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 § 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 1-16 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.
The claims are generally for failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
With regard to claim 1, see the Claim Interpretation section.
With regard to claim 2, see the Claim Interpretation section.
With regard to claim 4, see the Claim Interpretation section.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the… undercarriage" in the 3rd line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein at least one hitch apparatus, suitable for moving, for vehicles or at least one auxiliary drive or partial drive for assisting a tractor unit or at least one apparatus suitable for moving by hoisting winches or hydraulics or at least one drive suitable for self-propelled driving is provided on the frame." Which renders the claim indefinite because, the meets and bounds of the limitation are not adequately set forth, it is not clear to the examiner whether the hitch is claimed to be suitable for moving with the assistance of vehicles, at least one auxiliary drive, partial drive for assisting a tractor unit, etc. or if the hitch is strong enough to support the movement of vehicles, at least one auxiliary drive, partial drive for assisting a tractor unit, etc.
With regard to claim 9, see the Claim Interpretation section.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "it" twice in line 2 of the claim. Which renders the claim indefinite, because the term it does not adequately set forth the meets and bounds of what is separable. Claim 12 fails to remedy such deficiency.
Claim 14 recites, “bedding regions for straw, pellets and sawdust or the like” — “or the like” is often held indefinite (MPEP § 2173.05(d)) because the boundary of the genus is unclear.
Claim 14: “for instance by storage capacities…” — “for instance” introduces exemplary, non-limiting language within a claim, which creates ambiguity about what is actually required (MPEP § 2173.05(d), examples that leave scope unclear).
Claim 14: “such as, for example, panels” — same concern.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Re claim 1, For the at least one apparatus for initiating towing operation:
The claim limitation uses the words “at least one apparatus” as a generic place holder for the term means for performing the claimed function of initiating towing operation
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of initiating towing operation
As such, the claim limitation “at least one apparatus for initiating towing operation” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the at least one apparatus for initiating propulsion operation:
The claim limitation uses the words “at least one apparatus” as a generic place holder for the term means/step for performing the claimed function of initiating propulsion operation
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of initiating propulsion operation
As such, the claim limitation “at least one apparatus for initiating propulsion operation” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the at least one apparatus for initiating a self-propelling operation:
The claim limitation uses the words “at least one apparatus” as a generic place holder for the term means/step for performing the claimed function of *
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for” and/or “by”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of a self-propelling operation
As such, the claim limitation “at least one apparatus for initiating… [a] self-propelling operation” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification vaguely gestures towards a tractor, however that hardly constitutes the mobile structure being “self-propelling.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the at least one apparatus for initiating a partial drive propelling operation:
The claim limitation uses the term means/step for performing the claimed function of at least one apparatus
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for” and/or “by”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of initiating a partial drive propelling operation
As such, the claim limitation “at least one apparatus for initiating… self-propelling operation as partial drive” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the at least one apparatus for initiating an auxiliary drive propelling operation:
The claim limitation uses the term means/step for performing the claimed function of at least one apparatus
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for” and/or “by”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of initiating an auxiliary drive propelling operation
As such, the claim limitation “at least one apparatus for initiating… self-propelling operation as auxiliary drive” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 1-16 fail to remedy such deficiencies.
Re claim 2, For the fitting means:
The claim limitation uses the term means for performing the claimed function of fitting
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “fitting”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of fitting
As such, the claim limitation “fitting means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the releasable locking means:
The claim limitation uses the term means/step for performing the claimed function of locking
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “locking”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of locking
As such, the claim limitation “releasable locking means” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 3 fails to remedy such deficiency.
Re claim 4, For the at least one hoisting/lifting/lowering apparatus
The claim limitation uses the word “apparatus” as a generic place holder for the term means for performing the claimed function of hoisting/lifting/lowering
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “hoisting/lifting/lowering”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of hoisting/lifting/lowering
As such, the claim limitation “at least one hoisting/lifting/lowering apparatus” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Re claim 9, For the at least one apparatus for steering:
The claim limitation uses the words “at least one apparatus” as a generic place holder for the term means for performing the claimed function of steering
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “for”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of steering
As such, the claim limitation “at least one apparatus for steering” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the independent steering device:
The claim limitation uses the word “device” as a generic place holder for the term means for performing the claimed function of independent steering
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “steering”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of independent steering
As such, the claim limitation “independent steering device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the self-steering system:
The claim limitation uses the word “system” as a generic place holder for the term means/step for performing the claimed function of self-steering
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “steering”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of self-steering
As such, the claim limitation “self-steering system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For the positive steering system:
The claim limitation uses the word “system” as a generic place holder for the term means for performing the claimed function of positive steering
The generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “steering”
The generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for preforming the claimed function of positive steering
As such, the claim limitation “positive steering system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 2 is 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.
Re claim 2, “releasable locking means”: Written-description support is a potential concern. If the specification only restates “releasable locking means” functionally and does not describe an actual locking structure, an examiner may conclude the disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the particular structure. The generic references to “swing, folding, sliding, swiveling and telescopic systems” describe movement types, not necessarily a locking mechanism.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 & 6-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider, the German Patent Application No. DE 102010034077 A 1; herein Neid in view of Francis, the UK Patent Application No. GB 2393428 A; herein Frank.
Re claim 1, as best understood, Neid discloses a mobile facility for livestock, comprising:
at least one base area (1; the poultry house, fig. 1-5) with a floor (fig. 1-5 and para 24 & 27, the floors of the abutting trailers forming the poultry house),
at least four stable lateral boundaries (fig. 3 & 5 and para 2, 17, & 23, formed by the walls and insulating panels),
a roof which covers at least the entire base area (fig. 1-3 & 5 and para 2 & 23, the roof of the plurality of abutting trailers that form the poultry house),
a frame (9; the grid frame/superstructure, fig. 1-2 & 4),
a chassis (7; the chassis, fig. 1-4) with at least one bogie (fig. 1 and para 22, when the individual chassis assemblies are fastened together a bogie is formed) which is fastened to the frame (para 22, via the threaded bolt fastening assembly),
at least one apparatus for initiating towing operation as auxiliary drive (para 10 & 21-22, wherein the tractor is used to tow the plurality of trailers via the drawbar),
wherein
the base area is formed by a functional floor (para 10 & 22, the independent floors and chassis assemblies of each trailer together when fastened form a functional floor),
wherein the functional floor is connected to the frame (fig. 1-2 & 4 and para 22-23, the floor of each trailer supports the grid frames thereof), or a supporting structure of the functional floor is configured as a frame (fig. 1-2 & 4 and para 22-23, the floor of each trailer is supported by a ladder strucure),
the functional floor is split into functional regions by way of fixed and/or lockable and mobile separating devices (para 10 & 22, wherein each trailer is fastened to the adjacent trailer(s) and can be separated therefor with the threaded bolt assembly) and, for this purpose, a multiplicity of receptacles for plug-in modules are provided in the functional floor (fig. 1-4 and para 24-26, where the perches, drinking system, automatic feed supply, the grates, scratching areas, tiltable laying nests, entrance hall/vestibule/anterooms, partitions, canopies, ventilation flaps, and exit/outlet flaps are supported by the poultry houses floor), at least one walking area for animals and staff (fig. 1-4 and para 24 & 26, within the entrance hall and within the side trailers), is arranged on the functional floor (fig. 1-4, the surface thereof), at least one rest surface for animals is configured on the functional floor (fig. 1-4 and para 24-25, on the perches within the aviary or the laying nests within the side trailers when available), a plurality of variable entries and exits with suitability for unassisted access are configured on the functional floor for the animals (fig. 1-4 and para 24 & 27, via the open sides of the aviary and the exit flap located on each side trailer), at least one entranceway (14; entrance hall/vestibule/anterooms, fig. 2-4) and at least one entrance for staff is provided on the functional floor (fig. 2-4, formed by the door openings and the partitions).
The examiner recognizes the walking area for animals being driven on by machines and vehicles and the at least one entranceway being for vehicles as intended use clauses, the examiner upholds that in an apparatus claim the manner in which the device is intended to be employed does not differentiate a claim from the prior art. See MPEP 2114 II.
Neid fails to disclose the mobile facility for livestock comprising a brake system. However, Frank discloses a mobile facility for livestock (fig. 1) comprising a brake system (page 4; 16-22 & page 8-9; 12-6; the trailer has brakes and lights that are operated by the driver of the towing vehicle).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose the mobile facility for livestock comprising a brake system however, Frank discloses such a braking system. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the brake system of the trailer and the umbilical link thereof taught by Frank to the trailers and tractor of the prior art to yield the predictable result of improving road handling characteristics (Frank, page 4; 16-22). See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 2, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, Neid further discloses wherein plug-in profiles with fitting means and releasable locking means (para 9, 22, & 27, the lockable profiles of the chassis assemblies & subsequently the aligned entranceways, the lockable laying nests, and the canopies & flaps that can be opened during use and closed during transport) are provided as mobile separating devices (fig. 1-4).
Re claim 3, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 2, Neid further discloses wherein walls (fig. 3 & 5), grids (9; the grid frame/superstructure, fig. 1-2 & 4), gates (22; the exit/outlet flaps, fig. 3), rods (fig. 1-2 & 4, the boards that make up the grid frame/superstructure), fence elements (para 12 & 28, the mobile fences that allow the poultry to have fresh land/grass) and boards (fig. 1-5, the walls, floors, roof, canopies, flaps, dividers, etc.) are provided as fixed and/or mobile separating devices (please see each respective elements).
Re claim 6, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, Neid further discloses wherein the supporting structure of the functional floor is configured as a framework (para 22, the ladder structure of the chassis) including grid constructions comprising flat, open and closed profiles or comprising solid profiles (para 22, via the longitudinal beams and the spaces in between).
Re claim 7, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, Neid further discloses wherein at least one bogie is a tire running gear (para 21-22, the wheels and axles of each ladder-type boogie form a tire running gear for each trailer) and this at least one bogie is arranged between the frame and below an upper floor (fig. 1-4).
Re claim 8, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, Neid further discloses wherein at least one hitch apparatus, suitable for moving the trailers, with vehicles at least one auxiliary drive (para 4 & 21, the tractor being a vehicle or an auxiliary drive relative to the trailers).
Re claim 9, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, Neid further discloses wherein at least one apparatus for steering or an independent steering device is provided on the frame (para 4 & 21, the tractor is fastened to the frame for steering the trailer(s)).
Re claim 10, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, Neid further discloses wherein lockable longitudinal and/or transverse beams are provided on the frame (para 22, the lockable longitudinal beams are fastened/detachable to the frame and adjacent trailers).
Re claim 11, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, Neid further discloses wherein it is designed such that it can be separated into modules (para 22, the trailers of the poultry house form three separable modules).
Re claim 12, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 11, Neid further discloses wherein the frame is of detachable or separable configuration such that it can be reduced to a road width (para 4-6, 21, & 27, the trailers are each a road width and the poultry house is separable for transport on the road).
Re claim 13, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 11, Neid further discloses wherein the mobile facility is combined module by module next to one another (fig. 1-5 and para 22, the longitudinal connection of the modules/trailers).
Re claim 14, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, Neid further discloses wherein the following facilities are provided:
active, eating, playing, care and activity zones (para 24-25 & 27, the closed off run formed by the nets/scratching areas, within the aviary feed troughs and dispensers are formed, the perches/run areas/scratching areas, the laying nests/feed, watering, & waste disposal/collection areas, the closed off run formed by the nets/the scratching areas/the perches/the laying nests),
birth region (13; the laying nests, fig. 1-4),
bedding regions (13; the laying nests, fig. 1-4)
a waste receiving and collecting point (para 24 & fig. 1-4, the grates and conveyor for collecting waste/manure),
mechanical or automated manure removal of the manure surface (para 24 & fig. 1-4, the grates and conveyor for collecting waste/manure),
the water and fodder supply (para 24 & 26, the feed and water supplies),
a climate control system including insulated wall and roof elements (para 23, the outer walls and roof are formed with insulating panels),
protection against sunlight, wind and drafts, rain and snow (16; the canopies, fig. 1-3 & 5 and para 27).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nied in view of Frank as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Stone, U.S. Patent No. 3,574,388 A.
Re claim 4, as best understood, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination of Neid and Frank fails to disclose wherein at least one hoisting/lifting/lowering apparatus is provided, by way of which the entire mobile facility can be lifted or lowered or stabilized. However, Stone discloses a plurality of lifting apparatuses provided, by way of which the entire mobile facility can be lifted or lowered (col 1; 36-40 & col 5-6; 14-28, the lifting and lowering piston mechanism for raising and lowering the wheels and adjusting the vertical position of the trailer frame).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein at least one hoisting/lifting/lowering apparatus is provided, by way of which the entire mobile facility can be lifted or lowered or stabilized however, Stone discloses such a technique for a trailer. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the lifting and lowering assembly taught by Stone to the trailers of the prior art to yield the predictable result of the ability to adjust the vertical positioning of the trailer during transit and when in use by the livestock. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Re claim 5, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, the combination of Neid and Frank fails to disclose wherein a multiplicity of height-adjustable or fixed supporting elements are provided, by way of which the entire mobile facility can be adjusted in terms of height, stabilized and oriented. However, Stone discloses , wherein a multiplicity of height-adjustable supporting elements are provided, by way of which the entire mobile facility can be adjusted in terms of height (col 1; 36-40 & col 5-6; 14-28, the lifting and lowering piston mechanism for raising and lowering the wheels and adjusting the vertical position of the trailer frame).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose wherein a multiplicity of height-adjustable or fixed supporting elements are provided, by way of which the entire mobile facility can be adjusted in terms of height, stabilized and oriented however, Stone discloses such a technique for a trailer. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the prior art elements of the lifting and lowering assembly taught by Stone to the trailers of the prior art to yield the predictable result of the ability to adjust the vertical positioning of the trailer during transit and when in use by the livestock. See MPEP 2143 I. (A).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nied in view of Frank as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Frenz, the German Patent Publication No. DE 4401115 A1.
Re claim 15, the combination of Neid and Frank discloses the invention of claim 1, Neid further discloses for species-appropriate farming of livestock, wherein plug-in modules are locked in receptacles of the functional floor for the design and separation of functional regions (para 22, via the detachable connection points), wherein the plug-in modules are
plug-in walls (para 24 & 26-27 and fig. 3-4, best seen in the vestibule area and with the outer walls/ flaps of the side trailers act to close the sides of the aviary when locked together),
plug-in boards (fig. 1-4, the grids and floor boards of each module locked together),
doors (22; the exit flap of each of the trailers beside the aviary),
troughs (para 24, the feed troughs),
feeding devices (para 24, the feed supply, conveying device, and feed troughs throughout the aviary).
The combination of Neid and Frank fails to disclose sliding doors. However, Frenz discloses a mobile livestock facility with sliding doors (para 14-15).
The only distinction between the prior art and the claimed invention is that the prior art fails to disclose sliding doors however, Frez discloses such a door. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exit flaps by utilizing a simple substitution of the known swing-type door taught by the prior art for the sliding type door from Frenz in order to obtain the predictable result of a sealable exit to control when livestock can exit the facility/trailer. See MPEP 2143 I. (B).
Re claim 16, the combination of Neid, Frank, and Frenz discloses the invention of claim 15, Neid further discloses for species-appropriate farming of livestock, wherein the functional regions
recovery and rest areas (para 24-25, the perches and laying nests),
walking and moving areas (para 25 & 27 and fig. 1-5, the scratching and run areas)
birthing bays (13; the laying nests, fig. 1-4)
are formed by locking mobile separating devices into the receptacles of the functional floor (para 22, the plug in modules are locked/fastened to one another to form the entire poultry house).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE P MACCRATE whose telephone number is (571)272-5215. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9am-5pm 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, Joshua J Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/NICOLE PAIGE MACCRATE/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
