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 .
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by NIklas Terrahe (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZsfPKfx80o), hereinafter Terrahe.
Regarding claim 9, Terrahe teaches of a simulated range (p. 3, the enclosed room could be a simulated region for animals to roam and feed; Examiner notes MPEP §2114(II) with regard to intended use of a claimed apparatus) comprising:
a physical enclosure including a plurality of sidewalls (enclosed room with a plurality of sidewalls);
animals (the human inside the room is an animal. Multiple animals of any type can be placed inside);
a projector or display for showing, on one or more of the plurality of sidewalls of the physical enclosure, a digitized, visual stimulus to the animals (the walls display a digitized, visual stimulus to the animals in the room); and a computerized storage unit including:
a collection of digital images or motion pictures (pp. 3-6, collection of digital images and motion pictures) that, when shown by the projector or display, can be perceived by the animals such that the animals are encouraged to engage in a free- range activity or behavior (the images can be selected to encourage free-range activity or behavior. For example, the wheat field in p. 5 could encourage feeding, nesting, or pecking because they could perceive it as a safe environment to do those behaviors. A wheat field can encourage feeding in horses and chickens because they can eat wheat); and looping the collection of digital images or motion pictures (the digital images and motion pictures can be looped such as how the city landscape on page 3 and 6 are repeated. The video player on Youtube also has a feature to loop the video (right click the video and select loop) and can be applied to image and video software that is used in the room) to habituate the animals to more regularly engage in positive behaviors, to less regularly engage in negative behaviors (the images are capable of encouraging positive behaviors and discouraging negative behaviors such as encouraging positive behavior of how the human is able to sit still and watch the images and is less regularly engaging in erratic behavior such as running around and banging on the walls), and to train the animals to be able to handle potential stresses (can train animals to handle potential stresses such as being around tall buildings as seen on p. 3 or unknown animals like monkeys on p. 4).
With further regard to claim 9, Examiner notes that a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP §2114(II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9 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.
Applicant argued that assuming boredom is a negative activity and incorporating boredom into the analysis when the prior art does not mention boredom is hindsight. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that being bored is a negative emotion or showing being bored is a negative behavior, especially in animals as this could lead to destruction or apathy because they are not being entertained and they try to seek an outlet.
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.
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm EST.
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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights