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 § 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 1-7, 8-9, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conger et al. (US 20060278171), hereinafter Conger, in view of Van Bruggen (US 7080749).
Regarding claim 1, Conger teaches of (fig. 2) an animal cage system comprising:
a first cage base (cage base 101) having a floor and at least one sidewall connected to the floor at a bottom portion of the at least one sidewall (seen in fig. 2), the first cage base (101) comprising a base flange (flap 117) extending around a perimeter thereof (seen in fig. 2),
a first cage cover (cage cover 102) configured to engage with the at least one sidewall at a top portion of the at least one sidewall (seen in fig. 1), the first cage cover (102) comprising:
a cover flange extending around a perimeter thereof (flange around the perimeter of the cage cover 102),
a lip disposed on the cover flange (lip on the perimeter of the cover flange), the lip being configured to engage with at least a portion of the base flange (seen in fig. 1); and
a cage component (fig. 1, water bottle 105) configured to engage with the first cage cover (102) (seen in fig. 1),
wherein the first cage cover (102) is configured for nesting with a second cage cover (¶0114-0118, the cage covers can be nested together), and
wherein the first cage base (101) is configured for nesting with a second cage base (¶0053, nesting of cage bases).
Conger does not appear to teach of a protrusion disposed on the cover flange, the protrusion being spaced apart from the lip by a flat region of the cover flange extending between the protrusion and the lip.
Van Bruggen is in the field of covers and teaches of (fig. 2) a protrusion (col. 3 lines 18-25, protrusion at the edge of the radially protruding gripping ear 25) disposed on the cover flange (band 12) (protrusion is at the edge of the cover flange 12), the protrusion being spaced apart from the lip (fig. 1, webs 23) by a flat region of the cover flange extending between the protrusion and the lip (flat region of the ear 25 extends between the protrusion at the edge of the ear 25 and the lip 23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Conger to incorporate the teachings of a protrusion disposed on the cover flange, the protrusion being spaced apart from the lip by a flat region of the cover flange extending between the protrusion and the lip in order to have a component that makes it easier to grip and lift the cover upwards.
Regarding claim 2, Conger as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein the at least one sidewall of the first cage base has a thickness between about 0.01 inches and about 0.08 inches (¶0091, the thickness of each wall is about 0.01 inches to about 0.08 inches).
Regarding claim 3, Conger as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein the at least one sidewall of the first cage base (101) tapers inward from the top portion toward the bottom portion (fig. 3, sidewalls taper inwards from the top portion toward the bottom portion).
Regarding claim 4, Conger as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein the first cage base is configured for nesting with a second cage base when the first cage cover is disengaged from the at least one sidewall of the first cage base (fig. 2, ¶0053, nesting of cage bases is when the first cage cover 102 is disengaged from the at least one sidewall of the first cage base such that the top is open and can receive a cage base).
Regarding claim 5, Conger teaches of claim 1, and (fig. 3) wherein the cage component (105) is spaced apart from the floor of the first cage base (101) when the first cage base (101) is engaged with the first cage cover (102) (seen in fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Conger as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein (fig. 2) the first cage base (101) comprises an interior region (interior of first cage base 101) defined, at least in part, by the floor and the at least one sidewall (seen in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Conger as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein the first cage base and the first cage cover comprise recyclable polymer (¶0055, the cage base can be made of polypropylene (PE), high-density polyethylene, low-density polyethylene, polyethylene teraphthalate (PET), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyethylenefluoroethylene (PEFE), polystyrene (PS), high-density polystryrene, and acrylnitrile butadiene styrene copolymers, which are all recyclable polymers. ¶0057, Examples of materials from which the cover can be constructed include those described above for cage bases.)
Regarding claim 9, Conger as modified teaches of claim 8, and wherein the recyclable polymer material comprises polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (¶0055, the recyclable polymer material can be PET).
Regarding claim 21, Conger as modified teaches of claim 1, and wherein (fig. 3) the first cage cover (102) further comprises a cavity (cavity of junction 110 and radius 102) formed integrally therein (seen in fig. 3), the cavity being configured to receive water (receives water in the water bottle 105 and can also pour water directly into the cavity).
Regarding claim 22, Conger as modified teaches of claim 3, and wherein the at least one sidewall forms an angle between 91-105 degrees with respect to the floor (¶0049, sometimes all sidewalls, are at a non-90 degree angle with respect to the bottom, such as an angle between about 91 degrees and about 105 degrees, an angle of about 92 degrees to about 98 degrees or an angle of about 95 degrees, for example.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, and 21-22 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.
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