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 10/10/2025 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 1, 9 and 15 were amended, and Claims 7, 11 and 21 were canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-20 and 22 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-20 and 22 are 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.
For claim 1, the limitation “a movable joint” is not supported in the original disclosure.
For claim 9:
The limitation “a movable joint” is not supported in the original disclosure.
The limitation “wherein the cat treat is selectively released from the distal ends of the jaws when a force is applied to the distal ends of the jaws” is not supported in the original disclosure.
While [0014] and [0017] of Applicant’s specification supports a force being applied to the treat to release it from the jaws, there is no support anywhere in the specification teaching where a force is applied to the distal ends of the jaws to release the treat.
For claim 15:
The limitation “a movable joint” is not supported in the original disclosure.
The limitation “the treat is selectively released from between the outer loop and the inner flange when a force is applied to the outer loop, the inner flange” is not supported in the original disclosure.
While [0014] of Applicant’s specification supports a cat removing the treat from the holding device, and [0017] supports the outer loop and inner flange holding the treat via friction, there is no support anywhere in the specification teaching where a force is applied to the outer loop or the inner flange to release the treat.
Claims 2-6, 8,10, 12-14, 16-20 and 22 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 9-10, 12-14 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 9, the limitation “the cat treat” in line 7 lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 10, 12-14 and 22 are 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); and an arm (50), a proximal end of the arm attached to the body (fig. 1) and distal end of the arm configured to hold a treat (54) to entice a pet to engage with the electronic pet toy ([0037]).
However, Grepper is silent about said body configured to autonomously move about a space; wherein the distal end of the arm comprises an outer loop, an inner flange, and a movable joint, wherein the outer loop and the inner flange are configured to accept and hold the treat, 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]).
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 as taught by Gutierrez into the apparatus 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), an inner flange (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7), and a movable joint (120 comprises of a movable joint as 120 is a swivel and hook and forms a connection (fig. 4a and 7 and Col. 10, lines 52-55)), wherein the outer loop and the inner flange are configured to accept and hold the treat (Smith is capable to accept and hold the treat (fig. 4a and 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, an inner flange, and a movable joint, wherein the outer loop and the inner flange are configured to accept and hold the treat, 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 6 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 Clarke (US 20150013653 A1).
Regarding claim 6, 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 spring loaded claw.
Clarke teaches wherein the distal end of the arm (12) configured to hold the treat (28) includes a spring loaded claw (102 and 112).
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 distal end of the arm configured to hold the treat includes a spring loaded claw as taught by Clarke into the apparatus of Grepper as modified by Gutierrez and Smith in order to reduce strain on the claw and avoid the claw from failing in the future ([0083] of Clarke).
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 distal end holds the treat therebetween (fig. 1).
However, Grepper is silent about wherein the treat head comprises a movable joint and a claw configured as jaws, 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 cat treat is selectively released from the distal ends of the jaws when a force is applied to the distal ends of the jaws or the treat.
Eusebe teaches wherein the treat head comprises a movable joint (fig. 4 and Col. 4, lines 26-28 as the ends of 38 comprises of a movable joint ) and a claw (fig. 4) configured as jaws (20), 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 distal ends of the jaws (please see 112a above; the elongated fingers 20 that are constructed of plastic therefore would have a degree of flexibility, therefore a sufficient force applied to the fingers of 20 is capable of releasing its grip of an object (Col. 4, lines 31-39)) or 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 wherein the treat head comprises a movable joint and a claw configured as jaws, 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 distal ends of the jaws or the treat 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).
Claim 12 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 and further in view of Smith (as above).
Regarding claim 12, Grepper as modified by Eusebe teaches the pet toy of claim 9, and Grepper further teaches the treat head, but is silent about a loop and an inner flange defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat.
Smith teaches a 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).
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 loop and an inner flange defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat as taught by Smith into the apparatus of Grepper as modified by Eusebe in order to attach the treat (Col. 10, lines 62-67 of Smith).
PNG
media_image1.png
304
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 13 and 22 are 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 and further in view of Stewart (US 6345593 B1).
Regarding claim 13, Grepper as modified by Eusebe teaches the pet toy of claim 9, and Grepper further teaches the treat head, but is silent about a concentrically looped wire defining a space therebetween configured to accept the treat.
Stewart teaches 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).
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 space therebetween configured to accept the treat 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.
Regarding claim 22, Grepper as modified by Eusebe and Stewart teaches the pet toy of claim 13, and Stewart further teaches wherein the concentrically looped wire defines a first loop (first loop of 16) and a second loop (second loop of 16), said first and second loops defining the space (fig. 1).
Claims 15-18 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).
Grepper is silent about wherein the lower portion forms a continuous curved outer surface of the dome-shaped body, and an outer loop, an inner flange, and a movable joint, wherein outer loop and the inner flange are configured to accept and hold the treat, and the treat is selectively released from between the outer loop and the inner flange when a force is applied to the outer loop, the inner flange, or the treat.
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), an inner flange (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 7) and a movable joint (120 comprises of a movable joint as 120 is a swivel and hook and forms a connection (fig. 4a and 7 and Col. 10, lines 52-55)), wherein outer loop and the inner flange are configured to accept and hold the treat (Smith is capable to accept and hold the treat (fig. 4a and 7 and Col. 10, lines 52-55)), and the treat is selectively released from between the outer loop and the inner flange when a force is applied to the outer loop, the inner flange, or the treat (120 comprises a movable joint as it is a swivel and hook and so will allow for the treat to be selectively released from between the outer loop and the inner flange when a force is applied to the outer loop (fig. 4a and 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 the distal end of the arm comprises an outer loop, an inner flange, and a movable joint, wherein outer loop and the inner flange are configured to accept and hold the treat, and the treat is selectively released from between the outer loop and the inner flange when a force is applied to the outer loop, the inner flange, or the treat 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 16, Grepper as modified by Smith teaches the pet toy of claim 15, and Smith further teaches wherein the outer loop and the inner flange are configured to hold a treat via friction (Smith is capable of holding the treat via friction when the treat is placed within the space).
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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “Applicant traverses the rejection and argues that the claim language at issue-"the cat treat is selectively released from the distal ends of the jaws when a force is applied to the distal ends of the jaws"-is supported by the instant specification, both expressly and inherently, when read under the governing standards of written description and claim interpretation.”
The Examiner respectively disagrees. As stated above, while the specification does support a force being applied to the treat to release it from the jaws, there is no support in the specification that specifically states where the force is applied to the distal ends of the jaws. The arguments above are not persuasive as the specification, specifically [0014] and [0017], are broadly interpreted by the Applicant to support the that the force is applied to the distal ends of the jaws. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the specification to teach wherein a force is applied to the treat to release it from the jaws as [0014] in the specification states that the cat can release the treat from the holding device, and [0017] states that the cat can pull the treat from the treat head. There is no support that it is the distal ends of the jaws that receive the force from the cat. In conclusion, the Applicant has not provided sufficient explanation as to how the cat applies force directly to the distal ends of the jaws.
Applicant further argues “Claims 1 and 3-5 were rejected as being unpatentable over Grepper in view of Gutierrez and Smith. Claim 1 is amended herewith adding "a movable joint" to the distal arm. Applicant argues that the cited references fail to render claim 1 obvious because they do not teach a movable joint as part of the other claimed elements that is configured to accept and hold treats. Specifically, Grepper teaches that the pet playthings are attached to the removable wand (50) either directly at or near the wand's free end, or via a flexible line (56) such as string or fishing line. Guitierrez teaches autonomous operation, and Smith teaches a hook at the end of a chain.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Smith teaches a movable joint as 120 is a swivel and hook so as to form a connection (fig. 4a and 7 and Col. 10, lines 52-55), therefore Smith teaches a movable joint.
Applicant further argues “Claims 9 and 14 were rejected as being unpatentable over Grepper in view of Eusebe. The rejection of claims 9 and 14 relies on combining Eusebe with Grepper. Eusebe does not teach or disclose spring-loaded jaws where the springs move the jaws apart. Eusebe teaches that the spring located on the engaging head actively pivots the fingers back outward, reopening the grasp of the fingers when the user releases the handle. However, the instant claims teach a spring at the distal end of the jaws that biases the jaws toward each other. Therefore, Applicant first argues that the cited references fail to render claims 9 and 14 obvious because they do not teach a spring at the distal end of the jaws that biases the jaws toward each other.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Eusebe teaches the distal ends of the jaws to be spring loaded (32 and Col. 4, lines 14-18 of Eusebe) as the springs will cause the distal ends of the jaws to bias towards each other based on the tension of the springs (Col. 4, lines 9-18 of Eusebe), and so the distal ends of the jaws are spring loaded.
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., “spring-loaded jaws where the springs move the jaws apart”, and “a spring at the distal end of the jaws that biases the jaws toward each other”) 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).
Applicant further argues “Secondly, one skilled in the art would not have a reasonable expectation of success in combining Eusebe with Grepper to arrive at the instant claims. Applicant argues that claims 9 and 14 are patentable over these references and requests an indication of such. Furthermore, Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have a reasonable likelihood of success in combining the teaching of Eusebe-a gripper that needs to be manually squeezed at one end to clamp down at the engaging head-and Grepper-an arm with no clamping mechanism-to arrive at claims 9 and 14.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees as Eusebe is only brought in to teach what Grepper does not, such as a claw with jaws wherein distal ends of the jaws are spring loaded. Eusebe is to teach a treat head with these features, and one of ordinary skill in the art would find it reasonable to include a treat head that comprises a claw with jaws so as to have a stronger grip on the treat (Col. 4, lines 31-34 of Eusebe).
Also, the Examiner would like to note that Eusebe being manually squeezed is irrelevant as the claims to don’t state how the distal ends of the jaws bias toward each other.
Applicant further argues “Applicant argues that Grepper teaches that the pet playthings are attached to the removable wand (50) either directly at or near the wand's free end, or via a flexible line (56) such as string or fishing line, and that Smith teaches a hook at the end of a chain. As neither reference teaches either a treat head with movable joint or an outer loop or an inner flange that releases a treat with a force is applied to the treat head, the Applicant argues that claim 15 is patentable over the combined references.”
For claim 15, the amendments “the treat is selectively released from between the outer loop and the inner flange when a force is applied to the outer loop, the inner flange” are negatively recited as they are not supported in the original disclosure as stated in the 112a rejection above. Thus, applicant’s argument that the prior art does not teach this added limitation is mooted.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Smith teaches a movable joint as 120 is a swivel and hook so as to form a connection (fig. 4a and 7 and Col. 10, lines 52-55), therefore Smith teaches a movable joint.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
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