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 10/21/2025 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 21, 26, 28-29, 32, 35, 37-40 were amended, and Claims 1-20 were canceled. Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claims 29 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 29, the limitation “indentaton” in lines 5 and 7 should read -indentation-.
For claim 37, the limitation “indentaton” in lines 4-5 should read -indentation-.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorelli (4,602,757) in view of Flintjer (US 4,669,421) and Magrath et al. (US 6,776,122).
Regarding claim 21, Signorelli teaches an animal interaction device comprising a base portion 18 defining a first end of the animal interaction device [lower portion 18 serving as a support means of the apparatus onto cage 20, col. 2 lines 67-68] and comprising a first stop surface 31 [lower washer base plate 31, col. 3 lines 23-24], wherein the first stop surface is fixed relative to the first end [the first stop surface is fixed to the first end when assembled and secured by nut 32]; an animal engagement portion 14 defining a second end of the animal interaction device [upper end 14, col. 2 line 64] and comprising a second stop surface 29 [upper washer base plate 29, col. 3 lines 16-17], wherein the second stop surface is fixed relative to the second end [the second stop surface is fixed relative to the second end when assembled and secured by nut 28], wherein a longitudinal axis of the animal interaction device extends from the first end to the second end [FIGS. 1-3] and a maximum length of the animal interaction device is along the longitudinal axis [FIGS. 1-3]; and a support portion [support portion between base portion and the animal engagement portion in FIG. 2] extending between the base portion and the animal engagement portion [FIG. 1-3] and such that the first stop surface and the second stop surface are separated by a gap [spacing between first stop surface 31 and second stop surface 29 in fig. 2]; wherein each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface forms a rim [rim of the first stop surface and the second stop surface in figs. 1-2] extending around a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion [FIGS. 1-3].
Signorelli does not specifically teach at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface comprises: a plurality of indentations extending into the at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface and at least one indentation arranged to abut the support portion and to extend outwardly beyond the gap; and wherein at least one protrusion, of the plurality of protrusions, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap.
Flintjer teaches at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface 41 comprises: a plurality of indentations 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47 and 49 extending into the at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface [a plurality of grooves 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47 and 49 are formed in face 41 of finger 12, col. 2 lines 59-60] and at least one indentation 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47 and 49 arranged to abut the support portion 14 [As can be seen from FIG. 1, the grooves 34 through 40 increase in size the further they are located from connecting member 14, col. 2 lines 65-68] and to extend outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 34a; fig. 1 as grooves 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47 and 49 will extend outwardly beyond the gap between the gap of 34 and 34a when fingers 12 and 16 are bent as fingers 12 and 16 are flexible (Col. 3, lines 13-16 and 28-29)] for the purpose of providing an animal interaction device which can be installed on a cage in a simple and expedient manner with a plurality of indentations extending into the stop surface and a plurality of protrusions extending from the stop surface to receive wires therein for holding the device in position by a strong clamping force on the cage wires.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Signorelli to include at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface comprises: a plurality of indentations extending into the at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface and at least one indentation arranged to abut the support portion and to extend outwardly beyond the gap as taught by Flintjer because doing so would have provided an animal interaction device which can be installed on a cage in a simple and expedient manner with a plurality of indentations extending into the stop surface and a plurality of protrusions extending from the stop surface to receive wires therein for holding the device in position by a strong clamping force on the cage wires.
Signorelli in view of Flintjer does not specifically teach a plurality of protrusions extending from the at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface; and wherein at least one protrusion, of the plurality of protrusions, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap.
Magrath teaches a plurality of protrusions 36 extending from the at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface 34 [Plate 34 of hanger 11 has an outside portion 32 which faces away from shaft 13 and which is formed with a pair of vertically running and protruding ribs 36. Ribs 36 are spaced from one another a distance greater than the distance D between adjacent vertical wire elements 23 of cage 21, col. 2 lines 61-65] and wherein at least one protrusion 36, of the plurality of protrusions, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 38; figs. 3-4 as protrusion 36 extends beyond 38, and so 36 is positioned outwardly beyond the gap] for the purpose of providing a hanger device to which seed, treat or other food product may be adhered and which can be easily installed and effectively secured to most animal cages with a pair of vertical protrusions to lock the hanger unit to a conventional animal cage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Signorelli in view of Flintjer to include a plurality of protrusions extending from the at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface; and wherein at least one protrusion, of the plurality of protrusions, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap as taught by Magrath because doing so would have provided a hanger device to which seed, treat or other food product may be adhered and which can be easily installed and effectively secured to most animal cages with a pair of vertical protrusions to lock the hanger unit to a conventional animal cage.
Regarding claim 22, Signorelli in view of Flintjer and Magrath teaches (references to Flintjer) the animal interaction device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of indentations [A plurality of grooves 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47 and 49 are formed in face 41 of finger 12, col. 2 lines 59-60] comprises a first indentation 34 extending at least partially along a first line and a second indentation extending at least partially along a second line that is parallel to the first line wherein the second indentation is arranged on an opposite side of the support portion from the first indentation [Grooves 34-34a are located in opposition to each other. The same is true of grooves 35-35a, 36-36a, 37-37a, 39-39a and 40-40a. Fingers 12" and 16" have corresponding grooves, col. 2 lines 63-68].
Regarding claim 23, Signorelli in view of Flintjer and Magrath teaches (references to Magrath) the animal interaction device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of protrusions 36 comprises a first protrusion extending at least partially along a first line and a second protrusion extending at least partially along a second line that is parallel to the first line; wherein the second protrusion is arranged on an opposite side of the support portion from the first protrusion [Plate 34 of hanger 11 has an outside portion 32 which faces away from shaft 13 and which is formed with a pair of vertically running and protruding ribs 36. Ribs 36 are spaced from one another a distance greater than the distance D between adjacent vertical wire elements 23 of cage 21, col. 2 lines 61-65].
Regarding claim 24, Signorelli in view of Flintier and Magrath teaches (references to Flintjer) the animal interaction device of claim 21 having the plurality of indentations [Grooves 34-34a are located in opposition to each other. The same is true of grooves 35-35a, 36-36a, 37-37a, 39-39a and 40-40a. Fingers 12" and 16" have corresponding grooves, col. 2 lines 63-68]. Signorelli in view of Flintjer and Magrath teaches (references to Magrath) the animal interaction device of claim 21 having the plurality of protrusions [Plate 34 of hanger 11 has an outside portion 32 which faces away from shaft 13 and which is formed with a pair of vertically running and protruding ribs 36. Ribs 36 are spaced from one another a distance greater than the distance D between adjacent vertical wire elements 23 of cage 21, col. 2 lines 61-65]. Please note in the combination of Signorelli, Flintjer, and Magrath the plurality of indentations are arranged between the support portion and the plurality of protrusions.
Regarding claim 25, Signorelli in view of Flintjer and Magrath teaches (references to Signorelli) the animal interaction device of claim 21, wherein the first stop surface 31 [lower washer base plate 31, col. 3 lines 23-24] faces the second stop surface 29 [upper washer base plate 29, col. 3 lines 16-17].
Regarding claim 26, Signorelli in view of Flintjer and Magrath teaches (references to Signorelli) the animal interaction device of claim 21, wherein the gap is positioned between the first stop surface 31 [lower washer base plate 31, col. 3 lines 23-24] and the second stop surface 29 [upper washer base plate 29, col. 3 lines 16-17] and is sized to receive a cross member of a mesh network [the apparatus is held in place securely with cage bars 24 and 26 rigidly engaged between upper base plate 29 and lower base plate 31, col. 3 lines 26-28].
Regarding claim 27, Signorelli in view of Flintjer and Magrath teaches (references to Signorelli) the animal interaction device of claim 26 having the base portion 18 [lower portion 18 serving as a support means of the apparatus onto cage 20, col. 2 lines 67-68]. Signorelli in view of Flintjer and Magrath teaches (references to Flintjer) the animal interaction device of claim 26, wherein the animal interaction device is rotatable between a locking configuration and an insertion configuration wherein in the locking configuration the animal interaction device is configured to lock into the mesh network 26 wherein, in the insertion configuration, the animal interaction device is removable from the mesh network [holder 10 is positioned vertically, as shown in dotted lines in FIG. 4 between two wires 26 of the cage, with fingers 12-12’ located outside of the cage and fingers 16-16' located inside of the cage. The cuttlebone holder 10 is then pivoted in the direction of arrow 27 from the dotted line position of FIG. 4 to the solid line position shown therein, col. 2 lines 41-47; converging surfaces facilitate the entry of wires 26 to the space 33 between fingers 12 and 16 and into the space 33' between fingers 12' and 16’ as the holder 10 is pivoted in the direction of arrow 27, col. 2 lines 55-58]. Please note in the combination of Signorelli, Flintjer, and Magrath an orientation of the base portion in the locking configuration is different from an orientation of the base portion in the insertion configuration.
Claim 28-31, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorelli (4,602,757) in view of Gick (US Patent Publication 2015/0257366) and Flintjer (US 4,669,421).
Regarding claim 28, Signorelli teaches an animal interaction device comprising a base portion 18 defining a first end of the animal interaction device [lower portion 18 serving as a support means of the apparatus onto cage 20, col. 2 lines 67-68] and comprising a first stop surface 31 [lower washer base plate 31, col. 3 lines 23-24], wherein the first stop surface is fixed relative to the first end [the first stop surface is fixed to the first end when assembled and secured by nut 32]; an animal engagement portion 14 defining a second end of the animal interaction device [upper end 14, col. 2 line 64] and comprising a second stop surface 29 [upper washer base plate 29, col. 3 lines 16-17], wherein the second stop surface is fixed relative to the second end [the second stop surface is fixed relative to the second end when assembled and secured by nut 28], wherein the animal engagement portion is elongated in a direction transverse to the second stop surface [FIGS. 1-3]; and a support portion [support portion between base portion and the animal engagement portion in FIG. 2] extending between the base portion and the animal engagement portion [FIG. 1-3] and such that the first stop surface and the second stop surface are separated by a gap [spacing between first stop surface 31 and second stop surface 29 in fig. 2], wherein at least a portion of each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface forms a rim [rim of the first stop surface and the second stop surface in figs. 1-2] around a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion [FIGS. 1-3].
Signorelli does not specifically teach wherein a side of the animal engagement portion extending from the second stop surface to the second end comprises an indent and a wall wherein the indent comprises a recessed surface and defines a recessed area, and wherein the wall extends entirely around the recessed area.
Gick teaches wherein a side [side of 16B in fig. 2] of animal engagement portion 10 extending from the second stop surface [surface where 16B protrudes from 17 in FIG. 2] to the second end [end of 16B] comprises wall 20 and an indent that comprises a recessed surface and defines a recessed area 12 [one or more flavor areas 12 [0013]] wherein wall 20 extends entirely around recessed area 12 [a flavor area is shaped to be concave into the chew toy body. Referring now to FIGS. 3 and 4, surface 18 is slightly concave to keep flavor area 12A recessed below perimeter edge 20. This configuration keeps all the flavor areas such as flavor areas 12C and 12D from contacting any planar surface on which the chew toy rests such as surface 21 which may be a floor or furniture or other surface [0015] FIGS. 1-4] for the purpose of providing a recess for a malleable, semi-soft or paste treat such a peanut butter, cheese or any other pet treat to provide stimulating flavor and odor for a pet.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Signorelli to include wherein a side of the animal engagement portion extending from the second stop surface to the second end comprises an indent and a wall wherein the indent comprises a recessed surface and defines a recessed area, and wherein the wall extends entirely around the recessed area as taught by Gick because doing so would have provided a recess for a malleable, semi-soft or paste treat such a peanut butter, cheese or any other pet treat to provide stimulating flavor and odor for a pet.
Signorelli in view of Gick does not specifically teach the first stop surface comprises a plurality of indentations extending into the first stop surface and at least one indentation arranged to abut the support portion and to extend outwardly beyond the gap.
Flintjer teaches first stop surface 41 comprises a plurality of indentations 34-37 extending into the first stop surface [A plurality of grooves 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47 and 49 are formed in face 41 of finger 12, col. 2 lines 59-60], and at least one indentation 34 arranged to abut the support portion 14 [As can be seen from FiG. 1, the grooves 34 through 40 increase in size the further they are located from connecting member 14, col. 2 lines 65-68] and to extend outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 34a; fig. 1 as groove 49 extends outwardly beyond the gap between the gap of 34 and 34a finger 16 is bent as finger 16 is flexible (Col. 3, lines 28-29)] for the purpose of providing an animal interaction device which can be installed on a cage in a simple and expedient manner with a plurality of indentations extending into the stop surface and a plurality of protrusions extending from the stop surface to receive wires therein for holding the device in position by a strong clamping force on the cage wires.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Signorelli to include the first stop surface comprises a plurality of indentations extending into the first stop surface and at least one indentation arranged to abut the support portion and to extend outwardly beyond the gap as taught by Flintjer because doing so would have provided an animal interaction device which can be installed on a cage in a simple and expedient manner with a plurality of indentations extending into the stop surface and a plurality of protrusions extending from the stop surface to receive wires therein for holding the device in position by a strong clamping force on the cage wires.
Regarding claim 29, Signorelli in view of Gick and Flintjer teaches (references to Flintjer) the animal interaction device of claim 28, wherein the plurality of indentations 34-37 comprises a first indentation 34 arranged on a first side of the support portion and a second indentation 35 arranged on a second side of the support portion opposite the first side of the support portion [Grooves 34-34a are located in opposition to each other. The same is true of grooves 35-35a, 36-36a, 37-37a, 39-39a and 40-40a. Fingers 12" and 16" have corresponding grooves, col. 2 lines 63-68]; and the first indentation 34 is arranged to abut the support portion 14 [As can be seen from FIG. 1, the grooves 34 through 40 increase in size the further they are located from connecting member 14, col. 2 lines 65-68] and to extend outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 34a; fig. 1 as the first indentation 34 will extend outwardly beyond the gap between the gap of 34 and 34a when fingers 12 and 16 are bent as fingers 12 and 16 are flexible (Col. 3, lines 13-16 and 28-29)]; and the second indentation 35 is arranged to abut the support portion 14 [As can be seen from FIG. 1, the grooves 34 through 40 increase in size the further they are located from connecting member 14, col. 2 lines 65-68] and to extend outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 34a; fig. 1 as the second indentation 35 will extend outwardly beyond the gap between the gap of 34 and 34a when fingers 12 and 16 are bent as fingers 12 and 16 are flexible (Col. 3, lines 13-16 and 28-29)].
Regarding claim 30, Signorelli in view of Gick and Flintjer teaches (references to Flintjer) the animal interaction device of claim 29, wherein the first indentation 34 extends along the first stop surface parallel to the second indentation [Grooves 34-34a are located in opposition to each other. The same is true of grooves 35-35a, 36-36a, 37-37a, 39-39a and 40-40a. Fingers 12" and 16" have corresponding grooves, col. 2 lines 63-68].
Regarding claim 31, Signorelli in view of Gick and Flintjer teaches (references to Signorelli) the animal interaction device of claim 28, wherein the first stop surface 31 [lower washer base plate 31, col. 3 lines 23-24] faces the second stop surface 29 [upper washer base plate 29, col. 3 lines 16-17].
Regarding claim 33, Signorelli in view of Gick and Flintjer teaches (references to Signorelli) the animal interaction device of claim 28, wherein the animal interaction device is configured to selectively retain at least a portion of a mesh network [the apparatus is held in place securely with cage bars 24 and 26 rigidly engaged between upper base plate 29 and lower base plate 31, col. 3 lines 26-28] between the first stop surface 31 [lower washer base plate 31, col. 3 lines 23-24] and the second stop surface 29 [upper washer base plate 29, col. 3 lines 16-17].
Regarding claim 34, Signorelli in view of Gick and Flintjer teaches (references to Signorelli) the animal interaction device of claim 28 having the base portion 18 [lower portion 18 serving as a support means of the apparatus onto cage 20, col. 2 lines 67-68]. Signorelli in view of Gick and Flintjer teaches (references to Flintjer) the animal interaction device of claim 28, wherein the animal interaction device is rotatable between a locking configuration and an insertion configuration, wherein, in the locking configuration, the animal interaction device is configured to lock into a mesh network 26, wherein, in the insertion configuration, the animal interaction device is removable from the mesh network [holder 10 is positioned vertically, as shown in dotted lines in FIG. 4 between two wires 26 of the cage, with fingers 12-12’ located outside of the cage and fingers 16-16’ located inside of the cage. The cuttlebone holder 10 is then pivoted in the direction of arrow 27 from the dotted line position of FIG. 4 to the solid line position shown therein, col. 2 lines 41-47; converging surfaces facilitate the entry of wires 26 to the space 33 between fingers 12 and 16 and into the space 33' between fingers 12' and 16’ as the holder 10 is pivoted in the direction of arrow 27, col. 2 lines 55-58]. Please note in the combination of Signorelli, Gick, and Flintjer an orientation of the base portion in the locking configuration is different from an orientation of the base portion in the insertion configuration.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorelli (4,602,757) in view of Gick (US Patent Publication 2015/0257366) and Flintjer (US 4,669,421) as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Magrath et al. (US 6,776,122).
Regarding claim 32, Signorelli in view of Gick and Flintjer teaches (references to Signorelli) the animal interaction device of claim 28 having base portion 18 [lower portion 18 serving as a support means of the apparatus onto cage 20, col. 2 lines 67-68] and the first stop surface 31 [lower washer base plate 31, col. 3 lines 23-24].
Signorelli in view of Gick and Flintjer does not specifically teach a plurality of tabs extending from the base portion along a plane parallel to the first stop surface, and wherein at least one tab, of the plurality of tabs, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap.
Magrath teaches a plurality of tabs 36 extending from the base portion along a plane parallel to stop surface 34 [Plate 34 of hanger 11 has an outside portion 32 which faces away from shaft 13 and which is formed with a pair of vertically running and protruding ribs 36. Ribs 36 are spaced from one another a distance greater than the distance D between adjacent vertical wire elements 23 of cage 21, col. 2 lines 61-65], and wherein at least one tab, of the plurality of tabs, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 38; figs. 3-4 as 36 extends beyond 38, and so 36 is positioned outwardly beyond the gap] for the purpose of providing a hanger device to which seed, treat or other food product may be adhered and which can be easily installed and effectively secured to most animal cages with a pair of vertical protrusions to lock the hanger unit to a conventional animal cage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Signorelli in view of Gick and Flintjer to include a plurality of tabs extending from the base portion along a plane parallel to the first stop surface, and wherein at least one tab, of the plurality of tabs, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap as taught by Magrath because doing so would have provided a hanger device to which seed, treat or other food product may be adhered and which can be easily installed and effectively secured to most animal cages with a pair of vertical protrusions to lock the hanger unit to a conventional animal cage.
Claims 35, 37, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorelli (4,602,757) in view of Flintjer (US 4,669,421).
Regarding claim 35, Signorelli teaches an animal interaction device comprising a base portion 18 defining a first end of the animal interaction device [lower portion 18 serving as a support means of the apparatus onto cage 20, col. 2 lines 67-68] and comprising a first stop surface 31 [lower washer base plate 31, col. 3 lines 23-24] wherein the first stop surface is fixed relative to the first end [the first stop surface is fixed to the first end when assembled and secured by nut 32]; an animal engagement portion 14 defining a second end of the animal interaction device [upper end 14, col. 2 line 64] and comprising a second stop surface 29 [upper washer base plate 29, col. 3 lines 16-17], wherein the second stop surface is fixed relative to the second end [the second stop surface is fixed relative to the second end when assembled and secured by nut 28], wherein each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface extends outwards from a longitudinal axis of the animal interaction device [FIGS. 1-3], wherein the longitudinal axis extends from the first end to the second end [FIGS. 1-3] and a maximum length of the animal interaction device is in a direction of the longitudinal axis [FIGS. 1-3]; and a support portion [support portion between base portion and the animal engagement portion in FIG. 2] extending between the first stop surface and the second stop surface and such that the first stop surface and the second stop surface are separated by a gap [spacing between first stop surface 31 and second stop surface 29 in fig. 2], wherein a side surface of the support portion extending from the first stop surface to the second stop surface is non-linear [FIG. 2], wherein the support portion is configured to extend through a mesh network [the apparatus is held in place securely with cage bars 24 and 26 rigidly engaged between upper base plate 29 and lower base plate 31, col. 3 lines 26-28] wherein each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface forms a rim [rim of the first stop surface and the second stop surface in figs. 1-2] extending around a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion [FIGS. 1-3] and wherein the first stop surface faces the second stop surface [the apparatus is held in place securely with cage bars 24 and 26 rigidly engaged between upper base plate 29 and lower base plate 31, col. 3 lines 26-28].
Signorelli does not specifically teach at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface comprises: a plurality of indentations extending into the at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface; and at least one indentation arranged to abut the support portion and to extend outwardly beyond the gap.
Flintjer teaches at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface 41 comprises: a plurality of indentations 34-37 extending into the at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface [A plurality of grooves 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47 and 49 are formed in face 41 of finger 12, col. 2 lines 59-60] and at least one indentation 34 arranged to abut the support portion 14 [As can be seen from FIG. 7, the grooves 34 through 40 increase in size the further they are located from connecting member 14, col. 2 lines 65-68] and to extend outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 34a; fig. 1 as grooves 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47 and 49 will extend outwardly beyond the gap between the gap of 34 and 34a when fingers 12 and 16 are bent as fingers 12 and 16 are flexible (Col. 3, lines 13-16 and 28-29)] for the purpose of providing an animal interaction device which can be installed on a cage in a simple and expedient manner with a plurality of indentations extending into the stop surface and a plurality of protrusions extending from the stop surface to receive wires therein for holding the device in position by a strong clamping force on the cage wires.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Signorelli to include at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface comprises: a plurality of indentations extending into the at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface; and at least one indentation arranged to abut the support portion and to extend outwardly beyond the gap as taught by Flintjer because doing so would have provided an animal interaction device which can be installed on a cage in a simple and expedient manner with a plurality of indentations extending into the stop surface and a plurality of protrusions extending from the stop surface to receive wires therein for holding the device in position by a strong clamping force on the cage wires.
Regarding claim 37, Signorelli in view of Flintjer teaches (references to Flintjer) the animal interaction device of claim 35, wherein the plurality of indentations [A plurality of grooves 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 47 and 49 are formed in face 41 of finger 12, col. 2 lines 59-60] comprises a first indentation arranged on a first side of the support portion and a second indentation arranged on a second side of the support portion [Grooves 34-34a are located in opposition to each other. The same is true of grooves 35-35a, 36-36a, 37-37a, 39-39a and 40-40a. Fingers 12" and 16" have corresponding grooves, col. 2 lines 63-68]; and the first indentation 34 is arranged to extend outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 34a; fig. 1 as the first indentation 34 will extend outwardly beyond the gap between the gap of 34 and 34a when fingers 12 and 16 are bent as fingers 12 and 16 are flexible (Col. 3, lines 13-16 and 28-29)]; and the second indentation 35 is arranged to extend outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 34a; fig. 1 as the second indentation 35 will extend outwardly beyond the gap between the gap of 34 and 34a when fingers 12 and 16 are bent as fingers 12 and 16 are flexible (Col. 3, lines 13-16 and 28-29)].
Regarding claim 40, Signorelli in view of Flintjer teaches (references to Signorelli) wherein the gap is positioned between the first stop surface 31 [lower washer base plate 31, col. 3 lines 23-24] and the second stop surface 29 [upper washer base plate 29, col. 3 lines 16-17] and is sized to receive a cross member of the mesh network [the apparatus is held in place securely with cage bars 24 and 26 rigidly engaged between upper base plate 29 and lower base plate 31, col. 3 lines 26-28].
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorelli (4,602,757) in view of Flintjer (US 4,669,421) as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Becattini, Jr. et al. (US Patent Publication 2019/0133082).
Regarding claim 36, Signorelli in view of Flintier teaches (references to Flintjer) the animal interaction device of claim 35 having animal engagement portion 14. Signorelli in view of Flintjer does not specifically teach the animal engagement portion comprises an indent comprising a recessed surface and defining a recessed area, and a plurality of raised portions within the recessed area and extending from the recessed surface. Becattini teaches animal engagement portion 412 comprises an indent comprising a recessed surface and defining a recessed area [body 412 has two enlarged members and a narrowed diameter elongated, tubular body portion extending between the enlarged members [0098]] and a plurality of raised portions 476 within the recessed area and extending from the recessed surface [a plurality of longitudinally extending ribs 476 are provided at intervals on outer surface 460 of the body portion 418 and form a part thereof; A valley may be defined between each pair of adjacent ribs 476 and these valleys may form spaces within which additional semi- solid treat material or substance 472 is able to be applied. Alternatively, the valleys between the ribs 476 may aid in cleaning the pet's teeth as the pet chews on toy 410. Alternatively, the outer surface 460 may be defined by any number or protrusions, bumps, contours, or the like to hold semi-solid treat material [0107]] for the purpose of providing raised portions to aid in cleaning the pet's teeth as the pet chews on toy and for a semi-solid treat like peanut butter to be spread on the exterior surface of the body portion and captured in depressions making it harder for the pet to lick the peanut butter off the body portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Signorelli in view of Flintjer to include the animal engagement portion comprises an indent comprising a recessed surface and defining a recessed area, and a plurality of raised portions within the recessed area and extending from the recessed surface as taught by Becattini because doing so would have provided raised portions to aid in cleaning the pet's teeth as the pet chews on toy and for a semi-solid treat like peanut butter to be spread on the exterior surface of the body portion and captured in depressions making it harder for the pet to lick the peanut butter off the body portion.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Signorelli (4,602,757) in view of Flintjer (US 4,669,421) as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Magrath et al. (US 6,776,122).
Regarding claim 38, Signorelli in view of Flintjer teaches (references to Signorelli) the animal interaction device of claim 35 having base portion 18 [lower portion 18 serving as a support means of the apparatus onto cage 20, col. 2 lines 67-68] and the first stop surface 31 [lower washer base plate 31, col. 3 lines 23-24].
Signorelli in view of Flintjer does not specifically teach a plurality of tabs extending from the base portion along a plane parallel to the first stop surface and wherein at least one tab, of the plurality of tabs, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap.
Magrath teaches a plurality of tabs 36 extending from the base portion along a plane parallel to stop surface 34 [Plate 34 of hanger 11 has an outside portion 32 which faces away from shaft 13 and which is formed with a pair of vertically running and protruding ribs 36. Ribs 36 are spaced from one another a distance greater than the distance D between adjacent vertical wire elements 23 of cage 21, col. 2 lines 61-65] and wherein at least one tab, of the plurality of tabs, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 38; figs. 3-4 as 36 extends beyond 38, and so 36 is positioned outwardly beyond the gap] for the purpose of providing a hanger device to which seed, treat or other food product may be adhered and which can be easily installed and effectively secured to most animal cages with a pair of vertical protrusions to lock the hanger unit to a conventional animal cage.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by Signorelli in view of Flintjer to include a plurality of tabs extending from the base portion along a plane parallel to the first stop surface and wherein at least one tab, of the plurality of tabs, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap as taught by Magrath because doing so would have provided a hanger device to which seed, treat or other food product may be adhered and which can be easily installed and effectively secured to most animal cages with a pair of vertical protrusions to lock the hanger unit to a conventional animal cage.
Regarding claim 39, Signorelli in view of Flintier and Magrath teaches (references to Magrath) wherein the plurality of tabs 36 comprises a first tab [right tab 36] and a second tab [left tab 36] arranged on opposite sides of the support portion [Plate 34 of hanger 11 has an outside portion 32 which faces away from shaft 13 and which is formed with a pair of vertically running and protruding ribs 36. Ribs 36 are spaced from one another a distance greater than the distance D between adjacent vertical wire elements 23 of cage 21, col. 2 lines 61-65], and wherein the first tab, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 38; figs. 3-4 as 36 extends beyond 38, and so 36 is positioned outwardly beyond the gap]; and wherein the second tab, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap [gap between 34 and 38; figs. 3-4 as 36 extends beyond 38, and so 36 is positioned outwardly beyond the gap].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “In Signorelli there is no "outwardly" of the asserted and interpreted "gap". That is, in Signorelli there are simply just two plates that form the "gap". Signorelli includes the upper washer base plate 29 and lower washer base plate 31. No structure is outwardly of the alleged "gap" in Signorelli. Accordingly, claim 21 is amended to clarify differences between the claimed invention and the applied art.
That is, Applicant submits that even if Signorelli were modified by Flintier and Magrath as proposed in the Office Action, which Applicant does not admit would have been obvious, such proposed combination of art would still fail to teach the claimed invention as recited in claim 21. Applicant submits that Signorelli fails to teach any structure that extends outwardly beyond the relied upon "gap" in Signorelli. Even more so, Signorelli fails to teach the particulars that "at least one indentation, of the plurality of indentations, is arranged to abut the support portion and to extend outwardly beyond the gap" and "at least one protrusion, of the plurality of protrusions, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap."
Applicant submits that none of Signorelli, Flintjer and Magrath, either alone or in combination, teaches the above-referenced features, as well as other features, of Applicant's independent claims 21, it is respectfully submitted that there is no prima facie case for obviousness as to such independent claim 21.”.
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, please see the action above as Examiner has explained how Signorelli as modified by Flintjer and Magrath teaches the new amendments wherein the indentations and protrusions are positioned outwardly beyond the gap.
Applicant further argues “In Signorelli there is no "outwardly" of the asserted and interpreted "gap". That is, in Signorelli there are simply just two plates that form the "gap". Signorelli includes the upper washer base plate 29 and lower washer base plate 31. No structure is outwardly of the alleged "gap" in Signorelli.
Accordingly, Applicant submits that even if Signorelli were modified by Flintier and Gick as proposed in the Office Action, which Applicant does not admit would have been obvious, such proposed combination of art would still fail to teach the claimed invention as recited in claim 28. Applicant submits that Signorelli fails to teach any structure that extends outwardly beyond the relied upon "gap" in Signorelli. Even more so, Signorelli fails to teach the particulars, of independent claim 28, that "at least one indentation of the plurality of indentations is arranged to abut the support portion and to extend outwardly beyond the gap" as is now recited in independent claim 28.
Applicant submits that because the applied art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach the above-referenced features, as well as other features, of Applicant's independent claim 28, it is respectfully submitted that there is no prima facie case for obviousness.”
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, please see the action above as Examiner has explained how Signorelli in view of Gick and Flintjer teaches the new amendments wherein the indentations and protrusions are positioned outwardly beyond the gap.
Applicant further argues “Accordingly, Applicant submits that even if Signorelli were modified by Flintier as proposed in the Office Action, which Applicant does not admit would have been obvious, such proposed combination of art would still fail to teach the claimed invention as recited in claim 35. Applicant submits that Signorelli fails to teach any structure that extends outwardly beyond the relied upon "gap" in Signorelli. Even more so, Signorelli fails to teach the particulars, of independent claim 35, that "at least one indentation of the plurality of indentations is arranged to abut the support portion and to extend outwardly beyond the gap" as is now recited in independent claim 35.
Applicant submits that because the applied art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach the above-referenced features, as well as other features, of Applicant's independent claim 35, it is respectfully submitted that there is no prima facie case for obviousness.”
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, please see the action above as Examiner has explained how Signorelli as modified by Flintjer teaches the new amendments wherein the indentations and protrusions are positioned outwardly beyond the gap.
All other claims with arguments are similarly unpersuasive as they relate to claims 21, 28 and 35 and the art used for those claims were used for other features that are not claimed in claim 21, 28 and 35.
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