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the loft floor of Brown such that it comprises evenly spaced holes as taught by Gabriel to protect the floor from chewing and gnawing from animals (Gabriel).
Claim(s) 12,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown, as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Donohoe (US 7114463 B2).
Regarding claim 12:
Brown discloses claim 1 but doesn’t disclose:
wherein the at least one exercise compartment and the at least one nesting compartment are made of an autoclavable and cage-wash temperature-tolerant material.
Donohoe disclose:
an autoclavable and cage-wash temperature-tolerant material for an enrichment device (col 4 ln 6-17)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify material of the exercise compartment and nesting compartment of Brown such that it was comprised of an autoclavable and cage-wash temperature-tolerant material as taught by Donohoe to provide for a material that is lightweight, transparent, provide ease of manufacture, and be of relatively low cost (Donohoe).
Regarding claim 14:
Brown as modified discloses claim 12 and Donohoe further discloses:
wherein the material is made of polycarbonate. (col 4 ln 6-17)
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Donohoe, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Laurent et al. herein Laurent (WO 2010089220 A1).
Regarding claim 13:
Brown as modified discloses claim 12 but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein the material comprising the at least one exercise compartment and the at least one nesting compartment is red and translucent.
Laurent discloses:
wherein the material comprising a rodent housing is red and translucent. (“The housing 94 may advantageously be formed in a material that is transparent to humans but opaque for the vision of rodents. The housing 94 may for example be made of translucent red plastic materials, which are opaque for the vision of rats.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify material of the exercise compartment and nesting compartment of Brown as modified such that it was comprised a red and translucent material as disclosed by Laurent to provide for a configuration that is transparent to humans but opaque for the vision of rodents (Laurent).
Claim(s) 10,11,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown.
Regarding claim 10:
Brown discloses claim 1 but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein an area of the base floor of the rodent enrichment device is between 10% and 50% of an area of a floor of a rodent cage. (Fig 8b, see how area of base 14 of 10 is smaller than an area of the rodent cage floor)
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the area of a base of the rodent enrichment device such that it was between 10% and 50% of an area of the rodent cage floor as claimed since the specification fails to disclose any criticality for such range to ensure that enough space is present for the animal in the rodent cage to move freely, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11:
Brown discloses claim 1 but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein a volume of the rodent enrichment device is between 10% and 50% of an interior volume of a rodent cage. (Fig 8b, see how volume of 10 is smaller than an interior volume of the rodent cage)
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the volume of the rodent enrichment device such that it was between 10% and 50% of an interior volume of the rodent cage floor as claimed since the specification fails to disclose any criticality for such range to ensure that enough space is present for the animal in the rodent cage to move freely, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15:
Brown discloses claim 1 but doesn’t explicitly disclose:
wherein the running wheel is detachable from the rodent enrichment device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the running wheel of Brown such that it was detachable as claimed to allow for the area behind the running wheel to be easily accessible for cleaning, since it has been held that if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to a first component to which a second component is applied, it would be obvious to make the second component removable for that purpose. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to Applicant’s arguments that Brown or Brown as modified does not disclose: “at least one nesting compartment comprising a loft floor and a second access point, wherein the loft floor is elevated from a base floor of the rodent enrichment device” (see pg 4-6)
Applicant argues that Brown comprises a “nest region” but fails to disclose a nesting compartment comprising a loft floor, the loft floor is elevated from a base floor. This is not found persuasive because Brown discloses at least one nesting compartment at 30, col 4 ln 55, connected to 31 for rodent to nest in, the at least one nesting compartment comprising a loft floor (numeral 25 on left of fig 2), wherein the loft floor is elevated from a base floor of the rodent enrichment device (25 is elevated from base floor of 14). Even if Brown discloses that the internal walls of 20 extend from a back wall, this does not preclude the floor surfaces 25 from reading on the claimed loft floor and the bottom wall of 14 from reading on the claimed base floor. The limitations met and the rejections maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHADA M ALGHAILANI whose telephone number is (571)272-8058. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30am - 4:30pm 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, Peter Poon can be reached on 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.
/SHADA MOHAMED ALGHAILANI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643
