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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/26/2026 has been entered.
Application Status
Claims 16, 18-29, 31-36 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 1-15, 17, 30 are cancelled. Claims 16, 18, 20-22, 26, 28, 33-34, 36 are amended, claims 19, 23-25, 27, 29, 31-32, 35 are previously presented.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 10/31/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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 16, 18-29, 31-33 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 16 line 11 “the stay” lacks antecedent basis.
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.
(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) 34-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by (US 5054426 A) to Panarelli.
In regards to claim 34, Panarelli anticipates an animal crate for transporting an animal in a vehicle, the animal crate comprising: a bottom and a top connected by a frame assembly (Panarelli; bottom and top of 10, 12, 16 connected by frame elements of 16, see FIG 1); an elongate member extending in a longitudinal direction and connected to a front portion of the frame assembly and a rear portion of the frame assembly (Panarelli; bars of cage 16 creating longitudinally extending elongate members connecting front and rear portions of 10, 12); and a stop element configured to limit the relative translation of the front portion and the rear portion (Panarelli; see FIGs 1A where the ‘tabs’ at the end of the guide bars 18 which are pins within slots 20 that translate and prevent 10, 12 from expanding beyond the length of 16, thereby limiting the translation) wherein the stop element is configured to shear in response to a threshold longitudinal force such that the front portion and the rear portion are configured to translate relative to each other to a minimum expanded position after the stop element shears (Panarelli; ‘tabs’ at the end of guide bars 18 being the stop element which is configured to shear in response to a threshold longitudinal force such as a failure force, which would allow for 10, 12 to expand to a minimum expanded position upon failure), and wherein the stop element comprises a pin configured to translate in the longitudinal direction within a slot (Panarelli; see FIGs 1A where the ‘tabs’ at the end of the guide bars 18 which are pins within slots 20).
PNG
media_image1.png
601
420
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 35, Panarelli anticipates the animal crate of claim 34, wherein the slot comprises a first end and a second end (Panarelli; see FIG 1 with the two ends of the slot 20), and wherein the pin is disposed proximate to the first end when the front portion and the rear portion are in a first relative position (Panarelli; such as when 10, 12 are close together, the pin end of 18 would be proximate a first end), and wherein the pin is disposed proximate to the second end when the front portion and the rear portion are in a second relative position (Panarelli; such as when 10, 12 are pulled apart as in FIG 1, and the pin end of 18 would be proximate a second end).
In regards to claim 36, Panarelli anticipates the animal crate of claim 35, wherein the pin is configured to abut an end of the slot (Panarelli; see FIG 1A where the pin end of 18 abuts an end of the slot 20; the pin end capable of shearing in response to a longitudinal force which exceeds a threshold value based on the size of the pin and the material it is made of).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16, 18-29, 31-33 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Panarelli fails to teach the amended claim language of Claim 34, and argues that because the shell housings 10, 12 abut each other, even if the tabs could shear against an end of the slot 20, “the front portion and rear portion would already be abutting each other (e.g., in a minimum expanded position). Therefore, they could not move closer together after the tabs shear.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the minimum expanded position being a position in which the shell housings be able to move closer together after shearing in an end of the slot 20) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Specifically, the claimed limitation states that “wherein the stop element is configured to shear in response to a threshold longitudinal force such that the front portion and the rear portion are configured to translate relative to each other to a minimum expanded position after the stop element shears”. However, the “minimum expanded position” is not defined by the claims to limit the scope as requiring the ends of the housings to be able to collapse further. For instance, the limitation can be interpreted to indicate that the stop element, once sheared, allows the housings to move to a position in which the crate is minimally expanded, which could be a position in which 10 and 12 are halfway expanded, a quarter way expanded, but expanded to a point that is a minimum compared to the fully expanded position in FIG 1. The term “minimum expanded position” is not defined as a position in which the ends of 10 and 12 are closer to each other than when in a collapsed position, such as when the pin abuts the leftmost end of the slot 20 in Panarelli.
Therefore, it is asserted that Panarelli teaches the claims as-written.
Applicant argues that Panarelli does not disclose a stop element configured to shear, and argues that the specification discloses that the required force for relative movement of the front and rear portion can be controlled to allow relative movement of the front and rear portion in the case of an accident causing rapid acceleration/deceleration, allowing the animal cage to better withstand the forces associated with such an event, and the specification discloses that the stop element may be configured to allow relative movement of the front and rear portion past the first relative position when the animal cage is subjected to a force in the longitudinal direction L being higher than a threshold value or threshold force in the case of an accident, and argues that Panarelli does not address controlling the force for relative movement of the front and rear portions so the animal crate better withstands forces during a collision. Applicant thus argues that Panarelli fails to teach the stop element in the amended claim language of claim 34.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., controlling the force for relative movement of the front and rear portions of the crate, the application of controlling forces in a collision, and the threshold force in an accident) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In the instant case, the limitation states that “wherein the stop element is configured to shear in response to a threshold longitudinal force such that the front portion and the rear portion are configured to translate relative to each other to a minimum expanded position after the stop element shears”. The “threshold longitudinal force” is not specifically defined in the claims or in the specification to the extent that it limits the claim to meaning a force that is in any way controlled. The limitation as-written requires that the stop element be configured to shear in response to a threshold longitudinal force, which without further clarification in the claims, this threshold longitudinal force can be interpreted as the force in which the element experiences failure, and therefore the pin of Panarelli would then shear. Applicant’s claimed language of claim 34 further does not claim the structural elements which allow for the invention (as in the cited paragraphs of the specification) to provide these controlled forces in an accident or provide further specification to the term “threshold longitudinal force” such that a general failure force would not read upon the limitation. It is therefore asserted that Panarelli teaches the claimed invention as-written.
Arguments with respect to claims 16, 18-29, 31-33 are moot, see the indication of allowable subjectmatter above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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 (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights