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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 63533963 and Application No. 18812246, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. For example, at minimum, the previously filed applications do not disclose a door defining an enclosed cavity, the solenoid and receiver positioned within the enclosed cavity of the door (a limitation present in all independent claims of the instant application).
As a result, it is noted for the record, that claims 1-20 have an effective filing date of 06/03/2025, the filing date of the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/26/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/03/2025 is being considered in part by the examiner. The foreign patent documents listed are not considered given 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy (with translation) of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 15, 17, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, first line on pg. 2: “wherein the solenoid transitions to the energized state when the receiver receives the control signal” should read –wherein the solenoid is configured to transition to the energized state when the receiver receives the control signal--, or something similar, to emphasize the functional nature of the limitation, given this is an apparatus claim. Same for claim 20, 4th line up from bottom on Pg. 6.
“wherein when the” should read –wherein, when the—in the following claims
Claim 2, line 2
Claim 17, line 3
Claim 20, line 4
Claim 15, line 1: “plurality of feet” should read –plurality of feet--.
Claim 19, line 3: the examiner suggests changing “a first strut” to –the first strut--, similarly with “a second strut” in line 4.
Claim 20, 5th line down on page 6: “when the when the” should read –when the--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8 and 16-18 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.
It is unclear how, as recited in claim 8, the applicant’s solenoid is adapted to transfer energy to the latch using the same amount of force as the force produced by the solenoid, given the lack of vacuum, presence of gravity, and general tenets of thermal conduction/heat transfer, it would seem as though there would be non-conservative frictional forces, air resistance forces, or heat dissipation present during transfer of energy to the latch, acting to reduce the force applied to the latch, relative to that generated by the solenoid; this claim seems to go against well understood physics principles/natural laws.
Claim 16 recites the limitation, “the feet on a second crate” in line 4. As written, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because it is not previously established that the second crate has feet. The examiner suggests changing “to support the feet on a second crate such that the crate is stackable with another identical crate” to –to support the feet on a second identical crate such that the crate is stackable with another identical crate—, ‘identical’ establishing that the second crate is identical to the first crate and therefore necessarily has feet.
Similarly, claim 17 recites the limitation, “the feet of a second crate” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests, depending on claim 16 amendments, changing “the feet of a second crate” to –the feet of the second identical crate—or –the feet of a second identical crate—.
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.
Claims 1, 8, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a (NPL – YouTube - #01a) in view of Lin (US 5261260 A), hereinafter referred to as Easy Out 1a and Lin, respectively, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 1:
Easy Out 1a discloses a system comprising:
a crate for holding an animal (see annotated Figure Below), the crate comprising:
a body defining an interior space and an opening (see annotated Figure below), wherein the interior space is large enough to contain a dog weighing at least 50 pounds, and wherein the opening is large enough to allow the dog to move through the opening (functional language: capable of containing a dog as claimed/letting them move through opening – see video);
PNG
media_image1.png
685
1277
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a door rotatably coupled to the body (door is considered the assembly of the original metal frame door of the crate with the easy out remote actuated box), wherein the door is movable between an open position and a closed position (see 0:20 – 0:27), wherein the door covers the opening when in the closed position (see 0:20), wherein the door defines an enclosed cavity (enclosed cavity is space within black ‘easy out’ box where the electronics necessary for actuation reside);
a latch attached to the door (see annotated Figure below), wherein the latch is movable between an engaged state and a disengaged state (see 0:20 – 0:27), wherein the latch is adapted to secure the position of the door relative to the body when the latch is in the engaged state and the door is in the closed position, wherein the latch does not secure the position of the door relative to the body when the when the latch is in the disengaged state (see 0:20 – 0:27);
PNG
media_image2.png
435
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a handle positioned on an exterior side of the door relative to the interior space, wherein the handle is operatively coupled to the latch to move the latch from the engaged state to the disengaged state (see annotated Figure above; see 0:20 – 0:27);
an actuator rod operatively coupled to the latch to move the latch from the engaged state to the disengaged state (see annotated Figure above; see 0:20-0:27);
a receiver adapted to receive a control signal, wherein the receiver is electrically connected to the actuator; wherein the actuator rod actuates when the receiver receives the control signal (a receiver electrically connected to the actuator rod is inherent to the function of remote control actuation of the rod, as shown in 0:20 – 0:27);
wherein the actuator is adapted to move the latch into the disengaged state when the receiver receives the control signal (see 0:20 – 0:27); wherein the actuator and the receiver are positioned within the enclosed cavity of the door (as above, a receiver electrically connected to the actuating means which moves the actuator rod is inherent to the remote controlled actuation function display; given the actuator rod extends into/out of the interior enclosed cavity of the housing, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the receiver and actuation means must be found housed therein so as to be able to effect motion to the actuator rod).
Easy out 1a fails to specifically disclose wherein the crate includes a solenoid operatively coupled to the latch to move the latch from the engaged state to the disengaged state; wherein the solenoid is adapted to move when transitioning between an energized state and a de-energized state; wherein the receiver is electrically connected to the solenoid; wherein the solenoid transitions to the energized state when the receiver receives the control signal; wherein the solenoid is adapted to move the latch into the disengaged state when the solenoid is in the energized state; wherein the solenoid is positioned within the enclosed cavity of the door.
Lin discloses a similar remote latching system for a dog kennel where the latch (latch bolt 15, Fig 2) is operatively coupled to a solenoid (electromagnetic solenoid 12 with armature 121/ extension member 13, Fig 2 – 121/13 acting as the actuator rod) which moves the latch between an engaged and disengaged state (Col 2, lines 23-40; Figs 2-3); wherein the solenoid is adapted to move when transitioning between an energized state and a de-energized state (Col 2, lines 23-40; Figs 2-3; Claim 1); wherein a receiver is electrically connected to the solenoid (claim 1 – control means includes receiver); wherein the solenoid transitions to the energized state when the receiver receives the control signal (claim 1; Col 2, lines 23-40); wherein the solenoid is adapted to move the latch into the disengaged state when the solenoid is in the energized state (claim 1, Figs 2-3); wherein the solenoid is positioned within an enclosed cavity mounted to the cage (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically provided actuation of the actuator rod of Easy out 1a via a solenoid, the solenoid operable to disengage the latch when energized, after remote control operation, as in Lin, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve simplicity of the electric control of translational mechanical motion, or to reduce manufacturing costs, or wear potential. Further, it would have obvious as a substitution of functional equivalents, to substitute the electrically controlled mechanical actuation means of easy out 1a with the electrically controlled solenoid mechanical actuation means of Lin, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Regarding claim 8:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the solenoid is adapted to produce a force when transitioning from the de-energized state to the energized state (see Easy out 0:20 – 0:27; Lin: Claim 1; Lin: Figs 2-3), and wherein the solenoid is adapted to transfer energy to the latch using the same amount of force as the force produced by the solenoid (as best understood, based on specification ¶0065, the structure is capable of acting as such, given there is no mechanism for providing a mechanical advantage to increase the output force relative to the increase force. Rather, due to natural phenomena, the force applied to the latch would be less than that produced by the solenoid.)
Regarding claim 12:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses a remote control, wherein the remote control is adapted to receive a physical input, and wherein the remote control is adapted to transmit the control signal to the receiver after receiving the physical input (see 0:20 – 0:27).
Regarding claim 19:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the body is made of a plastic material (‘plastic transport carriers’), wherein the crate further comprises a first and second strut, wherein the first and second strut are attached to the body, wherein a first strut is positioned along a first lateral side of the opening and is coupled to a hinge for the door, wherein a second strut is positioned on a second lateral side of the opening and is adapted to receive the latch, and wherein the struts provide structural support to the body around the opening (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image3.png
794
1307
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jakel (US 20250344668 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jakel.
Regarding claim 2:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further seems to show a multipiece electronics housing on the door, the pieces connected to each other by screws through the back plate (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
384
361
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Easy Out 1a fails to specifically disclose wherein the crate further includes a cover, wherein the cover is removably attachable to the door, and wherein when the cover is attached to the door, the cover bounds a portion of the enclosed cavity and seals against the door to block water from entering the enclosed cavity.
Jakel discloses a dog crate with an enclosed electronics housing, the housing having a cover attached thereto which bounds a portion of the enclosed cavity and seals against the housing to block water from entering the enclosed cavity of the housing (see ‘electronics cover’ in Fig 4c and 132 in Fig 13; ¶0094).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically provided a removable cover for the electronics housing portion of the door of Easy Out 1a, as in Jakel, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for more simple manufacturing/assembly (no injection molding around electronics needed), and to provide access to the electronics for maintenance, or replacement, as needed, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Violonchi (DE 202023001936 U1), hereinafter referred to as Violonchi.
Regarding claim 3:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the crate further comprises a power source, wherein the power source is electrically connected to and adapted to provide power to the solenoid and receiver, wherein the power source is contained within the enclosed cavity of the door (power is required for the electronic remote control actuation displayed, no electronic connections outside of the black housing are shown, and the electronics therein must be supplied with power, so one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the power source is found therein).
Easy out 1a as modified fails to specifically disclose wherein the crate comprises a battery in the enclosed cavity, the battery electrically connected to and adapted to provide power to the actuator and receiver.
Violonchi discloses a remote door latching system (abstract), that may be used to control access to animal enclosures (Pg 5, second ¶ up from bottom) with a solenoid driven remote-controllable locking system (Pg 9, ¶3), where a rechargeable battery is in the housing and electrically connected to and adapted to provide power to the internal electronics (battery 9, Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have powered the electronic actuation system of Easy Out 1a with a rechargeable battery, as in Violonchi, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Violonchi, rechargeable batteries are preferable to other power sources in that they are more environmentally friendly, require minimal maintenance, lower the cost of ownership, and provide for easier installation (Pg 4; Pg 5: “freedom from maintenance”). Further, the use of a battery as a power source for electronics is an extremely old and well-known practice.
Regarding claim 4:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 3 above and Violonchi further discloses wherein the crate further comprises a charging port, wherein the charging port is electrically connected to the battery, and wherein the charging port is accessible outside of the enclosed cavity (charging socket with cap 5, Fig 2).
claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Pomakoy-Poole (US 20050284405), hereinafter referred to as Pomakoy.
Regarding claim 5:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Easy out 1a fails to disclose wherein the crate further comprises a light, wherein the light is mounted on an interior side of the door, wherein the light is positioned outside of the enclosed cavity, and wherein the light is adapted to illuminate the interior space of the body.
Pomakoy discloses an animal transport crate with a light disposed on the interior of the crate, the light adapted to illuminate the interior space of the crate body (light 136, Fig 5; ¶0040).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided at least one light mounted on an interior of the transport crate of Easy out 1a, as in Pomakoy, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Pomakoy, lights may be comforting to an animal during transport or kenneling (-¶0040).
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the light being located on an interior side of the door. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the light on an interior side of the door, in order to best illuminate the animal held within for the owner’s viewing or to partially block the dogs view out the door, to prevent the dog from getting distracted or stressed by activities happening external to the crate, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C); In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of An (CN 214282669 U), hereinafter referred to as An.
Regarding claim 6:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the solenoid is adapted to enter the energized state temporarily to momentarily disengage the latch when the receiver receives the control signal (Lin: claim 1)
Easy Out 1a fails to disclose wherein the latch is biased toward the engaged state.
An discloses an animal crate with a latch (bolt 2, Fig 3) biased towards an engaged/locked state, and an electromagnetic actuating mechanism (electromagnetic absorbing mechanism 16, Fig 3) which may be temporarily energized to momentarily disengage the latch when remotely controlled to do so (Pg 4, ¶4)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have biased the latch of Easy Out 1a towards the engaged state, as in An, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to help prevent accidental unlatching by the operator or animal therein.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a, Lin, and An, as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Jakel.
Regarding claim 7:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 above.
Easy Out 1a fails to specifically disclose wherein the door is biased toward the open position.
Jakel discloses an animal crate with remote latching system (abstract), wherein the door is biased by spring loaded hinges toward the open position (¶0013).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided spring-loaded hinges to the door of Easy out 1a, as in Jakel, in order to bias the door to the open position, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for a clearer showing of whether the latch is engaged or not, so as to ensure the animal within doesn’t think they are trapped when the door is unlatched, or to ensure that the owner doesn’t think the door is properly latched, when it is released and only slightly ajar.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Easy Out 14 (NPL – YouTube - #14), hereinafter referred to as Easy Out 14.
Regarding claim 9:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the solenoid is coupled to the latch through the handle (see 4:40 – 4:50).
Easy Out 1a fails to disclose wherein the solenoid is directly coupled to the latch.
Easy out 14 discloses a very similar remote release mechanism, where the driven actuating rod is directly coupled to the latch (see 0:05 – 0:15).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have coupled the actuator rod of the solenoid of Easy Out 1a directly to the latch, as in Easy out 14, rather than via the handle, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a more secure connection between the latch and rod, for more effective force transference and less chance of wear/breakage, or, given its more compact nature, to save space for better application to a wide variety of cage/kennel sizes. Further, such a modification would amount to a simple substitution of one known fastening element for another functionally equivalent one, and would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wild West Hardware (NPL – wildwesthardware.com), hereinafter referred to as WWH.
Regarding claim 10:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Easy Out 1a fails to disclose wherein the latch further comprises a lock adapted to receive a key, and wherein, when the lock is placed in a locked state by the key, the lock secures the latch in the engaged position regardless of the state of the solenoid or handle.
WWH discloses a similar bar latch with a lock adapted to receive a key (see annotated Figure below), wherein, when the lock is placed in a locked state by the key, the lock secures the latch in the engaged position regardless of force applied to the latch (functional language: capable of functioning as such – see images)
PNG
media_image5.png
316
748
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a lock for the latch of Easy Out 1a, as in WWH, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in WWH, a key lock would help in preventing theft (pg. 2), and would allow for accessibility only by the designated owner.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Brown (US 20240263509 A1), hereinafter referred to as Brown.
Regarding claim 11:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Easy Out 1a fails to specifically disclose wherein the receiver is adapted to communicate with an external security system.
Brown discloses a dog crate with a remote release latch, the release latch system capable of communicating with an external security system (abstract; ¶0007).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the control system of Easy Out 1a with the ability to communicate with an external security system, as in Brown, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification so that your animal may be able to protect itself or its owner better in a situation where an intruder enters the house.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a and Lin, as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Easy Out 18 (NPL – YouTube - #18), hereinafter referred to as Easy Out 18.
Regarding claim 13:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Easy Out 1a as modified fails to disclose wherein the remote control includes a safety, and wherein the safety is adapted to selectively prevent the remote control from receiving the physical input.
Easy Out 18 contemplates an alternative remote for a remote control dog release system, where the remote control includes a safety, and wherein the safety is adapted to selectively prevent the remote control from receiving the physical input (see 0:30 – 0:50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a remote control with a safety in the system of Easy Out 1a, as in Easy Out 18, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as disclosed in Easy Out 18, the safety would be helpful in preventing accidental activation of the button, for example, by items in the bag it is carried in (see 0:30 – 0:50).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kaukkila (WO 9406278 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kaukkila.
Regarding claim 14:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above and further discloses wherein the body includes a floor on a bottom side (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
484
650
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Easy Out 1a fails to specifically disclose wherein the floor extends across the entire bottom side of the body, and wherein the floor is impermeable to water.
Kaukkila discloses a pet crate with a floor extending across an entire bottom side of the crate body, the floor being impermeable to water (lower part 1, Fig 1; “waterproof” per Pg 2, ¶2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an impermeable floor in Easy Out 1a, as in Kaukkila, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent damage to the environment in which the crate is placed if the animal urinates in the crate.
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Goetz (US 5253612 A), hereinafter referred to as Goetz, as best understood in light of the 112(b) issues addressed above.
Regarding claim 15:
Easy Out 1a as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Easy Out 1a fails to specifically disclose wherein the body includes a plurality of feet extending from the floor on the bottom side, wherein the feet are adapted to support the body relative to a ground surface, and wherein the plurality of feet elevate the floor above the ground surface (supports 4, Fig 2).
Goetz discloses a dog crate where the body includes a plurality of feet extending from the floor on the bottom side, wherein the feet are adapted to support the body relative to a ground surface, and wherein the plurality of feet elevate the floor above the ground surface, the roof having corresponding elements (rectangular receptacles 8, Figs 1-2) for stacking purposes.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the crate of Easy Out 1a with feet 4 and elements 8, as in Goetz, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make such a modification because, as in Goetz, so as to allow for secure stacking of crates in transport situations (Col 1, line 65 – Col 2, line 5), or to provide a storage space for wheels (rollers 5, Fig 2) so as to allow for ease of transport, when needed, but stability when not.
Regarding claim 16:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 15 above and Goetz further discloses wherein the body includes a roof on a top side, wherein the roof defines a plurality of platforms (see annotated Figure 1 below), and wherein the plurality of platforms are positioned to mirror a location of each of the plurality of feet and are each adapted to support the feet on a second crate such that the crate is stackable with another identical crate (claims 1-2; Col 1, line 65 – Col 2, line 5).
PNG
media_image7.png
542
636
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 16 above and Goetz further discloses wherein the body further comprises multiple shoulders positioned adjacent at least two of the plurality of platforms on the roof (see annotated Fig 1 below), wherein the shoulders extend above the platforms, and wherein when the feet of a second crate are positioned on the platforms, the shoulders block the second crate from moving towards a front, a back, and lateral sides of the body (claims 1-2; Figs 1-2; Col 1, line 65 – Col 2, line 5).
PNG
media_image8.png
542
636
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 18:
The modified reference discloses the limitations of claim 17 above and Goetz further discloses wherein the roof defines a groove adapted to receive a tie-down to secure the body against the ground surface (see annotated Fig 2 below).
PNG
media_image9.png
629
736
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the crate of Easy Out 1a with a groove along the body, as in Goetz, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a secure attachment point for ratchet straps or cables for securing the crate halves to each other, or the crate to an external object (e.g. truck bed, plane cargo hold, etc.) as is a commonly known practice in the art of animal transport crates. Also, the grooves of Goetz may provide increased structural stability to the walls of the crate.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Easy Out 1a in view of Jakel, Lin and Violonchi.
Regarding claim 20:
Easy Out 1a discloses a system for use with an animal crate that defines an opening (see annotated Figure below), the system comprising:
PNG
media_image10.png
685
1172
media_image10.png
Greyscale
a door (door is considered the assembly of the original metal frame door of the crate with the easy out remote actuated box) that defines an enclosed cavity (enclosed cavity is space within black ‘easy out’ box where the electronics necessary for actuation reside), wherein the door is adapted to be rotatably mounted on the animal crate to selectively cover the opening (see 0:20 – 0:27);
seemingly wherein the electronics housing is a multipiece housing, the pieces connected to each other by screws through the back plate (see annotated Figure below);
PNG
media_image4.png
384
361
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a latch attached to the door (see annotated Figure below), wherein the latch is movable between an engaged state and a disengaged state (see 0:20 – 0:27), wherein the latch is adapted to secure the position of the door relative to the animal crate when the latch is in the engaged state and the door is in a closed position, wherein the latch does not secure the position of the door relative to the body when the when the latch is in the disengaged state (see 0:20 – 0:27);
PNG
media_image2.png
435
662
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a handle positioned on an exterior side of the door relative to the interior space, wherein the handle is operatively coupled to the latch to move the latch from the engaged state to the disengaged state (see annotated Figure above; see 0:20 – 0:27);
an actuator rod operatively coupled to the latch to move the latch from the engaged state to the disengaged state (see annotated Figure above; see 0:20-0:27);
a receiver adapted to receive a control signal, wherein the receiver is electrically connected to the actuator; wherein the actuator rod actuates when the receiver receives the control signal (a receiver electrically connected to the actuator rod is inherent to the function of remote control actuation of the rod, as shown in 0:20 – 0:27);
a power source electrically connected to and adapted to provide power to the actuation electronics, wherein the power source is contained within the enclosed cavity of the door (power is required for the electronic remote control actuation displayed, no electronic connections outside of the black housing are shown, and the electronics therein must be supplied with power, so one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the power source is found therein);
a remote control adapted to receive a physical input, and wherein the remote control is adapted to transmit the control signal to the receiver after receiving the physical input (see 0:20 – 0:27);
wherein the actuator is adapted to move the latch into the disengaged state when the receiver receives the control signal (see 0:20 – 0:27); and
wherein the actuator and the receiver are positioned within the enclosed cavity of the door (as above, a receiver electrically connected to the actuating means which moves the actuator rod is inherent to the remote controlled actuation function display; given the actuator rod extends into/out of the interior enclosed cavity of the housing, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the receiver and actuation means must be found housed therein so as to be able to effect motion to the actuator rod).
Easy out fails to disclose:
A cover that is removably attachable to the door, and wherein when the cover is attached to the door, the cover bounds a portion of the enclosed cavity and seals against the door to block water from entering the enclosed cavity;
a solenoid operatively coupled to the latch to move the latch from the engaged state to the disengaged state, wherein the solenoid is adapted to move when transitioning between an energized state and a de-energized state; and wherein the receiver is electrically connected to the solenoid; wherein the solenoid transitions to the energized state when the receiver receives the control signal; wherein the solenoid is adapted to move the latch into the disengaged state when the solenoid is in the energized state; wherein the solenoid is positioned within the enclosed cavity of the door;
a battery in the enclosed cavity, the batter electrically connected to and adapted to provide power to the solenoid and receiver; and
that the structural components of Easy Out 1a are broken down and assembled in kit form;
Jakel discloses a dog crate with an enclosed electronics housing, the housing having a cover attached thereto which bounds a portion of the enclosed cavity and seals against the housing to block water from entering the enclosed cavity of the housing (see ‘electronics cover’ in Fig 4c and 132 in Fig 13; ¶0094).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically provided a removable cover for the electronics housing portion of the door of Easy Out 1a, as in Jakel, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for more simple manufacturing/assembly (no injection molding around electronics needed), and to provide access to the electronics for maintenance, or replacement, as needed, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Lin discloses a similar remote latching system for a dog kennel where the latch (latch bolt 15, Fig 2) is operatively coupled to a solenoid (electromagnetic solenoid 12 with armature 121/ extension member 13, Fig 2 – 121/13 acting as the actuator rod) which moves the latch between an engaged and disengaged state (Col 2, lines 23-40; Figs 2-3); wherein the solenoid is adapted to move when transitioning between an energized state and a de-energized state (Col 2, lines 23-40; Figs 2-3; Claim 1); wherein a receiver is electrically connected to the solenoid (claim 1 – control means includes receiver); wherein the solenoid transitions to the energized state when the receiver receives the control signal (claim 1; Col 2, lines 23-40); wherein the solenoid is adapted to move the latch into the disengaged state when the solenoid is in the energized state (claim 1, Figs 2-3); wherein the solenoid is positioned within an enclosed cavity mounted to the cage (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have specifically provided actuation of the actuator rod of Easy out 1a via a solenoid, the solenoid operable to disengage the latch when energized, after remote control operation, as in Lin, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve simplicity of the electric control of translational mechanical motion, or to reduce manufacturing costs, or wear potential. Further, it would have obvious as a substitution of functional equivalents, to substitute the electrically controlled mechanical actuation means of easy out 1a with the electrically controlled solenoid mechanical actuation means of Lin, since a simple substitution of one known element for another would obtain predictable results. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Violonchi discloses a remote door latching system (abstract), that may be used to control access to animal enclosures (Pg 5, second ¶ up from bottom) with a solenoid driven remote-controllable locking system (Pg 9, ¶3), where a rechargeable battery is in the housing and electrically connected to and adapted to provide power to the internal electronics (battery 9, Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have powered the electronic actuation system of Easy Out 1a with a rechargeable battery, as in Violonchi, the result having a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to make this modification because, as in Violonchi, rechargeable batteries are preferable to other power sources in that they are more environmentally friendly, require minimal maintenance, lower the cost of ownership, and provide for easier installation (Pg 4; Pg 5: “freedom from maintenance”). Further, the use of a battery as a power source for electronics is an extremely old and well-known practice.
Regarding kit claim 20, in view of the structure disclosed by Easy Out 1a as modified, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to break the components down and assemble them into kit form.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Those references cited on the attached 892 form, but not referenced in the rejection above exhibit similarities to the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOK V SCHMID whose telephone number is (571)270-0141. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30ish.
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, Joshua Huson, can be reached on 571-270-5301. 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.
/B.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3642
/JOSHUA D HUSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642