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 .
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 “plurality of detection boxes” and “an accommodating groove” (wherein groove is considered defined as a long narrow cut or depression), the “hollow” flip cover of claim 1, AND the “removable connection” of claims 7-12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 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 1-12 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is unclear what the term “hollow” (in reference to the cover in line 6 of claim 1) is used to mean, while the accepted meaning is “having a hole or empty space.” The term is indefinite because the cover is shown to be mesh (Fig. 1), and the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
In claim 1, line 4, it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “an accommodating groove formed configured”. This phrase is awkward and confusing, and does not clearly set forth what is claimed as the invention, rendering the above independent claim, and all claims depending therefrom, indefinite.
In claims 4 and 5, it is unclear what is meant by the “*” (asterisk).
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itzhak (6357394). Itzhak shows a quadrangular box body having a flip cover disposed on top, wherein the box body comprises glass or transparent plastic walls and can accommodate a small animal, and wherein the flip cover is a wire mesh structure, and is rotatably coupled to the box. Itzhak, however, does not disclose a plurality or 8 to 10 of said boxes, that the box walls are specifically acrylic, nor are the dimensions of the box or mesh disclosed. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have a plurality of Itzhak’s boxes if one wished to house or observe many animals at one time. Since Itzhak discloses that the walls are a transparent plastic, it would be obvious to use acrylic as it is well known and type of transparent plastic that is easy to clean, durable and cost effective. With respect to the specific dimensions of the box body and mesh structure, these would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. With respect to claims 7-12, Itzhak discloses a fastener 44 used to secure the cover to the box. To provide that the fastener is magnetic, snaps, Velcro or screws would have been obvious as an alternative equivalent fastening means.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art shows examples of animal observation cages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YVONNE ABBOTT whose telephone number is 571-272-6896. The examiner can normally be reached 7am -5:30pmEST Monday- Thursday.
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.
/YVONNE R ABBOTT-LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights