Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 18/673,460

PORTABLE ANIMAL SHELTERS AND METHODS OF USING THE SAME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
May 24, 2024
Examiner
EVANS, EBONY E
Art Unit
3647
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Unknown
OA Round
2 (Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
67%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allow Rate
612 granted / 957 resolved
+11.9% vs TC avg
Minimal +3% lift
Without
With
+3.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
976
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.2%
-37.8% vs TC avg
§103
42.1%
+2.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.6%
-11.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 957 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amato (US 5918611) in view of Egan (US 11116179). Regarding claim 1, Amato teaches a portable animal shelter comprising: (a) a base configured to receive an animal (saddle 30, col. 4, ll. 51-60, fig. 1); (b) a cover having a first portion (drape 106) and a second portion (canopy 38, fig. 1), wherein said first portion is coupled to said second portion (drape 106 is attached to canopy 38 via drape snaps 108, col. 7, ll. 63-66); and a frame assembly that is configured to support at least a portion of said cover above said base (pivoting arms 53 and vertical shank 32 supports drape 106 above saddle 30, fig. 1) but fails to teach (c) one or more thermodynamic elements configured to contact the animal, wherein said one or more thermodynamic elements are housed within a pocket that is coupled to an inner surface of said cover. However, Egan teaches one or more thermodynamic elements configured to contact the animal (heating pad 50, col. 7, ll. 39-42), wherein said one or more thermodynamic elements are housed within a pocket (pocket 23) that is coupled to an inner surface of said cover (col. 7, ll. 31-34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Amato’s system with a material layer, the thermodynamic elements and pocket as taught by Egan to maintain an animal’s body temperature during various types of inclement weather. Regarding claim 2, Amato as modified by Egan teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Amato further teaches wherein one or more securing members are coupled to a bottom side of said base, wherein said one or more securing members are configured to secure said base to a predetermined surface (harness 28, col. 4, ll. 64-67). Regarding claim 3, Amato as modified by Egan teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Egan further teaches comprising one or more pieces of liquid-wicking material configured to contact the animal, wherein said one or more pieces of liquid-wicking material are coupled to said inner surface of said cover (col. 7, ll. 15-18). Regarding claim 5, Amato as modified by Egan teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Egan further teaches wherein said one or more thermodynamic elements are packs, gel-packs, blocks, pads, mats, or combinations thereof capable of heating, cooling, or heating and cooling (heating pad, col. 7, ll. 39-40). Regarding claim 6, Amato as modified by Egan teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Amato further teaches wherein first portion is releasably coupled to said second portion by one or more coupling members (drape 106 is attached to canopy 38 via drape snaps 108, col. 7, ll. 63-66), wherein said one or more coupling members are formed within said first portion and said second portion (fig. 1). Regarding claim 7, Amato as modified by Egan teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Egan further teaches further comprising a towel configured to contact the animal, wherein said towel is at least partially coupled to said pocket (a material layer capable of wicking or moving moisture from the body, col. 7, ll. 15-19). Regarding claim 8, Amato as modified by Egan teaches the invention substantially as claimed but fails to teach comprising a second pocket coupled to said inner surface of said cover, wherein said second pocket is configured to receive a second one or more thermodynamic elements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of pocket, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. Regarding claim 14, Amato as modified by Egan teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Amato further teaches wherein said base is separate from said cover (saddle 30 is separate from drape 106 and canopy 38, fig. 1). Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amato in view of Egan, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Beeghly et al. (US 5537954 henceforth Beeghly). Regarding claim 4, Amato as modified by Egan teaches the invention substantially as claimed and Egan further teaches wherein said pocket comprises: (a) one or more compartments that are configured to receive said one or more thermodynamic elements (pocket 23, col. 7, ll. 31-34) but fails to teach (b) a flap extending a length of said pocket, wherein said flap is transitionable between an open position and a closed position; and (c) one or more coupling members that releasably secure said flap in said closed position, thereby retaining said one or more thermodynamic elements in said one or more compartments. However, Beeghly teaches a flap extending a length of said pocket (flap 32, fig. 5), wherein said flap is transitionable between an open position and a closed position (col. 5, ll. 45-46); and (c) one or more coupling members that releasably secure said flap in said closed position, thereby retaining said one or more thermodynamic elements in said one or more compartments (snaps 32, col. 5, ll. 46-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Amato’s system with a flap and snap as taught by Beeghly to prevent unwanted disposition of the thermodynamic element during use. Allowable Subject Matter. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 10-13 and 16-28 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-28 under 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Amato and Egan as disclosed in the above office action. 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 EBONY E EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-1157. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 5712726909. 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. /EBONY E EVANS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 24, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Oct 29, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Apr 13, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599067
CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT PRODUCTION FACILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593818
Unloading Auger
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588656
ANIMAL FEEDER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588655
CAT TOWER FEEDING TRAY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582093
PORTABLE UNIT FOR DOSING OF A DISINFECTANT HOOF BATH REMEDY FOR LIVESTOCK
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
67%
With Interview (+3.0%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 957 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month