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
Claims 15, 25, 26, 30, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 15, 25, 26, 30, and 31, instead of “and/or” --at least one of-- language is preferred for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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) 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,575,502 to Rust et al or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent No. 10,575,502 to Rust et al in view of United Kingdom Patent No. 400,462 to Wrentmore.
Regarding Claims 15, 29, and 31, Rust teaches a poultry house (Rust Fig. 6 #110) with keeping facility (Rust Fig. 6 #118) and method for keeping poultry animals comprising: a floor (Rust Fig. 10 #124) defining a first dwelling surface for laying hens; and an inlay (Rust Fig. 10 #130) defining a second dwelling surface for rearing chicks, wherein the inlay is arranged above the floor (Rust Fig. 10 top left and right #130 are above lower floors #124 of the lower tower areas); wherein the floor defining the first dwelling surface and/or the inlay defining the second dwelling surface are formed as a mesh floor (Rust Fig. 9 inlay mesh #130; claimed in the alternative so only one floor needs to be mesh to satisfy the claim).
The inlay structure of Rust can be detached (Rust Fig. 6 and 10 #130; Rust teaches stacking and unstacking to create any desired level, Col. 6 lines 31-41) i.e. is capable of being detached; alternatively, Rust is silent on explicitly teaching the inlay detachably arranged.
However, Wrentmore teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide the poultry inlay as being removable from a poultry compartment i.e. detachably arranged (Wrentmore Fig. 1 #31 and #33; page 2 Col. 1 lines 35-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Rust with the teachings of Wrentmore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for cleaning as taught by Wrentmore (Wrentmore page 2 Col. 2 line 62). The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predicable results. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to make known components separable [In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)] for ease of storage, maintenance, cleaning.
Regarding Claim 16, Rust as modified teaches the floor is inclined with respect to a horizontal plane by an angle of inclination and wherein the inlay has a smaller angle of inclination with respect to the horizontal plane than the floor (Rust Fig. 6 #124 is inclined, inlay #130 has 0 slope so it is a smaller angle of inclination with respect to the horizontal plane than the floor #124).
Regarding Claim 17, Rust as modified teaches the inlay is arranged horizontally (Rust Fig. 6 #130).
Regarding Claim 20, Rust as modified teaches both the floor and the inlay are formed as a mesh floor and wherein a mesh width of the inlay differs from a mesh width of the floor (Rust inlay Fig. 9 #130 allows eggs to pass through #134 and Rust floor Fig. 25 and 27 #3039 does not let eggs pass through #3082).
Regarding Claims 22 and 23, Rust as modified teaches the inlay is formed in several pieces (Rust Fig. 10 #130 appears in four separate places thus several pieces); the inlay is formed in three pieces (Rust Fig. 10 #130 appears in four places which satisfies three pieces; the claim language does not exclude the presence of additional pieces more than three and the claim does not require the pieces to be directly connected or near each other).
Regarding Claim 26, Rust as modified teaches the keeping facility has at least one nest and/or an egg roll-off system and least one safety gate detachably arranged on the keeping facility and which is configured to block off the nest and/or the egg roll-off system (Rust gate Fig. 19 #1150 in nest #22 blocks birds, applicant claims alternative nest or egg-roll off and the claim doesn’t the structural placement of the gate in relation to the nest or what it is blocking the nest from, since #1150 is part of the nest system #22 it satisfies the broad nature of the claim).
Claim(s) 18, 21, 25, 27, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,575,502 to Rust et al in view of United Kingdom Patent No. 400,462 to Wrentmore as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 2021/0144974 to Rensing.
Regarding Claim 18, Rust as modified mentions the presence of feed in the keeping facility, but is silent on explicitly teaching the keeping facility has a feeding facility with a feeding trough and wherein the inlay is suspended on the feeding trough or is attached to the feeding trough. However, Rensing teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a feeding facility with a feeding trough (Rensing Fig. 1 #21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Rust with the teachings of Rensing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to nourish the poultry and help them grow. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The feed trough of Rensing is attached to the feeding tower and Rust as modified by Rensing satisfies the inlay attached to the feeding trough via the assembled tower structure, applicant does not claim a direct connection between the inlay and the trough.
