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 .
Response to Amendment
Note that claims 4 and 5 filed on 10/28/2025 do not appear to include claim text with required markings with respect to the text of original presented claims 4 and 5. More specifically, the status shows currently amended, however, there are no amendments to the claims. In the interests of efficiency, the claims have been examined below; however, please note that any future amendment included in a response to this Detailed Action must set forth the claims with correct annotations as explained in 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feeder being positioned outside of the one or more sight lines from claim 3 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “19”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7-8, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 4, “top and” should be changed to --top, and--.
In claim 7, line 3, “incudes one or more walls extending from a floor” should be changed to --includes one or more walls extending from the floor--.
In claim 8, line 4, “transparent, a complete line” should be changed to --transparent, wherein a complete line--.
In claim 8, lines 4-5, “the observation area above the cage” should be changed to --the single observation area above the cage top--.
In claim 8, line 6, “one or more cameras positioned in the observation area, and the cage bottom including a floor” should be changed to --the cage bottom includes a floor--.
In claim 12, line 3, “from a floor” should be changed to --from the floor--.
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 and 3-7 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 1 recites the limitation "the floor" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 depends inappropriately upon itself. As a dependent claim, it is unclear which claim dependence is relied upon by applicant for claim 4. For examination purposes, claim 4 will be examined as if depending upon claim 3.
Claim 5 depends inappropriately upon itself. As a dependent claim, it is unclear which claim dependence is relied upon by applicant for claim 5. For examination purposes, claim 5 will be examined as if depending upon claim 4.
Claims 3 and 6-7 are rejected being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (US 8634635) in view of Chen et al. (CN 212138813, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Bai et al. discloses an animal caging system (Fig. 13A) comprising: an animal cage (1307) comprising a cage top (1303) and a cage bottom (bottom of (1307)), one or more cameras (1311) positioned in a single observation area positioned towards the cage bottom from a top view along the cage top (Fig. 13A) and a portion of the cage top is transparent (col. 6, lines 25-28 discloses a preferred embodiment that provides a transparent lid, i.e. top), wherein a complete line of sight is present from the single observation area above the cage top along one or more sight lines to the cage bottom (col. 6, lines 31-35, “unobstructed top view of the entire floor”) and wherein the one or more cameras (1311) observe an entire portion of the floor of the cage bottom and an interior of the cage (Fig. 13A, col. 6, lines 31-35, “unobstructed top view of the entire floor”, interior of cage is also unobstructed based on Fig. 13A image).
Bai et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more cameras are positioned above the cage top (it is unclear where the camera is attached in Fig. 13A).
Chen et al., like Bai et al., teaches an animal caging system (Fig. 1), and further teaches wherein the one or more cameras (4) are positioned above the cage top (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bai et al. to adjust the positioning of the one or more cameras to be above the cage top as taught by Chen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide easier access to the top of the cage without disturbing the camera positioning for continuous recording in order to avoid missing any activity of the animal.
Regarding claim 3, Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 1, and teaches (references to Bai et al.) the system further comprising a feeder ((1301) having two baskets (1305)) positioned adjacent to an end wall of the animal cage (Fig. 13A, col. 6, lines 6-11, along perimeter, therefore adjacent to an end wall), the feeder being positioned outside of the one or more sight lines (col. 6, lines 8-11).
Regarding claim 4, Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 3, and teaches (references to Bai et al.) wherein the feeder (1301) includes a water tray system ((1313) is a water bottle slot for providing water, i.e. a water tray system).
Regarding claim 5, Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 4, and teaches (references to Bai et al.) wherein the water tray system includes a nozzle (col. 6, lines 16-18, for broadest reasonable interpretation, a spout is an equivalent of a nozzle).
Regarding claim 6, Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 4, and teaches (references to Bai et al.) wherein said feeder includes one or more baffles positioned within said feeder (Fig. 13A, col. 6, lines 14-16), wherein the one or more baffles baffle supply air through the feeder from a top portion of the feeder to the cage bottom.
The embodiment shown in Fig. 13A does not show wherein the one or more baffles baffle supply air through the feeder from a top portion of the feeder to a bottom of the animal cage. However, as expressed in col. 6, lines 22-25, the feeder can provide supply air through the feeder, and the bars/mesh act like baffles in this embodiment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bai et al. modified by Chen et al. to include one or more baffles to the feeder as taught by Bai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to supply air movement within the cage interior while in use.
Regarding claim 8, Bai et al. discloses an animal caging system (Fig. 13A) comprising: an animal cage (1307) comprising a cage top (1303) and a cage bottom (bottom of (1307)), one or more cameras (1311) positioned in a single observation area positioned towards the cage bottom from a top view along the cage top (Fig. 13A), a portion of the cage top is transparent (col. 6, lines 25-28 discloses a preferred embodiment that provides a transparent lid, i.e. top), a complete line of sight is present from the observation area above the cage along one or more sight lines to the cage bottom (col. 6, lines 31-35, “unobstructed top view of the entire floor”); one or more cameras (1311) positioned in the observation area (Fig. 13A), and the cage bottom including a floor (Fig. 13A), wherein the one or more cameras (1311) observe an entire portion of the floor of the cage bottom and an interior of the cage (Fig. 13A, col. 6, lines 31-35, “unobstructed top view of the entire floor”, interior of cage is also unobstructed based on Fig. 13A image) and a feeder ((1301) having two baskets (1305)) positioned adjacent to an end wall of the animal cage (col. 6, lines 6-11, along perimeter, therefore adjacent to an end wall), the feeder being positioned outside of the one or more sight lines (col. 6, lines 8-11).
Bai et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more cameras are positioned above the cage top (it is unclear where the camera is attached in Fig. 13A).
Chen et al., like Bai et al., teaches an animal caging system (Fig. 1), and further teaches wherein the one or more cameras (4) are positioned above the cage top (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bai et al. to adjust the positioning of the one or more cameras to be above the cage top as taught by Chen et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide easier access to the top of the cage without disturbing the camera positioning for continuous recording in order to avoid missing any activity of the animal.
Regarding claim 9, Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 8, and teaches (references to Bai et al.) wherein the feeder (1301) includes a water tray system ((1313) is a water bottle slot for providing water, i.e. a water tray system).
Regarding claim 10, Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 9, and teaches (references to Bai et al.) wherein the water tray system includes a nozzle (col. 6, lines 16-18, for broadest reasonable interpretation, a spout is an equivalent of a nozzle).
Regarding claim 11, Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 9, and teaches (references to Bai et al.) wherein said feeder includes one or more baffles positioned within said feeder (Fig. 13A, col. 6, lines 14-16), wherein the one or more baffles baffle supply air through the feeder from a top portion of the feeder to the cage bottom.
The embodiment shown in Fig. 13A does not show wherein the one or more baffles baffle supply air through the feeder from a top portion of the feeder to a bottom of the animal cage. However, as expressed in col. 6, lines 22-25, the feeder can provide supply air through the feeder, and the bars/mesh act like baffles in this embodiment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bai et al. modified by Chen et al. to include one or more baffles to the feeder as taught by Bai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to supply air movement within the cage interior while in use.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (US 8634635) in view of Chen et al. (CN 212138813, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 and claim 8 above respectively, and further in view of Coiro, Sr. et al. (US 5894816, hereinafter “Coiro”).
Regarding claim 7, Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 1, and teaches (references to Bai et al.) wherein said cage top (1303) includes one or more walls extending from a ceiling (Fig. 13A shows walls extending from the ceiling of the cage top) and said cage bottom includes one or more walls extending from a floor (Fig. 13A shows walls extending up from the floor of the cage).
Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. is silent as to wherein at least one of the walls extending from the ceiling and/or at least one of the walls extending from the floor have a material thickness between about 0.005 to about 0.125 inches.
Coiro, like Bai et al. and Chen et al., teaches an animal caging system for observation, and further teaches wherein sidewalls have a material thickness between about 0.005 to about 0.125 inches (col. 3, lines 50-52 teaches a thickness of about 0.094 inches which is within the range of the claim. Please note the term “about” is being understood to mean within mechanical tolerances). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bai et al. modified by Chen et al. to provide a material thickness between about 0.005 to about 0.125 inches as taught by Coiro, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a thickness with enough strength to hold the cage together, but also thin enough to be able to see through with transparency.
Regarding claim 12, Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. teaches the system of claim 8, and teaches (references to Bai et al.) wherein said cage top (1303) includes one or more walls extending from a ceiling (Fig. 13A shows walls extending from the ceiling of the cage top) and said cage bottom includes one or more walls extending from a floor (Fig. 13A shows walls extending up from the floor of the cage).
Bai et al. as modified by Chen et al. is silent as to wherein at least one of the walls extending from the ceiling and/or at least one of the walls extending from the floor have a material thickness between about 0.005 to about 0.125 inches.
Coiro, like Bai et al. and Chen et al., teaches an animal caging system, and further teaches wherein sidewalls have a material thickness between about 0.005 to about 0.125 inches (col. 3, lines 50-52 teaches a thickness of about 0.094 inches which is within the range of the claim. Please note the term “about” is being understood to mean within mechanical tolerances). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Bai et al. modified by Chen et al. to provide a material thickness between about 0.005 to about 0.125 inches as taught by Coiro, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a thickness with enough strength to hold the cage together, but also thin enough to be able to see through with transparency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to claims 1 and 8, applicant argued that Bai includes at least two areas of view, and that Bai teaches the top view camera is attached to the lid. Further, applicant argued that Coiro fails to teach an animal caging system having one or more cameras positioned in a single observation area positioned above the cage top. Therefore, applicant argues that the prior art references fail to anticipate or teach the claimed invention, and that the claims should be allowable.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The transitional use of the term “comprising” allows for limitations additional to those listed in the instant claim. Therefore, Bai, having a second camera set up does not fail to read on the claim limitation, where there is one or more cameras positioned in a single observation area positioned above the cage top. It is unclear whether the camera in Bai is physically above the cage top, so Chen et al. has been brought into the rejection to show that it was known to provide the one or more cameras further above the cage top. Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim limitation.
Additionally, Coiro teaches an animal caging system. It does not mention a camera, however, Coiro does discuss observation, which would require similar, if not the same, requirement from any observation whether by eye or camera to be able to see through the material. Therefore, the prior art reads on the claim limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Betts-Lacroix et al. (US 9485966) and Betts-Lacroix et al. (US 10398316) teach an animal caging system with one or more cameras positioned in a single observation area positioned above the cage top.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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 M 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.
/C.W.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/PETER M POON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3643