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 .
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “100” has been used to designate both species-selective feeder chute and species-selective feeding nozzle. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,2,8,9,16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 1, the limitation of “one or more mounting components which fasten the flat plate to the feed chute of the existing game feeder” appears to positively stating or claiming that the flat plate is fastened to the feed chute. However, the feed chute is not being positively claimed in the preamble because it is recited as part of a functional recitation of “to adapt and mount a species-selective nozzle to an existing game feeder”. Thus, the scope of the claim is inconsistent and unclear if the feed chute, the existing game feeder and the species-selective nozzle are being positively claimed or only functionally claimed. In addition, in line 7, “a species-selected nozzle” is unclear because is this nozzle the same as in line 2 of the preamble or another nozzle?
For claim 8, the limitation is unclear because the nozzle comprises the hood component because the hood component that is sloped is labeled as refs. 710a,710b, 710c, which from fig. 7 is the species-selective nozzle. Thus, is applicant positively claiming the species-selective nozzle or merely functionally claiming as similarly stated in the above claim 1? Noting that ref. 100 is labeled as the nozzle and the chute.
For claim 18, the limitation of “wherein the one or more mounting components further fasten the plate to the at least second species selective nozzle” appears to be positively claiming or reciting at least second species selective nozzle; however, as stated in the above, the species selective nozzle is only being functionally claimed in the preamble of claim 1. Thus, the scope of the claim is unclear and inconsistent in regard to whether the species selective nozzle is being positively claimed or functionality claimed.
All other claims depending on one or more of the above rejected claims are also rejected the same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,2,8,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barley et al. (US 8336492 B1).
For claim 1, Barley et al. disclose a mounting and adapter system to adapt and mount a adapted species-selective nozzle (16) to an existing game feeder (12,88,20, 22), the mounting and adapter system comprising:
a flat plate (14) having peripheral dimensions sufficient to cover and block a feed output from a feed chute of the existing game feeder;
a first aperture (44) formed through the plate for allowing feed to pass from the feed chute of the existing game feeder to an interior of a species-selective nozzle (16); and
one or more mounting components (18,50, flanges on ref. 14 not numbered, 24, 26, etc.; also, there are snap flanges on ref. 16 that snap onto ref. 14 as shown in fig. 4) which fasten the flat plate to the feed chute of the existing game feeder, and which fasten the plate to the species-selective nozzle.
For claim 2, Barley et al. disclose the mounting and adapter system as set forth in Claim 1 wherein the one or more mounting components comprises a straight mounting flange (fig. 2 shows ref. 14 having various straight mounting flanges).
For claim 8, Barley et al. disclose the mounting and adapter system as set forth in Claim 1 further comprising a hood component (16) with a sloped top surface afixable to a top of the species-selective nozzle. Note, as stated in the above 112, it is unclear in regard to the hood component because it appears that the hood component makes up the nozzle per applicant’s fig. 7. Thus, as best understood, the examiner is considering the same for Barley until further clarification from applicant.
For claim 17, Barley et al. disclose the mounting and adapter system as set forth in Claim 1 wherein the peripheral dimensions of the flat plate are sufficient to fit inside the feed chute of the existing game feeder (as shown in figs. 1-2, the plate 14 includes flanges at the peripheral dimensions, especially the two prong-like elements that fits inside of refs.12,20 where ref. 32 is pointing at).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 9,16,18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barley et al. (as above) in view of Popnoe (US 20180359992 A1).
For claim 9, Barley et al. teach the mounting and adapter system as set forth in Claim 8 but are silent about a mouthing deterrent structure disposed on the sloped top of the hood.
Popnoe teaches in the same field of endeavor of a mounting and adapter system, the system comprising a mouthing deterrent structure (6.2) disposed on the sloped top of the hood (fig. 26, not numbered but there is a hood where ref. 6.2 is mounted thereto). 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 mouthing deterrent structure as taught by Popnoe in the hood of Barley et al. in order to deter or block unwanted animal or the like (as stated in para. 0029 of Popnoe as “blocking devices”).
For claim 16, Barley et al. as modified by Popnoe teach the mounting and adapter system as set forth in Claim 9 wherein the mouthing deterrent comprises a vertically-protruding tab (fig. 26 of Popnoe shows ref. 6.2 as a vertically protruding tab that swings in and out).
For claim 18, Barley et al. teach the mounting and adapter system as set forth in Claim 1 but are silent about wherein the peripheral dimensions of the flat plate are sufficiently wide to cover a very wide existing game feeder output and further comprising at least a second aperture formed through the plate for allowing feed to pass from the very wide feed chute of the existing game feeder to an interior of at least a second species-selective nozzle, and wherein the one or more mounting components further fasten the plate to the at least second species selective nozzle.
In addition to the above, Popnoe teaches various chutes configuration for the game feeder per figures 2-5,7-8,12-13,17-18,20,27 and multiple species selective nozzles are mounted thereon the chutes. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the flat plate of Barley et al. with at least a second aperture in the event the user wishes to use the plate with various species selective nozzles with different game feeder configurations as taught by Popnoe, since it is has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1,2,8,9,16-18 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 SON T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6889. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 to 4:00.
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.
/Son T Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643