Regarding Claim 21, Rust as modified teaches the mesh width of the inlay is smaller than the mesh width of the floor (Rensing paragraph [0004]). Such a modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation that involves an obvious change in size [In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463, 105 USPQ 237, 240 (CCPA 1955)] and/or reversing parts [In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 452, 104 USPQ 400, 402 (CCPA 1955)] to control passage of manure, feed, and eggs and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record (applicant hasn’t claimed a specific ratio of size openings nor a specific range of sizes). It would have been obvious to further modify the teachings of Rust with the teachings of Rensing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to control passage and to accommodate different sizes of birds while performing the same intended function of poultry walking on the surface. The modification is merely the simple substitution of one known mesh/grid size for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 27, Rust as modified teaches the keeping facility has a perch and wherein the perch is formed to be height-adjustable (Rust #1029 and Rensing paragraph [0015]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Rust with the teachings of Rensing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to control access to different levels as taught by Rensing (Rensing paragraph [0051]). The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 25, Rust as modified teaches the feeding facility has at least one drinking trough and wherein the drinking trough is formed to be height-adjustable and/or (Rensing paragraph [0013] height adjustable feeding trough) wherein the feeding facility has at least one feeding trough and wherein the feeding trough is formed to be height-adjustable in such a way that the drinking trough and/or the feeding trough is/are accessible from the floor and the inlay. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Rust with the teachings of Rensing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to grow in height with the chicks as taught by Rensing (Rensing paragraph [0013]). The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 28, Rust as modified teaches the keeping facility has at least one lateral partition wall with ventilation openings (Rensing Fig. 3 #46), but is silent on wherein the ventilation openings that are arranged adjacent to the inlay have a smaller opening diameter than the ventilation openings that are not arranged adjacent to the inlay. However, the examiner takes official notice that gradient size opening are known ventilation technique and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Rust with the teachings of Rensing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide a barrier to the poultry as taught by Rensing. The partition wall of Rensing is a grid with apertures and merely providing a gradient in sizes of the openings is an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to optimize ventilation and the mere change in size of the openings does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record [In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 463, 105 USPQ 237, 240 (CCPA 1955)]. The modifications are merely applications of known techniques to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 30, Rust as modified teaches a method for keeping poultry animals, comprising a floor (Rust Fig. 10 #124) defining a first dwelling surface for laying hens; and an inlay (Rust Fig. 10 #130) defining a second dwelling surface for rearing chicks, wherein the inlay is arranged above the floor (Rust Fig. 10 top left and right #130 are above lower floors #124 of the lower tower areas); wherein the floor defining the first dwelling surface and/or the inlay defining the second dwelling surface are formed as a mesh floor (Rust Fig. 9 inlay mesh #130; claimed in the alternative so only one floor needs to be mesh to satisfy the claim).
The inlay structure of Rust can be detached (Rust Fig. 6 and 10 #130; Rust teaches stacking and unstacking to create any desired level, Col. 6 lines 31-41) i.e. is capable of being detached; alternatively, Rust is silent on explicitly teaching the inlay detachably arranged.
Wrentmore teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide the poultry inlay as being removable from a poultry compartment i.e. detachably arranged (Wrentmore Fig. 1 #31 and #33; page 2 Col. 1 lines 35-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Rust with the teachings of Wrentmore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for cleaning as taught by Wrentmore (Wrentmore page 2 Col. 2 line 62). The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predicable results. The modification is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation to a make known components separable [In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961)].
Rust as modified is silent on day old chicks. However, Rensing teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is a known method step to raise day old chicks into laying hens in the same facility to accommodate the mesh floor patterns to meet the needs of the stage of growth between the day old chick and laying hen (Rensing paragraph [0004] and [0006]; [0007], [0036], [0044] day old) and keeping the laying hens on the floor of the keeping facility (Rust Fig. 10 #124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Rust with the teachings of Rensing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce labor efforts as taught by Rensing (Rensing paragraph [0005]). The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Rust as modified satisfies the step of removing the inlay after rearing the chicks since Wrentmore teaches the inlay is removable (Wrentmore page 2 Col. 2 line 62) for cleaning and cleaning can occur at any time including after rearing of the chicks. The methods steps do not connect the removal of the inlay to the growth in size of the poultry nor does it claim permanent removal. Rust as modified by Wrentmore satisfies the broad nature of the claim. I would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Rust with the teachings of Wrentmore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove the inlay after rearing chicks to clean it as taught by Wrentmore. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 10,575,502 to Rust et al in view of United Kingdom Patent No. 400,462 to Wrentmore and U.S. Patent No. 2021/0144974 to Rensing as applied to claim 15 and 18 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,552,359 to Graves et al.
Regarding Claim 19, Rust as modified is silent on hooks are assigned to the inlay and the hooks are configured to engage with the feeding trough. However, Graves teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide hooks to connect a poultry facility mesh floor structure to another component of the poultry keeping facility (Graves Fig. 2 #21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Rust with the teachings of Graves before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with are reasonable expectation of success to secure the inlay in place but allow distance between the feeder and inlay for an egg to pass between; in other words, to prevent undesired displacement but allow egg movement as taught by Graves. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to housing poultry facilities:
Korea Patent KR 20160133252; China Patent CN 103583401; Japan Patent JP 2007014216; German Patent DE 102004028128; U.S. Patent No. 6,470,827; U.S. Patent No. 5,269,255; U.S. Patent No. 4,524,721; U.S. Patent No. 4,315,481; U.S. Patent No. 4,046,107; U.S. Patent No. 3,727,582; U.S. Patent No. 2,167,956; U.S. Patent No. 5,365,878.
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
17 November 2025