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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,144,319 in view of U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0126775 to Seltzer et al.
The claims of the instant application are coextensive in scope to the claims of the patented application. Merely eliminating the forklift features when those features are not desired and eliminating the aesthetic details of the door height and transparency of material are merely an obvious engineering design choice. These eliminations do not present a patentably distinct over the patent invention. Seltzer teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to pair a smartphone with control software for sending alerts and real time data (Seltzer paragraph [0028]-[0032]). This modification is merely an obvious engineering choice and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for remote control when flying as taught by Seltzer. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 2, “by means of hinges.” Should be --by hinges.--
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0126775 to Seltzer et al in view of AVS FORUM, Soundproof ventilation dead vent or baffled box/ acoustic box [retrieved from internet 12 January 2026 https://www.avsforum.com/threads/soundproof-ventilation-dead-vent-or-baffled-box-acoustic-box.1477067/] pgs.21 Nashoomoo Posted Jun 2013.
Regarding Claim 1, Seltzer teaches a noise-dampening dog kennel, comprising:
a box-shaped housing having a plurality of noise-dampening walls defining an enclosed interior space; wherein said box-shaped housing includes a noise-dampening door on a front face thereof configured to permit ingress and egress of an animal, wherein said noise-dampening door is closeable (Seltzer Fig. 2B 201B #226; Fig. 2A 210A #212; and Fig. 2A 240A #216; Fig. 1 #116; paragraph [0019]) a ventilation assembly with noise-dampening baffles integrated within at least one wall of the plurality of walls, the ventilation assembly with noise-dampening baffles (Seltzer paragraph [0050] teaches baffles at air ingress and egress).
Seltzer is silent on the structural configuration of the sound baffles; wherein said ventilation assembly with noise-dampening baffles permits inflow of breathable air while dampening sound waves carried by the air when the door is closed; wherein the airflow through the baffle box assembly reduces ambient noise within the enclosed interior space. However, AVS FORUM teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a noise dampening baffle of at least one hollow air corridor having an air intake end and an air exhaust end; a fan positioned at the air intake end configured to force air through the at least one hollow air corridor; and a plurality of baffles mounted on a planar base, said plurality of baffles are arranged in an alternating pattern defining a switchback-shaped continuous channel for air to travel through (AVS FORUM Nashoomoo June 12, 2013 #1 post). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Seltzer with the teachings of AVS FORUM before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve soundproof ventilation as taught by AVS FORUM. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known sound baffle for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 3, Seltzer as modified teaches the plurality of noise-dampening walls
and the noise-dampening door comprise sound-dampening materials (Seltzer paragraph [0009] and #311, #212, #226). Seltzer as modified is silent on multiple layers of sound dampening material. However, the modification is merely the duplication of a known element for a multiple affect and does not present a patentably distinct limitation. Duplication for a multiple affect is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation for optimized soundproofing and temperature control [In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960)]. The examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Seltzer before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for more soundproofing and insulating properties. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or "obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0126775 to Seltzer et al in view of AVS FORUM, Soundproof ventilation dead vent or baffled box/ acoustic box [retrieved from internet 12 January 2026 https://www.avsforum.com/threads/soundproof-ventilation-dead-vent-or-baffled-box-acoustic-box.1477067/] pgs. Nashoomoo Posted Jun 2013 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,123,874 to White.
Regarding Claim 2, Seltzer as modified is silent on comprising an extractor positioned at the air exhaust end of the at least one hollow air corridor, the extractor configured to remove air from the enclosed interior space. However, White teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide an extractor positioned at the air exhaust end of the at least one hollow air corridor, the extractor configured to remove air from the enclosed interior space (White Fig. 7 #90; Col. 8 lines 34-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Seltzer with the teachings of White before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide air circulation as taught by White. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4, 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0126775 to Seltzer et al in view of AVS FORUM, Soundproof ventilation dead vent or baffled box/ acoustic box [retrieved from internet 12 January 2026 https://www.avsforum.com/threads/soundproof-ventilation-dead-vent-or-baffled-box-acoustic-box.1477067/] pgs. Nashoomoo Posted Jun 2013 and U.S. Patent No. 5,123,874 to White as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 8,915,216 to Hoegh et al.
Regarding Claim 4, Seltzer as modified teaches electronic assembly comprising: a power source (Seltzer A/C plug #314; Fig. 1 #155); a controller (Seltzer Fig. 1 #161); the fan (Seltzer #334); an extractor (Seltzer Fig. 1 #154; White #90); one or more speakers (Seltzer Fig. 1 #132 and #134); a light source (Seltzer Fig. #142); a thermometer (Seltzer Fig. 1 #152); sensors (Seltzer Fig. 1 #162). Seltzer as modified is silent on explicitly teaching one or more gas sensors and an electric door latch. However, Hoegh teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a dog kennel with a gas sensor and an electric door latch (Hoegh Col. 6 lines 51-54; Col. 7 line 26-28; claim 1; Col. 7 line 10-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Seltzer with the teachings of Hoegh before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to help the animal with separation anxiety and safety as taught by Hoegh. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 5, Seltzer as modified teaches wherein the controller is configured to activate the electric door latch in response to gas, temperature, or oxygen levels exceeding or falling below predefined thresholds (Hoegh Col. 6 lines 51-54; Col. 7 line 26-28; claim 1; Col. 7 line 10-13; Seltzer paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Seltzer as modified teaches the light source (Seltzer paragraph [0027] LED light) is disposed within the enclosed interior space, and wherein the one or more speakers (Seltzer #132 and #134) are disposed within the enclosed interior space or on an outer surface of the noise-dampening dog kennel.
Claim(s) 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0126775 to Seltzer et al in view of AVS FORUM, Soundproof ventilation dead vent or baffled box/ acoustic box [retrieved from internet 12 January 2026 https://www.avsforum.com/threads/soundproof-ventilation-dead-vent-or-baffled-box-acoustic-box.1477067/] pgs. Nashoomoo Posted Jun 2013 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,123,874 to White and U.S. Patent No. 8,915,216 to Hoegh et al.
Regarding Claim 7, Seltzer as modified by AVS FORUM teaches the ventilation housing enclosing a plurality of baffles (AVS FORUM post #1 air flow pass around baffles), a base supporting the plurality of baffles (AVS FORuM post #1 floor of ventilation housing; side walls and cover make the housing), but is silent on comprising an extractor positioned at the air exhaust end of the at least one hollow air corridor, the extractor configured to remove air from the enclosed interior space. However, White teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide an extractor positioned at the air exhaust end of the at least one hollow air corridor, the extractor configured to remove air from the enclosed interior space (White Fig. 7 #90; Col. 8 lines 34-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Seltzer with the teachings of White before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to provide air circulation as taught by White. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Seltzer as modified teaches electronic assembly comprising: a power source (Seltzer A/C plug #314; Fig. 1 #155); a controller (Seltzer Fig. 1 #161); the fan (Seltzer #334); an extractor (Seltzer Fig. 1 #154; White #90); one or more speakers (Seltzer Fig. 1 #132 and #134); a light source (Seltzer Fig. #142); a thermometer (Seltzer Fig. 1 #152); sensors (Seltzer Fig. 1 #162). Seltzer as modified teaches automated door opening do to temperatures or hazards (Seltzer paragraph [0037]), but is silent on explicitly teaching one or more gas sensors and an electric door latch. However, Hoegh teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide a dog kennel with a gas sensor and an electric door latch (Hoegh Col. 6 lines 51-54; Col. 7 line 26-28; claim 1; Col. 7 line 10-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Seltzer with the teachings of Hoegh before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to help the animal with separation anxiety and safety as taught by Hoegh. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, Seltzer as modified teaches the plurality of noise-dampening walls and the noise-dampening door comprise sound-dampening materials (Seltzer paragraph [0009] and #311, #212, #226). Seltzer as modified is silent on multiple layers of sound dampening material. However, the modification is merely the duplication of a known element for a multiple affect and does not present a patentably distinct limitation. Duplication for a multiple affect is merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation for optimized soundproofing and temperature control [In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960)]. The examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Seltzer before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success for more soundproofing and insulating properties. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or "obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12, Seltzer as modified teaches the one or more speakers are configured to play predetermined sounds or filtered environmental sounds transmitted from a microphone positioned externally to the enclosed interior space (Seltzer #134; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 13, Seltzer as modified teaches an additional microphone is placed inside the kennel and is connected to speakers placed on the exterior surface of the kennel, allowing sounds from inside the kennel to be heard outside while maintaining the kennel's noise-dampening function (Seltzer paragraph [0024] #132).
Regarding Claim 14, Seltzer as modified teaches the controller is configured to activate the electric door latch in response to gas, temperature, or oxygen levels exceeding or falling below predefined thresholds (Hoegh Col. 6 lines 51-54; Col. 7 line 26-28; claim 1; Col. 7 line 10-13; Seltzer paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 16, Seltzer as modified teaches a smartphone device running an application software; a communication network connecting the smartphone device to the electronic assembly (Seltzer paragraph [0032] Fig. 1 #151, #161 ; wherein the application software is configured to display real-time data from the one or more gas sensors and the thermometer (Seltzer #162 and #152); display real-time video data (Seltzer #132 and #134) from one or more cameras for remote monitoring; allow remote control of the fan, extractor, one or more speakers, light source, and electric door latch; set and modify threshold values for temperature and gas levels; send alerts to the smartphone device when threshold values are exceeded.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0126775 to Seltzer et al in view of AVS FORUM, Soundproof ventilation dead vent or baffled box/ acoustic box [retrieved from internet 12 January 2026 https://www.avsforum.com/threads/soundproof-ventilation-dead-vent-or-baffled-box-acoustic-box.1477067/] pgs. Nashoomoo Posted Jun 2013; U.S. Patent No. 5,123,874 to White; and U.S. Patent No. 8,915,216 to Hoegh et al as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,044,101 to Garcia et al.
Regarding Claim 9, Seltzer as modified teaches sensors (Seltzer #162) gas sensors (Hoegh Col. 7 line 12), but is silent on explicitly teaching the one or more gas sensors comprise an oxygen meter and a carbon dioxide meter. However, Garcia (Garcia Col. 7 lines 22-35) teaches oxygen and carbon dioxide meters are old and notoriously well-known and are merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Seltzer with the teachings of Garcia before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to control fan speeds as taught by Garcia. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or the simple substitution of one known gas sensor for another to obtain predictable results.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0126775 to Seltzer et al in view of AVS FORUM, Soundproof ventilation dead vent or baffled box/ acoustic box [retrieved from internet 12 January 2026 https://www.avsforum.com/threads/soundproof-ventilation-dead-vent-or-baffled-box-acoustic-box.1477067/] pgs. Nashoomoo Posted Jun 2013; U.S. Patent No. 5,123,874 to White; and U.S. Patent No. 8,915,216 to Hoegh et al as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,337,404 to Seta et al.
Regarding Claim 15, Seltzer as modified is silent on wherein the inlet portion and the outlet portion of the baffle box assembly are located on different walls of the plurality of noise-dampening walls. Seltzer teaches having baffles at in the ingress and egress (Seltzer paragraph [0050]), on the location of the ingress and egress. However, Seta teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art of noise dampening dog kennels to provide the inlet and outlet on opposing walls (Seta Fig. 7 #502 enters #516 and leaves via #518 and #504; arrows). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Seltzer with the teachings of Seta before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to allow conditioned air to travel through the cavity of the kennel as taught by Seta The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results and/or merely an obvious engineering design choice derived through routine tests and experimentation involving merely the shift of a known component performing the same intended function [In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70, 73 (CCPA 1950)] for desired air circulation and does not present a patentable distinction over the prior art of record.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2011/0126775 to Seltzer et al in view of AVS FORUM, Soundproof ventilation dead vent or baffled box/ acoustic box [retrieved from internet 12 January 2026 https://www.avsforum.com/threads/soundproof-ventilation-dead-vent-or-baffled-box-acoustic-box.1477067/] pgs. Nashoomoo Posted Jun 2013; U.S. Patent No. 5,123,874 to White; and U.S. Patent No. 8,915,216 to Hoegh et al as applied to claims 1 and 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,208,975 to Azevedo et al.
Regarding Claim 10, Seltzer as modified is silent on legs disposed on a base of the box-shaped housing, wherein the legs comprise acoustic insulating materials. However, Azevedo teaches the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to provide legs disposed on a base of the box shaped housing comprised of acoustic insulating material (applicant doesn’t claim a specific material; Azevedo Fig. 2A #103 a material that reduces vibration reduces sound). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Seltzer with the teachings of Azevedo before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to reduce vibration as taught by Azevedo. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 11, Seltzer teaches a door and as modified by Azevedo teaches a door on said noise-dampening door is removably or permanently attached to the box-shaped housing by means of hinges (Azevedo Col. 5 lines 1-5; line 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the teachings of Seltzer with the teachings of Azevedo before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to store compactly or to preform maintenance. The modification is merely the application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art of record is a teaching of the general knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art with regard to noise dampening kennels and/or remote smartphone animal monitoring and control: U.S. Patent No. 12,190,854; U.S. Patent no. 10,098,318; U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0092329; U.S. Patent no. 8,944,010; U.S. Patent No. 11,039,596; PCT WO 2023/062265.
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
12 January 2026