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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Note that claims 6 and 7 filed on 5/26/2026 do not appear to include claim text with required markings with respect to the text of original presented claims 6 and 7. More specifically, the status shows previously presented in claim 6, however, there is an underlined portion in the claim, and for claim 7, the word crossed out had already been crossed out, and the word added, was the word requested to be deleted. 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). Please note Figure 1 clearly shows a portion of the feeder in the line-of-sight of (32A). No new matter should be entered.
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
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, line 2, “bottom incudes” should be changed to --bottom includes--.
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 4-6 and 8-12 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 4 recites the limitation "the feeder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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. Please note the water tray system recited is brought up the first time in claim 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the one or more cameras observe an entire portion of the floor of the cage bottom and an interior of the cage and a feeder…”. The phase is unclear since the feeder is then recited to be outside of the one or more sight lines of the one or more cameras. It is suggested to properly indent the specific limitations within the claim to better understand each limitation. For examining purposes, the feeder is understood to be another separate limitation.
Claim 6 is rejected as 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 Heath et al. (US 10292369) in view of Bai et al. (US 8634635).
Regarding claim 1, Heath et al. discloses an animal caging system (Fig. 4) comprising: an animal cage (110) comprising a cage top (140), and a cage bottom (140), one or more cameras (250) positioned only in a single observation area positioned above the cage top (Fig. 4, within the single observation area housing (120)), and a portion of the cage top is transparent (col. 7, lines 34-36 discloses the transparency of the top), wherein a line of sight is present from the single observation area (within housing (120)) above the cage top along one or more sight lines to the cage bottom (Fig. 4, col. 6, 21-28, “line-of-sight… into living space 145”) and wherein the one or more cameras (250) observe an interior of the cage (Fig. 4, col. 6, lines 21-28, “line-of-sight… into living space 145”).
Heath et al. does not explicitly teach 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 and wherein the one or more cameras observe an entire portion of a floor of the cage bottom and an interior of the cage.
Bai et al., like Heath et al., teaches an animal caging system (Fig. 1), and further teaches 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 a 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).
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 Heath et al. to provide a complete line-of-sight to observe an entire portion of the floor as taught by Bai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a more complete analysis of the movement of the animals within the cage.
Regarding claim 3, Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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, Heath et al. as modified by Bai et al. teaches the system of claim 1, and teaches (references to Bai et al.) wherein a 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, Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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, Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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 Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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, Heath et al. discloses an animal caging system (Fig. 4) comprising: an animal cage (110) comprising a cage top (140) and a cage bottom (140), one or more cameras (250) positioned only in a single observation area positioned above the cage top (Fig. 4, within the single observation area housing (120)), a portion of the cage top is transparent (col. 7, lines 34-36 discloses the transparency of the top), wherein a line of sight is present from the single observation area (within housing (120)) above the cage top along one or more sight lines to the cage bottom (Fig. 4, col. 6, 21-28, “line-of-sight… into living space 145”); one or more cameras (250) positioned in the single observation area (Fig. 4), and the cage bottom includes a floor (Fig. 4), wherein the one or more cameras (250) observe an interior of the cage (Fig. 4, col. 6, lines 21-28, “line-of-sight… into living space 145”).
Heath et al. does not explicitly teach 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; and wherein the one or more cameras observe an entire portion of the floor of the cage bottom and an interior of the cage and a feeder positioned adjacent to an end wall of the animal cage, the feeder being positioned outside of the one or more sight lines.
Bai et al., like Heath et al., teaches an animal caging system (Fig. 1), and further teaches 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 a 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).
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 Heath et al. to provide a complete line-of-sight to observe an entire portion of the floor with a feeder outside of the sight lines as taught by Bai et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a more complete analysis of the movement of the animals within the cage.
Regarding claim 9, Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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, Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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, Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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 Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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 Heath et al. (US 10292369) in view of Bai et al. (US 8634635) 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, Heath et al. as modified by Bai et al. teaches the system of claim 1, and teaches (references to Heath et al.) wherein said cage top (140) includes one or more walls extending from a ceiling (Fig. 1B shows walls extending from the ceiling of the cage top) and said cage bottom includes one or more walls extending from the floor (Fig. 4 shows walls extending up from the floor of the cage).
Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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 Heath 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 Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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, Heath et al. as modified by Bai et al. teaches the system of claim 8, and teaches (references to Heath et al.) wherein said cage top (140) includes one or more walls extending from a ceiling (Fig. 1B shows walls extending from the ceiling of the cage top) and said cage bottom includes one or more walls extending from the floor (Fig. 4 shows walls extending up from the floor of the cage).
Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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 Heath 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 Heath et al. as modified by Bai 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 with respect to claims 1 and 3-12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Florea et al. (US 2024/0381835), Saliu (US 2023/0045152), and Schaevitz et al. (US 2019/0191665) teach systems to track organisms through visuals from an observation area positioned above a cage top.
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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights