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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 36-37 (as well as dependent claims 38-40) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 36 recites the limitation, “wherein the base includes a collar at a top of the base, and the shoulder projects inward from an interior surface of the collar, wherein the shoulder is configured to engage bottom surfaces of the sidewall portions when the hopper body is connected to the base.” Which is vague and indefinite since it is unclear whether the upstanding portions are the same structure as the collar recited in claim 36. A review of the specification does not define the upstanding portions. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the collar and upstanding portions to be the same structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funke Kunstoffe (DE 202012101322 U1; hereinafter Funke).
Regarding claim 1 Funke discloses a wildlife gravity feeder assembly for dispensing a bulk feed material (the device is structurally capable of dispensing feed for wildlife), the wildlife gravity feeder assembly comprising: a hopper body (Fig. 3; 17) defining an interior for holding the bulk feed material; and a base assembly (Fig. 3; 1) formed separately from the hopper body, the base assembly comprising: a base connected to the hopper body (Fig. 3; 1, 17), the base including a sidewall (2) defining an exterior surface of the wildlife gravity feeder, the base defining at least a first feed outlet (Fig. 1; 7) located below a bottom of the hopper body (Fig. 3), the first feed outlet including an entrance and an exit, the exit being on the exterior surface of the wildlife gravity feeder (shown in Fig. 1), wherein a bottom of the base is configured to engage a ground surface to support the wildlife gravity feeder assembly on the ground surface (bottom engages a ground surface indirectly through legs 20);
and a feed director body (9) formed separately from the base and supported by the base, the feed director body defining at least a first funnel (10) configured to direct bulk feed material to flow by gravity from the interior toward the at least first feed outlet (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2 Funke, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Funke further discloses wherein the first funnel includes a flow channel that increases in width as the flow channel extends toward the first feed outlet (Figs. 1 and 3); (page 4).
Regarding claim 3 Funke, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Funke further discloses wherein the base defines a second feed outlet (7), and the feed director body defines a second funnel (10) configured to direct bulk feed material to flow by gravity from the interior to the second feed outlet (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 4 Funke, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 3. Funke further discloses wherein the base defines a third feed outlet (7), and the feed director body defines a third funnel (10); (each funnel has a respective opening) configured to direct bulk feed material to flow by gravity from the interior to the third feed outlet (page 4).
Regarding claim 5 Funke, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Funke further discloses wherein the base defines a fourth feed outlet (7), and the feed director body defines a fourth funnel (10); (each funnel has a respective opening) configured to direct bulk feed material to flow by gravity from the interior to the fourth feed outlet (page 4).
Regarding claim 6 Funke, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 5. Funke further discloses wherein the four funnels intersect at a peak (Fig. 1; top of 9), the peak being a highest point of the surface of the feed director body.
Regarding claim 7 Funke, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Funke further discloses wherein the feed director body is configured to bound a bottom of the interior of the hopper (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8 Funke, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Funke further discloses wherein the first feed outlet includes a bottom surface that slopes to the exit of the first feed outlet (shown in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 34 Funke, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Funke further discloses wherein the base comprises a shoulder (Fig. 4; 4); (shown connected to the hopper body in Fig. 3) along the sidewall configured to abut the bottom (Fig. 3; 16) of the hopper body when the hopper body is connected to the base, and the first feed outlet is disposed below the shoulder (Fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettore; Vincent Allan et al. (US 20140069339 A1), in view of FUNKE KUNSTSTOFFE GMBH (DE 202012101322 U1; hereinafter Funke).
Regarding claim 1 Dettore discloses a wildlife gravity feeder assembly for dispensing a bulk feed material (title); (Fig. 1), the wildlife gravity feeder assembly comprising: a hopper body (1, 2, 5) defining an interior for holding the bulk feed material;
and a base assembly (Fig. 2; 6, 7, 8) formed separately from the hopper body, the base assembly comprising: a base connected to the hopper body [0021], the base including a sidewall defining an exterior surface of the wildlife gravity feeder, the base defining at least a first feed outlet (8) located below a bottom of the hopper body, the first feed outlet including an entrance and an exit (Fig. 2), the exit being on the exterior surface of the wildlife gravity feeder, wherein a bottom of the base is configured to engage a ground surface to support the wildlife gravity feeder assembly on the ground surface (configured to engage the ground via legs 10, 11).
Dettore does not disclose a feed director body formed separately from the base and supported by the base, the feed director body defining at least a first funnel configured to direct bulk feed material to flow by gravity from the interior toward the at least first feed outlet.
Funke teaches a feed director body (9) formed separately from the base and supported by the base, the feed director body defining at least a first funnel (10) configured to direct bulk feed material to flow by gravity from the interior toward the at least first feed outlet (Fig. 2).
Claim(s) 10-11, 22-24, 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettore; Vincent Allan et al. (US 20140069339 A1) in view of Brown; Henry F. et al. (US 5829595 A).
Regarding claim 10 Dettore discloses a wildlife gravity feeder assembly for dispensing bulk feed material (title); (Fig. 1), the wildlife gravity feeder assembly comprising: a base (Fig. 2; 6, 7, 8) having a feed passage (8) through which bulk feed material passes to dispense the bulk feed material [0021]; and a hopper body (1, 2, 5) configured to be connected to the base [0021] to define an interior for holding a supply of the bulk feed material, the hopper body having at least two sidewall portions that are formed separately and connectable to each other for forming the hopper body [0019].
Dettore does not disclose the base having upstanding portions, the upstanding portions including at least two base protrusions or base openings along an interior surface thereof; wherein each of the sidewall portions includes a respective hopper protrusion or a hopper opening configured to mate with one of the base openings or one of the base protrusions, respectively, of the base to connect the respective sidewall portion to the base.
Brown teaches the base having upstanding portions (Fig. 1; 42, 43, and portion of 34) the upstanding portions including at least two base openings (48) along an interior surface thereof (Col. 3, lines 64-67); wherein each of the sidewall portions includes a respective hopper protrusion (Fig. 2; 50) configured to mate with one of the base openings or one of the base protrusions, respectively, of the base to connect the respective sidewall portion to the base (Col. 3, lines 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base and sidewall portions of Dettore to include the base having upstanding portions, the upstanding portions including at least two base protrusions or base openings along an interior surface thereof; wherein each of the sidewall portions includes a respective hopper protrusion or a hopper opening configured to mate with one of the base openings or one of the base protrusions, respectively, of the base to connect the respective sidewall portion to the base, as taught by Brown, in order to improve ease of operation (abstract), since assembly would be simplified.
Regarding claim 11 Dettore, in view of Brown, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Dettore does not disclose wherein the at least two sidewall portions are configured to form a mating connection to connect the at least two sidewall portions.
Brown teaches wherein the at least two sidewall portions are configured to form a mating connection to connect the at least two sidewall portions (Col. 6, lines 16-26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least two sidewall portions of Dettore to include a mating connection to connect the at least two sidewall portions, as taught by Brown, in order to prevent infiltration of foreign matter and resisting outward bending (Col. 6, lines 16-26).
Regarding claim 22 Dettore, in view of Brown, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Dettore further discloses wherein the hopper includes a third sidewall portion (Fig. 1); [0019], but lacks wherein the third sidewall portion includes at least one of a protrusion or an opening, and the base comprises a corresponding at least one protrusion or opening, the at least one protrusion or opening of the third sidewall portion being configured to mate with the other of the protrusion or opening of the base to connect the third sidewall portion to the base.
Brown teaches wherein the hopper includes a third sidewall portion (Fig. 1; 52, 56) wherein the third sidewall portion includes at least one of a protrusion (50), and the base comprises a corresponding at least one opening (48), the at least one protrusion or opening of the third sidewall portion being configured to mate with the other of the protrusion or opening of the base to connect the third sidewall portion to the base (Col. 3, lines 64-67).
It would It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base and third sidewall portions of Dettore to include wherein the hopper includes at least one of a protrusion or an opening, and the base comprises a corresponding at least one protrusion or opening, the at least one protrusion or opening of the third sidewall portion being configured to mate with the other of the protrusion or opening of the base to connect the third sidewall portion to the base, as taught by Brown, in order to improve the knock-down configuration of the device (abstract).
Regarding claim 23 Dettore, in view of Brown, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Dettore further discloses wherein the hopper includes a fourth sidewall portion, but lacks wherein the fourth sidewall portion includes at least one of a protrusion or an opening, and the base comprises a corresponding at least one protrusion or opening, the at least one protrusion or opening of the fourth sidewall portion being configured to mate with the other of the protrusion or opening of the base to connect the fourth sidewall portion to the base.
Brown teaches wherein the hopper includes a fourth sidewall portion (Fig. 1; 52, 56) wherein the third sidewall portion includes at least one of a protrusion (50), and the base comprises a corresponding at least one opening (48), the at least one protrusion or opening of the fourth sidewall portion being configured to mate with the other of the protrusion or opening of the base to connect the fourth sidewall portion to the base (Col. 3, lines 64-67).
It would It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base and fourth sidewall portions of Dettore to include wherein the hopper includes at least one of a protrusion or an opening, and the base comprises a corresponding at least one protrusion or opening, the at least one protrusion or opening of the fourth sidewall portion being configured to mate with the other of the protrusion or opening of the base to connect the fourth sidewall portion to the base, as taught by Brown, in order to improve the knock-down configuration of the device (abstract).
Regarding claim 24 Dettore, in view of Brown, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Dettore in view of Brown further discloses wherein the base comprises a shoulder (Brown; Fig. 4; 44, 47); (Col. 3, lines 45-63) configured to engage the sidewall portions when the hopper body is connected to the base.
Regarding claim 35 Dettore, in view of Brown, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Dettore in view of Brown further discloses wherein the upstanding portions of the base are sidewalls of the base that surround and define an interior cavity of the base (Fig. 1), and each of the sidewalls defines at least one of the base openings, wherein each of the sidewall portions of the hopper body includes at least one of the hopper protrusions projecting outward from an outer face of the sidewall portion along a lower segment of the sidewall portion (Fig. 1), the lower segments of the sidewall portions received within the interior cavity of the base and the hopper protrusions received into the base openings to couple the hopper body to the base (Col. 3, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 36 Dettore, in view of Brown, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 24. Dettore in view of Brown further discloses wherein the base includes a collar (Brown; Fig. 1; 42, 43, and portion of 34) at a top of the base, and the shoulder projects inward from an interior surface of the collar, wherein the shoulder is configured to engage bottom surfaces (Fig. 1; 68) of the sidewall portions when the hopper body is connected to the base (Fig. 1); (Col. 4, lines 19-28).
Claim(s) 12-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettore; Vincent Allan et al. (US 20140069339 A1) in view of Brown; Henry F. et al. (US 5829595 A), further in view of Mykleby; Laurie G. (US 4266670 A).
Regarding claim 12 Dettore, in view of Brown, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Dettore in view of Brown does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least two sidewall portions include a first sidewall portion and a second sidewall portion, the first sidewall portion having a first set of connectors and a second set of connectors, and the second sidewall portion having a first set of connectors and a second set of connectors, the first set of connectors of the first sidewall portion being configured to mesh with the second set of connectors of the second sidewall portion to form a mating connection.
Mykleby teaches wherein the at least two sidewall portions (10, 11, 12, 13) include a first sidewall portion (Mykleby; Fig. 8, 11) and a second sidewall portion (10), the first sidewall portion having a first set of connectors and a second set of connectors (31, 32), and the second sidewall portion having a first set of connectors and a second set of connectors (31, 32), the first set of connectors of the first sidewall portion being configured to mesh with the second set of connectors of the second sidewall portion to form a mating connection (Col. 4, lines 40-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second sidewall portions of Dettore in view of Brown to include a first set of connectors and a second set of connectors, and the second sidewall portion having a first set of connectors and a second set of connectors, the first set of connectors of the first sidewall portion being configured to mesh with the second set of connectors of the second sidewall portion to form a mating connection, as taught by Mykleby, in order to provide reinforcement to the sidewalls (Col. 1, lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 13 Dettore, in view of Brown and Mykleby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Dettore in view of Brown and Mykleby further discloses wherein the first set of connectors of the first sidewall portion comprises projections (Mykleby; Fig 8, 32) and recesses (31), and the second set of connectors of the second sidewall portion comprises projections (32) and recesses (31).
Regarding claim 14 Dettore, in view of Brown and Mykleby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Dettore in view of Brown and Mykleby further discloses wherein through holes (Mykleby; Fig. 8, through holes extend through 32) extend through the projections of the first and second sets of connectors, the through holes being sized and shaped for receiving a connecting rod (42a, 42b, 42c, 42d) for limiting disconnection of the mating connection (Col. 4, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 15 Dettore, in view of Brown and Mykleby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Dettore in view of Mykleby does not disclose wherein one of the first sidewall portion or the second sidewall portion includes a cuff configured to overlap the mating connection for bracing the mating connection.
Brown teaches wherein one of the first sidewall portion or the second sidewall portion includes a cuff (Fig. 1; 85); (Col. 6, lines 16-26) configured to overlap the mating connection for bracing the mating connection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified one of the first sidewall portion or the second sidewall portion of Dettore in view of Mykleby to include a cuff, as taught by Brown, in order to prevent infiltration as well as jointly resisting the outward bending of the walls (Col. 6, lines 16-26).
Regarding claim 17 Dettore, in view of Brown and Mykleby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 12. Dettore further discloses wherein the hopper body includes a third sidewall portion, the first, second and third sidewall portions each including a top edge, a bottom edge, a first side edge, and an opposite second side edge (Fig. 1)
Mykleby further discloses each including a top edge (Mykleby; Fig. 8), a bottom edge, a first side edge, and an opposite second side edge, the first side edge of the first sidewall portion including the first set of connectors (32) of the first sidewall portion, the second side edge of the second sidewall portion including the second set of connectors (31) of the first sidewall portion, the first side edge of the second sidewall portion including the first set of connectors (32) of the second sidewall portion, and the second side edge of the second sidewall portion including the second set of connectors (31) of the second sidewall portion, the third sidewall portion including a first side edge including a first set of connectors (32) of the third sidewall portion, and the third sidewall portion including a second side edge including a second set of connectors (31) of the third sidewall portion (Col. 4, lines 52-57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first, second, and third sidewall portions of Dettore and Brown to include, the first side edge of the first sidewall portion including the first set of connectors of the first sidewall portion, the second side edge of the second sidewall portion including the second set of connectors of the first sidewall portion, the first side edge of the second sidewall portion including the first set of connectors of the second sidewall portion, and the second side edge of the second sidewall portion including the second set of connectors of the second sidewall portion, the third sidewall portion including a first side edge including a first set of connectors of the third sidewall portion, and the third sidewall portion including a second side edge including a second set of connectors of the third sidewall portion, as taught by Mykleby, in order to provide reinforcement to the sidewalls (Col. 1, lines 6-7).
Regarding claim 18 Dettore, in view of Brown and Mykleby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Dettore in view of Brown and Mykleby further discloses the first set of connectors of the second sidewall are configured to mesh with the second set of connectors of the third sidewall to form a mating connection (Mykleby; Fig. 8);(Col. 4, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 19 Dettore, in view of Brown and Mykleby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 18. Dettore in view of Brown and Mykleby further discloses wherein the hopper body includes a fourth sidewall portion (Mykleby; Fig. 8, 13), the fourth sidewall portion including a top edge, a bottom edge, a first side edge including a first set of connectors (32), and a second side edge including a second set of connectors (31).
Regarding claim 20 Dettore, in view of Brown and Mykleby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. Dettore in view of Brown and Mykleby further discloses wherein the first set of connectors of the third sidewall are configured to mesh with the second set of connectors of the fourth sidewall to form a third mating connection, and the first set of connectors of the fourth sidewall are configured to mesh with the second set of connectors of the first sidewall to form a fourth mating connection (corresponding to the structure in Mykleby in which all the connectors are capable of meshing together to form the container).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettore; Vincent Allan et al. (US 20140069339 A1) in view of Brown; Henry F. et al. (US 5829595 A), in view of Mykleby; Laurie G. (US 4266670 A), further in view of Sullivan; Lyno Lewis (US 20180186511 A1; hereinafter Sullivan).
Regarding claim 16 Dettore, in view of Brown and Mykleby, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Dettore in view of Brown and Mykleby does not disclose chamfered edge portions. Sullivan teaches chamfered edge portions (Fig. 1, 8); [0057].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the edge portions of the projections of the first and second sets of connectors of Dettore in view of Brown and Mykleby to include chamfers, as taught by Sullivan, in order to facilitate a seamless mating connection.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettore; Vincent Allan et al. (US 20140069339 A1) in view of Brown; Henry F. et al. (US 5829595 A), in view of FUNKE KUNSTSTOFFE GMBH (DE 202012101322 U1; hereinafter Funke).
Regarding claim 25 Dettore, in view of Brown, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 10. Dettore in view of Brown, does not disclose a feed director. Funke teaches a feed director (Fig. 1; 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wildlife feeder of Dettore to include a feed director, as taught by Funke, in order to more efficiently direct the feed to the feed openings, and since Dettore is structurally capable of accepting the feed director, thus meeting the functional limitation of the claim.
Claim(s) 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dettore; Vincent Allan et al. (US 20140069339 A1), in view of FUNKE KUNSTSTOFFE GMBH (DE 202012101322 U1; hereinafter Funke) in view of Brown; Henry F. et al. (US 5829595 A)
Regarding claim 37 Dettore, in view of Funke, as shown above discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Dettore in view of Funke further discloses wherein the sidewall of the base at least partially defines an interior cavity of the base (Fig. 1), but lacks the sidewall including a collar at a top end thereof and a shoulder, wherein the shoulder projects inward relative to the collar and the collar projects upward relative to the shoulder, wherein the bottom of the hopper body abuts the shoulder within the interior cavity of the base, and the collar surrounds the bottom of the hopper body.
Brown teaches the sidewall including a collar (Fig. 1; 42, 43, and portion of 34) at a top end thereof and a shoulder (44, 47), wherein the shoulder projects inward relative to the collar and the collar projects upward relative to the shoulder, wherein the bottom of the hopper body abuts the shoulder within the interior cavity of the base, and the collar surrounds the bottom of the hopper body (Col. 4, lines 19-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the base and sidewall portions of Dettore and Funke to include the sidewall including a collar at a top end thereof and a shoulder, wherein the shoulder projects inward relative to the collar and the collar projects upward relative to the shoulder, wherein the bottom of the hopper body abuts the shoulder within the interior cavity of the base, and the collar surrounds the bottom of the hopper body, as taught by Brown, in order to prevent infiltration of foreign matter and resisting outward bending (Col. 6, lines 16-26).
Regarding claim 38 Dettore, in view of Funke and Brown, as shown above discloses all of the limitations of claim 37. Dettore further discloses wherein the sidewall of the base is a continuous wall that fully surrounds the interior cavity of the bas (Fig. 1); [0021].
Regarding claim 39 Dettore, in view of Funke and Brown, as shown above discloses all of the limitations of claim 37. Dettore in view of Funke and Brown further discloses wherein the collar has an inner surface (Brown; 42, 43) facing into the interior cavity, and the collar defines openings (48) along the inner surface above the shoulder (shown in Fig. 2), the openings configured to receive protrusions of the hopper body therein to couple the hopper body to the base.
Regarding claim 40 Dettore, in view of Funke and Brown, as shown above discloses all of the limitations of claim 37. Dettore further discloses wherein the hopper body has at least a first sidewall portion and a second sidewall portion that are formed separately and connectable to each other for forming the hopper body [0019], but lacks each of the first and second sidewall portions including at least one of the protrusions, the protrusions projecting outward from outer faces of the first and second sidewall portions, wherein the outer faces of the first and second sidewall portions contact the inner surface of the collar and the protrusions are received within the openings of the collar.
Brown teaches each of the first and second sidewall portions including at least one of the protrusions (Fig. 1; 50), the protrusions projecting outward from outer faces of the first and second sidewall portions, wherein the outer faces of the first and second sidewall portions contact the inner surface of the collar and the protrusions are received within the openings of the collar (Col. 3, lines 64-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill within the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Dettore to include each of the first and second sidewall portions including at least one of the protrusions, the protrusions projecting outward from outer faces of the first and second sidewall portions, wherein the outer faces of the first and second sidewall portions contact the inner surface of the collar and the protrusions are received within the openings of the collar, as taught by Brown, in order to prevent infiltration of foreign matter and resisting outward bending (Col. 6, lines 16-26).
Claim(s) 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funke Kunstoffe (DE 202012101322 U1; hereinafter Funke) in view of Graves; Travis (US 20200093094 A1).
Regarding claim 41 Funke, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Funke does not disclose wherein an exterior side of the sidewall is sloped inward so the bottom of the base has a larger cross-sectional area than a top of the base.
Graves teaches wherein an exterior side of the sidewall is sloped inward so the bottom of the base has a larger cross-sectional area than a top of the base (Fig. 1; 22); [0046].
It would have been a matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sidewalls of Funke wherein an exterior side of the sidewall is sloped inward so the bottom of the base has a larger cross-sectional area than a top of the base, as taught by Graves, in order to prevent tipping when the device is used directly on the ground [0002] of Graves, thus improving the ability of the device to be interchangeable between ground and raised conditions, and as an obvious change in shape. In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that “the bottom of the dosing container is not configured to engage a ground surface” is not persuasive since the claim does not require the bottom of the dosing container to directly engage a ground surface to support the device.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10-25 and 34-36 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRITTANY LOWERY whose telephone number is (571)270-3228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am-4 pm MST.
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, Timothy Collins can be reached at 571-272-6886. 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.
/BRITTANY A LOWERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3644
/TIMOTHY D COLLINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3644
Prosecution Insights