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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Currently claim 14 is missing. 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 1-20 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.
The term “readily” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “readily” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore the limitation “wherein the frame is provided with a readily removable lid section” is rendered indefinite.
Claims 2-20 are rejected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conway et al. (US 1986501) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 8/30/24).
Regarding Claim 1, Conway discloses a dark brooder comprising a metal frame (“a frame is formed of corner portions 8, 9, 10, and 11 of suitable sheet metal, connected together at their ends, to form a rectangular frame.” Col. 2 lines 50-53) to which a plurality of wall portions is connected (sidewalls 21, 22, 23, 24; Figure 4), and wherein the frame is provided with a readily removable lid section (top 25; Figures 3 and 4; “ A top designated generally by the numeral 25 is of conventional design. It is formed of box board and has the edges 26 thereof turned down-ward to slip over the outer side of the side walls” Col. 2 lines 72-75).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 1986501) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ferres (US 1152619).
Regarding Claim 2, Conway discloses the dark brooder of claim 1.
Conway fails to disclose the dark brooder, wherein a removable plastics material slat section is placed on top of the lid section.
However, Ferres teaches a brooder, wherein a removable material slat section is placed on top of the lid section (top two with mesh 5, “a pasting strip 4 is used for hingedly: connecting the free outer edge of the top 2 with the outer free edge of the sidewall 3” Col. 2 lines 70-73; on top of false top 6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the lid of Conway, with the removable slat section as taught by Ferres, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide these ventilation openings with screens 5, in order to prevent the entrance of rodents (Ferres Col. 2 lines 85-88).
Additionally it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the removable portion of Ferres, to be made of plastic with reasonable expectation of success, in order to decrease the cost of construction and help prevent rust from forming, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 1986501) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cudia et al. (US 2008/0196673).
Regarding Claim 3, Conway discloses the dark brooder of claim 1.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein at least one of the plurality of wall portions is provided with a magnetic connector adjacent an intended top edge for connecting the wall portion to the frame.
However, Cudia teaches an animal cage, wherein at least one of the plurality of wall portions is provided with a magnetic connector adjacent an intended top edge for connecting the wall portion to the frame (“The frame is secured with high-powered magnets housed in plastic connectors with protruding pegs reinforcing the connection between the screened panels.” Abstract; Magnets 10; Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wall portions of Conway, to be magnetically removable as taught by Cudia, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to gain easier access to the interior for cleaning and maintenance.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 1986501) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morison (US 1581857).
Regarding Claim 4, Conway discloses the dark brooder of claim 1.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein at least one of the wall portions comprises a flexible plastics material having slits therein to create flaps.
However, Morison teaches a similar brooder wherein at least one of the wall portions comprises a flexible material having slits therein to create flaps (“They are made of flexible material and are slit or snipped as shown in Fig. 2 so as to form loose tongues 9 to allow freedom of movement for the chicks” Col. 2 lines 73-76; Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the walls of Conway, to have the flexible flaps as taught by Morison, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier entrance and exit of the chicks.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flaps of Morison, to be made of plastic, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide temperature control within the brooder, while still allowing the chicks to easily enter and exit.
Regarding Claim 5, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 4.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the flaps are between 2cm and 10cm in width.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flaps of Morison, to be between 2cm and 10cm in width, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide temperature control within the brooder, while still allowing the chicks to easily enter and exit, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claims 6-7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 1986501) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Muehlfeld (US 2787697) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 8/30/24).
Regarding Claim 6, Conway discloses the dark brooder of claim 1.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the relative height of the wall portions on the frame can be adjusted to provide a gap therebeneath of between 1cm and 6cm.
However, Muehlfeld teaches a dark brooder, wherein the relative height of the wall portions on the frame can be adjusted to provide a gap therebeneath (adjustable leg sections 17; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Conway, to have the walls be height adjustable as taught by Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to customize the brooder to allow for different sized birds to enter.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustability of Muehlfeld, to have gap therebeneath of between 1cm and 6cm, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for different sized birds to enter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 7, Conway discloses the dark brooder of claim 1.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section.
However, Muehlfeld a brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material (“The canopy structure 12 is formed of light metal” Col. 3 line 59) and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section (“radiant heat energy tube 47 which is of the so-called heating lamp type manufactured by present-day producers of electric lamps of the infra-red ray type.” Col. 4 lines 26-29; heat rises and therefore would heat up the metal lid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brooder and lid of Conway, with the infrared heater of Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide temperature control over the brooder, while maintaining low energy costs.
Regarding Claim 20, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 6.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section.
However, Muehlfeld a brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material (“The canopy structure 12 is formed of light metal” Col. 3 line 59) and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section (“radiant heat energy tube 47 which is of the so-called heating lamp type manufactured by present-day producers of electric lamps of the infra-red ray type.” Col. 4 lines 26-29; heat rises and therefore would heat up the metal lid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brooder and lid of Conway, with the infrared heater of Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide temperature control over the brooder, while maintaining low energy costs.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 1986501) in view of Ferres (US 1152619) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Cudia et al. (US 2008/0196673).
Regarding Claim 8, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 2.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein at least one of the plurality of wall portions is provided with a magnetic connector adjacent an intended top edge for connecting the wall portion to the frame.
However, Cudia teaches an animal cage, wherein at least one of the plurality of wall portions is provided with a magnetic connector adjacent an intended top edge for connecting the wall portion to the frame (“The frame is secured with high-powered magnets housed in plastic connectors with protruding pegs reinforcing the connection between the screened panels.” Abstract; Magnets 10; Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wall portions of Conway, to be magnetically removable as taught by Cudia, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to gain easier access to the interior for cleaning and maintenance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 1986501) in view of Ferres (US 1152619) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Morison (US 1581857).
Regarding Claim 9, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 2.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein at least one of the wall portions comprises a flexible plastics material having slits therein to create flaps.
However, Morison teaches a similar brooder wherein at least one of the wall portions comprises a flexible material having slits therein to create flaps (“They are made of flexible material and are slit or snipped as shown in Fig. 2 so as to form loose tongues 9 to allow freedom of movement for the chicks” Col. 2 lines 73-76; Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the walls of Conway, to have the flexible flaps as taught by Morison, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier entrance and exit of the chicks.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flaps of Morison, to be made of plastic, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide temperature control within the brooder, while still allowing the chicks to easily enter and exit.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 1986501) in view of Cudia et al. (US 2008/0196673) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Morison (US 1581857).
Regarding Claim 10, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 3.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein at least one of the wall portions comprises a flexible plastics material having slits therein to create flaps.
However, Morison teaches a similar brooder wherein at least one of the wall portions comprises a flexible material having slits therein to create flaps (“They are made of flexible material and are slit or snipped as shown in Fig. 2 so as to form loose tongues 9 to allow freedom of movement for the chicks” Col. 2 lines 73-76; Figures 1 and 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the walls of Conway, to have the flexible flaps as taught by Morison, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for easier entrance and exit of the chicks.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flaps of Morison, to be made of plastic, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to help provide temperature control within the brooder, while still allowing the chicks to easily enter and exit.
Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 1986501) in view of Ferres (US 1152619) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Muehlfeld (US 2787697) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 8/30/24).
Regarding Claim 11, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 2.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the relative height of the wall portions on the frame can be adjusted to provide a gap therebeneath of between 1cm and 6cm.
However, Muehlfeld teaches a dark brooder, wherein the relative height of the wall portions on the frame can be adjusted to provide a gap therebeneath (adjustable leg sections 17; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Conway, to have the walls be height adjustable as taught by Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to customize the brooder to allow for different sized birds to enter.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustability of Muehlfeld, to have gap therebeneath of between 1cm and 6cm, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for different sized birds to enter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 16, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 2.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section.
However, Muehlfeld a brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material (“The canopy structure 12 is formed of light metal” Col. 3 line 59) and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section (“radiant heat energy tube 47 which is of the so-called heating lamp type manufactured by present-day producers of electric lamps of the infra-red ray type.” Col. 4 lines 26-29; heat rises and therefore would heat up the metal lid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brooder and lid of Conway, with the infrared heater of Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide temperature control over the brooder, while maintaining low energy costs.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 1986501) in view of Cudia et al. (US 2008/0196673) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Muehlfeld (US 2787697) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 8/30/24).
Regarding Claim 12, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 3.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the relative height of the wall portions on the frame can be adjusted to provide a gap therebeneath of between 1cm and 6cm.
However, Muehlfeld teaches a dark brooder, wherein the relative height of the wall portions on the frame can be adjusted to provide a gap therebeneath (adjustable leg sections 17; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Conway, to have the walls be height adjustable as taught by Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to customize the brooder to allow for different sized birds to enter.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustability of Muehlfeld, to have gap therebeneath of between 1cm and 6cm, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for different sized birds to enter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 17, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 3.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section.
However, Muehlfeld a brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material (“The canopy structure 12 is formed of light metal” Col. 3 line 59) and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section (“radiant heat energy tube 47 which is of the so-called heating lamp type manufactured by present-day producers of electric lamps of the infra-red ray type.” Col. 4 lines 26-29; heat rises and therefore would heat up the metal lid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brooder and lid of Conway, with the infrared heater of Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide temperature control over the brooder, while maintaining low energy costs.
Claims 13, 15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conway et al. (US 1986501) in view of Morison (US 1581857) as applied to claim 4 and 5 above, and further in view of Muehlfeld (US 2787697) (cited by applicant in IDS dated 8/30/24).
Regarding Claim 13, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 4.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the relative height of the wall portions on the frame can be adjusted to provide a gap therebeneath of between 1cm and 6cm.
However, Muehlfeld teaches a dark brooder, wherein the relative height of the wall portions on the frame can be adjusted to provide a gap therebeneath (adjustable leg sections 17; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Conway, to have the walls be height adjustable as taught by Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to customize the brooder to allow for different sized birds to enter.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustability of Muehlfeld, to have gap therebeneath of between 1cm and 6cm, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for different sized birds to enter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 15, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 5.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the relative height of the wall portions on the frame can be adjusted to provide a gap therebeneath of between 1cm and 6cm.
However, Muehlfeld teaches a dark brooder, wherein the relative height of the wall portions on the frame can be adjusted to provide a gap therebeneath (adjustable leg sections 17; Figure 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the frame of Conway, to have the walls be height adjustable as taught by Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow the user to customize the brooder to allow for different sized birds to enter.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustability of Muehlfeld, to have gap therebeneath of between 1cm and 6cm, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to allow for different sized birds to enter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, in Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Regarding Claim 18, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 4.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section.
However, Muehlfeld a brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material (“The canopy structure 12 is formed of light metal” Col. 3 line 59) and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section (“radiant heat energy tube 47 which is of the so-called heating lamp type manufactured by present-day producers of electric lamps of the infra-red ray type.” Col. 4 lines 26-29; heat rises and therefore would heat up the metal lid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brooder and lid of Conway, with the infrared heater of Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide temperature control over the brooder, while maintaining low energy costs.
Regarding Claim 19, Conway as modified teaches the dark brooder of claim 5.
Conway fails to disclose a dark brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section.
However, Muehlfeld a brooder, wherein the lid section comprises a conductive material (“The canopy structure 12 is formed of light metal” Col. 3 line 59) and an infra-red heater is provided that can heat the lid section (“radiant heat energy tube 47 which is of the so-called heating lamp type manufactured by present-day producers of electric lamps of the infra-red ray type.” Col. 4 lines 26-29; heat rises and therefore would heat up the metal lid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the brooder and lid of Conway, with the infrared heater of Muehlfeld, with reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide temperature control over the brooder, while maintaining low energy costs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rexford (US 1015073), Twomley (US 1182603), and Anderson (US 2334056) are considered relevant prior art as they pertain to similar brooders.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALANNA PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-6126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Joshua Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. 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.
/A.K.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA D HUSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights