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 § 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 5, 13 and 14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For claim 5, the phrase, “wherein the side wall is composed of the opaque part extending from the corner sections of the bottom upward to the opening end, and four transparent parts”, is unclear since it is not understood what “and four transparent parts” intends to imply.
For claim 13, the phrase, "adhering the transparent part and the opaque part to each other by two-color molding, insert molding or ultrasonic fusion", is confusing because it appears to be a step in a product claim (see MPEP 2141.02 for product by process claim).
For claim 14, the phrase, "thermally molding a sheet made of the opaque resin composition to form the opaque part; placing the opaque part in a mold; then injection-molding the transparent thermoplastic resin; and adhering the transparent part and the opaque part to each other by the insert molding", is confusing because it appears to be a plurality of steps in a product claim (see MPEP 2141.02 for product by process claim).
For claim 13, it is noted that the method/process (i.e., adhering the transparent part and the opaque part to each other by two-color molding, insert molding or ultrasonic fusion) of applying to the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method/process of application. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was applied by a different process. Therefore, the limitation as claimed in claim 13 has not been given patentable weight.
For claim 14, it is noted that the method/process (i.e., thermally molding a sheet made of the opaque resin composition to form the opaque part; placing the opaque part in a mold; then injection-molding the transparent thermoplastic resin; and adhering the transparent part and the opaque part to each other by the insert molding) of applying to the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method/process of application. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was applied by a different process. Therefore, the limitation as claimed in claim 14 has not been given patentable weight.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohmers et al. (US 3428026) in view of Lee (US 3613639).
For claim 1, Sohmers et al. teach a laboratory animal breeding cage comprising a bottom (12) and a side wall (40) and having an opening (58) at the top, whose shape in a planar view is rectangular, wherein the cage is composed of a transparent part made of a transparent thermoplastic resin (see lines 1-5 of col. 2) and an opaque part made of an opaque resin composition comprising a thermoplastic resin (see lines 70-72 of col. 1);
at least corner sections of the upper surface of the bottom (12) are made up of the opaque part while at least the upper half of the side wall (40) is made up of the transparent part; and the transparent part and the opaque part are adhered to each other (see lines 70-72 of col. 1, 1-5 of col. 2, and Figures 1-2).
As described above, Sohmers et al. disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning thermoplastic resin and a filler.
Lee teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide an animal cage which is composed of thermoplastic resin and a fibrous web (equivalent to filler) (see lines 13-40 of col. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cage assembly of Sohmers et al. so as to include the use of thermoplastic resin and a filler, in a similar manner as taught in Lee, in order to stabilize the overall cage structure in case of temperature variant.
For claim 2, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee (emphasis on Sohmers et al.) further teach wherein the whole upper surface of the bottom (12) is made up of the opaque part (see lines 70-72 of col. 1).
For claim 3, as described above, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the whole lower surface of the bottom is made up of the transparent part.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cage assembly of Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee so as to include the bottom is made up of the transparent part, since using another type of material is considered as a matter of design choice depended on its suitability for the intended use and/or the availability of the material, wherein no stated problem is solved or any new or unexpected result achieved, since it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the type of material used in Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee.
For claim 4, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee (emphasis on Sohmers et al.) further teach wherein the whole bottom (12) is made up of the opaque part (see lines 70-72 of col. 1).
For claim 5, as described above, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the side wall is composed of the opaque part extending from the corner sections of the bottom upward to the opening end, and four transparent parts.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cage assembly of Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee so as to include the side wall is composed of the opaque part extending from the corner sections of the bottom upward to the opening end, and four transparent parts, since using another type of material is considered as a matter of design choice depended on its suitability for the intended use and/or the availability of the material, wherein no stated problem is solved or any new or unexpected result achieved, since it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the type of material used in Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee.
For claim 6, as described above, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein a haze value of a 3-mm-thick molded article made of the transparent thermoplastic resin is 40% or less while a haze value of a 3-mm-thick molded article made of the opaque resin composition is 80% or more.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cage assembly of Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee so as to include a haze value of a 3-mm-thick molded article made of the transparent thermoplastic resin is 40% or less while a haze value of a 3-mm-thick molded article made of the opaque resin composition is 80% or more, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
For claim 7, as described above, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein a boundary between the transparent part and the opaque part is located at a position that is 5 mm or more above the upper surface of the bottom of the cage and below the midpoint between the upper surface and the opening end.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cage assembly of Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee so as to have the boundary between the transparent part and the opaque part is located at a position that is 5 mm or more above the upper surface of the bottom of the cage and below the midpoint between the upper surface and the opening end, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
For claim 8, as described above, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the thermoplastic resin contained in the transparent part and the opaque part is an amorphous resin with a glass transition temperature of 120 to 230 °C.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cage assembly of Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee so as to include the thermoplastic resin contained in the transparent part and the opaque part is an amorphous resin with a glass transition temperature of 120 to 230 °C, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 9, as described above, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the opaque part is a cyclic olefin polymer.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cage assembly of Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee so as to include the opaque part is a cyclic olefin polymer, since using another type of material is considered as a matter of design choice depended on its suitability for the intended use and/or the availability of the material, wherein no stated problem is solved or any new or unexpected result achieved, since it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the type of material used in Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee.
For claim 10, as described above, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the resin composition in the opaque part further comprises a thermoplastic soft copolymer in addition to the cyclic olefin polymer and the filler.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cage assembly of Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee so as to include the resin composition in the opaque part further comprises a thermoplastic soft copolymer in addition to the cyclic olefin polymer and the filler, since using another type of material is considered as a matter of design choice depended on its suitability for the intended use and/or the availability of the material, wherein no stated problem is solved or any new or unexpected result achieved, since it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the type of material used in Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee.
For claim 11, as described above, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the filler contained in the resin composition in the opaque part is silicone resin particles, fluororesin particles or cleavable inorganic particles.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cage assembly of Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee so as to include the filler contained in the resin composition in the opaque part is silicone resin particles, fluororesin particles or cleavable inorganic particles, since using another type of material is considered as a matter of design choice depended on its suitability for the intended use and/or the availability of the material, wherein no stated problem is solved or any new or unexpected result achieved, since it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the type of material used in Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee.
For claim 12, as described above, Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee disclose most of the claimed invention except for mentioning wherein the resin composition in the opaque part comprises 50 to 99.9% by mass of the thermoplastic resin and 0.1 to 50% by mass of the filler.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cage assembly of Sohmers et al. as modified by Lee so as to include the resin composition in the opaque part comprises 50 to 99.9% by mass of the thermoplastic resin and 0.1 to 50% by mass of the filler, since it has been held that where routine testing and general experimental conditions are present, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
Note, although the examiner recites certain excerpts for the prior art, MPEP 2141.02 VI states “PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS”.
The prior arts Ingley, III et al. (US 2005/0241591) and Goguen et al. (US 4976219) teach an animal cage.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRINH T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6906. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRINH T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644