DETAILED ACTION
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 05/21/2026, the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1, 9, 15 and 22 were amended, and Claims 6-7, 11-13, 16, and 21 were canceled. Claims 1-5, 8-10, 14-15, 17-20 and 22 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 9, the limitation “comprises claw” in line 4 should read –comprises a claw--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 8-10, 14-15, 17-20 and 22 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 1, the limitation “the distal end” in line 12-13 lacks antecedent basis.
For claim 2, the limitation “the distal end” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
For claims 4, the limitation “a slot” in line 2 is unclear because is it referring to a different armature slot than what was stated in claim 1, line 3? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same armature slot and it is recommended that –the armature -- be inserted before “slot” in claim 4.
For claim 5, the limitation “the slot” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
For claim 9, the limitation “the claw” in line 6 lacks antecedent basis.
For claim 15, the limitations “the treat” in line 11 and “the pet” in line 14 lacks antecedent basis.
For claim 22, the limitations “said first and second loops” in line 14 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 3, 8, 10, 14, 17-20 rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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, 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grepper (US 20100024740 A1 as cited in IDS) in view of Gutierrez (US 20170064926 A1 as cited in IDS) and Smith (US 11192044 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Grepper teaches an electronic pet toy comprising: a body (30) wherein the body defines an armature slot (80) and comprises a controller (168), and one or more motors (136, 158), wherein the controller is configured to control at least one of the one or more motors ([0056]); and an arm (50), a proximal end of the arm attached to the body (fig. 1) and a distal end of the arm (distal end of 50) configured to hold a treat (54) to entice a pet to engage with the electronic pet toy ([0037]), wherein the arm extends through the armature slot (fig. 1), wherein an arm motor (136) controlled by the controller causes an arm mover (110) to cause the arm to move within the armature slot ([0044], [0052-0053] and [0056]), and allow the pet to pull the treat from the distal end ([0037] as the pet can pull the treat from the distal end while interacting with the treat 54).
However, Grepper is silent about said body configured to autonomously move about a space; one or more sensors, the controller is configured to control at least one of the one or more motors to move the body randomly or pseudo-randomly based on input from the one or more sensors; wherein the distal end of the arm comprises an outer loop and an inner flange defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat and, via friction, hold the treat in the distal end, and allow to pull the treat from the distal end, wherein the outer loop comprises a free edge at a distal end of the outer loop.
Gutierrez teaches said body (100) configured to autonomously move about a space ([0048] and [0066]); one or more sensors ([0048] and [0064]), the controller (205) is configured to control at least one of the one or more motors (206-208) to move the body randomly or pseudo-randomly based on input from the one or more sensors ([0048], [0064-0066] and [0122-0124]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include said body configured to autonomously move about a space; one or more sensors, the controller is configured to control at least one of the one or more motors to move the body randomly or pseudo-randomly based on input from the one or more sensors of Grepper in order to provide the animal with other forms of interacting with the toy such as chasing it or playing fetch ([0053] of Gutierrez) and so that the user does not have to be involved for the interaction between the pet toy and the animal, thus freeing the user to do other things ([0048] of Gutierrez).
Smith teaches wherein the distal end of the arm (125) comprises an outer loop (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7) and an inner flange (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7) defining a space (space between the outer loop and inner flange of examiner’s illustration of fig. 7) therebetween configured to accept the treat (Smith is capable to accept the treat) and, via friction (Smith is capable of holding the treat via friction when the treat is placed within the space), hold the treat (Smith is capable to accept and hold the treat (fig. 4a and 7 and Col. 10, lines 52-55)) in the distal end (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7), and allow to pull the treat from the distal end (Smith is capable to allow to pull the treat from the distal end as 120 is a swivel and hook and so will allow to pull the treat from the distal end (fig. 7 and Col. 10, lines 52-55)), wherein the outer loop comprises a free edge (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7) at a distal end (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7) of the outer loop.
PNG
media_image1.png
304
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the distal end of the arm comprises an outer loop and an inner flange defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat and, via friction, hold the treat in the distal end, and allow to pull the treat from the distal end, wherein the outer loop comprises a free edge at a distal end of the outer loop as taught by Smith into the apparatus of Grepper as modified by Gutierrez as an alternate equivalent method of holding/attaching the treat (col 10, lines 62-67 of Smith).
Regarding claim 3, Grepper as modified by Gutierrez and Smith teaches the electronic pet toy of claim 1, and Grepper further teaches wherein the body includes an upper portion (32) and a lower portion (34), and wherein the upper portion rotates upon an axis relative the lower portion ([0033] and [0054]-[0055]).
Regarding claim 4, Grepper as modified by Gutierrez and Smith teaches the electronic pet toy of claim 1, and Grepper further teaches wherein the body includes a slot (80) through which the arm extends (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Grepper as modified by Gutierrez and Smith teaches the electronic pet toy of claim 4, and Grepper further teaches wherein the arm is configured to move within the slot ([0044]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grepper (as above) as modified by Gutierrez (as above), and Smith (as above) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Comerford (US 6892675 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Grepper as modified by Gutierrez and Smith teaches the electronic pet toy of claim 1, but is silent wherein the arm includes a detachment point between the proximal end and the distal end where the distal end can be detached from the arm.
Comerford teaches wherein the arm (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) includes a detachment point (39 and 34A) between the proximal end (34) and the distal end (38) where the distal end can be detached from the arm (Col. 3, lines 43-50).
PNG
media_image2.png
600
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the arm includes a detachment point between the proximal end and the distal end where the distal end can be detached from the arm as taught by Comerford into the apparatus of Grepper as modified by Gutierrez and Smith in order to allow the user to replace the arm (Col. 3, lines 43-53 of Comerford).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grepper (as above) as modified by Gutierrez (as above), Smith (as above) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stewart (US 6345593 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Grepper as modified by Gutierrez and Smith teaches the electronic pet toy of claim 1, but is silent wherein the distal end of the arm configured to hold the treat includes a concentrically looped wire defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat.
Stewart teaches wherein the distal end of the arm (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1) configured to hold the treat includes a concentrically looped wire (16) defining a space therebetween (space between the loops of 16) configured to accept the treat (Stewart is capable of having the space therebetween to accept the treat).
PNG
media_image3.png
304
340
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the distal end of the arm configured to hold the treat includes a concentrically looped wire defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat as taught by Stewart into the apparatus of Grepper as modified by Gutierrez and Smith in order to provide resistance from the concentrically looped wire for further enrichment as the animal plays with the toy.
Claims 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grepper (as above) in view of Eusebe (US 5570919 A).
Regarding claim 9, Grepper teaches a pet toy comprising: an elongated arm (50) configured to be secured to a body (30; fig. 1) of an electronic pet toy (fig. 1); and a treat head (52) attached with the elongated arm (fig. 1), wherein the treat head is configured to hold a treat (54), wherein the treat head is configured to hold the treat while the elongated arm is moving ([0037], [0044] as the treat head is configured to hold the treat while the elongated arm is moving), and allow a pet to pull the treat from the treat head ([0037] as a pet can pull the treat from the treat head while interacting with the treat 54)), wherein distal end holds the treat therebetween (fig. 1).
However, Grepper is silent about wherein the treat head comprises claw configured as jaws, wherein the treat head is a spring loaded claw or armature that is configured to hold the treat between a pair of jaws, wherein a force exerted by the claw is configured to hold the treat, and allow to pull the treat from the treat head, wherein distal ends of the jaws are spring loaded causing the distal ends of the jaws to bias toward each other, respectively, to hold the treat therebetween and wherein the treat is selectively released from the distal ends of the jaws when a force is applied to the treat to pull the treat from the treat head.
Eusebe teaches wherein the treat head (head of figs. 1 and 4) comprises claw (fig. 4) configured as jaws (20), wherein the treat head is a spring loaded claw (Col. 4, lines 9-18) or armature that is configured to hold the treat between a pair of jaws (Col. 4, lines 31-34 as any object can be a treat and so the spring loaded claw is capable to hold the treat between a pair of jaws), wherein a force exerted by the claw is configured to hold the treat (Col. 4, lines 9-18 and 31-34 as the spring loaded claw will exert a force and so is capable to hold the treat), and allow to pull the treat from the treat head (the jaws 20 are constructed of plastic therefore would have a degree of flexibility, therefore a sufficient force applied to the jaws 20 will allow a user to pull the treat from the treat head (Col. 4, lines 31-39)), wherein distal ends (tips of 20 in fig. 4) of the jaws are spring loaded (32 and Col. 4, lines 9-18 as the springs will cause the distal ends of the jaws to bias towards each other based on the tension of the springs) causing the distal ends of the jaws to bias toward each other (Col. 4, lines 14-18), respectively, to hold the treat (Col. 4, lines 31-34 as any object can be a treat) therebetween (Col. 4, lines 31-34) and wherein the treat is selectively released from the distal ends of the jaws when a force is applied to the treat to pull the treat from the treat head (the jaws 20 are constructed of plastic therefore would have a degree of flexibility, therefore the treat is selectively released from the distal ends of the jaws when a force is applied to the treat to pull the treat from the treat head (Col. 4, lines 31-39)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the treat head comprises claw configured as jaws, wherein the treat head is a spring loaded claw or armature that is configured to hold the treat between a pair of jaws, wherein a force exerted by the claw is configured to hold the treat, and allow to pull the treat from the treat head, wherein distal ends of the jaws are spring loaded causing the distal ends of the jaws to bias toward each other, respectively, to hold the treat therebetween and wherein the treat is selectively released from the distal ends of the jaws when a force is applied to the treat to pull the treat from the treat head as taught by Eusebe into the apparatus of Grepper in order to have a strong grip on the treat (Col. 4, lines 31-34 of Eusebe).
Regarding claim 14, Grepper as modified by Eusebe teaches the pet toy of claim 9, and Grepper further teaches wherein the elongated arm is secured to the body with a slot (80) defined by the body (fig. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grepper (as above) as modified by Eusebe (as above) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Comerford (US 6892675 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Grepper as modified by Eusebe teaches the pet toy of claim 9, and Grepper further teaches the treat head, but is silent wherein the treat head is detachable from the elongated arm.
Comerford teaches wherein the treat head (38) is detachable from the elongated arm (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 43-50).
PNG
media_image2.png
600
326
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the treat head is detachable from the elongated arm as taught by Comerford into the apparatus of Grepper as modified by Eusebe in order to allow the user to replace the arm (Col. 3, lines 43-53 of Comerford).
Claims 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grepper (as above) in view of Smith (as above).
Regarding claim 15, Grepper teaches a pet toy comprising: a dome-shaped body (30) having an upper portion (32) and a lower portion (34), wherein the upper portion forms a continuous curved outer surface of the dome-shaped body (fig. 2A-2D) and wherein the upper portion rotates upon an axis relative the lower portion ([0033] and [0054]-[0055]); a plurality of motors (136, 158) within the dome-shaped body (fig. 12 and [0048]); control circuitry (168) electrically coupled to the motors ([0056]); an elongated arm (50) configured to be secured to the dome-shaped body (30) of an electronic pet toy (fig. 1); and a treat head (52) attached with the elongated arm (fig. 1), wherein the treat head comprises an attachment configured to accept a treat (54, figs. 1-2D), and allow a pet to pull the treat from the treat head ([0037] as a pet can pull the treat from the treat head while interacting with the treat 54).
Grepper is silent about wherein the lower portion forms a continuous curved outer surface of the dome-shaped body, and an outer loop and an inner flange defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat and, via friction, hold the treat the treat head, and allow to pull the treat from the treat head.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the lower portion of Grepper to form a continuous curved outer surface of the dome-shaped body, 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 order provide a more rounded surface to prevent injury to the pet when the device comes in contact with the pet as it is well known in the art. Examiner would also like to state that having the lower portion being a continuous curved outer surface is not allowable subject matter as it is a simple change in shape). In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Smith teaches an outer loop (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7) and an inner flange (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7) defining a space (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7) therebetween configured to accept the treat (Smith is capable to accept the treat) and, via friction (Smith is capable of holding the treat via friction when the treat is placed within the space), hold the treat (Smith is capable to accept and hold the treat (fig. 4a and 7 and Col. 10, lines 52-55)) in the treat head (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7 as the space of Smith is capable to hold the treat in the treat head), and allow to pull the treat from the treat head (Smith is capable to allow to pull the treat from the treat head as 120 is a swivel and hook and so will allow to pull the treat from the treat head (fig. 7 and Col. 10, lines 52-55)).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein an outer loop and an inner flange defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat and, via friction, hold the treat the treat head, and allow to pull the treat from the treat head as taught by Smith into the apparatus of Grepper as modified by Gutierrez in order as an alternate equivalent method of holding/attaching the treat (Col. 10, lines 62-67 of Smith).
Regarding claim 17, Grepper as modified by Smith teaches the pet toy of claim 15, and Grepper further teaches wherein the elongated arm extends through a slot (80) defined in the upper portion of the dome-shaped body (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Grepper as modified by Smith teaches the pet toy of claim 17, and Grepper further teaches wherein the elongated arm is coupled to one of the plurality of motors (136), and wherein the motor causes the arm to move in an arc defined by the slot ([0044] and [0056]).
Regarding claim 20, Grepper as modified by Smith teaches the pet toy of claim 15, and Grepper further teaches including a wireless controller (38) to wirelessly communicate with a computing device (168) to influence movement of the pet toy ([0033] and [0056]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grepper (as above) as modified by Smith (as above) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Gutierrez (as above).
Regarding claim 19, Grepper as modified by Smith teaches the pet toy of claim 15, but is silent wherein at least one of the plurality of motors is configured to cause wheels to move the pet toy, and wherein the control circuitry causes the motor to move the pet toy randomly or pseudo-randomly.
Gutierrez teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of motors ([0061]) is configured to cause wheels (106 and 108) to move the pet toy ([0122]), and wherein the control circuitry causes the motor to move the pet toy randomly or pseudo-randomly ([0122]-[0124]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein at least one of the plurality of motors is configured to cause wheels to move the pet toy, and wherein the control circuitry causes the motor to move the pet toy randomly or pseudo-randomly as taught by Gutierrez into the apparatus of Grepper as modified by Smith in order to provide the animal with various games such as chase or fetch when in autonomous mode ([0053] of Gutierrez).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grepper (as above) in view of Stewart (as above).
Regarding claim 22, Grepper teaches a pet toy comprising: an elongated arm (50) configured to be secured to a body (30; fig. 1) of an electronic pet toy (fig. 1); and a treat head (52) attached with the elongated arm (fig. 1), wherein the treat head is configured to hold a treat (54), wherein the treat head includes the treat (fig. 1), and wherein the treat is removable by a pet pulling the treat ([0057] as a pet is capable to remove the treat 54 by using a certain amount of force when pulling on the treat).
However, Grepper does not teach a concentrically looped wire defining a first loop and a second loop, said first and second loops defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat, wherein the first and second loops are configured to hold the treat via friction, and wherein the treat is removable by the pet pulling the treat from the space.
Stewart teaches a concentrically looped wire (16) defining a first loop (first loop of 16) and a second loop (second loop of 16), said first and second loops defining a space (space between the loops of 16) therebetween configured to accept the treat (Stewart is capable of having the space therebetween to accept the treat), wherein the first and second loops are configured to hold the treat via friction (Stewart is capable to have the first and second loops hold the treat via friction), and wherein the treat is removable by the pet pulling the treat from the space (Stewart is capable to teach wherein the treat is removable by the pet pulling the treat from the space when the pet uses a certain amount of force when pulling on the treat).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a concentrically looped wire defining a first loop and a second loop, said first and second loops defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat, wherein the first and second loops are configured to hold the treat via friction, and wherein the treat is removable by the pet pulling the treat from the space as taught by Stewart into the apparatus of Grepper as modified by Eusebe in order to provide resistance from the concentrically looped wire for further enrichment as the animal plays with the toy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Thus, Grepper's operating principle is user-directed remote control, not autonomous movement of the body randomly or pseudo-randomly based on sensor input while a controller also controls an arm motor to move the arm within an armature slot. Although Grepper discloses an elongate slot through which a wand moves, see Grepper, [0044], the slot and wand movement are part of a remote-controlled stationary entertainment device, not the claimed autonomous chase-toy architecture.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Also, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the slot and wand movement are part of a remote-controlled stationary entertainment device, not the claimed autonomous chase-toy architecture”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 only states “a body configured to autonomously move about a space,” and so the only autonomous feature is the body of the electronic pet toy moving around within a space, and not the wand itself.
Applicant further argues “The proposed combination also lacks the required articulated reason with rational underpinning. Grepper's device is designed around user control through a remote; Gutierrez's robot provides autonomous locomotion in a different robot architecture; and Smith's structure suspends and balances decorative mobile components in ceiling-fan airflow. The Office Action has not identified why a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to import Smith's ceiling-fan mobile attachment hardware into the distal end of Grepper's remote-controlled wand, then further modify the resulting device using Gutierrez's autonomous locomotion, sensors, and control behavior, and still arrive at the specific claimed arrangement in which the same electronic pet toy includes sensor-based random or pseudo-random body movement, a controller-controlled arm motor, an arm mover that moves the arm within an armature slot, and a friction-fit outer- loop/inner-flange treat head from which the pet pulls the treat.
At most, the cited references disclose isolated pieces that can be recognized only after using Applicant's disclosure as a roadmap. Grepper supplies a remotely controlled wand toy; Gutierrez supplies an autonomous pet robot; and Smith supplies ceiling-fan mobile attachment hardware. None of the references, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the claimed integrated chase- toy architecture with the recited friction-retaining treat head on a controller-driven arm moving within an armature slot while the body moves randomly or pseudo-randomly based on sensor input. The rejection therefore relies on hindsight reconstruction rather than a reasoned obviousness analysis under KSR.”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Also, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Examiner would also like to note that claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than functions. In re Danly, 120 USPQ 528, 531. Smith is only relied upon to teach the outer loop and inner flange to accept the treat, as the outer loop and inner flange is a commonly known feature. Therefore, while the outer loop and inner flange of Smith is used for a ceiling-fan, it is not limited to such and can easily be applied to the distal end of the arm of Grepper.
Applicant further argues “The amendments to claim 1 sharpen the distinction over the applied references. The claim no longer broadly recites a distal-end attachment or unsupported movable joint but instead claims the disclosed autonomous pet toy system in which coordinated body movement, sensor input, motorized arm motion through an armature slot, and frictional treat retention cooperate to entice pet engagement while allowing the pet to retrieve the treat. Because the cited combination fails to teach or suggest this claimed subject matter as a whole, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is patentable over Grepper, Gutierrez, and Smith respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 103 rejection of claim 1.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant further argues “The rejection of claim 2 relies on combining Comerford with the previously cited references; however, Comerford does not teach or disclose a movable joint at the end of a distal arm as shown in FIG. 5 reproduced below. Comerford specifies that "the flexible line 17 is connected to the distal end portion 40." The arm "holds a cat- attracting object 16 on a terminal end 17A of a cord or other flexible line 17." The claim language similarly states, "a flexible line connecting the cat-attracting object to the distal end portion of the object-holding arm," and further that there is "a flexible line connected to the distal end portion of the elongated member, the flexible line having a terminal end; and an object connected to the terminal end of the flexible line." Accordingly, Applicant submits that claim 2 is patentable over these references and respectfully requests an indication of allowability.”.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claims 1, 9 and 15 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim claims 1, 9 and 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights