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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application.
This communication is the first action on the merits.
As of the date of this action, no information disclosure statement has been filed on behalf of this case.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8-10, 16-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchekneva et al. (U.S. Pub. 20110239953) in view of Viana et al. (WO 2019028537).
In regard to claim 1, Tchekneva et al. discloses a metabolic cage, comprising: an enclosure; a collection array disposed within the enclosure, the collection array comprising a plurality of wells, each well comprising a funnel configured to collect waste in a corresponding reservoir (Figs. 1-8 and Paragraphs [0028-0038], where there is a metabolic cage including an enclosure 1, a collection array 2 disposed within the enclosure 1, and the collection array 2 comprising a plurality of wells 4 and where each well 4 comprises a funnel (sloped down portion of wells 4) configured to collect waste in a corresponding reservoir of the wells 4); a mesh filter disposed above the collection array, the mesh filter designed to prevent the waste of a particular type or larger than a defined size from being transported to the collection array (Figs. 1-8 and Paragraphs [0028-0038], where there is a mesh filter 22 (porous layer above collection array 2) disposed above the collection array 2 and where the mesh filter 22 is at least designed to prevent the waste of a particular type or larger than a defined size (size of pores in mesh filter 22) from being transported to the collection array 2); wherein the funnel of each well is configured to transport waste passing through the mesh filter to the corresponding reservoir (Figs. 1-8 and Paragraphs [0028-0038], where the funnel of each well (sloped down portion of wells 4) is at least configured to transport waste passing through the mesh filter 22 to the corresponding reservoir of the wells 4). Tchekneva et al. is silent on a walking platform disposed above the mesh filter, the walking platform comprising a gridded surface; wherein the funnel of each well is configured to transport waste passing through the gridded surface of the walking platform to the corresponding reservoir. Viana et al. discloses a walking platform disposed above the mesh filter, the walking platform comprising a gridded surface (Figs. 1-11 and Page 5 line 21 – Page 6 line 7, where there is a walking platform 10 disposed above the mesh filter 11 and where the walking platform comprises at least a gridded surface); wherein the funnel of each well is configured to transport waste passing through the gridded surface of the walking platform to the corresponding reservoir (Figs. 1-11 and Page 5 line 21 – Page 6 line 7, where the funnel (“a tapered shape 14”) of each well is configured to transport waste passing through the gridded surface of the walking platform 10 to the corresponding reservoir). Tchekneva et al. and Viana et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal enclosures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. such that a walking platform disposed above the mesh filter, the walking platform comprising a gridded surface; wherein the funnel of each well is configured to transport waste passing through the gridded surface of the walking platform and the mesh filter to the corresponding reservoir in view of Viana et al. The motivation would have been to retain at least a portion of the solid debris passing through the orifices of the walking platform, in order to separate the sold debris from the walking platform where the animal resides and the wells.
In regard to claim 4, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1, wherein each funnel separately receives the waste from at least one grid of the gridded surface (Tchekneva et al., Figs. 1-8 and Paragraphs [0028-0038], where each funnel (sloped down portion of wells 4) separately receives the waste from at least one grid of the gridded surface; Viana et al., Figs. 1-11, where the walking platform comprises at least a gridded surface).
In regard to claim 8, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1, wherein each corresponding reservoir of the plurality of wells is bullet-shaped to allow for a decreased rate of evaporation (Tchekneva et al., Figs. 1-8 and Paragraphs [0028-0038], where each corresponding reservoir of the plurality of wells 4 is bullet-shaped which reduces the rate of evaporation).
In regard to claim 9, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1, further comprising a cover having a ventilation structure on the cover to allow for a predefined amount of air supply within the metabolic cage (Tchekneva et al., Fig. 5 and Paragraphs [0034-0036], where there is a cover 12 having a ventilation structure (“breathable” holes) on the cover 12 to at least allow for a predefined amount of air supply within the metabolic cage).
In regard to claim 10, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1, further comprising a filtered cover to limit air contamination (Tchekneva et al., Fig. 5 and Paragraphs [0034-0036], where there is a filtered cover (lid 12 and filter 16) to limit air contamination).
In regard to claim 16, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on the metabolic cage and its structural components are configured with rounded edges to inhibit chewing. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. to have the metabolic cage and its structural components be configured with rounded edges to inhibit chewing, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the metabolic cage and structural components of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. The motivation would have been to reduce the risk of injury, due to sharp or pointed edges of components in the device.
In regard to claim 17, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1, wherein the metabolic cage and included components are temperature resistant to allow for sterilization (Tchekneva et al Paragraph [0028], where the metabolic cage and included components are temperature resistant to allow for sterilization).
In regard to claim 20, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1, wherein the enclosure comprises a side opening configured for removable insertion of the collection array into the enclosure and a cover configured to be detachably secured over the side opening (Viana et al., Figs. 1-11, where the enclosure comprises a side opening (which allows for slidable removal of platform and mesh components) configured for removable insertion of the collection array into the enclosure and a cover (covering of enclosure in the closed position) configured to be detachably secured over the side opening).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchekneva et al. (U.S. Pub. 20110239953) in view of Viana et al. (WO 2019028537) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Leblond et al. (U.S. Pat. 2684051).
In regard to claim 2, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on at least one nourishment insert comprising a waste collection chute extending through a corresponding opening in the walking platform. Leblond et al. discloses at least one nourishment insert comprising a waste collection chute (Figs. 1-2, where there is at least one nourishment insert 16 comprising a waste collection chute 14/18). Tchekneva et al. and Leblond et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that at least one nourishment insert comprising a waste collection chute in view of Leblond et al. The motivation would have been to allow for feed to be provided to the animal, while preventing feed from being spread across the enclosure to improve sanitation and reduce mess.
Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. and Leblond et al. is silent on a waste collection chute extending through a corresponding opening in the walking platform. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. and Leblond et al. to have a waste collection chute extending through a corresponding opening in the walking platform, since applicant has not disclosed that doing so solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with the waste collection chute of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. and Leblond et al. The motivation would have been to relatively increase a depth of the waste collection chute, thereby allowing for a larger waste collection area which can retain relatively more food waste, while providing the same minimum access height to the animal for food.
In regard to claim 3, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. and Leblond et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 2, wherein the at least one nourishment insert comprises a cover recessed within a walled area of the enclosure (Leblond et al., Figs. 1-2, where the at least one nourishment insert 16 includes a cover (walls and top portion which encases and separates the food from the rest of the enclosure) recessed within a walled area of the enclosure).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchekneva et al. (U.S. Pub. 20110239953) in view of Viana et al. (WO 2019028537) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JP S62180727.
In regard to claim 5, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on determining a weight of the rodent via suspension of the walking platform from balances. JP S62180727 discloses determining a weight of the rodent via suspension of the walking platform from balances (Figs. 1-6 and Translated Specification Page 1 line 2 – Page 2 line 23, where a weight of the rodent (“to measure the weight of the animal”) is determined via suspension (“a hanging lever”) of the walking platform 4 from balances). Tchekneva et al. and JP S62180727 are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that determining a weight of the rodent via suspension of the walking platform from balances in view of JP S62180727. The motivation would have been to allow for measurement of the animal’s weight, in order to record and maintain health indicators over time. Additionally, this allows for weight measurement without needing to take the animal out of the cage.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchekneva et al. (U.S. Pub. 20110239953) in view of Viana et al. (WO 2019028537) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Harada et al. (U.S. Pub. 20190183089)
In regard to claim 6, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on an enrichment tool including a wheel, a ball, a swing, or a puzzle. Harada et al. discloses an enrichment tool including a wheel, a ball, a swing, or a puzzle (Fig. 1, where there is an enrichment tool including a wheel 105). Tchekneva et al. and Harada et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that an enrichment tool including a wheel, a ball, a swing, or a puzzle in view of Harada et al. The motivation would have been to provide a way for the animal to exercise and play within the enclosure.
In regard to claim 7, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on at least one structure with feet that allows interlocking with the walking platform. Harada et al. discloses at least one structure with feet that allows interlocking with the walking platform (Fig. 1 and Paragraph [0027], where there is at least one structure 501 with feet 504 that allows interlocking with the walking platform (“fitting the frame and mounted furniture into a cage”)). Tchekneva et al. and Harada et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that at least one structure with feet that allows interlocking with the walking platform in view of Harada et al. The motivation would have been to provide additional modular components within the enclosure, such as an exercise wheel.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchekneva et al. (U.S. Pub. 20110239953) in view of Viana et al. (WO 2019028537) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kotecha (U.S. Pub. 20250288270).
In regard to claim 11, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on a digital air sensor positioned within the metabolic cage to capture details associated with animal respiration. Kotecha discloses a digital air sensor positioned within the metabolic cage to capture details associated with animal respiration (Paragraph [0108], where there is a digital air sensor 36/37 positioned within the metabolic cage to capture details associated with animal respiration (“breathing sensor 37”)). Tchekneva et al. and Kotecha are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that a digital air sensor positioned within the metabolic cage to capture details associated with animal respiration in view of Kotecha. The motivation would have been to allow for measurement of animal respiration, in order to record and track animal health over time.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchekneva et al. (U.S. Pub. 20110239953) in view of Viana et al. (WO 2019028537) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Igual (WO 9911116).
In regard to claim 12, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on each grid of the gridded surface has an opening in a range from about 1 mm to about 10 mm. Igual discloses each grid of the gridded surface has an opening in a range from about 1 mm to about 10 mm (Fig. 2 and Translated Specification Page 3 lines 13-17, where the grid of the gridded surface has an opening in a range from about 1 mm to about 10 mm (“a sieve less than 3 mm”)). Tchekneva et al. and Igual are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that each grid of the gridded surface has an opening in a range from about 1 mm to about 10 mm in view of Igual. The motivation would have been to provide openings sized to prevent most solid debris from passing through, while allowing liquid to drain down.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchekneva et al. (U.S. Pub. 20110239953) in view of Viana et al. (WO 2019028537) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wendling (U.S. Pub. 20170099802).
In regard to claim 13, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on the gridded surface is hexagonal shaped. Wendling discloses the gridded surface is hexagonal shaped (Figs. 1-3 and Paragraph [0024], where the gridded surface 22 is hexagonal shaped). Tchekneva et al. and Wendling are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that the gridded surface is hexagonal shaped in view of Wendling. The motivation would have been to have a grid pattern which provides high structural integrity, relative to the number of openings in the surface. Additionally, honeycomb like patterns are known to be structurally stable while utilizing relatively less material.
In regard to claim 14, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on openings of the walking platform are tapered to cause waste to move through the gridded surface. Wendling discloses openings of the walking platform are tapered to cause waste to move through the gridded surface (Figs. 1-3 and Paragraph [0015], where openings 22 of the walking platform are tapered (“taper inwardly from the top and to the bottom”) to cause waste to move through the gridded surface). Tchekneva et al. and Wendling are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that the openings of the walking platform are tapered to cause waste to move through the gridded surface in view of Wendling. The motivation would have been to allow for a larger top surface area to collect and funnel material through the surface, while maintaining structural integrity and durability (Wendling, Paragraph [0015]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchekneva et al. (U.S. Pub. 20110239953) in view of Viana et al. (WO 2019028537) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Stradling (GB 2496685).
In regard to claim 15, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on the walking platform can be pulled out of the metabolic cage via an associated clip. Stradling discloses the metabolic cage utilizes clips (Translated Specification Page 4 lines 23-28, where there are clips used as fasteners). Tchekneva et al. and Stradling are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that the walking platform can be pulled out of the metabolic cage via an associated clip in view of Stradling, since the fastening clips of Stradling could be used with the device of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. The motivation would have been to allow for the platform to be securely attached and easily removed, in order to clean or repair.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchekneva et al. (U.S. Pub. 20110239953) in view of Viana et al. (WO 2019028537) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of JP 2019533479.
In regard to claim 18, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on the walking platform, the mesh filter, the collection array, or a combination thereof is hydrophobic. JP 2019533479 discloses the walking platform, the mesh filter, the collection array, or a combination thereof is hydrophobic (Translated Specification Claims 26-27, where the collection array (“collector member”) is at least made of hydrophobic material “hydrophobic coating”). Tchekneva et al. and JP 2019533479 are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that the walking platform, the mesh filter, the collection array, or a combination thereof is hydrophobic in view of JP 2019533479. The motivation would have been to prevent unwanted absorption of liquids and allow for easier cleaning of the components.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tchekneva et al. (U.S. Pub. 20110239953) in view of Viana et al. (WO 2019028537) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Yared et al. (U.S. Pat. 8918163).
In regard to claim 19, Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. discloses the metabolic cage of claim 1. Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. is silent on the metabolic cage is fabricated from glass-reinforced nylon. Yared et al. discloses the animal holder is fabricated from glass-reinforced nylon (Column 5 lines 31-40, where the frames are made of “Glass-Reinforced Extruded Nylon”). Tchekneva et al. and Yared et al. are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor which include animal care devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device body of Tchekneva et al. as modified by Viana et al. such that the metabolic cage is fabricated from glass-reinforced nylon in view of Yared et al. The motivation would have been to use a durable and relatively temperature resistant material, to allow for high temperature sterilization of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892, Notice of References Cited, for the full list of prior art made of record. Particularly the references were cited because they pertain to the state of the art of animal care devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN M DENNIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:30 am to 4:30 pm.
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.
/KEVIN M DENNIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3647
/KIMBERLY S BERONA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights