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 lower end pins of claims 3 and 4 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs [00025]-[00027] include improper spacing between the A and B elements (shell or stopper) and their reference numerals, i.e. stopperA3-7 instead of stopper A 3-7. All recitations should be changed to the proper spacing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7 recites “shell A” and “shell B”. As both shells were previously recited the correct antecedent is “the”, i.e. “the shell A” and “the shell B”.
Claim 3 line 1 recites “the lower end pin”. As the pin was not previously recited the correct antecedent is “a lower end pin”.
A similar issue occurs in claim 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US patent 9915093 to Weisbeck (hereinafter Weisbeck) in view of US patent 7120967 to Johnson (hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 1, the fence with pet door is shown in Weisbeck in figures 1-5 with
a door frame (110) with a door body (112) inside; and
an opening and closing locking component (with 114) on the lower side of the door body (112), wherein the opening and closing locking component has a rectangular frame (portion of 112 forming rectangular mounting for 114, with 162 and portions of 124 and 126) on the lower side of the door body (112), the outer side of the rectangular frame is fitted with a shell A (136 figure 2, 136 formed by 138, 140, and 142), and the side surface of the shell A (136 figure 2) is connected to a shell B (136 figure 3, 136 formed by 138, 140, and 142), a caulking groove (180) is provided between shell A (136 figure 2) and shell B (136 figure 3), the groove (180) and fitted with a door panel (143).
However, Weisbeck does not include a bearing in the groove.
A bearing is shown in Johnson in figures 1-6 where a groove (formed by sleeve 310) has a bearing (304) fixedly fitted with a door panel (102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the protective fence of Weisbeck with the bearing of Johnson because bearings provided the known benefit of easy pivoting and also allowing for additional features such as the shock absorbing in the bearing of Johnson.
Regarding claim 2, the fence (100)may be pressure mounted using pressure-mounting elements engaging stationary objects such as a doorjamb as taught in column 2 lines 22-28 in Weisbeck. Examiner maintains one of ordinary skill in the art would know such pressure mounting included holes at the four corners of the frame.
Regarding claim 3, shell A (136 figure 2) includes stopper A (220) connected by a pin (figure 2) in Weisbeck.
Regarding claim 4, shell B (136 figure 3) includes stopper A (220) connected by a pin (figure 3) in Weisbeck.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weisbeck and Johnson as applied to claim 1 (as well as claims 2-4) above, and further in view of GB 2239887 to Juggins (hereinafter Juggins) and Official Notice.
Regarding claim 5, Weisbeck does not teach an adhesive groove on the door panel.
A groove on a door panel is shown in Juggins in figures 1-3 where the door panel (5) has a groove (shown in figure 3 receiving seal 7).
While Juggins is silent as to how the seal is attached to the door panel (i.e. whether adhesive was used), examiner takes Official Notice that adhesive was an old and well known attachment means for such seals (seals with flat backing layers).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the protective fence of Weisbeck, having the bearing of Johnson, with the door panel groove of Juggins and the known adhesive because grooves provided the known benefit of allowing for attachment of members such as seals to door panels edges and adhesive provided the known benefit of being a readily available and easy to use attachment means in grooves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE A KELLY whose telephone number is (571)270-3660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30am-5:30pm.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/CATHERINE A KELLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights