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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “manual retraction drive means”, “motorized retraction drive means” and. These structures were not previously introduced in either claim 10 or claim 1, and are required to be properly introduced. These drive means were understood to be directed toward structural configurations of the “support and retraction means” recited in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not 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 not 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 function without reciting 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.
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 11-14 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the conveyor belt drive means" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether these drive means are directed toward the “egg conveyor belt”, the “main poultry manure conveyor belt”, or both. Applicant should provide clarity as to the scope of these drive means.
Claim 12 is similarly rejected due to dependency on claim 11 above.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the wall of the barn" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant should properly introduce this structure by revising the language to read -a wall of a barn-.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "wherein at least one of the access passageways comprises" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant can revise the language to read -comprising at least one access passageway which comprises- to properly introduce the structure. Alternatively, Applicant can revise claim 14 to be dependent on claim 13 so that there is sufficient antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (KR 20150101844 A).
Regarding claim 1: Lee discloses a system for extending the useable surface of a multilevel aviary (multi-layer housing 100, Fig. 3), which comprises at least one platform (wall extension 110) comprising, in turn, support and retraction means (sidewall driver 120) suitable for positioning the platform in the multilevel aviary such that, in an operative position, the platform becomes an extension of the floor of at least one level of the aviary (Specification discusses rotating in a clockwise direction to unfold horizontally wall extension 110) and, in a retracted position, the corresponding access passageway of the multilevel aviary is empty (Specification discusses rotating counter-clockwise to erect the wall, thus retracting).
Regarding claim 3: Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the support and retraction means (120) comprise retraction means by lifting and/or retraction means by folding said platform (110, rotating winder counter-clockwise to vertically erect wall 110 meets this limitation).
Regarding claim 4: Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the support and retraction means (120) comprise manual retraction drive means and/or motorised retraction drive means (Specification discusses electric motor 141).
Regarding claim 5: Lee discloses the limitations of claim 3 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the support and retraction means (120) comprise at least one winch with a corresponding pulley (coiler 121) and cable system (wire 122).
Regarding claim 7: Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above, and further discloses wherein the platform (110) in turn comprises at least one perch (Inner surface IW can be used as a perch) that is detachable and/or foldable with respect to the platform (would be folded when wall 110 is vertically erected).
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rust (US 20170231201 A1).
Regarding claim 6: Lee discloses the limitations of claim 1 as shown above.
Lee fails to teach wherein the platform, in its operative position, has a downward slope towards the multilevel aviary to which the platform is fastened.
Rust teaches wherein the platform (platform 90), in its operative position, has a downward slope towards the multilevel aviary (tower 18, Fig. 4) to which the platform is fastened (para 41, “In one embodiment, the perch 29 and the resilient platform 90 may be sloped so that eggs captured by the gap 82 roll toward an end of the cage tower 18”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the wall extension as disclosed by Lee with the slope as taught by Rust with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a slope along the wall extension would achieve the predictable result of having feces and eggs roll toward the center, which can assist with maintenance of the aviaries and thus decreasing the likelihood of illness or disease spreading along the animals.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rust (US 20170231201 A1) in view of Jeon (KR 20150098479 A).
Regarding claim 10: Rust discloses a multilevel aviary comprising an extension system (platform 90), comprising at least one multilevel module (tower 18) with corresponding heads (framework of tower 18, including structure 24 and sides 23,25) said heads (23,24,25) comprising an egg conveyor belt (egg conveyor 80, Fig. 3) and a main poultry manure conveyor belt (belt 36, Fig. 2) arranged along the length of the aviary, moving in the longitudinal direction of the multilevel aviary (paras 21-22 discuss transporting manure/eggs from the cage to a collection area).
Rust fails to teach an extension system according to claim 1.
However, Jeon teaches a system for extending the useable surface of a multilevel aviary (1), which comprises at least one platform (26,28) comprising, in turn, support and retraction means (hinge R seen on 26,28, see annotated Fig. below) suitable for positioning the platform in the multilevel aviary such that, in an operative position, the platform becomes an extension of the floor of at least one level of the aviary (as seen on 28, Fig. 1) and, in a retracted position, the corresponding access passageway of the multilevel aviary is empty (as seen on 26, Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
622
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the platform as disclosed by Rust with the hinge connection as taught by Jeon with a reasonable expectation of success because providing a hinge connection which allows for retraction can assist an operator who is performing maintenance on the aviary, resulting in a more successful cleaning and thus decreasing the probability of illness or disease spreading amongst the animals.
See annotation of Rust’s Fig. 2 below to see how the modification is envisioned.
PNG
media_image2.png
604
728
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Rust as modified further teaches wherein the manual retraction drive means (R, annotated Fig. 2 above) and/or the motorised retraction drive means and/or the conveyor belt drive means are located at the heads (Rust 23, 24, 25) of the multilevel aviary (See annotated Fig. 2 of Rust above, which has been modified to include the retraction means of Jeon).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rust and Jeon as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Finco (US 20200383300 A1).
Regarding claim 12: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 11 as shown above.
Rust as modified fails to teach at least two rows of modules forming a passageway between the two rows, the passageway comprising platforms on only one side thereof.
However, Finco teaches at least two rows of modules (battery 11) forming a passageway (area 14) between the two rows, the passageway (14) comprising platforms (perches 15) on only one side thereof (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aviary as disclosed by modified Rust with the modules and passageway as taught by Finco with a reasonable expectation of success because multiple modules would increase the amount of egg production in a system and the passageway allows for an operator to easily maintain the environment as well as quickly obtain any eggs on the modules.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rust and Jeon as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Dart (US 20150230433 A1).
Regarding claim 13: the modified reference teaches the limitations of claim 10 as shown above.
Rust as modified further teaches on both sides of each module (Rust tower 18) a plurality of extension systems (Jeon 26,28) according to claim 1 (see claim 10 for Jeon’s disclosing of claim 1 limitations) and with control means that independently withdraw the platform (as modified by Jeon, retraction means R could be independently controlled, see annotated Fig. 2 above) as required.
Rust as modified fails to teach at least two rows of modules forming a passageway between the two rows and/or with the wall of the barn.
However, Dart teaches at least two rows of modules (tower 18) forming a passageway (aisle 20) between the two rows and/or with the wall of the barn (aviary 10), comprising on both sides of each module a plurality of extension systems (29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the aviary as disclosed by Rust with the multiple aviaries and aisles as taught by Dart with a reasonable expectation of success because multiple modules would increase the amount of egg production in a system and the aisles allows for an operator to easily maintain the environment thus resulting in a decreased probability of illness/disease occurring.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior arts of Lee and Jeon disclose the subject matter of claim 1, however do not teach the limitations regarding a mesh-type floor surface with a conveyor belt underneath the floor surface. The closest combination to arrive at the limitations of claim 2 would incorporate the egg conveyor (28) of Dart, however the purpose of this prior art would be destroyed with the inclusion of a mesh-type floor surface which would prohibit eggs from arriving within the conveyor. Furthermore since the conveyor belt of the instant application is positioned under the floor surface of the platform, and thus it is understood that the conveyor belt must also be capable of retracting as needed. This retraction of the conveyor belt is not taught by the prior art, and arrival of this would only be capable upon the improper use of hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited art not relied upon are within applicant’s related field of aviary systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAR REYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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 Huson can be reached at 571-270-5301. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDGAR REYES/Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights