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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches an animal housing product, said product comprising:
an enclosure with at least one point of entry (figure 1B);
a recess having a mouth, the recess positioned on a surface of the enclosure (see annotated figure 1B below);
wherein the recess is configured for holding a material, wherein the mouth is adapted to provide access to the material held within the recess and to allow removal of the material from the recess (see annotated figure 1B below),
but does not specify a recess material within the recess, wherein the recess material induces extended play time in a laboratory animal by providing the animal the opportunity to relocate the enrichment material.
Applicant’s admitted prior art; however, does teach nesting material (figures 4-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a user to provide nesting material as “recess” material and place some nesting/recess material within the recess of the enclosure, in order to enhance “comforting” type materials to the animal; since 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 because if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
PNG
media_image1.png
260
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 but does not specify wherein the enclosure is formed of pulped paper.
However, Applicant’s admitted prior art does describe the prior art enclosures as “typically made of clean paper that is molded paper cellulose, and are adhesive/glue free, as well as ink and contamination free. The enclosures shown are autoclavable or use irradiation for sterilization” (Applicant’s paragraph 0007) and pulped paper is a known type of material in general. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide “pulped” paper, in order to meet particular design requirements for particular laboratory experiments; since it has been held that a prima facie obviousness exists where the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use.
Regarding claim 3, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 wherein the enclosure is formed of chipboard, cardboard, bamboo, ferrous and non-ferrous materials, borosilicate laboratory grade glass, tempered glass, polycarbonate, acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene copolymer , polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride (see claim 2 rejection).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 wherein the enclosure is adapted to be coaxially stackable (Figure 1B shows a coaxially stackable shape).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 wherein the enclosure is adapted to be sterilized (see claim 2 rejection).
Regarding claim 6, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 but does not specify wherein the enclosure has a shape of trigonal pyramidal, quadrilateral pyramidal, recessed hemispherical, conical, conical, partial dodecahedral, partial icosahedral; and truncated forms thereof.
Applicant’s admitted prior art does show a truncated partial hemispherical type shape (figure 1B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide any of the recited shapes, in order to meet particular design requirements for particular laboratory experiments; it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the different portions of the enclosure of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, because a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. Furthermore, applicant describes various shapes as obvious variants; therefore, it is clear that the particular shape of the enclosure is not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 wherein the recess material comprises compressed paper strips (applicant’s paragraph 0034 describes the prior art nesting/recess material as paper strips), cellulosic fluff, cotton fiber, crinkle paper, wood strips, wood chips, and shavings; natural materials such as cotton nestlets, or combinations thereof.
Regarding claim 8, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 7 wherein said plurality of paper strips are present (see previous rejections) and comprise at least one ply of fibrous material (see previous rejections defining “paper” strips).
Regarding claim 9, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 8 but does not specify wherein the fibrous material includes cellulose, alkoxylated cellulose, alginate, starch, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinyl, polystyrene, elastane, rubber, fleece, cellulose pulp, cellulose derivatives, or any combinations thereof.
However, all of the recited materials are known types of material in general. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide a combination of the recited known materials, in order to meet particular design requirements for particular laboratory experiments; since it has been held that a prima facie obviousness exists where the selection of a known material is based on its suitability for its intended use. Furthermore, applicant describes various materials as obvious variants (paragraph 0030); therefore, it is clear that the particular material of the recess material is not critical towards the novelty of the invention.
Regarding claim 10, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 7 wherein the plurality of paper strips are present and have a height to length ratio from about 1:1 to about 1:200; and wherein the plurality of paper strips has a thickness between 0.07 millimeters (0.0028 in) and 0.18 millimeters (0.0071 in) (paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 11, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 wherein the recess material further comprises fragrances, dyes, odor suppressants, superabsorbent polymer granules, and flavorants (paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 12, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 wherein the at least one point of entry is only partially formed and is continuous with an open bottom (shown in applicant’s figure 1B where the shown opening may be considered only “partially” formed compared to an opening that continues into the “top” surface for example).
Regarding claim 13, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 wherein the recess has a shape that is circular, oval, triangular, rectangular (see annotated figure 1B in the claim 1 rejection above), pentagon, hexagonal, heptagonal, octagonal, or irregular.
Regarding claim 14, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 wherein the surface is a top or side of the enclosure and the mouth is accessible from an exterior of the enclosure (see annotated figure 1B above).
Regarding claim 15, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the animal housing product of claim 1 wherein the mouth is accessible from an interior of the enclosure (annotated figure 1B below shows a “bump out” from an exterior perspective which would provide a “recess” from an interior of the enclosure, where such a recess may provide a space for a buildup of recess material that would be accessible to the animal, as best understood by the Examiner).
PNG
media_image2.png
318
558
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches a process for enriching a laboratory animal in a cage comprising: providing the animal with the enclosure with the recess containing recess material according to claim 1; and allowing the animal to move the recess material from the recess via the mouth (see previous rejections).
Regarding claim 17, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the process of claim 16 further comprising sterilizing the enclosure prior to placement in the cage (see claim 2 rejection), sterilizing the recess material prior to placement in the cage, or sterilizing both simultaneously.
Regarding claim 18, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the process of claim 17 but does not specify wherein the enclosure and the recess material are in contact during the sterilizing.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform such a step, in order to provide a scenario where the enclosure and recess material are sterilized at the exact same time for experimental process purposes.
Regarding claim 19, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the process of claim 16 wherein the providing of the enclosure comprises removing the enclosure from a coaxial stack containing the enclosure for inclusion in the cage (see claim 4 rejections).
Regarding claim 20, applicant’s admitted prior art teaches the process of claim 19 but does not specify further comprising removing a second enclosure from the coaxial stack for insertion into a second cage.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform such a step, in order to provide additional testing scenarios for experimental process purposes; since performing more than one test for a laboratory experiment is nearly inherent, and it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument that prior art figure 1B does not teach the recitations of claim 1 because the prior art figure 1B does not show “cylindrical recesses … as well as the rectangular recess … the recess 14 has a bottom, side walls, and an opening in the top” is not convincing at least because claim 1 does not require this arrangement. Furthermore, the recess of prior art figure 1B does show a bottom, side walls, and an open top capable of holding materials, see annotated figure 1B above.
Conclusion
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 JESSICA WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-7889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at (571)272-6886. 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.
/JESSICA B WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights