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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The discussion of “an electromagnetic wave uniformity characteristic” is undefined in the instant specification, so the prevention of reduction is unclear. While the instant specification states, as argued, “Here, the electromagnetic wave uniformity characteristic may denote a characteristic representing the degree to which an electromagnetic wave is uniformly distributed in the electromagnetic reverberation chamber 10 which is an experiment space.” In paragraph 0057, this does not amount to something that PHOSITA can implement, or necessarily understands, the meaning that the inventor is attempting to convey. What is “a characteristic”, and how does it represent the purported data set? How is it measured? Produced? All of these factors must be described.
Claims 7 & 17 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. No description of the property of the metal, or examples of the metal piping, can be found in the instant specification to enable someone to replicate the current disclosure. It is unclear how Applicant produces, identifies, and/or measures “an electromagnetic wave uniformity characteristic”, so it would require a person having ordinary skill in the art undue experimentation to find or figure out which characteristic is being referenced. While the instant specification states, as argued, “Here, the electromagnetic wave uniformity characteristic may denote a characteristic representing the degree to which an electromagnetic wave is uniformly distributed in the electromagnetic reverberation chamber 10 which is an experiment space.” In paragraph 0057, this does not amount to something that PHOSITA can implement, or necessarily understands, the meaning that the inventor is attempting to convey. What is “a characteristic”, and how does it represent the purported data set? How is it measured? Produced? All of these factors must be described.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 12-14, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by Wiecha et al. (DE 102022110825 A1, “Wiecha”) in view of van Dijk (US 20210081735 A1).
For Claim 1, Wiecha discloses an apparatus (closed stable, discussed starting on page 1 of the previously provided translation) for improving temperature conditions in an animal housing environment exposed to an electromagnetic wave, the apparatus comprising:
an electromagnetic reverberation chamber (the cooling device of Wiecha implemented in a stable, as discussed in, e.g., pages 1-2);
a cooling pipe (the tubes between inlet 15 and outlet 17) adhered to and disposed on a metal surface (page 5) of an inner sidewall of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber to allow a coolant to flow therein (as illustrated in Fig. 2 and page 7); and
a watering system (the tubes, inlet, outlet, and heat exchangers) configured to supply the coolant to the cooling pipe, wherein the cooling pipe prevents an increase in internal temperature of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber (at least in part, in the same manner as the instant invention, the cooling tubes lowers the temperature).
Wiecha is silent to an antenna installed in the electromagnetic chamber and configured to radiate the electromagnetic wave.
Van Dijk, like prior art above, teaches an animal housing (title, disclosure, ¶0002) further comprising an antenna (beacons 3, 4, 5) installed in a chamber (Fig. 1) and configured to radiate an electromagnetic wave (¶0048,56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the stable system of Wiecha with a position monitoring system as taught by van Dijk, in order to provide remote monitoring of the animals and their health, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 6, Wiecha discloses an apparatus (stable, discussed starting on page 1 of the appended translation) for improving temperature conditions in an animal housing environment exposed to an electromagnetic wave, the apparatus comprising:
an electromagnetic reverberation chamber (the cooling device of Wiecha implemented in a stable, as discussed in, e.g., pages 1-2);
a cooling pipe (the tubes between inlet 15 and outlet 17) adhered to and disposed on a metal surface of an inner sidewall (page 5) of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber to allow a coolant to flow therein (as illustrated in Fig. 2 and page 7);
a metal plate (contact surface, as discussed in page 5) covering the cooling pipe (Fig. 2); and
a watering system (the inlet, the outlet, pipe/hose/tube within the sidewall shown in Fig. 2, and heat exchangers) configured to supply the coolant to the cooling pipe, wherein the cooling pipe prevents an increase in internal temperature of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber (at least in part, in the same manner as the instant invention, the cooling tubes lowers the temperature).
Wiecha is silent to an antenna installed in the electromagnetic chamber and configured to radiate the electromagnetic wave.
Van Dijk, like prior art above, teaches an animal housing (title, disclosure, ¶0002) further comprising an antenna (beacons 3, 4, 5) installed in a chamber (Fig. 1) and configured to radiate an electromagnetic wave (¶0048,56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the stable system of Wiecha with a position monitoring system as taught by van Dijk, in order to provide remote monitoring of the animals and their health, yielding predictable results.
Further, if the stable of Wiecha is found to not be provided with a metal inner sidewall, then it would have been obvious to provide one or more of the sidewalls of the stable with a metallic surface, in order to better reinforce the stable wall(s) and to realize the further advantages discussed in Wiecha: “Furthermore, it is advantageous if the heat sinks and in particular the contact surfaces consist of a material that resists are inert to dirt and aggressive substances such as feces and urine.” Such a modification would have been further obvious since the Examiner takes Official Notice that metallic walls in stables are exceedingly well known in the art.
For Claim 12, Wiecha discloses an apparatus (closed stable, discussed starting on page 1 of the appended translation) for improving temperature conditions in an animal housing environment exposed to an electromagnetic wave, the apparatus comprising:
an electromagnetic reverberation chamber (the cooling device of Wiecha implemented in a stable, as discussed in, e.g., pages 1-2);
a first watering system (a first heat sink or first heat exchanger, page 5) disposed outside the electromagnetic reverberation chamber to supply a coolant;
a second watering system (a second heat sink or second heat exchanger, page 5) disposed in the electromagnetic reverberation chamber and supplied with the coolant through an inlet pipe (through inlet 15); and
a cooling pipe (pipe/hose/tube within the sidewall shown in Fig. 2) adhered to and disposed on a metal surface of an inner sidewall (Fig. 2) of an electromagnetic reverberation chamber (stable) and supplied with the coolant through an outlet pipe of the second watering system (the connecting tubing), wherein the cooling pipe prevents an increase in internal temperature of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber (at least in part, in the same manner as the instant invention, the cooling tubes lowers the temperature).
Wiecha is silent to an antenna installed in the electromagnetic chamber and configured to radiate the electromagnetic wave.
Van Dijk, like prior art above, teaches an animal housing (title, disclosure, ¶0002) further comprising an antenna (beacons 3, 4, 5) installed in a chamber (Fig. 1) and configured to radiate an electromagnetic wave (¶0048,56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the stable system of Wiecha with a position monitoring system as taught by van Dijk, in order to provide remote monitoring of the animals and their health, yielding predictable results.
Further, if the stable of Wiecha is found to not be provided with a metal inner sidewall, then it would have been obvious to provide one or more of the sidewalls of the stable with a metallic surface, in order to better reinforce the stable wall(s) and to realize the further advantages discussed in Wiecha: “Furthermore, it is advantageous if the heat sinks and in particular the contact surfaces consist of a material that resists are inert to dirt and aggressive substances such as feces and urine.” Such a modification would have been further obvious since the Examiner takes Official Notice that metallic walls in stables are exceedingly well known in the art.
For Claims 2, 8, & 16, Wiecha in view of van Dijk teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 6, & 12, and the resulting device teaches wherein the cooling pipe prevents a temperature of the metal surface (metallic contact surface 5, Wiecha) from increasing when1 the electromagnetic wave reaches the metal surface, thereby preventing the increase in the internal temperature of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber (at least in part in the same manner as the instant invention, the cooling tubes lowers the temperature, as above modified).
For Claim 13, Wiecha in view of van Dijk teaches the apparatus of claim 12, and Wiecha further discloses wherein the second watering system functions as an auto watering rack configured to supply drinking water to an experiment-targeted animal of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber (“the coolant, if it is water for example, can also be supplied directly for use by humans and/or animals,” (emphasis added), page 6).
For Claim 14, Wiecha discloses the apparatus of claim 13, wherein the drinking water is used as the coolant supplied from the cooling pipe (“the coolant, if it is water for example, can also be supplied directly for use by humans and/or animals,” (emphasis added), page 6).
Claims 3, 7, 9, & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiecha in view of van Dijk as applied to claims 1, 6, & 12 above, and further in view of Hamlin (US 20220174908 A1).
For Claims 3 & 9, Wiecha in view of van Dijk teaches the apparatus of claims 1 & 6.
Wiecha in view of van Dijk is silent to wherein the cooling pipe is formed in a zigzag shape so that the coolant maximally circulates through a wide area of the inner sidewall.
Hamlin, like prior art above, teaches an animal cooling device (title, disclosure) further comprising cooling pipe formed in a zigzag shape (see zigzag under element 20) so that the coolant maximally circulates through a wide area of an inner sidewall (Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the shape of the cooling pipe within the sidewall of Wiecha in view of van Dijk into a zigzag shape as taught by Hamlin, in order to better circulate water throughout the environment, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 7, Wiecha in view of van Dijk teaches the apparatus of claim 6.
Wiecha in view of van Dijk is silent to wherein the metal pipe prevents an electromagnetic wave uniformity characteristic of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber from being reduced as the electromagnetic wave is directly reflected to the cooling pipe.
Hamlin, like prior art above, teaches an animal cooling device (title, disclosure) further comprising wherein the metal pipe prevents an electromagnetic wave uniformity characteristic of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber from being reduced as the electromagnetic wave is directly reflected to the cooling pipe (discussed in ¶0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the material of the cooling pipe of Wiecha in view of van Dijk with metal as taught by Hamlin, in order to provide a suitable material for lasting a long time, yielding predictable results.
For Claim 17, Wiecha in view of van Dijk teaches the apparatus of claim 12, and Wiecha further discloses further comprising a metal plate (contact surface, as discussed in page 5) covering the cooling pipe.
Wiecha in view of van Dijk is silent to wherein the metal pipe prevents an electromagnetic wave uniformity characteristic of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber from being reduced as the electromagnetic wave is directly reflected to the cooling pipe.
Hamlin, like prior art above, teaches an animal cooling device (title, disclosure) further comprising wherein the metal pipe prevents an electromagnetic wave uniformity characteristic of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber from being reduced as the electromagnetic wave is directly reflected to the cooling pipe (discussed in ¶0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the material of the cooling pipe of Wiecha in view of van Dijk with metal as taught by Hamlin, in order to provide a suitable material for lasting a long time, yielding predictable results.
Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiecha in view of van Dijk as applied to claims 1, 6, & 13 above, and further in view of Bioret (FR 3056880 A1) and Betts-Lacroix et al. (US 20170000081 A1, “Betts-Lacroix”).
For Claims 4, 10, & 15, Wiecha in view of van Dijk teaches the apparatus of claims 1, 6, & 13.
Wiecha in view of van Dijk is silent to further comprising a temperature sensor disposed in an exhaust port of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber to measure the internal temperature of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber, wherein, when the internal temperature of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber measured by the temperature sensor falls to a reference temperature or less, the watering system stops the supply of the coolant to the cooling pipe.
Bioret, like prior art above, teaches an animal caretaking device (title, disclosure), further comprising a temperature sensor (temperature measurement means 13) disposed with the electromagnetic reverberation chamber to measure the internal temperature of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber (ambient temperature measured by 13), wherein, when the internal temperature of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber measured by the temperature sensor falls to a reference temperature or less, the watering system stops the supply of the coolant to the cooling pipe (“Generally, when the risk of thermal stress is eliminated, the control means 12 automatically control the stopping of the circulation of the heat transfer fluid in the heat transfer fluid circuit 5,” page 18 of the appended translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the control mechanism of Wiecha in view of van Dijk with a temperature sensor and cooperating controller element as taught by Bioret, in order to provide a more versatile device which incorporates biofeedback from the housed animals, yielding predictable results and leading to the overall health of the animal(s).
Betts-Lacroix, like prior art above, teaches an animal caretaking enclosure (title, disclosure) further comprising a temperature sensor disposed in an exhaust port of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber to measure the internal temperature of the electromagnetic reverberation chamber (“240 shows exhaust air sensors, such as temperature,” ¶0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to further modify the temperature sensor of the above-modified reference to be in an exhaust port as taught by Betts-Lacroix, in order to provide an accurate reading of the internal conditions without risk of damage to the sensor, yielding predictable results.
For Claims 5 & 11, Wiecha in view of van Dijk, Bioret, and Betts-Lacroix teaches the apparatus of claims 4 & 10, and Bioret further teaches wherein the reference temperature is a housing environment temperature of comparison-targeted animals unexposed to the electromagnetic wave2 (a thermal stress is measured, meeting the claimed functionality).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to present claims 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.
RE the argument directed to claims 7 & 17, specifically to Hamlin’s ¶0015, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that no manner in which to supply, meter, mediate, or otherwise effect the claimed electromagnetic wave is specifically detailed in the instant specification; thus, the material alone is believed to be relied upon for the supposed attenuation of the wave itself. Hamlin, like the instant invention, teaches a metallic material, which would appear to operate and/or function in the manner claimed.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Special attention is drawn to the disclosures of KR 102215514 B1, US 3324831 A, US 0363115 A, US 0344162 A, US 20220007614 A1, and KR 200325670 Y1 as disclosing an invention or aspects of the invention which are similar to those claimed and/or disclosed in the instant invention. The remaining references cited establish the state of the art.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: the conditional statement is not required for the claim metes and bounds.
2 Interpretation note: neither the electromagnetic wave nor the housing environment is positively required, therefore, the claimed elements are only required functionally.
Prosecution Insights