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 .
Status of Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 01/27/2026, the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1-2, 16-17 were amended, and Claims 4-6, 15, 20 were canceled. Claims 1-3, 7-14, 16-19, 21-23 are presented for examination.
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 17-19 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.
For claim 17, the limitation “a cephalopod” in line 9 is unclear because is it referring to a different cephalopod than what was stated in line 1? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same cephalopod and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “cephalopod” in claim 17.
Claims 18-19 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
For claim 16, the limitation “the two or more parallel circumferential grooves comprising the plurality of groove-shaped concave portions, and wherein the feed is placed at least partly in the two or more parallel circumferential grooves” is similar to the limitations in claim 1, lines 9-13.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-3, 7-8, 11-14, 16, 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoda (US 20140208632 A1) in view of Hillios et al. (US 20060008559) and (JP 2012532602 A).
Regarding claim 1, Rhoda teaches a cephalopod feeder (please note, the intended usage of the feeder for cephalopod usage has not been afforded the effect of a structural limitation as the body of the claim fails to set forth structure that refers back to or draws life and breath from the preamble. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1851).) comprising: a shell (8) having an inner surface (fig. 3 depicts the inner surface of 14 extending through the shell 8) spaced apart from an outer surface (outer surface of 8 in fig. 3), the inner surface comprising: a shell (outer surface of 8 comprises a shell as the interior of 8 is hollow) having an inner surface (inner surface of 14 in fig. 3) spaced apart from an outer surface (fig. 3), the inner surface defining a volume (the hollow interior of 14 defines a volume) of the shell; and a feed (feed paste in [0031]) placed at least partly in the volume of the shell ([0031] and figs. 3-5 as the bait paste is capable of being placed at least partly in the volume of the shell), and wherein the shell is capable of withstanding pressure from an arm of a cephalopod ([0031-0033] and figs. 3-5 as the shell withstands the pressure from a fish’s mouth and so is capable of withstanding pressure from an arm of at least a small cephalopod); wherein the shell comprises a plurality of groove-shaped concave portions (see grooves between 10) extending substantially parallel to each other in a circumferential direction around the shell (figs. 3-5) and extending radially inwardly from the outer surface (fig. 3), and wherein the plurality of groove-shaped concave portions comprises the volume in which the feed is at least partly placed ([0031]).
However, Rhoda is silent about wherein the shell having a substantially spherical shape, the feed comprises an adherent feed having a composition configured to substantially break up in water in about fifteen minutes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the shell of Rhoda to have a substantially spherical shape in order to make it easier for the animal to grab the feeder, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Hillios et al. teach a feeder 10 capable of being provided to a cephalopod to eat the feed within the container, thus functioning as a cephalopod feeder, wherein the feed is comprises an adherent feed (paras 0033 and 0035 describe the feed having a viscosity of about 10,000 to about 80,000 centipoises, which equals 10 to 80 Pas; note that “viscosity” is defined as the quality or state of being viscous: a sticky or glutinous consistency (https:/Awww.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/viscosity), thus the feed is adherent according to applicant’s specification at para 0024).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed of Rhoda to be comprises an adherent feed as taught by Hillios et al. in order to prevent the feed from readily dispersing or dissolving when in contact with the water such that the aquatic life is attracted to it and can consume it prior to its dissolution and dispersion (Hillios et al., Abstract and paras 0005 and 0029).
JP 2012532602 A teaches wherein the feed has a composition configured to substantially break up in water in about fifteen minutes (see machine translation “pellet feed does not dissolve in water (seawater) for at least 10-15 minutes.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed of Rhoda to be wherein the feed has a composition configured to substantially break up in water in about fifteen minutes as taught by JP 2012532602 A in order to collect excess feed that has not been dissolved (see machine translation “Furthermore, in order to collect pellet feed that is not fed by fish by excessively throwing the feed at the fish farm”).
Regarding claim 2, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 1, and Rhoda further teaches wherein the outer surface comprises grooves (fig. 3) adapted to facilitate gripping by the arm of the cephalopod (the grooves will facilitate gripping by the arm of a cephalopod).
Regarding claim 3, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 1, and Rhoda further teaches wherein the feed is attached to the inner surface ([0031] as the paste is capable of being inserted into the inner surface).
Regarding claim 7, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 1, and Rhoda further teaches wherein the feed comprises a feed portion (feed placed within the interior volume [0031] and figs. 3-5) and the volume is at least half of a volume of the feed portion ([0031] and fig. 3 as the user can adjust the feed portion to be wherein the volume is at least half of a volume of the feed portion; also note that the interior of the outer shell 12 of Hillios et al. is also concave (Fig. 3) and contains all of the feed, i.e., more than half the volume of the feed).
Regarding claim 8, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 1, and Rhoda further teaches wherein the shell has a mouth opening (14 is a bore which comprises of a mouth opening and figs. 3-5), having a minimum distance between opposing edges of the mouth opening (diameter of the mouth opening in fig. 3), and wherein the volume has a depth (the depth is defined by the mouth opening and the bottom on the inner surface), extending inwardly from the mouth opening and measured along a longitudinal extent of the shell (figs. 3-5).
Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A does not specifically teach the minimum distance ranging between about 0.2 cm and 5.0 cm and the depth ranging between about 0.5 cm to 15 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the minimum distance and depth of Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A to range between about 0.2 cm and 5.0 cm and about 0.5 cm to 15 cm, respectively, in order to provide a cavity to hold the food and sufficient space for placement of the desired food within and/or to enrich the animal, and since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 11, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 8, and Rhoda further teaches wherein the shell has a concave shape (figs. 3-5).
Regarding claim 12, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 8, but does not explicitly teach wherein the minimum distance between opposing edges of the mouth opening is about 0.2 cm and the depth is about 0.5 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the minimum distance and depth of Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A to be about 0.2 cm and 0.5 cm, respectively, in order to provide in order to provide a cavity to hold the food and sufficient space for placement of the desired food within and/or to enrich the animal, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 13, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 8, but does not explicitly teach wherein the minimum distance between opposing edges of the mouth opening is about 5.0 cm and the depth is about 15.0 cm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the minimum distance and depth of Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A to be about 5.0 cm and 15.0 cm, respectively, in order to provide a cavity to hold the food and sufficient space for placement of the desired food within and/or to enrich the animal, depending upon the size of the animal, and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 14, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 1, and Rhoda further teaches wherein the shell comprises two or more mouth openings (top and bottom openings of 14, 12 and 16 and [0031]) and corresponding two or more volumes (fig. 3 as the openings of 14, 12 and 16 will comprise of two or more volumes) extending longitudinally inwardly from the mouth openings (fig. 3 and [0031]), the two or more volumes including the volume, and wherein the feed is placed in the two or more volumes ([0031] as the feed paste can be placed in the two or more volumes).
Regarding claim 16, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 1, wherein the shell comprises two or more parallel circumferential grooves (fig. 3) extending radially inwardly from the outer surface (fig. 3), the two or more parallel circumferential grooves comprising the plurality of groove-shaped concave portions (fig. 3), and wherein the feed is placed at least partly in the two or more parallel circumferential grooves ([0031]).
Regarding claim 21, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 1, and Hillios et al. further teaches wherein the feed has a viscosity in a range of substantially 10 Pa to 100 Pa (paras 0033 and 0035 describe the feed having a viscosity of about 10,000 to about 80,000 centipoises, which equals 10 to 80 Pas; note that “viscosity” is defined as the quality or state of being viscous: a sticky or glutinous consistency (https:/Awww.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/viscosity), thus the feed is adherent according to applicant’s specification at para 0024).
Regarding claim 22, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the cephalopod feeder of claim 1, and Rhoda further teaches wherein the shell comprises a through- hole (14 is a bore) such that the volume of the shell is open at a first side of the shell (side that receives an object in fig. 5) and at an opposing second side of the shell (opposite side of the first side in figs. 3-5 and [0031] as 14 is a bore and so is open at both the first side and second side of the shell).
Regarding claim 23, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the cephalopod feeder of claim 1, and Rhoda further teaches wherein the shell is capable of withstanding collapse when under pressure from an arm of the cephalopod (abstract and [0031-0033] and figs. 3-5 as the shell withstands the pressure from a fish’s mouth and so is capable of withstanding pressure from an arm of at least a small cephalopod).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of “7Seil —Funny octopus Olivia. Takes out fish from the jar” (https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=_xfDYs_6rUk, published 8/21/14, hereinafter 7Seil).
Regarding claim 9, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A teaches the feeder of claim 8, but is silent about wherein the shell has a cylindrical shape.
7Seil teaches wherein the shell (hollow elongated cylindrical container in screenshots on pgs. 1-7) has a cylindrical shape (see hollow elongated cylindrically-shaped container in screenshots on pgs. 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the shell of Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A to have a cylindrical shape as taught by 7Seil in order to make it easier for the animal to grab the feeder, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Rhoda as modified by Hillios et al., JP 2012532602 A and 7Seil teaches the feeder of claim 9, and 7Seil further teaches wherein the shell comprises a cylindrical wall extending from and connected to a bottom wall (see side and bottom walls of the container in screenshots on pgs. 1-7).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoda in view of 7Seil, Hillios et al. and JP 2012532602 A.
Regarding claim 17, Rhoda teaches a method of feeding an animal, comprising: providing a shell (8) having an inner surface (outer surface of 8 in fig. 3) spaced apart from an outer surface (outer surface of 8 in fig. 3), the inner surface defining a volume (the hollow interior of 14 defines a volume) of the shell; placing a feed (feed paste in [0031]) at least partly in the volume of the shell ([0031] and figs. 3-5 as the bait paste is capable of being placed at least partly in the volume of the shell); wherein the shell is capable of withstanding pressure from an arm of the animal ([0031-0033] and figs. 3-5 as the shell withstands the pressure from a fish’s mouth and so is capable of withstanding pressure from an arm of at least a small animal); wherein the shell comprises a plurality of groove-shaped concave portions (see grooves between 10) extending substantially parallel to each other in a circumferential direction around the shell (fig. 3) and extending radially inwardly from the outer surface (fig. 3), and wherein the plurality of groove-shaped concave portions comprises the volume in which the feed is at least partly placed ([0031]).
However, Rhoda is silent about a cephalopod, the shell having a substantially spherical shape, placing an adherent feed having a composition configured to substantially break up in water in about fifteen minutes; and placing the shell adjacent a cephalopod raising tank or cage within reach of the cephalopod.
7Seil teaches a cephalopod (see screenshots on pgs. 1-2, previously provided); and placing the shell adjacent a cephalopod raising tank or cage (see screenshots on pgs. 1-2) within reach of the cephalopod (see screenshots on pgs. 1-2), and the shell withstanding pressure from an arm of the cephalopod (screenshots on pgs. 2-5 depicts the cephalopod to wrap its arm around the shell as it is grabbing the food, therefore the shell can withstand pressure from an arm of a cephalopod).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the feeder of Rhoda to a cephalopod and placing the shell of Rhoda adjacent a cephalopod raising tank or cage, and the shell withstanding pressure from an arm of the cephalopod as taught by 7Seil into the feeder of Rhoda depending on the user’s preference of animal to feed and to ensure that the shell will not break when used by the desired animal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the shell of Rhoda to have a substantially spherical shape in order to make it easier for the animal to grab the feeder, since a mere change in size or shape of a component is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Hillios et al. teach a feeder 10 capable of being provided to a cephalopod to eat the feed within the container, thus functioning as a cephalopod feeder, wherein the feed is an adherent feed (paras 0033 and 0035 describe the feed having a viscosity of about 10,000 to about 80,000 centipoises, which equals 10 to 80 Pas; note that “viscosity” is defined as the quality or state of being viscous: a sticky or glutinous consistency (https:/Awww.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/viscosity), thus the feed is adherent according to applicant’s specification at para 0024).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed of Rhoda to be an adherent feed as taught by Hillios et al. in order to prevent the feed from readily dispersing or dissolving when in contact with the water such that the aquatic life is attracted to it and can consume it prior to its dissolution and dispersion (Hillios et al., Abstract and paras 0005 and 0029).
JP 2012532602 A teaches wherein the feed has a composition configured to substantially break up in water in about fifteen minutes (see machine translation “pellet feed does not dissolve in water (seawater) for at least 10-15 minutes.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the feed of Rhoda to be wherein the feed has a composition configured to substantially break up in water in about fifteen minutes as taught by JP 2012532602 A in order to collect excess feed that has not been dissolved (see machine translation “Furthermore, in order to collect pellet feed that is not fed by fish by excessively throwing the feed at the fish farm”).
Regarding claim 19, Rhoda as modified by 7Seil, Hillios et al., and JP 2012532602 A the method of claim 17, and 7Seil further teaches wherein placing the shell adjacent the cephalopod raising tank or cage comprises placing the shell inside the cephalopod raising tank or cage (see screenshots on pgs. 1-2).
Claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoda as modified by 7Seil, Hillios et al., and JP 2012532602 A teaches, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of “CBC - Octopus Opens Jar” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kuAiuXezlU, published 9/16/10, hereinafter “CBC”).
For claim 18, Rhoda as modified by 7Seil, Hillios et al., and JP 2012532602 A teaches the method of claim 17, but does not explicitly teach wherein placing the feed at least partly in the volume of the shell is performed after placing the shell adjacent the cephalopod raising tank or cage.
CBC teaches a method of feeding a cephalopod wherein placing the feed at least partly in the volume of the shell is performed after placing the shell adjacent the cephalopod raising tank or cage (see screenshots on pgs. 1-4, previously provided, and timestamps 0:04-0:24 as the shell was originally empty in fig 1, and then the feed was placed into the shell in fig 2, also please see in figs 3-4 how the shell is adjacent to the cephalopod raising tank or cage).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method steps of Rhoda as modified by 7Seil, Hillios et al., and JP 2012532602 A such that placing the feed at least partly in the volume of the shell is performed after placing the shell adjacent the cephalopod raising tank or cage as taught by CBC in order to ensure fresh feed is provided and in the quantity appropriate for the cephalopod.
However, if applicant disagrees, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the placement of the shell of Rhoda as modified by 7Seil, Hillios et al., JP 2012532602 A and CBC to be such that placing the feed at least partly in the volume of the shell is performed after placing the shell adjacent the cephalopod raising tank or cage, since a simple substitution of one known equivalent element for another would obtain predictable results (since both placement configurations would result in the same function to ensure fresh feed is provided and in the quantity appropriate for the cephalopod). KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395, 1396 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 7-14, 16-19 and 21-23 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.
Applicant argues “Furthermore still, the Office continues to apply Park as allegedly teaching the claimed "adherent feed having a composition configured to substantially break up in water in about fifteen minutes." Hoewever, Applicant disagrees with this position. Particularly, the Office Action states that Park discloses this claimed feature by stating that "pellet feed does not dissolve in water (seawater) for at least 10-15 minutes." However, in a clear statement, Park describes that "the pellet feed must remain in an intact form without dissolving in water (seawater) for at least 30 minutes." Park, p. 5. Park, therefore, teaches feed that resists breaking up in water for at least 10- 15 minutes, not feed configured to break up in about fifteen minutes.”
The examiner respectively disagrees, as reference Park JP 2012532602 A still teaches wherein the feed has a composition to break up in the water in about fifteen minutes (see machine translation “pellet feed does not dissolve in water (seawater) for at least 10-15 minutes.”) as the feed will start to break up at least at the 10 minute mark.
While Park states the feed to be “intact form without dissolving in water (seawater) for at least 30 minutes.”, this is just another variation of when the feed can be dissolved. Therefore the feed can still be dissolved at fifteen minutes. Examiner specifically notes that JP 2012532602 A states it is ideal for the feed to be dissolved around 15 minutes (see machine translation “pellet feed does not dissolve in water (seawater) for at least 10-15 minutes. This is ideal for fish farming.” of JP 2012532602 A) and therefore teaches the claimed concept.
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claim 1 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights