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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information disclosure statement of 02/05/2025 has been received and reviewed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20240263509 to Brown.
Regarding claim 1, Brown discloses:
A remote opening animal crate apparatus (fig 1) comprising: an animal crate (100) with a door (108) wherein the door is movably connected with the animal crate such that the door is movable from a closed position to an open position (not shown, see paragraph 0045); a locking device (132) wherein the locking device includes a lock pin (130) wherein the locking device is configured to operate between a locked position and an unlocked position such that when said locking device is in the locked position, the lock pin holds the door in said closed position (paragraph 0052); and a remote operating device (112) wherein the remote operating device and said locking device are connected such that said remote operating device when activated operates to cause the lock pin to move from the locked position to the unlocked position (paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 2, Brown discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the remote operating device and the locking device are wirelessly connected (via 130, see paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 5, Brown discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the remote operating device is selected from a group consisting of: a computer, a smart phone, an IPad and a RF key fob (see paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 6, Brown discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the animal crate is a dog crate (see abstract).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240263509 to Brown in view of US 4216743 to Cohen.
Regarding claim 3, Brown does not explicitly disclose:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the locking device is push-pull solenoid. Brown only discloses the locking device to be a motor.
However, Cohen teaches that it is well known in the art for a locking device to be a push-pill solenoid 13a. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the push-pull solenoid as taught by Cohen into the assembly of Brown at least because doing so requires the simple substitution of one known feature for another and could be accomplished without undue experimentation and would yield the same result, providing a motorized locking device. See MPEP 2143, subsection I.B. (3).
Regarding claim 4, Brown in view of Cohen does not explicitly disclose: The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the push-pull solenoid is a twelve volt or twenty-four volt push pull solenoid. However, Brown in view of Cohen does teach the push-pull solenoid being energized, thereby receiving some amount of voltage. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to alter the voltage of push-pull solenoid so that it could have many values usable in a variety of applications, including twelve or twenty-four volts 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. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 7 is rejected as per the rejection of claims 1, 3, and 5 above.
Claim 8 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 9 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim 10 is rejected as per the rejection of claim 6 above.
Regarding claims 11-16, although Brown in view of Cohen doesn’t explicitly disclose the method of claims 11-16, Brown in view of Cohen teaches the structure necessary for such method as rejected in claims 1-6 above. It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to use the invention of Brown in view of Cohen in the method of claims 11-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yahya Sidky whose telephone number is (571)272-6237. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-4:30.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/Y.S./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675