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 Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim depends from Claim 4, which is cancelled. For the purposes of examination, Claim 8 will be treated as depending from Claim 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “the short support rod” which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites “the third hinge joint,” “the fourth hinge joint,” “the top frame,” “the bottom frame,” and “the side support rod” which renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For the purposes of examination, Claim 9 will be treated as depending from Claim 8 where these features are recited.
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 1, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirillo in US Patent 4376318 in view of LeMole in US Patent 6353969 and Griffenberg in US Patent 1036222.
Regarding Claims 1 and 3, Cirillo teaches an improved structure of pet cage, including a frame body (16) on which a long support rod (38/40) is provided, wherein the long support rod includes two first connecting pipes (38 and 40), one end of the two first connecting pipes is provided with a first hinge joint (44 on 38) and a second hinge joint (44 on 40), and the other end of the two first connecting pipes is movably connected to the frame body (at 34), one of the first connecting pipes is also provided with a sleeve (26), and the sleeve is placed around the hinge joint of the first hinge joint and the second hinge joint. Cirillo further teaches that one first connecting pipe (40) is provided with a limit member (48) and the second hinge joint (44), and the limit member is located on the other side of the sleeve, but is silent on the use of an elastic buckle. LeMole teaches a long rod with first (22) and second (32) connecting pipes, one end of the two first connecting pipes is provided with a first hinge joint (24) and a second hinge joint (34), one of the first connecting pipes is also provided with a sleeve (70), and the sleeve is placed around the hinge joint of the first hinge joint and the second hinge joint, wherein one first connecting pipe is provided with an elastic limit buckle (27/29) and the first hinge joint, and the elastic limit buckle is located on one side of the sleeve, wherein the elastic limit buckle includes a V-shaped shrapnel (29) and a limit buckle (27) fixed at one end of the V-shaped shrapnel, the position of corresponding limit buckle on a first connecting tube is provided with a first through-hole (28), and the position of corresponding first through-hole on a first hinge joint is provided with a second through-hole (37), the V-shaped shrapnel is disposed inside the first connecting tube, and one end of the limit buckle extends outward outside the first through-hole and the second through-hole (the limit buckle extends outward of the outer surface of the tube, which is outward of both of the holes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cirillo by adding an elastic buckle and through holes as taught by LeMole in order to better secure the hinge in a locked position.
Cirillo, as modified, is silent on the use of an annular ring as the limit member. Griffenberg teaches a hinge including a sleeve (10) which abuts a limit member (18), wherein the limit member is a annular limit ring, and the annular limit ring is connected to one side of a second hinge joint (7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Cirillo, as modified, by using an annular limit member as taught by Griffenberg in order to better limit and stop the sleeve from over extending.
Regarding Claim 5, Cirillo, as modified, is silent on the connection between the connecting pipes and hinge joints. LeMole teaches that both first connecting pipes are provided with connecting through-holes (37 and 47), the first hinge joint is provided with a first connecting hole (into which screw 42 projects) at the position corresponding to the connecting through-hole, the second hinge joint is provided with a second connecting hole (into which screw 52 projects) at the position corresponding to the connecting through-hole, the first connecting hole is connected with a connector (42), and one end of the connector is connected to the connecting through-hole, the second connecting hole is connected with a connector (52), and one end of the connector is connected to the connecting through-hole. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hinge of Cirillo, as modified, by using a hinge as taught by LeMole in order to provide a modular and more easily repaired hinge.
Regarding Claim 7, Cirillo teaches that the frame body includes a bottom frame (two 38/40, four 34, and two 20/22 on one end), four side support rods (16), and a top frame (two 38/40, four 34, and two 20/22 on the opposite end), the top frame includes four tee joints (34), two short support rods (20/22), and two long support rods (38/40), one end of the short support rod and one end of the long support rod in a similar position are movably connected to the two ends of the tee joint, so that the top frame forms a square frame body, the four tee joints on the top frame are respectively connected to the upper ends of the four side support rods, and the lower ends of the four side support rods are fixedly connected to the surrounding areas of the bottom frame (the device can inherently be oriented in such a direction).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirillo as applied to Claim 7 above. Cirillo teaches that the short support rod includes two connecting pipes (20 and 22) connected by a hinge, but fails to teach details of the short support rod hinge. However, Cirillo teaches a hinge (between 38 and 40) on a rod (38/40) in which the rod includes two connecting pipes (38 and 40) and one end of the two connecting pipes is respectively provided with a third hinge joint (such as 44 on 38) and a fourth hinge joint (44 on 40) that are mutually hinged (at 46), one of the connecting pipes is further provided with a slidable sleeve (26), the slidable sleeve is sleeved around the hinge joint of the third hinge joint and the fourth hinge joint, and the other end of the two second connecting pipes is movably connected with the corresponding tee joint (at 34), respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hinge on the short support rod of Cirillo by using the same hinge as that on the long support rod of Cirillo in order to provide a locking hinge on all of the folding rods. Such a device, as modified, then inherently includes the third hinge joint having the same shape and size as the first hinge joint, the fourth hinge joint having the same shape and size as the second hinge joint, the bottom frame and top frame have the same shape and size, and the bottom frame and top frame are symmetrically disposed at the upper and lower ends of the side support rod.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 1: the limitation “the sleeve (5) is placed around the hinge joint of the first hinge joint (3) and the second hinge joint (4)” is taught by Cirillo. The applicant alleges that this feature is not taught by Griffenberg, which is not relied upon to teach the feature. The applicant’s arguments regarding Claim 1 are all directed to Griffenberg, which is not relied upon to teach any of the original limitations of Claim 1.
Griffenberg is relied upon to teach the integral limit ring, which is plainly shown as Griffenberg element 18, which is an annular ring that is an integral part of a second hinge joint, Griffenberg element 7.
Applicant’s arguments directed to Cirillo are not found persuasive, as Cirillo is not relied upon to teach the limitations at issue. LeMole teaches that elastic limit buckle.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 NOAH C. HAWK whose telephone number is (571)272-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5:30pm.
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, David Dunn can be reached at 5712726670. 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.
NOAH C. HAWK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3636
/Noah C. Hawk/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights